Post, thread withdrawn.

I am still interested in reading quality examples where the distinction between met/non is blurred.



[This message has been edited by Jason Kerr (edited June 14, 2006).]

Jason,
You will be surprised to find that I understand and have had the same experience. If you look at the italicised poem posted in my Deep End poem thread you'll see one of mine that relates to what you say.

Meter on its own is not relevant unless it expresses the spirit of the poem. Application of meter to a poem is my idea of poetry death. That's what I meant when I said that a poem makes its own form. But the verbose over-analysis of ideas, sometimes indulged in, seems to me to be nothing but bad and inarticulate prose.
Janet

Enjoy it, or not.

Unless I encounter it in a workshop. Then I verbosely over-analyze it.

Here's a poem which I'm pretty sure was intended by its author as a metrical poem. (Note the helpful initial caps, which aren't present on his unambiguously non-metrical stuff.) For the life of me, I can't come up with a satisfactory scansion. Or rather, I can't come up with the same one twice in a row. I have decided to label this het-met (heterogenously metrical, for those who haven't heard the phrase before), though I believe that term usually implies some sort of fixed scheme.

What do you think? Metrical? Non? (This poem was on my mind because I took my snarky quote on Maryann's thread from here.) I'd note that the rhyming seems to determine the form more than any meter.

--CS

Machines
Michael Donaghy


Dearest, note how these two are alike:
This harpsichord pavane by Purcell
And the racer's twelve-speed bike.

The machinery of grace is always simple.
This chrome trapezoid, one wheel connected
To another of concentric gears,
Which Ptolemy dreamt of and Schwinn perfected,
Is gone. The cyclist, not the cycle, steers.
And in the playing, Purcell's chords are played away.

So this talk, or touch if I were there,
Should work its effortless gadgetry of love,
Like Dante's heaven, and melt into the air.

If it doesn't, of course, I've fallen. So much is chance,
So much agility, desire, and feverish care,
As bicyclists and harpsichordists prove

Who only by moving can balance,
Only by balancing move.

Clay,
Absolutely and wonderfully metrical.
Janet


PS: I've been out of the loop for a while. Does anyone still believe that "metrical" means always the same beat? It's necessary to be able to write regular meter before you learn to fly but meter is "felt" and "recognised" by those who know how to read it. That's not a license for learners to fly before they have mastered their own feet ;)

I read a good comment of Dana Gioa's in Alan Sullivan's blog. The thing that makes poetry work is the "dance". I believe that. And dance doesn't have to be a dull thump.

[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited June 13, 2006).]

Precisely.

Jason, I know that this is not exactly in line with the subject of the thread, but I would counsel you to worry more about the overall quality of your poetry - what the hell it is you're saying, and the language with which you're saying it - and less about how it should be metrically defined. The poems you have posted to date have all been metrically indistinct, yes, but they've also been vague and indistinct in many other ways, and were criticized as such. It's easy to be seduced by intellectualizing and mechanics, but first you have to confidently control the basics; and that means language, rhythm, voice, sound, and exposition as well as metrics.

In short, I don't believe that the question of how a poem should be classified is nearly as important as the question of whether it is a good poem or not. What Clay said.

Michael

Michael,

I'm touched by your remarks, redundant though they are. I already took this criticism in its appropriate place, and with appropriate candor. But I thank you all the same for the extra attention - I promise I'm working on it. Your counsel was taken before it was given.

Like I said already - I wouldn't have posted this if Maryann hadn't asked. I took the extra time out of earnest wonder, fascination with the topic, and because someone else seemed to share that. Seems appropriate for a discussion board.

What's the matter? You don't think I can multitask? http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

It’s a good question, Jason. It’s a limitation or slight drawback of having Metrical and Non-Metrical boards that there may sometimes be uncertainty as to where to put something. I don’t believe (pace Clay in the other thread) that a clear boundary can be drawn between metrical and non-metrical. Any definition of metrical seems too simple. For example, poems can and do vary the number of stresses per line (sometimes on no particular pattern, as in some of the great classic odes) and remain both rhythmic and metrical.

I do think there’s a Shadowlands region inhabited by poems whose metricality or not will be perceived differently by different readers. I would say the Donaghy poem above is metrical (I don’t think it matters that one can’t identify a fixed pattern or alternation of stresses per line) but others might hear it differently.

