|
Hi Lawrence
I basically read Annie Finch's critique & was knocked back. I did note
that most of her suggestions for fixing things up involved adding a
word (that might not be necessary -- if in doubt, I say cut). I think
both your posts are closer to what I think/do. And even back in the day
when poets did work these trad forms, I dont think they sat about
thinking well now I need a trochee here, then back to the old iambs.
They felt the movement of the language in verse & when it felt right
they let it be.
I am reading the latest Perloff & in some of the essays she uses a
system that allows for heavy, medium, low & no stress, so catches a bit
more of the range in verse.
But she also points out how much contemporary poetry is broken down
prose, even some by the poets she often admires, & laments the way
'free verse' has come to this. Check out such poets as Pound, Williams,
Creeley, Levertov, Lorine Niedecker, etc, & you find a sense of line,
of line break, that offers an intense sense of rhythm. And rhythm is
the core value, meter merely one of the possible ways toward it.
So, your eaer here is what counts, yes.
Doug
On 2-Aug-05, at 2:50 AM, Lawrence Upton wrote:
> Attention, yes
>
> but misplaced attention can kill
>
> If one is unfamiliar with the set of assumptions underlying this
> analysis,
> then I suppose it can be impressive. The certainty will certainly
> impress.
> But even "I prescribe three dock leaves and a hopping frog" can be
> impressive if it's said with enough conviction.
>
> Many things, refrigerators, electric / gas cookers for instance,
> cannot be
> made unless one knows a whole set of things, many or most of which can
> be
> learned as rules: if you do x then y happens
>
> poetry isnt like that
>
> 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
>
> It doesn't actually work in a great many cases
>
> It isnt 100 per cent wrong of course. It's a bit shaky. It's at least
> as
> shaky as "a pinch of salt" or "cook until brown"
>
> It requires judgement i.e. something outside of the system
>
> It is therefore a useful tool at certain times
>
> A while ago, I walked with a man who eschewed my use of Ordnance
> Survey map,
> saying that he could see his way quite well and would only refer to a
> compass. I use the map and *carry a compass in case I get confused in
> a way
> that a compass will help.
>
> It was interesting... Being new to the area, he did not know where he
> was in
> any experiential way; and by most people's definition he was lost the
> whole
> time. He benefitted from knowledge of the overall shape and
> limitations of
> his terrain, but he denied that was any help. I cannot help thinking
> he was
> wrong...
>
> I don't think I need to expand on that. The map is slow and leaves the
> decision making up to the walker. The compass just gives one datum and
> that
> rather makes it a command because one has no supporting data. It makes
> for
> fast walking - I shall go north, but there is no allowance for
> reflection or
> ambling.
>
> For what it's worth, my main tool for writing is my ear - my inner ear
> if I
> must, but I best like to chant my poem
>
> The apparatus we have just seen demonstrated is also part of my
> toolkit. My
> toolkit is modified from the one I was taught 40 years ago - though not
> formally. I allow, for instance, for the certain fact that unstress and
> stress are not the only two categories there are; and therefore a
> metrical
> analysis system which assumes there are will not work...
>
> But as I am not teaching this system I have never bothered to write it
> down
> and dont have it in my head in a transcribable form. Let each make her
> own
> tools. I think it is best applied by the tool-maker - cf Peter Hall on
> Radio
> 4 yesterday saying that if you want to know over all how the voices in
> a
> play might sound then listen to the writer speak
>
> I NEVER use it as an arbiter, but only to see what's going on. Often
> as not
> I have more than one line or variations of a line simultaneously in my
> hearing of the line, and a little beat counting may sort that out.
>
> So I come out of any particular _analysis_ with a series of
> measurements not
> expressed in any standard form. I couldnt even usually tell you what I
> now
> know
>
> The beat counting can be complex because while I start initially on the
> crude assumption of stress / unstress, I modify that as I go along
>
> It's the difference between looking at a shelf to see if it looks
> straight
> though one has a spirit level.... It's like looking at the sell by
> date *and
> sniffing the food itself
>
> What matters most is what is being said. I do NOT mean the abstractable
> prose statement of what the poem "means" which so many crave, but what
> is
> going on at that point in the poem
>
> a line collapse may be appropriate
>
> ditto too much in a line
>
> i suppose this is what is meant by the likes of d thomas "getting away
> with
> it" - the verse matched the meaning. In those whose poems did not match
> rhythm and measure with meaning there was a greater or lesser
> dissonance
>
> to establish rules for what constitutes a good line and a bad line
> mechanically is putting too much faith in the very shaky rule
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: SB <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 12:16 AM
> Subject: Re: FW: any formalists in the crowd? -- thanks to Annie Finch!
>
>
> Wow, such attention to a mostly-forgotten poem -- I really appreciate
> this effort.
>
> Mostly, I remembered this poem for the inadvertent double entendre
> that Lawrence mentions --
>
> but you have inspired me to go back to it.
>
> Thank you!
>
> On 8/1/05, Alison Croggon <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> ------ Forwarded Message
>> From: Annie Finch <[log in to unmask]>
>
> --
> ~ SB =^..^=
>
> http://www.sbpoet.com
> http://sb.chatango.com/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/sbmontana/
>
>
Douglas Barbour
11655 - 72 Avenue NW
Edmonton Ab T6G 0B9
(780) 436 3320
I give up these words easily, they are easy
to give up, like changing currency before
a border: the cursive line between mountain
and sky, say, as perfect a mismatch as any
made in heaven.
Méira Cook
|
