Jarman and Barnstone Sonnet Scansion

Lee Harlin Bahan · #1 12-04-2006, 09:54 AM

Well, what a lucky fluke--as the whale said upon turning over with its fin-like appendage a sunken treasure chest.

Read: it is merely serendipitous that I am posting part of one of Mark Jarman's Unholy Sonnets mentioned on other threads on this board. I like Jarman's work and have for a long time, and he is decidedly friendly to formal poets, see Rebel Angels.

I also include part of a Tony Barnstone sonnet, mostly because last week I read the book in which it appears. Both Jarman and Barnstone have work in Baer's Sonnets, so I consider J and B to have mastered the form. Both sonnets were chosen at *random*--I just opened each book and chose one of the two poems facing. I am pasting in below the octave of each sonnet chosen.

After a month or so on the Eratosphere, I had the startling epiphany that my ear *hears* differently than the ears of most of the other poets on Met, TDE, and Translation (my accustomed haunt). In order to check my hearing, I thought I'd post these octets and see how Spherians scan them. I ran this idea past a long-time member in good standing, and this individual thought the experiment would be worth conducting, "fun."

So, if you would please, scan each line of one or both octaves, using "-" for an unstressed syllable and "'" for a stressed syllable. (-' represents an iamb.) Or, if you are familiar with the 4-point scale of relative stress (I think I saw Alan Sullivan attribute this scale to Steele), use that as it gives pretty detailed information about what you hear. 1=least stress rises to 4=most stress. Or you can use the caps-uncaps method if you like and have plenty of time to type: of TIME to TYPE.

There are certain lines in these octaves in which I am more interested than I am in other lines, but I don't want to influence results. Also, this experiment is not loaded in any way. The poems were picked at random; I don't have some secret crib about the scansion intended by either author. So far as I am concerned right now, there are no right answers.

Thanks for your help. I hope interesting discussion ensues.

Lee

from Mark Jarman’s Unholy Sonnets, #5

The thin end of the wedge thrusts underneath
The side that’s formed a seal with the earth,
A fit as fast and intimate as death.
The lever urges change, release, rebirth.
But the mind, settled in its cozy ditch,
Clothed with the tufted moss of its neurosis,
Which, it believes, will always burn and itch,
Resists, of course, loving its painful stasis.

from Tony Barnstone’s Sad Jazz: Sonnets, “Bad Drivers”

The way he likes to think of it, he lives
on the black highway, tunneling through trees
like sponges soaking up the dusk, and drives
into the moon’s bright headlight, darkly free.
He likes to think this way to indicate
he’s not an accident but a joy ride,
that if he wanted he could find the brake
or he could swerve and find a hidden drive.

Maryann Corbett · #2 12-04-2006, 10:37 AM

Lee Harlin Bahan · #3 12-05-2006, 09:56 AM

Thanks, Maryann, for being first to have a go. Yes, I have questions/comments, and yes, I scan these octets very differently. I believe that the first line of a poem teaches us how to read it. The first line of Jarman's poem can be read as straight iambic pentameter, my brain wants it to be IP worse than you can imagine, *but* if you read it as *speech,* it scans differently. (I will wait for others to try this before I give my opinion of how the octets scan.) I really enjoy this tension, its sophistication (there is no confusion) and am happy for two scansions to coexist. Jarman's first line prepares us for everyday speech constantly being juxtaposed, working against/with, our expectations of meter.

Only in the very Deep South would "seal" be two syllables. But Mark teaches in Tennessee, so your reading could be right! (I hadn't thought of that.) Otherwise, you seem to be shoehorning because there *should* be five stresses. What if there are only four? That's why the third line *snaps* back into perfect iambic pentameter. It's a dance. The first line steps a little out of line(!) with two substitutions, then the second line breaks a rule, then the poet whips right back into form so he doesn't lose control of the poem. It's suspenseful, then delightful when he comes back and meets my expectations. There's a whole metrical/musical drama going on that traditional, prescriptive metrics don't describe/account for.

Actually, Carol has begun a great thread over at General Talk that uses Janet's triple meter sonnet as a starting point. You want to invite some of them over here?

More tomorrow,
Lee

Bob Watts · #4 12-05-2006, 12:47 PM

Dear Maryann,

I agree with most of your scansion, but I hear a few differences. In the first line,The THIN(4)| END(3) of| the WEDGE| THRUSTS un|derNEATH, I think "thrusts" gets demoted just a touch, coming as it does between the stresses of "wedge" and "un," so that I hear the line the WEDGE / thrusts UN / derNEATH.