Here’s a poem called “A Day in Autumn” — which I’ve run together as prose:

It will not always be like this, the air windless, a few last leaves adding their decoration to the trees’ shoulders, braiding the cuffs of the boughs with gold; a bird preening in the lawn’s mirror. Having looked up from the day’s chores, pause a minute, let the mind take its photograph of the bright scene, something to wear against the heart in the long cold.

Does that sound metrical? Most readers would say no, I suspect. There are so many places where stresses fall back to back (AIR WINDless, LEAVES ADDing, LAWN’s MIRRor, and so on) that you could easily read its rhythms as prose — especially if your metrical ear is tuned mainly in the iambic direction.


Now the poem as printed:

A Day in Autumn

It will not always be like this,
The air windless, a few last
Leaves adding their decoration
To the trees’ shoulders, braiding the cuffs
Of the boughs with gold; a bird preening

In the lawn’s mirror. Having looked up
From the day’s chores, pause a minute,
Let the mind take its photograph
Of the bright scene, something to wear
Against the heart in the long cold.

R.S. Thomas


And here’s another one by the same author:

Death Of A Poet

Laid now on his smooth bed
For the last time, watching dully
Through heavy eyelids the day's colour
Widow the sky, what can he say
Worthy of record, the books all open,
Pens ready, the faces, sad,
Waiting gravely for the tired lips
To move once -- what can he say?

His tongue wrestles to force one word
Past the thick phlegm; no speech, no phrases
For the day's news, just the one word, ‘Sorry’;
Sorry for the lies, for the long failure
In the poet's war; that he preferred
The easier rhythms of the heart
To the mind's scansion; that now he dies
Intestate, having nothing to leave
But a few songs, cold as stones
In the thin hands that asked for bread.


Again, reading this almost as if it were prose, with hardly a pause on the enjambments, one might well be tempted to put it firmly in the non-met camp. But actually, both of these can be read as (almost entirely) in accentual tetrameter, like a number of Thomas’s poems.

it will NOT ALways be LIKE THIS,
the AIR WINDless, a FEW LAST
LEAVES ADDing their DECorATion
to the TREES’ SHOULDers, BRAIDing the CUFFS...

LAID NOW on his SMOOTH BED
for the LAST TIME, WATCHing DULly...
SORRy for the LIES, for the LONG FAILure
in the POet’s WAR, that HE preFERRed...

To me a clear case of lineation playing a necessary role in clarifying meter. It helps to pause briefly at the end of each line, enjambed or not, something encouraged — dare I say it? — by the line caps.

Notice the medial caesura in most lines — two speech stresses on each side. It seems clear that Thomas was influenced by the old Anglo-Saxon meters as used for Beowulf, though his alliteration is only light and occasional. Once you catch on to what the poet is doing, you’ll probably have little difficulty in hearing these as metrical — if you’re attuned to accentual meters. If you aren’t, you might hear them as non-metrical.

Never mind.

[This message has been edited by Clay Stockton (edited June 13, 2006).]

Quincy to Quince:

I broadly agree with you, I think, but it's dangerous to rely on whether or not a *reader* is *attuned* to meter. Most readers don't have a clue. It's why you can usually get away with blank verse with readers who "really don't like metrical poetry" more often than not. The fact that it doesn't occur to them that a piece deploys a consistent meter does not equal an absence of consistent meter.

Quincy

When I'm trying to decide where something should go I sometimes run it by another poet, asking the question, "Does this look metrical if you're not expecting meter?"

If I hear "no" I post in non-met. (That's what I did with "Domestication" and "Reach.")

(I know this method is fallible. I can miss people's intended meters when they are mixed or when they change midstream without some signal.)

What's prompting my thoughts on these questions lately is that I'm plotting to post something that really is non-met--has no set number of beats per line, is quite profoundly non-regular--and it's making me very nervous because it feels blah. (This may relate to Rose's comments on the other thread.) Unless I chicken out, you'll see it Thursday, and it's possible that those who comment will find something useful to point to in these threads.

Maryann

Avec.

Jason

Does it matter?

Our own beloved forum permits the author to determine if his work is metrical or not. All of my non-met postings are basically iambic lines of unequal length - which meets the definition of het-met.

I tend to view all poetry as metrical - but often the meter is not well-used. That is the important issue. Most 'free verse' poets do not understand meter (imo), nor how it relates to rhythm. That's why (one reason, again in my opinion) there're so many terrible FV poems out there.

Now if you want to debate the distinction between metrical and formal, that's easier.

If one person calls a poem metrical, and another insists it isn't, what difference does that make to the poem? The argument is nothing but wasted breath

- or server space *wink*




[This message has been edited by Jerry Glenn Hartwig (edited June 13, 2006).]

