Spell Check & Scan Check
 

Can I liken the two, or is it too provocative? Posters are expected to spell check their poems before posting them in a workshop for critique. We all find it frustrating from time to time when someone fails to do that. But what about scanning a metrical poem? My guess is many people write by ear and get it wrong from time to time, but if they scanned their poem before posting they might snap up some of the mistakes. So it is such a bad thing to do?

Of course, some "flaws" are intentional and therefore not flaws at all; they're irregularities; someone might actually want, say, a four-beat line in a five-beat poem. However, I truly think that there are others who are striving for the same number of beats or same meter throughout a poem and that they really would catch some mistakes if they bothered to give the poem a last-minute scan.

That might be true for the occasional one-beat-short line, but those are easily caught and fixed by the first critter.

For me, the main reason scansion is not like spell checking is that scansion has subjective elements. Often a criticism of scansion is not about error but about hearing differently. One poet may pronounce a word like "file" with two syllables; others will hear one, and they'll hear that line as short. Another may use a lot of anapestic substitutions; those might scan properly in his or her own ears, while others find those lines too bumpy.

ms Carter and even ms Witherspoon, to her great credit, gat quite a few notes/beats out of the word 'I' while singing 'Jackson'

having said that, I frequently (relative to the frequency of my posting) offer up lines a syllable or a foot short, and then have the shortcoming pointed out to me

then I decide what, if anything, to do about it

the boards here are heavily loaded with discouraging factors

no more

It's remarkably easy to come out with a line that's a foot short. The only way is to RECITE the thing out loud, which may not be a good thing to do in the middle of the night - when I wite a good deal of my stuff. Sometimes a line seems to scan on Monday and doesn't on Tuesdays. That's particularly so when yoiu are using one of those LONG lines. It's MUCH more dofficult than spelling, or it is to me. The spellcheck provided by microsoft is bloody useless, but I suppose it's better than nothing. But even when it's turned over to 'English Spelling' it doesn't know how to spell in English. I can't stand having things like 'theater' and 'labor' popping up all over the place. That man Webster has a lot to answer for.

I suppose it's 'British Spelling' but the Scots can do as they like.

Scanning is immensely personal. It is very dependent on accent. Spell Check is maddening for Brits and others of that spelling persuasion. I have come to spell in several ways. I always write "meter" on Eratosphere because it's how most of you write it. I decided years ago to adopt the American spelling of "program" since the French/English spelling seemed unnecessarily floral. I like the etymological clues which remain in English spelling. The Australian "Labor" party uses American spelling although the normal way to spell the word in Australia is "labour". But then the "conservative/reactionary" party is called "Liberal". Politics makes its own rules.

The spellcheck provided by microsoft is bloody useless, but I suppose it's better than nothing. But even when it's turned over to 'English Spelling' it doesn't know how to spell in English. I can't stand having things like 'theater' and 'labor' popping up all over the place. That man Webster has a lot to answer for.

I suppose it's 'British Spelling' but the Scots can do as they like.

John, I just don't understand this comment. The spellcheck in my Word programme, dating from 2002, offers 15 different world varieties of English as well as English (UK) and English (US), though not Scots, I notice. You just set your default langauge to English(UK) and it accepts 'theatre' and so on.

The only drawback I've come across is that if you read a downloaded American text it sometimes trips the default language back to English (US) and you have to reset English (UK) via Tools. Maybe that's what's been happening to you?

It must be possible to produce a programme which would check scansion as well as spelling, highlight inversions, duff rhymes, repetitions, non sequiturs etc, but it wouldn't be as good as the Sphere.

That's why I don't use my real name around here.

PS--
But I think Petra just means to say that we shouldn't post poems with stupid mistakes in them, whether it's spelling or meter. I can't imagine anyone seriously disagrees with the sentiment. I think she's talking about absolutely glaring metrical mistakes, not arguable ones. Personally, I try to live by that rule myself, but I find it reassuring when a poet I admire proves mortal by the occasional dropped beat.

Yes, Holly, it would be programmatic. Which my little fierce soul would find problematic!

