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/