I have no idea if those are ironic quotes! If so, yes, I'd be fascinated to hear what Pound's conclusions were on the nature of "regular" rhythm.

Cheers,

Luke

On 10 January 2018 at 17:59, Luke <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> 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: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">Luke

Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 3:41 PM

To: [log in to unmask]" href="mailto:[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">[log in to unmask]C.UK

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

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