Jerome, maybe what you describe is the problem. I shall look into it. WHY does it go back to this default setting? It shouldn't, should it? Of course I don't write 'theater', but it's just annoying that it wants me to. Also, why does it dislike long sentences? Is there anyway I can stop it telling me to shorten my sentences? I'm not Henry James for God's sake. And it has a very shaky grasp of grammar.

When I first started writing in meter, I found the best way to scan check my stuff was to ask one of my preteen kids or their friends to read it outloud to me. They didn't start into it with a notion of what meter was or what type of meter I was aiming for, they just read it...naturally?? They didn't force anything to suit their own ear. Sounds weird but it worked for me.

Donna

Does anyone have a problem with the Brits' spelling? I think Petra is talking about blatant misspellings.

I tend to have typo's that are not picked up by spellcheck, and I apologize for those. I am trying to proofread more carefully, both here and in my submissions (which have also been riddled with typo's...I am flighty and have too many pets asking for stuff all the time.)

As far as scanning for meter--well, sure, that's why I'm posting. I scan it, think I'm hearing it, read it out loud, wonder if any substitutions are working and worthwhile, and then I post it. And then I am 'schooled,' as they say. I post in the hopes that someone will comment on content, meter, etc. I do not post for praise in my scanning ability.

Spelling issues: I haven't seen many errors, just variants. But I may be suffering from teaching basic learners for so long that I am impervious to spelling errors, or have absorbed common misspellings as correct.

Scanning: I think we are all doing our best.

mary ann

John, it sounds as if you have the grammar-check 'checked' (or 'ticked').
In Word, go to Tools, then Options and then Spelling and Grammar where you can uncheck the grammar boxes. I found the grammar and style interference (presumably your long sentences problem) maddening (? based on some geek's reading of Strunk and White) until I switched it off. You could also switch off the spell-check, but I find this useful for picking up typos, as my ageing keyboard tends to run words together. The occasional flip back to English (US) is only a minor irritation and easily corrected, via Tools, Language.

Janet, as we're linguistically, culturally and geographically such near neighbours I much prefer (it's mainly visual, after all) the French 'centre' 'metre' etc spellings. It's sometimes useful too to distinguish between e.g. the measuring device and the measurement, as in UK 'meter' 'metre'. So I prefer 'programme', except in the case of 'computer program', a historical nod to the American contribution to software development?

Good idea, Petra. I think posters should also check syntax and grammar for errors, metaphors to make sure they're well stated and pertinent, messages for clarity, hidden messages for obscurity, and voice for consistency.

In other words, if you take yourself and your poetry seriously, you don't dash something off as quickly as you can type, and post it for critique. Spelling is a small part of this but, yes, it's mechanical and easy to check (within the parameters of trans-oceanic differences.) Everything else - including meter - is judgement.

Let me expand on Petra's request. Don't give your poem a "last-minute scan." Work your poem before you think about posting. Over and over and over. Read it to yourself. Make sure it's as good as you can make it - not "good enough" to wave at the Sphere and start getting comments and help. Far too often I see work posted here that looks like a quickly written draft - the kind of stuff that gets passed back and forth during boring lectures. It's not the spelling or the meter - it's the attitude.

Easier than Jerome's fix. Set the language in each of your templates to British English, or whatever you like, save the templates. Done.

Or, avoid a one time nuisance for a continuing one: forget the templates and remember to set the language in every document.

PM me if you want details.

Best,
Marcia

I get hours of harmless pleasure instructing mine.

It's a jolly little pantomime. A sentence is proposed. The Demon King twirls his moustache and underlines a word - Oh, no it isn't! The Principal Boy slaps his thigh and tosses his curls - Oh, yes it is! And with a flourish he pulls out the magic wossname, touches the secret button and, as the audience squeals with appreciation and delight, adds the rescued word to the Microsoft dictionary. Oestrogen - Theatre - Arse...

Do you think I should get out more...?