Jerry, I think it matters here because the poet wants to make a determination that other poets will agree with. Because we analyze meter carefully, it's the first thing we'll criticize on the met boards.

When Bob Bolick posted a nonmet piece in Deep End by accident, the mistake was clear very soon. When it's not an accident--if, for example, I decide on purpose to write something that's extremely bumpy and put it on a met board--I'd better prepare myself to hear criticism. If I know very well that the meter's bumpy and wish that commenters would focus on other things, posting at nonmet is a big temptation.

I was reading in the collected works of Merrill last night and finding some pieces that made me smile, thinking how their meter might be carved around here.

Maryann

MaryAnn

Here's part of an answer I PM'd to Jason in explanation:


I think you're asking the wrong question - metrical or non-met. Is it formal (following a set form) or not, is more important.

Everything has meter. Does it follow a set pattern of stresses (with very few exceptions); then it's 'metrical'. When a writer puts in, for example, too many anapestic substitutions, the pattern begins to loose it's weave, then it's 'poor metrical writing'. Please don't call it 'loose'. Call it sloppy.


If you maintain a metrical expectation and form, post it on metrical. If you don't, post it on non-met. When someone says 'this is too loose', what they're saying is, 'This is poor metrical writing'. Either tighten it up, or you might as well post it on non-met. Of course, someone there will tell you to tighten it up and put it on metrical *grin*.

The choice is yours.

Hope this helps.

There are a great many highly accomplished formal poets who write outstanding poetry in loose metrics - my Powow colleague, Deborah Warren, is one of them; Wendy Vedelok is another good example - and it's not a big deal. When the poem is good enough, nobody cares about labels.

I think the problem is specific to the Sphere. We have Boards labelled "Met" and "Non-Met" (Which I agree with), we tend to be hyper-sensitive to meter and the mechanics of meter because (a) this is a workshop, (b) there are a great many metrical poets involved in this workshop, (c) some metrical poets appear to find intense scansion intensely erotic, and (d) few of us consistently post loose metrics, let alone poems that are so good that they blast right past any discussion of metrics.

Suggestion, Maryann (or anyone): if you have a poem with relatively loose metrics, and you want it on Met or the Deep End, mention the metrics up front - tell the critters what you are doing, and your own concerns. This will steer comments in the right direction, and eliminate a certain amount of anapestical squabbling. (I normally don't think it's a good idea to explain in advance what you're trying to do in a poem, but it might make sense in this case, where the concern is purely technique, not meaning.)

Michael

Jerry: Peace, buddy, but I think that when you say "everything has meter," you're confusing meter and rhythm.

Everything has the latter. The former is very specific, and not many things have it. That's because meter has to do with counting. (Just like dancing and music do.) Of course, you can count the stresses in anything, but the number ceases to be meaningful once it's divorced from line. That's because meter means "X number of beats per line."

Except when it doesn't. Some poems, like the Donaghy above, or Larkin's "Cut Grass" (the subject of a long discussion some months back on the Larkin About thread), have an ambiguous or perhaps a shifting number of beats per line. Nonetheless, they bear such a strong resemblance to regular metrical verse that it makes more sense to classify them as metrical than as not. I agree with Janet that at a certain point analysis doesn't help much. And I agree with Cantor and with Miles Davis that ultimately there are two kinds of music: good and bad. But I still thought it might help the discussion to get some terms clarified. Meter is a way to describe rhythm. All speech has rhythm. Not all speech has meter.

Last thought: I personally wouldn't go so far as to say that every time someone at the Sphere "says 'this is too loose', what they're saying is, 'This is poor metrical writing'." Sometimes what they're saying is, this poem has too many substitutions for my taste. Sometimes what they're saying is, any substitution is too much for my taste. Sometimes they're saying, only 20% of the feet in an iambic poem may be substituted, and I have scanned your poem, and you have substituted a whopping 31% of the feet, and this fact reflects very poorly on your hopes for ever truly understanding poetry. Sometimes they're saying, you made light of my point on General Talk and I think you're an asshole. We say a lot of things around here. Some of them are bullshit. http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif

--CS

I think the question of whether a difficult-to-classify poem should be posted in met or non-met is a red herring. The better question might be whether meter helped it or hurt it.

