I suppose one could say that poets were trying to create a form of notation--like dancers.. Yes. Or like musicians. That notation is, as you say, incomplete. Worse still, the notation tends to restrict the scope of future work.

The danger is that poetry might get into the hands of the bean counters - yes. Equally I think we shouldn't underestimate how theory-laden our opinions (and even our perceptions) are. Like all theories, these implicit ones need to be challenged - I suspect they're often ill-considered.

The most important thing is that they are felt. I don't mean "emotional" in the general sense. I mean a profound response to relationships such as that experienced by visual artists, architects and musicians. Many of the best architects conceive a building first then work out later how it can be made. I know it's not the only way. There are traditions like the historical Japanese tradition where they demand that all the means of construction should be visible in the completed building.

In the end it's taste and temperament. But nobody should refrain from something in which they believe because there is not yet a name or explanation for it. Invent a name later if necessary.
Janet

The most important thing is that they are felt. - Um. To whom is this sort of thing "important"? If I say I feel something profoundly, would you think my words any more true? And in what sense "important"? As an indication of the thing's "truth"? Prejudices are felt - sometimes deeply (in the sense that they're hard to dislodge). People often don't feel the need to explain their prejudices - "it's just obvious, isn't it."

Tim, I tried to make it clear that by "felt" I didn't mean emotion (although that's OK too). I have just been talking about Stravinsky's ballet "Agon" with Mike Snider. It is, from some points of view, entirely cerebral, but the "feeling" is the tension that connects phrases and notes. This is an aesthetic and personal thing. I believe that without it all art is just noughts and crosses.
Janet

Jason,

I notice few have responded to your call for examples. Perhaps, like me, they're afraid people will say, "That's clearly metrical" and make them feel stupid. But I'll cover my hiney by calling these "poems that if you posted them in Metrical, at least one person would suggest you were posting in the wrong forum."
http://plagiarist.com/poetry/8952/ http://plagiarist.com/poetry/?wid=6127 http://www.npr.org/programs/death/re...ry/millay.html http://www.poetryfoundation.org/arch...html?id=176222

Flattered as I am to have been included in Michael's list (nyuk nyuk), I must confess I have blathered on at great length in many of these discussions. That actually supports Michael's point, though, since I'm not as good as the other people in the list. Nevertheless, once again, a-blathering I shall go.

Some critters are more rigid about meter than others. The meter maids think anyone who substitutes the occasional foot is an incompetent metrist. Swinburne used to say Byron had a bad ear.

Then again, there are anything-goes types who call everything metrical. According to them, no one should ever criticize anyone's meter, because if their meter is lumpy it must be intended to achieve a certain effect.* Problem is, there really is such a thing as a poem that doesn't scan, and there really are poets who don't have a good ear for meter. The only way to fix that is to read a lot of metrical verse. (Hamlet's in IP. You see a lot of metrical substitutions, promotions and demotions because it's not a 14-line sonnet but a long play, and because the English language has changed. But I was forced to read it in school, so that's probably where I formed my ideas about what IP should sound like - ideas some would call rigid and some would call relaxed. :)

Rose

* Some say that messy meter must be used for effect when writing about messy subjects. But LIFE is messy, so if the degree of metrical regularity is proportional to the subject's neatness, then we should all be writing exclusively in free verse.


[This message has been edited by Rose Kelleher (edited June 15, 2006).]

Tim, I tried to make it clear that by "felt" I didn't mean emotion. I know, but feel free to repeat yourself. I think Damasio's "The Feeling of What Happens" talks about the point you're trying to make.


"feeling" is the tension that connects phrases and notes. This is an aesthetic and personal thing. . Tension is one of the features increasingly amenable to prediction and measurement.

But surely only after the event since the interrelationships are infinite. Otherwise let's all buy a "writing by numbers" book ;)

Anyway, I doubt that they can be measured with any human significance. Imagine if we made love like that?
Janet



[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited June 15, 2006).]

Clay

I just came back to this post, and wanted to assure you I'm not confusing meter and rhythm *wink*. Our disagreement seems to hinge on the necessity of line count for meter to exist.

It's merely semantics we are disagreeing on. I think any sentence written has meter, even if it doesn't match the other lines in a paragraph. *shrug* It's not worth debating, as a semantical disagreement changes nothing

[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited June 16, 2006).]