Oh, it's more or less what Bob said. Some obvious metrical errors, which aren't so blatant while drafting, could be caught if the poet bothered to question every line once the poem is finished: does each line have the intended number of beats? Furthermore, ís every line metrically clear, or are there ambiguous lines that could screw up the read in a way the poet wouldn't want? Is the poem really metrical at all? Why or why not? If a poet has never learned to scan (in the belief their ear is "perfect" or because they're too lazy or scared), then they could at least take the time to examine every line before posting and ask general questions of the type phrased above. I think there are poets who don't bother to do that, and frankly I don't think it's right to expect critiquers to snap up everything for the poet. Just as the poet should check their own spelling, the poet should check their meter before posting. Maybe they won't find all the errors, and naturally they'll still have some points that are debatable, but chances are they'll catch some things and change them before posting.

I would agree with most all that's said here, definitely, unless I were e. e. cummings. *wink*



Edit: And, unfortunately, I'm not!

you poor pissy prigs
maybe this thread should be obligatory reading for all newcomers thinking of posting poems for critique

Du skal ikke tro at du er noget
Du skal ikke tro du er lige så meget som os
Du skal ikke tro du er klogere end os
Du skal ikke bilde dig ind at du er bedre end os
Du skal ikke tro du ved mere end os
Du skal ikke tro du er mere end os
Du skal ikke tro at du duer til noget
Du skal ikke le ad os
Du skal ikke tro at nogen bryder sig om dig
Du skal ikke tro du kan lære os noget

Jantelagen hardly applies in this context. This thread is not meant to threaten newcomers. It's simply a wish that both newcomers and oldcomers would check their meter as well as they can before they post. And personally, I do wish more people would read about metrics and not only rely on their ear when writing. In general I think there's a negative attitude to scansion, and I've never really understood it.

Because I'm a grown-up I don't use Spell Check.

The "mistakes" in our scansion are our own and are a jolly good indication of what our poetry is about. Mechanically supervised scansion would send me to the nearest suicide jump. It is possibly the best definition of Hell that I have encountered.

Where does The Deep End fit into all this? I thought that was for the more experienced poets who require a more unforgiving level of criticism and who have worked their poems to a higher standard. The fiercer criteria seem to be more relevant there and I'd agree wholeheartedly with their adoption (even though I believed they were adopted already!)

But surely there has to be somewhere for relatively makey-learney poets to try their wings? I don't think many would deliberately post something they knew was crap and there is such a thing as tempering the wind to the shorn lamb. Why have two levels of "Metric" otherwise?

"It is a damn poor mind indeed which can't think of at least two ways to spell any word.”
--President Andrew Jackson

Deleted by request.
I apologise for my joke.
Janet

Ann, the original and still operative idea behind Metrical is that it's a place to learn. And sometimes we do have newcomers who need if for that, but not always. Janet's right about its use as a testing ground, or a place for early drafts, since the Deep End rubric says "work should be well developed...."

It's also true at times--this changes--that different groups of people congregate on the different boards. I find it valuable to post on each of the main boards, and translation too, once in a while, just to see a wider range of responses to my habits. But this is getting away from the topic of meter and scansion; forgive my straying.

What Petra said. Since only a small minority of two in this thread can understand your post, Peter, I suggest you translate it for the larger community and give the context.

For the record, I deleted my previous post on confusing its and it's because it caused misunderstanding, not because of your mention of the jantelag.

And we all type the wrong it's/its sometimes when our blood sugar is low. Spell Check wouldn't detect that.

Do your best. Assume good will. Those take care of a lot of it, I think.

David R.

Nobody claimed it would, Janet.

Obviously I am not talking about typos, I am talking about not knowing the difference; in a broader context, I am talking about a general tendency of not knowing, or not caring, enough about the poem and comments one puts up.

Mary Ann

I think you mean "typos"?

:D

P

I was staying on topic Janice. I didn't read your other thread.

My personal complaint is with "your" and "you're". It has receded a little I think.

Holly

You introduce an interesting point. I have made an intensive study of automatic textual analysis and I can tell you that there is no known algorithm for reducing text to syllables (in English at least), let alone "scanning". Partly because there are no universally accepted rules, but, moreso, because English has its roots in so many other languages and inherits their varying stress patterns.

I made considerable progress on the matter (and I am no mean programmer) by analysing a number of available electronic dictionaries (there are a fair few) but eventually gave up because my own ear was undoubtedly better. One has to hard code so many exceptions to any rules one cares to dream up.

There are some reasonable heuristics but they fail often enough to make them not worth the candle.