In the second line, I tend to go with you on SE / al WITH, but I reckon that might be because of my western NC accent.

In the fifth line, (and in Barnstone's second line: on the BLACK |HIGH|way, TUN|nelING(2)| through TREES), instead of an anapest followed by a monofoot, why not pyrric/spondee?

but the / MIND, SET /
on the / BLACK HIGH /

and the same for Barnstone's but a / JOY RIDE.

Or, if Timothy Steele is lurking, call it light iamb/heavy iamb.

All the best,

Bob Watts

Janet Kenny · #5 12-05-2006, 02:17 PM

Lee,
I would recite Jarman differently from the tick-tock pentameter scan I could produce. I'd say it in one way while deep down I'd acknowledge that I had received fair measure for the money.

The way I'd actually SAY it is more or less like the first version--although I tend to stress the first line in speech as:
"the THIN end of the wedge thrusts underNEATH"
and the second line:
the SIDE that’s formed a SEAL with the EARTH,
~~
the THIN end of the WEDGE THRUSTS UNderNEATH
the SIDE that’s FORMED a SEAL WITH the EARTH,
a FIT as FAST and INtimate as DEATH.
the LEver URges CHANGE, reLEASE, reBIRTH.
but the MIND, SETTled IN its COzy DITCH,
CLOTHED with the TUFted MOSS of ITS neuROsis,
WHICH, it beLIEVES, will ALways BURN and ITCH,
reSISTS, of COURSE,LOving its PAINful STAsis.

THE mechanical way (I wouldn't say it this way):

the THIN end OF the WEDGE thrusts UNderNEATH
the SIDE that’s FORMED a SEAL WITH the EARTH,
a FIT as FAST and INtiMATE as DEATH.
the LEver URges CHANGE, reLEASE, reBIRTH.
but the MIND, SETTled IN its COzy DITCH,
CLOTHED with the TUFted MOSS of ITS neuROsis,
WHICH, it beLIEVES, will ALways BURN and ITCH,
reSISTS, of COURSE, LOving its PAINful STAsis.

Maryann Corbett · #6 12-05-2006, 05:47 PM

First, a warm welcome to Bob and praise for a nicely meaty first post (which certainly ought to count as one of the required fifteen even though it's not a critique of a posted poem). I think you're right about the pyrrhic/spondee in the Barnstone.

A great deal of what everybody has said so far acknowledges that (1)we need to be able to tell from the early lines how the poet means us to read, and (2) there's a tension between the canonical pattern of IP (or whatever meter is set by the first line) and the way we would actually read aloud, and that the tension can be part of the pleasure.

Where I think Lee and I may differ is over the word "shoehorning." If I believe a poem's first line establishes IP--which it can only do by being readable with five beats--then I'm supposed to be able to perceive five beats in all the other lines. (For simplicity's sake I'm thinking only of poems in one meter and leaving out the case of het-met).

Finding those five beats may mean I have to promote some unstressed syllables, or hear the difference between threes and fours, but I think I'm supposed to do that. Rather than calling it "shoehorning," I'd call it finding the poet's intended scansion. If I can't find five beats--if my natural reading plus Steele's rules only gives four stresses--I think that's a problem, and it's something I'll probably point to in a crit.

I'm realizing lately that a lot of contemporary poets are WAY looser about it than I am. Molly Peacock is an example; I have trouble with her work.

(Disclosure: my own stuff is more frequently critted for having lines too stuffed with extra beats and anapestic substitutions.)

Are we getting any closer?

Maryann

Janet Kenny · #7 12-05-2006, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Maryann Corbett:

A great deal of what everybody has said so far acknowledges that (1)we need to be able to tell from the early lines how the poet means us to read, and (2) there's a tension between the canonical pattern of IP (or whatever meter is set by the first line) and the way we would actually read aloud, and that the tension can be part of the pleasure.

Maryann, I don't think we need to give too much assistance to the reader in the first line--I trust the good reader to enter into the poem and be pleasantly surprised by the way it develops. I do agree about the tension between how we actually read and how it can be scanned.

Best,
Janet

Lee Harlin Bahan · #8 12-06-2006, 09:24 AM

Good morning. Maryann, I am very sorry about any offense caused by my use of "shoehorning." Maybe "working too hard," which only conveys earnestness, is what I meant. When I say that *my* ear wants IP, I have to recognize that yours does even more than mine, but you very well may find it in a different place/way than I do. Re-checking, I think I hear you saying something similar to this in your second post.

However, and a person wants to be very careful about abusing form/function, the first three lines of Jarman are about a process of disruption--the first line, that scans two ways IMO, is the "wedge;" the second line "breaks the seal" of IP, and the third snaps back into "a fit" with IP that is "as fast and intimate as death." Again, I swear I chose this poem at random; I did not see the form/function thing going on until I read through posts today.

Your comments re: Peacock make me think that--and I may be re-inventing the wheel--contemporary poetry doesn't fall into formalist and free verse categories, but into three: formalists (thoroughbreds such as Wilbur), free verse poets (we know who the wild things are), and poets who use form with a free verse sensibility (mutts/vigorous hybrids). My specific example is Maura Stanton who started out as a free verse poet but has some great formal poems in Life among the Trolls. Before college, I wrote rhymed and metered poems (doggerel!), then in grad school I had to learn how to write free verse (ick! no net!), but I have reverted to forms, sonnets especially, which make me happy. Nevertheless I'm not about to chuck what I learned by writing free verse. Another poet who comes to mind, but whom I can't categorize, is Ted Kooser. I'll read one of his poems (Delights and Shadows) and count the lines because I am sure it's a sonnet, and then it's not. Makes me crazy, but I love his poetry. Seems to me that Kooser has found a middle ground, too, though I don't know his early work.

I think the genetics metaphor goes deeper. My mutt may very well tree more coons (bag more pubs in a free verse world) than your $1000 Walker with papers proving a pedigree back to when Adam named the breed, but my mutt can't grunt and mutate--it never will be, was not meant to be, probably shouldn't try (too hard) to be a purebred. Different is just different, not necessarily better or worse per se.

Yes, Bob, your argument does a better job of explaining, in terms of tradional metrics, what is going on in the octaves. I will study your post with the poems in question, and have a long think. For a critter to tell a poet, "You need to substitute a/an (name of foot) here for a/an (whatever) there because the semantic weight of (word in question) throws the stress...." is a good deal more scientific/understandable, specific (free verse poets use the amorphous "awkward," which does nothing but throw up a red flag), and less perjorative than saying that a line must have a certain number of somethings because the rules say so (my hopefully misguided perception of the tradional stance). What a poem has to do is *work*. Great poems, IMO, break the "rules" with impunity, make new ones; a more scientific way to say this is that great poems, like Gravity vs Relativity, reveal to us new/different/better ways to understand/use language. The first implicit point is that there is a difference between constitutive rules and prescriptive ones. The second point is to say that I give higher scores for innovation than for mastery alone; "because (a human) somebody said so" just makes me ask "why?" What I am unsure about re: crit is how to filter what is *taste* from what is as close as we will ever get to *truth* about how the English-speaking ear hears. When a line has gone wrong in a poem, falling back on/rising to (in some ways easy, in some ways hard) traditional metrics is one fix, but is it the only or the best fix for a particular poem? (Maryann: lopping off a piece of a poem may yield a good poem, but does this easy fix violate the poet's vision of the whole?) When I was in free verse workshops in grad school, the programmatic response was "break out of the form." Sometimes I get the feeling that the formal programmatic response is "'perfect' the meter." Neither prescription helps me very much. Good to have you aboard, Bob. I'm new in these parts myself.

Hi, Janet. Oddly, I think you and I agree more about how to read poems in general, and scansion of the octaves in particular, than do the other Americans and I. Too much Masterpiece Theater and Doctor Who! For me, how lines scan as speech trumps every other consideration; my antecedents are Robert Frost and Marilyn Hacker. Faithfulness to speech has been my ticket to escaping, even beguiling, Free Verse Fascists. I do like your deft observation about "measure for money," though, and feel wisdom and truth there.

Okay, I'll post my four-stress scansion of the octets tomorrow.

Thanks, all, for making me think, and for patiently "reading my thoughts."

To better understanding and better poems in whatever mode,

Lee

Maryann Corbett · #9 12-06-2006, 09:38 AM

Lee, no offense at all about the "shoehorning" thing!

You're definitely on to something in your three types of poetry. Here's the challenge for me: when I crit, how should I take these types into account? I know what to do with free, and what to do with purely formal. With purely formal, if the poet intends IP (or whatever), and I think there's a goof, I know what to say.

But how does one tell the difference between a goof and a different set of intentions? For me, that's the $64,000 critting question. I'm doing it now by seat-of-the-pants; if I know a poet is very experienced, I don't comment on meter even when it does things I wouldn't do. Yet I want to be corrected. A puzzlement.

Best,
Maryann

Lee Harlin Bahan · #10 12-06-2006, 02:16 PM

Right. How do you tell mutt from muddle?

Talk to you tomorrow,
Lee