The only reason for posting a poem here is to find out how other poets think it works and to see if they perceive any problems that keep it from being as good as it could be. If you aren't prepared to entertain negative critique about it, metrical or otherwise, submit it or file it or put it in your blog, but don't workshop it. That doesn't mean you have to change the poem because somebody else would have written it differently, but the assumption here is you want to know what other practitioners of the same craft think about your work. Otherwise we may get the idea you're showcasing your stuff and using us as a captive audience.

As to poems being good enough to have their flaws overlooked, why should a good poem's flaws be overlooked any more than a mediocre one's? Nits bother me more in good poems than in bad ones, which are usually a waste of time and critiquing effort. Even so, I'm aware that what looks like a significant flaw to me may look like a stroke of genius to someone else. The poet is ultimately responsible for his own choices. But my opinion is all I have, and this is a workshop; if you don't want to know, don't ask. When you've listened, consider the source and make up your own mind.

Flawed poems are published all the time. You can't pick up a magazine or collection without seeing them, and I often wind up being disappointed. Publishers aren't the final judges of what will be considered good poetry by posterity. The short life span of so many poetry journals suggests that they aren't always prophets in their own day, even among the converted.

In our rush to publish do we dodge the issue of whether we would rather be remembered, if we are remembered at all, for poems that are as good as we can make them, or if we simply want to collect credits?

Carol

Post withdrawn.

[This message has been edited by Jason Kerr (edited June 14, 2006).]

Jason -

I suggest you focus your intensity on writing and improving your poetry - on developing more arresting use of language, on involving the reader in the secrets of your poems - rather than on describing what you intend to accomplish with your poetry. If you accomplish it, explanations will not be necessary.

You know what I think the best writers do? They write the best poems that they can. They focus on craft, not theory. They get out of the locker room. They write and they write and they write, and they listen to the voice inside of them that tells them when a stress feels good, and when a line is strained; and the more they write - and the less they consciously think about theory - the better it gets. They worry more about what and how they write, and less about how to describe it, and they rarely lie awake at night searching for the "true" description of an iamb.

Let me describe a little exercise to you. I made a list of those poets I consider the most talented fifteen or twenty regular contributors to the Sphere. (I won't give you the entire list, because then I'd piss off other friends and associates, but it includes Maz and Wendy and Oliver and Kevin, and Tim and Rose and Jim and John and Jan and so on and so forth.) The identities are not important. What I believe is important is that I can't recall when one of those individuals - and this goes back about four years - has ever spent as much time talking about theory and labels and their own particular take on them, and what they want to do with their own poetry, and how they want to post - and so forth and so on - as you have on this thread. As a matter of fact, some of our very best Sphere writers almost never participate in discussions of scansion. To paraphrase an old joke about the Russian man and woman - strangers - who found themselves sharing an overnight compartment on a train: Enough of this love talk - let's write!

I have withdrawn the initial topic of this thread, and all but one of my posts. I would be happy to see it stay open for any further examples you would wish to share.

After reviewing the forum rules I noticed the following:
I assumed this applied only to the critical forums. My apologies for the gross misunderstanding. Thank you to those who shared, whether for comment or complaint. Both were helpful.

Sincerely,
Jason

[This message has been edited by Jason Kerr (edited June 14, 2006).]

In fairness to Jason, he did pose this question only because he was invited to on another thread. Like a mensch, he went and did it.

I think we may have shot the messenger.

--CS


Editing in to note that I was the first shooter. I include myself in the scolding above, and I wasn't singling out anybody in particular. Not even Michael Cantor. My first post above made a flip remark about verbose over-analysis, which was supposed to be, oh, some kind of sophisticated rhetorical maneuver indicating that Janet had cheesed me off. I didn't mean to imply that Jason was verbosely over-analyzing in his initial post.

Alright, enough out of me.



[This message has been edited by Clay Stockton (edited June 14, 2006).]

Sowwy Cway.

Janet, it happens.

And will again.
Peace

Michael C, I’ve often admired your robust pronouncements, but this time I have to say you’ve been unfair to Jason and any of the rest of us who think craft issues are sometimes worth a bit of discussion. If a given topic isn’t worth your time to discuss, why spend your time crapping on it for those who think otherwise?

If your objection is to all craft or “theory” discussion in general, why single out this thread? Why no similar comments from you on the “West Chester Reviews and Gossip” thread, for example? That concerns a conference (which only a tiny fraction of us were able to attend) where, among other things, craft matters and “theory” were discussed — no doubt including prosody issues involving scansion.

To be quite clear, I’m very far from objecting to the West Chester thread — just wondering why you singled out Jason’s thread (which he was invited to start) as a place to argue that everything but actual writing is a waste of time.

