[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Perry James

Shaun and RCL, I can't speak that line of Browning's the way you say you speak it.

If I repeat what's been said earlier in this thread, forgive me.

Promotion isn't only about pronunciation. I assume that what you object to in Shaun's analysis is the stress on "on." It gets that stress, a much lighter stress than that on "paint" and that on "wall" by virtue of being between two (other) weak syllables. Again: context.

You might feel all stresses should be hearable, and you have the right to that opinion. A poet who feels that way will want to be vigilant about avoiding monotony of rhythm, since the poet is giving up one tool for avoiding it.

I agree with Shaun's analysis of Browning's line and with his answer to your question.

[RCL]

I echo Clive except for the first foot. Once we realize what an egomaniac he is, MY seems the legitimate emphasis.

That’s MY last DUCHess PAINTed ON the WALL,
LOOking as IF she WERE aLIVE. i CALL
That PIECE a WONder, NOW; Fra PANdolf’s HANDS
Worked BUSilY a DAY, and THERE she STANDS.
WILL’it PLEASE you SIT and LOOK at HER? i SAID
“Fra PANdolf” BY deSIGN, for NEVer READ
STRANgers like YOU that PICtured COUNtenANCE,
The DEPTH and PASsion OF its EARNest GLANCE,
But TO mySELF they TURNED (since NONE puts BY
The CURtain I have DRAWN for YOU, but I)
And SEEMED as THEY would ASK me, IF they DURST,
How SUCH a GLANCE came THERE; so, NOT the FIRST
Are YOU to TURN and ASK thus. SIR, ’Twas NOT
Her HUSband’s PRESence ONly, CALLED that SPOT
Of JOY inTO the DUCHchess’ CHEEK; perHAPS
Fra PANdolf CHANCED to SAY, “Her MANtle LAPS
OVer my LAdy’s WRIST too MUCH,” or “PAINT
Must NEver HOPE to REproDUCE the FAINT
Half-FLUSH that DIES aLONG her THROAT.” Such STUFF
Was COURTesY, she THOUGHT, and CAUSE enOUGH
For CALLing UP that SPOT of JOY. She HAD
A HEART—how SHALL i SAY?—too SOON made GLAD,
Too EASilY imPRESSED; she LIKED whatE’R
She LOOKED on, AND her LOOKS went EVEry WHERE.

AND SO ON technically IPish but conversational as I hear it and you may not.

More interesting to me is how he muffles the regularly perfect couplet rhymes, creating the conversational rhythm by using a variety of caesurae. First time through, many students don’t even hear those rhymes.

[Perry James]

Originally Posted by Clive Watkins

As other have said, post your poem!

I can't post my poem yet. I was told by Alex that I had to post 15 critiques within 7 days, and then I could post my first poem. However, Jayne tells me that only 11 of my critiques are "substantive" enough to count towards the 15 (!). Being retired, I thought that I was beyond silly bureaucratic rules, but I guess I'm not.

[Michael Cantor]

You know what, Perry - Jayne is right. It's the silly bureaucratic rules that allow us to maintain a high standard of members and poetry. Otherwise, we'd have every English speaking wannabe in the world posting fifteen variations of "I really liked your poem".

[Perry James]

Max and RCL -- first, I believe that a scansion should reflect the way a poem is spoken. Secondly, when I read the first line of "My Last Duchess", I envision the speaker pointing to the painting, in which case the word "That's" would receive the emphasis. In my view, scansions which conform to the base meter as much as possible (which is what your scansion does, RCL) are not useful. The purpose of a scansion should be to show how a poem is actually spoken, in my view.

[Perry James]

Originally Posted by Michael Cantor

You know what, Perry - Jayne is right. It's the silly bureaucratic rules that allow us to maintain a high standard of members and poetry. Otherwise, we'd have every English speaking wannabe in the world posting fifteen variations of "I really liked your poem".

I don't agree. The extremely slow pace at which new poems are posted may be one of the reasons why there aren't more people participating on this forum. I keep seeing the same dozen names over and over again.

ANYWAY, my point is that it's not my fault that I haven't posted a poem yet.

[Simon Hunt]

Perry--Welcome. You may find my comments here a bit saccharine, but I mean well... I think you've shown an interest in metrics and an acumen that could make you a valuable member here. However, I question the wisdom of your jumping-in with both feet in such a way that many of your very-few posts so far call other people wrong and/or unhelpful. I think it's perfectly possible to advance your own views without being unpleasantly dismissive of others. Likewise, your dismissal of a pretty modest gatekeeping rule at such an early stage in your membership seems incautious.

My opinion is that asking new members to pay a few (very few, really) dues does mean that we cut down on time-wasters. I hope you will find the place valuable, too.

Best,

--Simon

[John Isbell]

I think Michael and Simon explain the function of that initial gatekeeping rule very well. It's a small hurdle, but a handy one. The one-week wait for each new poem is also a constraint, but it establishes a rhythm I've also come to see value in. It slows the rush and encourages measured contemplation. It allows people, including the author, to digest.

Cheers,
John

[John Isbell]

[Double post deleted]

[Perry James]

Originally Posted by Simon Hunt

Perry--Welcome. You may find my comments here a bit saccharine, but I mean well... I think you've shown an interest in metrics and an acumen that could make you a valuable member here. However, I question the wisdom of your jumping-in with both feet in such a way that many of your very-few posts so far call other people wrong and/or unhelpful. I think it's perfectly possible to advance your own views without being unpleasantly dismissive of others. Likewise, your dismissal of a pretty modest gatekeeping rule at such an early stage in your membership seems incautious.

Simon, I don't think that I've done the things you say. The people that I described as "unhelpful" in this thread were not trying to be helpful; they were, in fact, being dismissive of the purpose of the thread, and one of them was even vulgar. I also don't think that I've been unpleasantly dismissive of anyone.