Well maybe I didnt express myself very well, Marcus; but I think my meaning was clear; and it wasnt what you imply

Initially I was concerned by what I considered to be a metrical misreading of

are not real things, but merely human

and then soon I was pretty cross about someone being told THIS NEEDS TO BE FIXED when what they might have said is this needs to be fixed if you accept that my rule set is correct and my analysis is correct and you ought to know that many mistrust it

The point I was making or trying to make in

_the poetry came first and it evolved without there being such rules The rules came later based both on observation of what poets did *and on
 assumptions about the relationship of english to latin etc etc_

is that these scansion "rules" are constructs, approximations. Theyre different to principles described by rules / laws that make kitchen appliances work and different to what we are actually doing when we write by ear

Poetry came before any rules describing it. Let's not mix that up without whatever principles are actually operating.

I mean the kind of thing which would account for _there is_ taking over from _there are_ and _less_ for _few_, linguistic phenomena that set my teeth on edge

Of course language has its operating "rules". That's something else. And I defer to that - hence my appeal to the ear. Because trying to express those rules we make them too simple; a good ear is the best writing tool

I think it is more useful - and less likely historically to leave egg on the face - to turn aside from poetry we find offensive in supposed rule breaking than in declaring it to be not poetry; but it's up to you. I just have nothing to say to that kind of talk. To me it's a waste of breath

I suspect, and this isnt part of my argument, that language and poetry came about at much the same time. But when I said "the poetry came first" I was speaking in relation to 18th and 19th century rules of scansion imposed upon English poetry on challengeable bases

As to meter, I would have thought it was obvious from what i have said that i am more than aware of meter. I think it is *the thing and am on record as having said that. Which is why I shudder when an inadequate systematisation is offered as the *way *it *is

I think that the idea that prose is prose because it doesnt have meter and if it did have meter it would be poetry is not to be relied upon. (Perhaps we could repeat those experiments where they weighed people before and after they were dead to see if the soul had fled - "yes, same number of words but lighter, can't have any meter in it") I suppose that one could think of prose being writing where you dont bother about such things; but it wouldnt be very good prose. But the prose / poetry divide is not one that interests me

That wasnt what I was talking about at all

I was talking about a set of rules that could become poetry by numbers level 1

There is so much more to be said and to ignore that is flat earth. I don't feel a strong desire to argue. It's only when belief systems are marketed as true I get worried

L
  -----Original Message-----
  From: Marcus Bales <[log in to unmask]>
  To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
  Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 2:35 PM
  Subject: Re: FW: any formalists in the crowd? -- thanks to Annie Finch!