I do think it is wrong to talk about "feet" here. Sure, you can scan individual lines, and much of this can be read having a dimeter swing to it--perhaps that is arguably even a failing here, a sign Plath hasn't totally broken into syllabics; though again, to talk of subsitutions doesn't make sense--it is importing another system. We are very used to doing that (hearing the beats), and it can override thinking of this in another way. But I think you have to go back, read slowly, and feel the syllables rather than worry about beats (beats also exist of course, even as syllable counts exist in accentual meter), feel how she is using the syllable count in each line.
Feel the expansion of:
The small grains make room.
Five monosyllables and five BIG monosyllables, with lots of consonants and long-ish vowels.
Or the shouldering through of this:
Shoulder through holes. We
with its shouldering through enjambment.
Very different to the use of syllable real-estate here:
We are edible,
"edible" being one of the longest words in use here and so itself called attention to, even as it devours the last three syllables in the line.
And again the emphatic monosyllables prying into the door:
Our foot's in the door.
In an accentual syllabic poem, the "in the" isn't very emphatic, it is likely to get swallowed up as unaccented syllables. But here, those syllables ARE emphatic (by which I don't mean accented, I mean emphasized) because they make up 2/5 of the line.
|