Jennifer:
Thank you for your comment. I've noticed that here and elsewhere you don't seem to like variations in meter. As you may know, certain kinds of metrical variations have been accepted for a long time. I have made it a point to learn what they are and why, before rejecting variation out of hand. One of my references for this is Richard Moore's book of essays, "The Rule that Liberates." He himself made reference to Cleanth Brooks and Robert Penn Warren's textbook/anthology of poetry.
The simplest way to state these "guidelines," as I understand them, might be to say that it's OK to invert a foot (an iamb to a trochee, for example), provided the following foot goes back to normal. I like to think of this in terms of dancing: you can lean a certain distance without falling over, provided you then lean back. If you lean out a second time instead of leaning back, then you're likely to fall. It's similar in a line of verse.
As for whether this poem is merely about failed love, see my comment in the previous entry.
Best wishes,
Claudia
|