if you don't like metrical poetry
JAS Carter
the same way I do. I don't mean a "right way" versus a "wrong way,"
just if you are reading them differently, and if the difference would
in any way explain the difference in appreciation.
I can't think of a way to test it, other than to record some. Anyone
dislike metrical poetry but willing to record the short metrical poem
of your choice?
--
Julie Carter
Kenny Chaffin
says...
I think it has to do with the you're brain is wired...
KAC
--
Kenny A. Chaffin
KAC Website Design - http://www.kacweb.com
Custom/Contract Programming, Graphics, Design
Poetry Page: http://www.kacweb.com/poems/
Bruce Tindall
>I wonder if those of you who hate metrical poetry read metrical poetry
>the same way I do. I don't mean a "right way" versus a "wrong way,"
>just if you are reading them differently, and if the difference would
>in any way explain the difference in appreciation.
It might also be useful to ask such people to name a few metrical
poems that they hate. It might turn out that they think "metrical
poetry" consists only of lines that adhere strictly to the metrical
norm, without variation, and I think that most people who *like*
metrical poetry hate that kind of "metrical poetry." Maybe the
people who say they hate metrical poetry have never been introduced
to the real (i.e., more complicated that ta-TUM-ta-TUM-ta-TUM) thing.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
JAS Carter
tin...@panix.com ("Bruce Tindall") warbled oh so charmingly:
Hrm. That's an interesting idea.
I thought perhaps people who didn't like metrical poetry were
emphasizing the metrical aspects more than I do, rigorously
end-stopping lines, perhaps, that I would read as if they were
enjambed, or forcing trochaic substitutions to sound like iambs?
Oh, I don't know.
Julie Carter
--
http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
ICQ 1265510
Margaret
"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b03bab7...@news.supernews.com...
> I wonder if those of you who hate metrical poetry read metrical poetry
> the same way I do. I don't mean a "right way" versus a "wrong way,"
> just if you are reading them differently, and if the difference would
> in any way explain the difference in appreciation.
>
> I can't think of a way to test it, other than to record some. Anyone
> dislike metrical poetry but willing to record the short metrical poem
> of your choice?
>
I knew that there are those who don't like strict forms, but I didn't know
we had a contingent that says it doesn't like "metrical" poetry. In fact,
I'm not sure if I know of a single poem that doesn't have metrical
qualities...maybe my vocabulary on this score needs tweaking. To say that a
poem is not metrical is like saying a piece of music has no tempo or rhythm.
I'm actually not aware of any poem that doesn't derive at least some of its
appeal from metrical qualities. To the extent there is a debate about
"metrical poetry," I would suggest what you decline to suggest: you are in
fact reading poetry the "right way" and others are reading it the "wrong
way."
JAS Carter
"Margaret" <a...@def.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
>"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3b03bab7...@news.supernews.com...
>> I wonder if those of you who hate metrical poetry read metrical poetry
>> the same way I do. I don't mean a "right way" versus a "wrong way,"
>> just if you are reading them differently, and if the difference would
>> in any way explain the difference in appreciation.
>>
>> I can't think of a way to test it, other than to record some. Anyone
>> dislike metrical poetry but willing to record the short metrical poem
>> of your choice?
>>
>
>I knew that there are those who don't like strict forms, but I didn't know
>we had a contingent that says it doesn't like "metrical" poetry. In fact,
>I'm not sure if I know of a single poem that doesn't have metrical
>qualities...maybe my vocabulary on this score needs tweaking. To say that a
>poem is not metrical is like saying a piece of music has no tempo or rhythm.
To say that a poem has no rhythm is like saying a piece of music has
no rhythm. To say that a poem has no meter is to say that it has no
meter.
>I'm actually not aware of any poem that doesn't derive at least some of its
>appeal from metrical qualities. To the extent there is a debate about
>"metrical poetry," I would suggest what you decline to suggest: you are in
>fact reading poetry the "right way" and others are reading it the "wrong
>way."
Are there such beasts as a wrong way and a right way? I tend to doubt
it.
JAS Carter
"Margaret" <a...@def.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>Do you? One of the things I like about your posts is that you are
>opinionated. I suppose one can be opinionated and an aesthetic relativist at
>the same time, but certainly there is a "wrong" and a "right" way at least
>to the extent we distinguish between doggerel and Shakespeare.
And this applies to reading how?
>Maybe there's no right or wrong when we exchange opinion on whether Sonnet 29 is
>better than Sonnet 30, but isn't it "right" that they are better than a
>typical Rod MacKuen poem?
How does this apply to a discussion of how they are read?
>Anyway, I note that you did not provide any examples of poems you admire
>that don't derive at least some of their appeal from metrical qualities.
>From traditional forms to free verse, in my opinion it's impossible for a
>poem not to function (or fail) metrically. Am I wrong? If so, provide
>examples of successful poems that are not "metrical poetry." There are
>obviously scads of examples of metrical poetry, and I'd be happy to provide
>them if you need them (your own, perhaps, might be an example), but I'd like
>to see the counter-examples, if they exist.
