 |
 |
I'll try to rephrase my question. Can one claim (think?) that Pound's "metronome" occurs when the rhythm cannot disrupt other "systems"(e.g. meaning) in the poem, due to the poem lacking sufficient consistency in the 1st place. It may be nonsense. Luke On 10 January 2018 at 15:41, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > And yes that is a misquote by Sheppard there, he should have said "random£ > not "normal". I checked google. > > Luke > > On 10 January 2018 at 15:37, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> > What I guess you mean is poems written in a regular metre >> >> I just mean poems which *seem *to keep hitting the exact same (stress) >> note. >> >> Luke >> >> On 10 January 2018 at 15:35, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> for what it's worth, this is what I was referring to >>> >>> [image: Inline images 1] >>> >>> And suggesting that "metronomic" poetry is not sufficiently *predictable >>> *in other terms. That then the system of rhythm cannot disrupt other >>> systems (vice versa?). >>> It made sense to me. >>> >>> On 10 January 2018 at 15:05, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>> >>>> Oh forget this, I got something the wrong way around there, I;m sure. >>>> >>>> On 10 January 2018 at 14:40, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I've always liked this, it's easy and very intuitive to claim that >>>>> something is metronomic. I had a question, which I suppose *might *not >>>>> go unanswered? >>>>> Is it the case, for anyone, that a metronome fades to the extent that >>>>> the poem has a Russian formalist complexity? >>>>> E.g. sonnet with end rhymes will be complex enough for the poem to >>>>> exist without its rhythm and so for the rhythm to remake the poem >>>>> (melopoeia). >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone write poetry which is deliberately really metronomic? >>>>> >>>>> Luke >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >