[RCL]

A textual question and a content question. I can't find another copy of "The Most of It" and wonder if "morning" should have an "s" at the end. Otherwise, isn't it questionable that he ever did cry out? Is it possible that "the most of it" is that, ironically, the buck confirms the speaker's initial assumption--that he IS alone and the most of it (life) he has is his masculine self that echoes him in the buck's primal form?

[Sharon]

Thinking my way through here: "Bird Song" is dominated by vowel sounds, soft consonants, plain language and exact rhymes. So is st. one of "Most of It". This is broken by the remarkable "boulder-broken beach" and from that phrase onward the lines are dominated by heavy alliteration. The end rhymes are harsh with 'd' sounds; and these are emphasized within the lines. A masculine harshness and anger (?) or frustration is created, making the closing rhyme "waterfall..was all" with its 'dying fall' powerfully despondent.

Word connotations contrast in the two poems as well. "Most of It" employs power connotations "proving..powerfully... crumpled..pouring etc" -- often tied by alliteration to one another. "Bird Song" uses gentler words and sounds "daylong voice...tone... eloquence... infulence" etc, tied together with vowel sounds.

But it's Eve who changes the universe, while the buck stumbles... forces the underbrush -- but nothing seems changed by his visitation.

Sharon

[Alan Sullivan]

For RCL, it is "morning" in my book. Sharon typed accurately. So the cry is not something done in the past from time to time. It is future, and conditional.

I'm inclined to agree with both you and Sharon. Frost is stoically resigned to the isolation and rigidity of his own masculine nature. He never does utter that cry, except in the poem. And he wistfully views the feminine from afar, without expectation of union.

Alan

[Curtis Gale Weeks]

Never Again Would Birds' SongBANNED POST Be the Same


He would declare and could himself believe
That the birds there in all the garden round
From having heard the daylong voice of Eve
Had added to their voice an oversound,
Her tone of meaning but without the words.
Admittedly an eloquence so soft
Could only have had an influence on birds
When call or laughter carried it aloft.
Be that as may be, she was in their song.
Moreover her voice upon their voices crossed
Had now persisted in the woods so long
That probably it never would be lost.
Never again would birds' song be the same.
And to do that to birds was why she came.

Ok, I'm wanting to explore the meter a bit, because I've received an interesting comment concerning a poem I posted to the Metrical Poetry forum (Death's Reception).


Frost certainly played loosely with meter, preferring a conversational tone.BANNED POST Here's how I scan it; let me know of alternative readings:

BANNED POST

He WOULD deCLARE and COULD himSELF beLIEVE
That the BIRDS THERE in ALLthe GARDen ROUND
From HAVing HEARD the DAYlong VOICE of EVE
Had ADDed TO their VOICEan OverSOUND,
Her TONE of MEANing BUT withOUT the WORDS.
AdMITtedLY an ELoQUENCE so SOFT
Could ONly have HAD an INfluENCE on BIRDS
When CALL or LAUGHter CARried IT aLOFT.
BE that as MAY BE, SHE was IN their SONG.
MoreOver her VOICE upONtheir VOICes CROSSED
Had NOW perSISTed IN the WOODS so LONG
That PROBabLY it NEVer WOULD be LOST.
NEVer aGAIN would BIRDS' SONG be the SAME.
And to do THAT to BIRDS was WHY she CAME.

______


I've colored in red the words which bear either a weak or a theoretical stress--I actually make a distinction between the two:

Weak stresses are actual stresses in multisyllabic words which are generally unstressed significantly in natural speech, but are often more stressed by readers of poetry who appreciate or demand a "poetic" cadence in their readings:BANNED POST adMITtedLY, ELoQUENCE, INfluENCE, PROBabLY.


Theoretical stresses are stresses of two kinds:

1. Stresses which are assumed to be stresses in a "poetic cadential" reading--to keep the cadential meter--but are usually unstressed in common speech: TO, BUT, IT, IN.
   
2. Stresses which are assumed to be stresses because they carry a significant meaning in the poem, as of a contrast or inclusion of a normally insignificant thing beyond its generic meaning; these stresses occur in natural speech when we strive to make a specific point, but the words involved are generally unstressed:BANNED POST THERE, SHE, IN. (As in, THERE to express the significance of the generally common location of the events--the garden--or, as in, SHE was IN, to stress the fact that a common mortal--SHE--commingled with the birds--IN an unusual way.)

Frost devoted much of his energies toward writing poetry with common speech, as well as promoting common speech patterns for poetry--Beyond specific poems, this may be his greatest influence on poets who have come afterward. Considering this fact, and the fact that I also enjoy writing/reading poetry which uses common speech significantly, I am more inclined to read the poem in this manner:

He WOULD deCLARE and COULD himSELF beLIEVE
That the BIRDS THERE in ALL the GARDen ROUND
From HAVing HEARD the DAYlong VOICE of EVE
Had ADDed to their VOICE an OverSOUND,
Her TONE of MEANing but withOUT the WORDS.
AdMITtedly an ELoquence SO SOFT
Could ONly have HAD an INfluence on BIRDS
When CALL or LAUGHter CARried it aLOFT.
BE that as MAY BE, SHE was IN their SONG.
MoreOver her VOICE upON their VOICes CROSSED
Had NOW perSISTed in the WOODS SO LONG
That PROBably it NEVer WOULD be LOST.
NEVer aGAIN would BIRDS' SONG be the SAME.
And to do THAT to BIRDS was WHY she CAME.

I have added a stress on SO because I believe that the meaning intended by Frost and gleaned by myself is of how much this lady's (Eve's) voice carried those qualities of being eloquently "soft" and of being in the woods "long;" I believe those qualities are stressed in order to stress the great change she had on the birds' song.


The meaning behind this poem--the significance of the message--seems to me to be of more importance than worrying about dactyls, anapests, etc., and I believe that Frost decided to deliver his poems in a conversational cadence (albeit, brilliantly).BANNED POST A conversational cadence might possibly be one way in which a poet may leap the boundaries of the words on the page into a closer commingling with an auditor; it's an intimacy, as of the sharing of insight and awe between two close acquaintances.


--Curtis.



[This message has been edited by Curtis Gale Weeks (edited 09-04-2000).]

[Paul Deane]

All this discussion of stresses triggers
a few of my pet peeves.

But first a generic comment: you have
to distinguish the METER from the way
you would PERFORM the poem. Some people
prefer to perform poems in ways that
bring out the meter; others prefer to
perform poems in a "natural voice" and
let the audience hear the meter in their
mind only. You can perform a poem without
overstressing weak or theoretical stresses,
without thereby changing the meter.

That's how I take your comments, as how
you would READ the poem, not really a
discussion of what the underlying meter
might be. Of course, I could be wrong.

Anyhow, though, as a devotee of alliterative
verse, I've very much had to learn the
distinction between "weak" and "theoretical"
stresses on the one hand, and natural
strong stresses on the other. Alliterative
verse only counts natural strong stresses
as beats that can bear alliteration.

It's precisely the promotion of weak and
theoretical beats that establishes an
iambic meter as such.

Paul

[Curtis Gale Weeks]

Originally posted by Paul Deane:
All this discussion of stresses triggers
a few of my pet peeves.

But first a generic comment: you have
to distinguish the METER from the way
you would PERFORM the poem. Some people
prefer to perform poems in ways that
bring out the meter; others prefer to
perform poems in a "natural voice" and
let the audience hear the meter in their
mind only. You can perform a poem without
overstressing weak or theoretical stresses,
without thereby changing the meter.

That's how I take your comments, as how
you would READ the poem, not really a
discussion of what the underlying meter
might be. Of course, I could be wrong.

Anyhow, though, as a devotee of alliterative
verse, I've very much had to learn the
distinction between "weak" and "theoretical"
stresses on the one hand, and natural
strong stresses on the other. Alliterative
verse only counts natural strong stresses
as beats that can bear alliteration.

