[W.F. Lantry]

Originally Posted by Tony Barnstone

I think that this stuff is stuff I can get away with, but, truly, I'm making the rules up as I go.

Tony,

It would take a while to convince me that spondees actually exist, but that's a discussion for another day. I liked Maryann's red wheelbarrow joke, precisely because it's relevant, since your position seems to be heading for his variable foot. If Williams is right when he says 'there's no such thing as free verse,' a position I tend to agree with, the natural next step is to look at the "spaces" (his term, not mine), and find variability there, which is what you seem to be doing, unless I'm misunderstanding.

The problem I have is making 'useful sense' of it. I think you've got the right approach, looking at practice to draw conclusions, instead of trying to overlay rules of personal taste onto the work. But this is the same problem Williams had: when the definition is by nature variable, how can one define practice with any certainty? Even talking about it becomes difficult: when does the double headless use become tetrameter? When does it become simplified or simplistic hetmet? Everytime I consider this, I decide the only thing to do is renounce pragmatism, and simply appreciate the effect. Maybe that's the most pragmatic solution of all?

Thanks,

Bill