Yes, the more you write in them the more you develop an unconscious feel for
the rhythmic possibilities, so that counting becomes less necessary. I find
nine a magical number, with all sorts of combinations possible. Each length
has different characteristics. Nine and below are shorter than most
sentences, so that there will always be lots of run-ons. Seven is a very
musical number, often sliding into three-stress accentual. Four will often
become iambic dimeter, and I find it gives a good sense of closure at the
end of a stanza. Eleven very easily becomes pentameter with a feminine
ending and is difficult to keep irregular enough. And so on.
Best wishes
Matthew
-----Original Message-----
From: Joseph Duemer <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: 29 July 2001 14:17
Subject: Re: syllabics
>Quite interested in this discussion. Conservative prosidists tend to claim
>that syllabics are impossible in English because one cannot hear them in
the
>reading. I've been working on a long series of poems in syllabics for
>fifteen years & in the process of writing I can compose lines of nine or
>eleven or seven syllables usually without counting. In the case of this
>sequence I mix even & odd numbers of syllabic lines, though odd numbers
>predominate. Also, each poem is in two numbered parts, with the pattern
>repeated in the second part; all 56 poems so far, in fact, use the same
>pattern of lines. Mainly, I find the formal constraints an aid to invention
>& also a limit against which to press. Much of my poetry tends toward the
>discursive, but in this sequence I am pressed toward something more lyric,
I
>think.
>
>jd
>======================
>Joseph Duemer
>School of Liberal Arts, 5750
>Clarkson University
>Potsdam NY 13699
>315.268.3967
>[log in to unmask]
>http://web.northnet.org/duemer
>http://www.grammarbitch.com/ppp/index.html
>======================
>
|