It's precisely the promotion of weak and
theoretical beats that establishes an
iambic meter as such.

Paul

Paul,

Many discussions or debates about meter end in either one of two ways: The participants go their separate ways, entirely unconvinced of the opposing view; or, they conclude that the subject of what is or isn't stressed is a highly subjective evaluation in most cases which can not be set in stone. Even "natural stresses" aren't always stressed in common speech. Etc.

Your distinction between performance and meter is important; but the question becomes: Which is more important? At some point, the two overlap. The next question is: Can a poem be "great" (or "very good") which does not closely adhere to iambic pentameter but which nonetheless performs well? Another question I would ask is: Why is "iambic pentameter" so highly esteemed by some poets and so highly derided by others? (I understand and agree in part to both views.)

Frost certainly included "weak" and "theoretical" stresses for a purpose; he used them well for his "meter," and they allowed plenty of room for individual "performances/experiences." But I am not certain that adhering to established metrical patterns is the only avenue toward writing great poetry. Multiple patterns can exist which create the "flow" of ice on a hot stove which Frost believed was essential for good poetry. (Yes, he spoke of meaning; but delivery might flow as well.)--A final question would be: Can new cadential patterns be created which vary greatly with strictly iambic pentameter, or strictly anapestic, etc.? I suspect that more complex patterns exist; an auditor's unfamiliarity with them is not proof of their inefficiency.

And again, who is the sentinel of Stress? "Metrical poetry" is sometimes defined as "Iambic Pentameter Poetry, With Minor Variation Allowed." Yet, even the static of the Universe has patterns hidden in it. Metrical, or "Patterned," poetry need not be defined as a variation of/on iambic pentameter. (Not that iambic pentameter isn't wonderful, which it is when it's used well...)--The necessary thing seems to be that a pattern exists, not what shape that pattern takes.

--Curtis.

[Alan Sullivan]

He WOULD deCLARE and COULD himSELF beLIEVE
That the BIRDS THERE in ALL the GARDen ROUND
From HAVing HEARD the DAYlong VOICE of EVE
Had ADDed to their VOICE an OverSOUND,
Her TONE of MEANing but withOUT the WORDS.
AdMITtedly an ELoquence SO SOFT
Could ONly have HAD an INfluence on BIRDS
When CALL or LAUGHter CARried it aLOFT.
BE that as MAY BE, SHE was IN their SONG.
MoreOver her VOICE upON their VOICes CROSSED
Had NOW perSISTed in the WOODS SO LONG
That PROBably it NEVer WOULD be LOST.
NEVer aGAIN would BIRDS' SONG be the SAME.
And to do THAT to BIRDS was WHY she CAME.

This is your second reading, Curtis, and I can accept some of it, but not all. You MUST promote the third syllable of "eloquence," no matter how you wish to read "so." And the same for "influence." Nor would I eliminate, in conversation or otherwise, some secondary stress on the prepositions, where they fit the iambic pattern. Tim Steele uses a four level notation of stress, but he prefers a topographical map to capture the full subtlety. Many of Frost's apparent ambiguities become clearer with this approach. His meter is usually more regular than you might think. I cannot imagine why you would want to meddle with a metrical pattern the poet took some trouble to craft. He could have written non-metrical verse, had he chosen. There are some extant recordings of Frost, and a close listen might help clarify his intent. Some may even be on the web, though my slow connection would not permit me to access them.

Alan

[This message has been edited by Alan Sullivan (edited 09-04-2000).]

