 |
 |
> need a lot more context to be made sense of I read that chapter in Eagleton's primer! > we see that he’s advising poets to move away from regular rhythm... mitigated by ‘irregularities’ and ‘inverted feet’.” Hm, well if I've misunderstood you you're being very obtuse. I guess I'm almost hallucinating! Thanks Jamie. Cheers, Luke On 10 January 2018 at 17:54, Jamie McKendrick <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Again I’m lost. I think the Sheppard quote would need a lot more context > to be made sense of, as would your reference to Russian Formalism. > What Pound writes: “As regarding rhythm: to compose in the sequence of > the musical phrase, not in sequence of a metronome” is in a way complex > (what do we understand by a ‘musical phrase’?) but we see that he’s > advising poets to move away from regular rhythm. Elsewhere he counsels > Dante’s line in the *Commedia* “composed of various syllable-groups, > totalling roughly eleven syllables” – in fact they total *exactly* 11 if > the rules of Italian scansion, with elision of adjoining vowels, are taken > into account – as against the “‘English pentameter’, meaning a swat at > syllables 2,4,6,8,10 in each line, mitigated by ‘irregularities’ and > ‘inverted feet’.” > But in order “to break the pentameter” you have to know what it is. > Pound knew as much as anyone about English rhythm (though his remarks about > Italian rhythm are often dubious). > Jamie > > *From:* Luke <[log in to unmask]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:41 PM > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Subject:* Re: Metronome > > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > >