I'm curious. Does anybody actually use Timothy's techniques outside of a classroom? Does anybody actually use it to help write a poem, as opposed to using it after the fact to analyze somebody else's poem (or your own), or to pad a paper?

let me preface this with the fact that I have not read Steele's book.

The original concept of four part scansion I believe was part of a monograph written for the New South Wales Teachers' College by Alexander Derwent Hope I have not seen this and have only had it referenced.

James McAuley (he of Ern Malley fame or infamy lol) wrote of it in his collection of essays and writings The Grammar of the Real.

I find it the most useful tool in checking my work metrically.
Maybe the Hope/McAuley method is different to Steele's however I would recommend it to all formalists or those wishing to be.

Jan

Exactly the same questions I’ve asked myself, Michael. It’s amazing that Shakespeare, Milton, Dickinson, Frost, Millay, Wilbur ( and so on and so on and so on) ever managed to write a poem without access to a pedantic, overly-analytical, absurdly systematic rule book on versification.

Richard

It's not a rule book but an attempt at objective description of what poets actually do, consciously or not. Compare "Descriptive Grammar" with "Prescriptive Grammar."

So, wow, finally caught up on the 'Sphere and I, uh, missed some things, huh?

Not all stresses are beats, of course. What I do is indicate word-stresses with capitalization and poetic beats with bold-print:

THAT'S my LAST DUCHess PAINTed on the WALL.


If you want more flexibility in your meter, use a more flexible meter. Perhaps avoid foot-oriented syllable stress poetry and write stress poetry instead. There's no point in using iambic meter, if you find yourself always wanting to bend it in a whole bunch of non-iambic ways.