[Curtis Gale Weeks]

Originally posted by Alan Sullivan:

This is your second reading, Curtis, and I can accept some of it, but not all. You MUST promote the third syllable of "eloquence," no matter how you wish to read "so." And the same for "influence." Nor would I eliminate, in conversation or otherwise, some secondary stress on the prepositions, where they fit the iambic pattern. Tim Steele uses a four level notation of stress, but he prefers a topographical map to capture the full subtlety. Many of Frost's apparent ambiguities become clearer with this approach. His meter is usually more regular than you might think. I cannot imagine why you would want to meddle with a metrical pattern the poet took some trouble to craft. He could have written non-metrical verse, had he chosen. There are some extant recordings of Frost, and a close listen might help clarify his intent. Some may even be on the web, though my slow connection would not permit me to access them.

Alan

Alan,

Actually, I read it either way, stressing the last syllable on both "influence" and "eloquence" minutely, or not. I think it depends on whether or not I'm reading it while specifically drawing out the sound--This might be called a "poetic reading": You know, when poets take special care with voice readings to draw out the sounds. Conversationally, however...For me, the placement of it determines whether or not I stress the last syllable over the syllable it follows. The stress seems to be so minute as to require a special attention to make it significant. My Webster's gives the pronunciation of the two words with one stress (on the first syllable) and no secondary stress whatsoever--I will be the last person to always adhere to my Webster's, but surely this is significant?

My point in general is the fact that those weak or theoretical stresses are interpreted differently by different people; in fact, I now know that my examples of the last syllables of "eloquence" and "influence" in my first post above is incorrect according to Webster: they're actually theoretical, not weak stresses. I am not meddling with Frost's meter. Merely because the words he wrote fell in a stanza form does not mean that they absolutely follow the same meter for me as they did for him. I know the traditions (not all, certainly), and therefore I know that he--and others--intend stresses for syllables which are not de facto stresses; but this in no way means that they are. Furthermore, as is usually the case, the poem becomes mine--the auditor's--when I read it; should I interpret the cadence to please Frost and make it more "metrical?" I actually consider my reading to be metrical. He might like my reading. (?)

Steele's notational system sounds interesting. Could it add a different dimension to poetry?--I mean, if the notational system were included in the writing of poems in the same manner that musical notations are included for scores?("Allegro!") If so, then a poet could present the entire package and say, "See--This is how you read it!" solidifying it for all time.

--Curtis.



[This message has been edited by Curtis Gale Weeks (edited 09-04-2000).]

[Josh Hill]

The Frost recordings are available at
http://town.hall.org/Archives/radio/..._harp_ITH.html

and they're well worth listening to. The impression I got is that he reads very naturally, placing stresses where the dictionary says they belong, accenting or not accenting optional words according to natural patterns of speech and their rhythmic and rhetorical importance, and superposing expressive promotion or demotion on those patterns, rather than supplanting them.

I agree that "Eloquence" cannot be read with a primary or secondary stress on any but the first syllable, and like Curtis I hear the possibility of a minute accent there. It seems to me likely that Frost chose the word because the last two syllables are, like Eve's speech, is "so soft."

According to Webster's, "influence" has a secondary stress on the second syllable--I don't pronounce it with that stress myself, but it seems to me that it can be pronounced with or without a secondary accent there without doing violence to the meter.

Josh

[Alan Sullivan]

Guess I'm getting in a little trouble with Webster here, but I wasn't even thinking about Webster when I insisted on the secondary stress. I was thinking about meter. In a time when the very survival of metrical speech is in jeopardy, I am rather fundamentalist about formalism. (Duh! But it needed saying.) I think we had altogether enough of the "conversational voice" in the last century, and of the egalitarianism that inspires it. If putative formalists promote this notion, they help to seal the extinction of metrical practice per se.

That said, there are ambiguities aplenty. When there is ambiguity, I go, on principle, in the direction of a metrical pattern to resolve it. A system as definite as musical notation would be a boon, but we are not dealing in definite values. We do not sing our speech on particular notes. So any such system would do violence to the phenomenon it describes. As I hear it, metrical speech occupies a zone partway between song and conversational speech. Chop up the rhythm, and you break that all-important connection with music.

I'm glad the Frost recordings are out there. Alas, my rural connection is not up to the task.



[This message has been edited by Alan Sullivan (edited 09-05-2000).]