Hi Mike (and all),
Another book that is useful (and is more of a standard work) is Philip
Hobsbaum's Metre, Rhythm & Verse Form (Routledge 1996) which is well worth
reading as well. It's much more detailed, and I found it much less easy to
read, but it explores its subjects in relation to English (and Scottish)
poetry. It could be that I initialy tried to read it all in one go - and
it's more of a bottle-of-malt kind of book - to savour over many sessions...
(I've enjoyed going back and dipping into it on occasions.)
I think he has a rather different audience in mind when he's writing.
Mayakovsky, I sense, would be in a bar with wooden stools and chairs,
whereas Hobsbaum would feel more at home with padded chairs and quiet music
playing overhead. (He often annotates poems, like Sallyee suggests, to
denote rhythm.)
Bob
>From: Mike Horwood <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: redundant words - Bob
>Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 13:17:27 +0200
>
>Thanks Bob, for these thoughts. Yes, I felt myself becoming increasingly
>uneasy with the word redundant as the discussion progeressed. You´re
>working method sounds pretty familiar in general outline to mine, although
>I think writers do vary considerably in how they go about this business.
>
>
>All the best, Mike
>
>
>
>
>--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
>Hi Mike (and all others!),
>Yeh, "redundant" isn't perhaps the right words to use to describe what
>you're trying to say... It's a question of definition... And then it
>becomes
>a question of meaning... (does the refining ever end?).
>I guess if you're referring to the small words like "and" (and your Bang
>poem in particular) then they're not just there for the rhythm - they
>change
>the tone and the flow of the poem if they're included or excluded. Words
>like "a" or "the" or "that" or "this" in front of named thing or person
>also
>changes the tone...
>I often find I get all the small words in the first draft - which is
>usually
>me trying to write down what I'm hearing in my head as quickly and
>uninteruptedly as I can on a sheet of paper - and the words are then in
>more
>or less the right places (for the rhythm). But then I have the toughest of
>jobs of seeing all the words in all the lines and trying to get the right
>shape to do justice to what's there, and seeing what words are "wrong"
>(because they're repeated, because they're inaccurate, because they're too
>long or too short - because they don't work!). Lines and stanzas get
>swopped
>around too. Revision's a job of quality control (and rhythm and the words
>the establish it are part of the way the poem is made and revised!)
>If you're interested there's a fascinating book by a guy called Vladimir
>Mayakovsky called How Verses Are Made (the most recent imprint is probably
>a
>paperback published by Bristol Press, 1990 - the original's Russian and
>written in the 1930s) which "should" be orderable from a library (maybe the
>Poetry Library if yr local library isn't interested in what their member's
>want) which is a delightfull thing to read. Not to agree with all the time
>-
>but to read! I found his comments about rhythm and words (and which comes
>first - and which matters most) fascinating!
>Bob
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Mike Horwood <[log in to unmask]>
> >Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: Re Bang - Bob
> >Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 13:24:19 +0200
> >
> >Definitions are the question here - what do I mean by `redundant´ ? I was
> >thinking of a word that does not contribute to the meaning ( another
> >problem word) of the poem but may contribute to the rhythm of the line.
>An
> >example might be all those `and´s in my sub Bang. I´ve also posted a
>longer
> >(too long?) offering on this debate under Minimalism - Arthur et al if
> >you´re interested.
> >
> >--- Alkuperäinen viesti ---
> >Hi Mike (and all...)
> >You write, Mike:
> >Is it justifiable to use a redundant word purely for its musical quality?
>I
> >would be interested in hearing any opinions on this point.
> >
> >I'm tempted to say an emphatic no! But I'm not sure what you mean? Could
> >you
> >give an example?
> >Bob
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >From: arthur seeley <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: [log in to unmask]
> > >Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine
> > >Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:38:58 -0000
> > >
> > >Hear,hear! Arthur.
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "grasshopper" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 6:19 PM
> > >Subject: Re: Re Bang - Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >Dear Mike,
> > > I haven't seen the crit concerned here, so my comments do not refer
>to
> > >that, but, in general, I would say there is definitely a fad these days
> >for
> > >clipping words until a poem reads like telegraphese. Quite simply, it's
> > >silly -often a little word (O, those articles!) is needed for the flow
>of
> > >the line. I sometimes wonder if the clippers read the lines aloud, or
>if
> > >they do, if they really listen.
> > >I get the impression sometimes that some revisers think you are charged
> >by
> > >the word. Poetry is not about expressing something in the fewest
>possible
> > >words.
> > >Kind regards,
> > > grasshopper
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Mike Horwood" <[log in to unmask]>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2002 9:27 AM
> > >Subject: Re Bang - Christine
> > >
> > >
> > >Hello Christine,
> > > Thanks for your comments and suggestions. Other
> > >people have made similar comments about other poems and I begin to
> >realise
> > >that my style is definitely a lot more wordy than many people write in
> > >themselves, or even like to read. Conversely, I sometimes feel when I
> >read
> > >work posted on the list or in magazines that it has been cut back so
>far
> > >that there´s not much more than a list of images. In the end I guess
>this
> > >just comes down to individual taste and preferences. Some of the cuts
>you
> > >suggest here, especially in the first stanza, feel to me as if they
>would
> > >break up the rhythm and flow. I was aiming at a rather excited,
> >breathless
> > >speaking voice. But perhaps more interesting than the virtues of
>specific
> > >cuts in this poem is the general question of just how bare/ minimalist/
> > >precise a poem needs to be. I don´t want to be misunderstood as
> >advocating
> > >pointless repetition or strings of adjectives, but I would like to ask
> > >this;
> > >can words be used purely to carry the rhythm of the line and for the
> > >pleasure of the sound their letters make in combination with other
>words?
> > >Is
> > >it justifiable to use a redundant word purely for its musical quality?
>I
> > >would be interested in hearing any opinions on this point.
> > >
> > >
> > >Best wishes, Mike
> >
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> >http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
|