I think I might be saddened had I been successful.

Philip

Jerome, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, the original English spelling was "program" and the fancy version was added later on.
I was marginally involved with a multi-volume history of performance and it was decided to use the simpler spelling.

Other than for obvious typos/ignorances (its for it's, e.g.), there's no profit in trying to decide whether anomalies are mistakes or not. Metrical regularity is not an end in itself (notwithstanding the mindset around here); it's a means to an end. Metrical substitutions are neither good nor bad in themselves; they, too, are means to ends. What matters is whether they help or hinder the poem's achievement; and the poet's "intentions"--assuming you were capable of reading enough pigeon entrails to determine them--are irrelevant. "But I meant it to be that way" has never salvaged a lousy line; and "Hey, I was writing better than I knew" is just as good as any other explanation.

RHE

Thanks, (Janet and) Maryann. I would hate to be perceived as (or to become) one of Peter's Jante people, though. I shall consider that carefully while seeking out a thread from months ago whereon someone posted a poem about a similar situation. All good headfood; I shall digest it. Again, thanks.

Any discussion of scansion usually raises interesting and differing opinions. This particular thread prompted me to poke through my bookcase and retrieve a text from my university years: Sound and Sense: An Introduction to Poetry by Laurence Perrine (Harcourt Brace, Third Edition, 1969). This classic poetry handbook was originally published in 1956 and has gone through many editions. I don't know if it's still in print, but for decades it served as a bible for students undertaking a serious study of poetry.

Here are a few excerpts from Chapter 12, "Rhythm and Meter":

Scansion is at best a gross way of describing the rhythmical quality of a poem. It depends on classifying all syllables into either accented or unaccented categories and on ignoring the sometimes considerable difference between degrees of accent. Whether we call a syllable accented or unaccented depends, moreover, on its degree of accent relative to the syllables on either side of it.

Scansion is not an altogether exact science. Within certain limits we may say that a certain scansion is right or wrong, but beyond these limits there is legitimate room for personal interpretation and disagreement between qualified readers.

Finally—and this is the most important generalization of all—perfect regularity of meter is no criterion of merit.

Perrine's remarks about scansion are consistent with those I've read by other eminent scholars in a variety of texts, and we would be wise to heed their insights when composing metrical poetry lest our verses become petrified.

Richard

Well said Richard. Poetry is not an opportunity to exercise discipline and restraint. The word nuance comes to mind.

What Richard Meyer said. Sage stuff.

Janet, with the greatest respect, I spit me of mere historical precedent. I prefer 'programme' to 'program' (apart from the exception I mentioned). That is, until we have a complete reform of English spelling. But it's only visual. I don't find Webster's watered down revision any bar to enjoying the contributions of those Sphereans whose ancestors, perverse as it may seem, decided to set up a republic in 17 whenever it was.

I don't think Richard said anything, or quoted anything, that everyone here doesn't already know. Very familiar stuff. But the crack about letting our meter be "petrafied" was, I think, rather unfair, since Petra also knows all the truisms about meter that Richard accurately recited. Richard's source is quoted as saying:

"Within certain limits we may say that a certain scansion is right or wrong"

Surely Petra's point had to do with mistakes existing within those acknowledged limits. I certainly did not hear her call for perfect regularity of meter, or claim that outside those certain limits there may not be frequent and intelligent disagreement and opinionating that cannot be neatly and unanimously declared either right or wrong.

Some folks have taken this simple and perhaps unnecessary observation as an occasion to proclaim their own sophistication in matters metrical and to assure the rest of us that they are beyond mechanical rules of sing-song verse and no prisoners to scansion like rank beginners. Well, bully for you all. I pretty much take that for granted about just about everyone here, if you must know, including Petra, and there's really no need to strut about possessing a quality we all have in common.

But notwithstanding our nuanced sophistication, let's face it. There's such a thing as a metrical gaffe, the kind of mistake even its perpetrator would not defend once it's pointed out. I don't see many of them here, but I agree it would behoove us all to try to spot those before we post, particularly if we are posting the Deep End.

we would be wise to heed their insights when composing metrical poetry lest our verses become petrafied.

A meynor spelling mistake, Richard, or are you being malicious?