So, Alan, you are saying that anapestic meter doesn't have to be as strict as iambic meter?
Alicia, my problem with Hardy -- many of his poems but certainly not all of them -- is primarily about clumsy word choices, not unusual rhythms. Also, I don't find in his poetry the flow that I associate with excellent poetry, not even as much flow as I see in, say, Kate Benedict's work, or in your work or Tim's or Michael's or Alan's. However, this poem doesn't have any clumsy choices to speak of, which is one of the reasons I like it and have put it on my site; but I've read other Hardy poems which really jarred me -- I even analyzed one in an article for my site, though the article is unfinished and not yet posted. I'll post that poem here, if you like.
Robert, I don't know what it means to compose "in lines". I also don't see why I shouldn't have broken the lines down into feet -- that's what metrical poetry analysis is supposed to be about: analyzing rhythms by breaking the lines into feet.
I agree that it's probably because I'm used to reading headless iambs and trochees at the beginnings of lines that line 10 is such a stopper for me -- once I started taking the emphasis off of "Sees" there was no longer a problem.
[This message has been edited by Caleb Murdock (edited August 07, 2001).]
|