Henry




[This message has been edited by Henry Quince (edited June 14, 2006).]

Henry -

You misunderstand my agenda. My response was aimed very specifically at comments Jason made about his poetry, and his ambitions for his poetry, in several lengthy posts. Those posts have been deleted. Without knowing what I was responding to, I think you are jumping to a conclusion based on seeing only half the dialogue. And, without the slightest clue as to what my interests were at West Chester you apparently assume that, if I was there, I attended and lustily cheered through every panel discussion and lecture, from Russian translations through dramatic monologue through meter. C'mon!

Additionally, you comment, If your objection is to all craft or theory” discussion in general..., and assume I argue that everything but actual writing is a waste of time. But, Henry, I never said that. What I did say was that the best writers...focus on craft, not theory. And I was addressing myself specifically to Jason. (My apologies, Jason, for dragging this up after you deleted it.) Based on the poems he has posted to date, I felt that Jason was far too concerned with discussing the fine points of the concepts of running, and ignoring the fact that first you have to learn to walk. And I don't see what's wrong with either making that point, or trying to point to examples of other writers as motivation.

Also, I have to distinguish between "craft" and "theory", as I used it in my post. Possibly we have different definitions, but to me "craft" is the mechanics of making a poem work - using rhyme properly, knowing how to mix slant and perfect rhymes, tuning the meter and the rhythm to underline the intent of the poem, using metrical tricks to emphasize certain phrases, working with sound, knowing and utilizing the difference between a long sound and a clipped sound, playing with assonance and consonance - and I adore "craft", it is the heart of the poem, and will discuss it until dawn. I also believe that the best way to work on your craft is to write poetry (and, obviously, to workshop it and get feedback.)

"Theory" is far more divorced (in my mind) from the mechanics, the context and the quality of a specific poem; and is more concerned with values and labels (Is that a trochaic line, or does it start with a headless iamb...) that very often float in air, too distant from the poem in question. It's a great deal of fun for some, but I personally feel that it's a dangerous kind of fun, that it can lead to obscure and sterile writing, and that a poet's emphasis (as opposed to a scholar's) should be on craft.

I hope that clears up some of what I was after. If you're still unhappy, perhaps we can take this to the the PMs or, in more Corleonian terms, to the mattresses.

Michael



[This message has been edited by Michael Cantor (edited June 15, 2006).]

(Henry, Michael - guys, shhhhhhhhhhhhhh! I'm writing.)
Okay, here is my shortened ode to this cut short thread - an humble acquiesence:

The chair that I imagined

It's lines were like infinity's ass;
the curvatures and slope divined
an apparition of reclined
annunciation.

But 'twas an oafish prophecy
too early come to profit from;
I leant upon its grace - astounded?
I was floored.



[This message has been edited by Jason Kerr (edited June 15, 2006).]

"Theory" is far more divorced (in my mind) from the mechanics, the context and the quality of a specific poem; and is more concerned with values and labels - to me, theory can be condensed conclusions offered after having read and appreciated loads of poems. It can make the implicit explicit, so that we have a shared vocabulary to discuss our likes. It can help us to appreciate pieces that at first appear alien to our aesthetics (it can widen our minds). It can be used to help debunk assertions about what's Right and Wrong in poetry. Even the strange stuff at the theory end of the LitEssay-LitCrit-LitTheory spectrum can contain the odd useful scrap.
I wouldn't expect a sports player to be well versed in theories of perception and aerodynamics, but sports coaches are increasingly turning to theorists to understand how to deal with spinning balls, etc, and the players benefit.

I am still interested in reading quality examples where the distinction between met/non is blurred. http://www.textetc.com/aspects/a-open-forms.html has some comments/refs about why people might distrust but not fully abandon met. There's some other stuff on my http://www2.eng.cam.ac.uk/~tpl/texts/looseningup.html
page. Books like "Modernist Form" (J. S. Childs) try to show how some of the functions of rhyme and met are now partly achieved by other means.

Tim,
I suppose one could say that poets were trying to create a form of notation--like dancers. Dancers know that it simply isn't possible to describe everything. Poets will have to accept that as well, I believe.
The other difficulty is that poets must be pretty developed before they know what is worth measuring. The danger is that poetry might get into the hands of the bean counters and Orpheus be swamped by drudges.
A cautious approach by poets is advisable. It depends on temperaments. Sometimes it's best to let others decribe what the poet has done.
Janet

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).]