Part of the problem may be that we are examining lines out of context, although even in context, I find some promotions to be unacceptable. If the promotion is so slight that you can't hear it, it isn't there.
On an intellectual level, I see our language as too complex to be so easily quantified by any metrical theory. And I object to this notion that there is an absolute right or wrong to the pronunciation of any line. For you to say that a certain line has no caesura, when I naturally speak it with a caesura, is just meaningless. If a reader has to be educated in a particular theory to read a line properly, then the line isn't well written, or the reader's unique reading has its own validity. Even the best poets can't control what the reader will do.
On a personal level, I'm tired of being told that I am wrong when in fact I just have a different point of view. Generally speaking, my views arise from my direct experience with poetry, and not from books, and I would have it no other way.
To forestall the inevitable joke, I hasten to add that I do read books and try to acquaint myself with various theories, but I disagree with many of them. A good metrical theory will apply to poetry as spoken, not to poetry as it "should" be spoken. Language in general has to have standards, but those standards need to be flexible enough for the language to breath. When you tell me that my pronunciation of a line is wrong, when it varies from yours by only a slight amount, you are being inflexible and even dogmatic.
[This message has been edited by Caleb Murdock (edited September 30, 2001).]
|
Threaded Mode
