Repetends
What makes a good repetend?
Clearly, it isn't just any good line. It has to be a line that's improved by repetition. Some of this will depend on how the context of the poem shapes and builds on the line's inherent meaning. But are there properties of the individual line that give it greater or lesser potential as a repetend?
I have no general theory, and the rest of this post doesn't build to anything. I'm just going to look at a couple examples and see what thoughts emerge.
One repetend that I find extremely effective is Dunbar's "Timor mortis conturbat me." It's simple, not flashy. It doesn't work because of any surprise factor, which suits it to repetition (since surprise wears off with each repetition). Instead, it builds on itself, each new instance hammering home the inevitability of the death that's coming for Dunbar as for all the poets before him.
Grammatical ambiguity also helps, as in Thomas' "Do not go gentle into that good night," where both repetends can function both as commands (if standing alone) or as descriptions of actions (if joined to a larger context). Thomas plays with that, starting with the command form in the abstract, then moving through descriptions for the main body of the villanelle, and finally returning to the command form at the end, now in a deeply personal context.
But grammatical ambiguity works precisely by making the repetitions imperfect repetitions: the words are the same and appear in the same order, but their function changes. This is very different from the Dunbar, where the words gain force but do not change sense.
Ok, that's enough reflection from me. What say y'all?
|