If a poem does not contain regular meter, I (and most people who write
in meter) would not call it metrical. If you want to define
"metrical" as "having rhythm," be my guest. It is impossible for
language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
or written is "metrical." That seems to be a pretty pointless
definition of the word, since it doesn't exclude anything, but hey,
have fun.
Margaret
> >I'm actually not aware of any poem that doesn't derive at least some of
its
> >appeal from metrical qualities. To the extent there is a debate about
> >"metrical poetry," I would suggest what you decline to suggest: you are
in
> >fact reading poetry the "right way" and others are reading it the "wrong
> >way."
>
> Are there such beasts as a wrong way and a right way? I tend to doubt
> it.
Do you? One of the things I like about your posts is that you are
opinionated. I suppose one can be opinionated and an aesthetic relativist at
the same time, but certainly there is a "wrong" and a "right" way at least
to the extent we distinguish between doggerel and Shakespeare. Maybe
there's no right or wrong when we exchange opinion on whether Sonnet 29 is
better than Sonnet 30, but isn't it "right" that they are better than a
typical Rod MacKuen poem?
Anyway, I note that you did not provide any examples of poems you admire
Margaret
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 20:13:42 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
> "Margaret" <a...@def.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
> How does this apply to a discussion of how they are read?
I suppose I misunderstood the discussion. Silly me. You meant only whether
or not to read in a sing-song voice? Whether to pause at the end of lines?
Whether to hit the rhymes hard? Whether to let one's voice lilt with the
iambs and trochees? In short, you were talking about the performance
aspects of poetry? A valid discussion, I suppose. But I'm certainly no
performer or actor, so I won't offer any advice to those who are. I suspect
there's no single "right" or single "wrong" approach, but there are many
"rights" and many "wrongs."
>
> If a poem does not contain regular meter, I (and most people who write
> in meter) would not call it metrical. If you want to define
> "metrical" as "having rhythm," be my guest. It is impossible for
> language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
> or written is "metrical." That seems to be a pretty pointless
> definition of the word, since it doesn't exclude anything, but hey,
> have fun.
I certainly do have fun! I wish you would, too. But you've merely spoken,
once again, about "most people" and you really haven't backed up your
opinion. (What would you say if I said "most people" think *you're* wrong
and I'm right? Maybe then you'd have to resort to an actual discussion of
who is right and who is wrong, rather than simply telling me I've been
overruled by the silent majority). Anyway, I've said that every successful
poem I can think of is metrical, and I asked you if you had any actual
counter-examples. Instead of coming up with any, you resorted to sarcasm.
Don't worry, I can take it.
And yes, everything spoken or written is "metrical." I'm glad to see you
acknowledge this, since it wasn't clear from your earlier posts. But this i
s certainly not a "pointless" definition of the word just because it won't
serve to draw the distinction that you feel like discussing --and which is a
valid one. (The word "language" also covers everything spoken or written,
but the word "language" is not pointless). You're referring, it seems, to
degrees of metricality, and since all language is metrical it appears you
agree after all that there's no such thing as "non-metrical" poetry, just
poetry that is more or less metrical than other poetry. I still maintain
that all successful poetry is more highly metrical than typical
conversational speech, however. If you disagree, you can do it in one of
two ways. (1) You can tell me that most people think I'm wrong, and I will
be duly chastened. (2) You can direct me to poems that disprove my point.
Hey, you've invited me to be your guest, now you can be mine.
JAS Carter
sausages and exclaimed:
>
>"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3b00a620....@news.supernews.com...
>> On Wed, 09 May 2001 20:13:42 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
>> "Margaret" <a...@def.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>
>> How does this apply to a discussion of how they are read?
>
>I suppose I misunderstood the discussion. Silly me. You meant only whether
>or not to read in a sing-song voice? Whether to pause at the end of lines?
>Whether to hit the rhymes hard? Whether to let one's voice lilt with the
>iambs and trochees? In short, you were talking about the performance
>aspects of poetry? A valid discussion, I suppose. But I'm certainly no
>performer or actor, so I won't offer any advice to those who are. I suspect
>there's no single "right" or single "wrong" approach, but there are many
>"rights" and many "wrongs."
Ta da!
>> If a poem does not contain regular meter, I (and most people who write
>> in meter) would not call it metrical. If you want to define
>> "metrical" as "having rhythm," be my guest. It is impossible for
>> language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
>> or written is "metrical." That seems to be a pretty pointless
>> definition of the word, since it doesn't exclude anything, but hey,
>> have fun.
>
>I certainly do have fun! I wish you would, too. But you've merely spoken,
>once again, about "most people" and you really haven't backed up your
>opinion. (What would you say if I said "most people" think *you're* wrong
>and I'm right? Maybe then you'd have to resort to an actual discussion of
>who is right and who is wrong, rather than simply telling me I've been
>overruled by the silent majority). Anyway, I've said that every successful
>poem I can think of is metrical, and I asked you if you had any actual
>counter-examples. Instead of coming up with any, you resorted to sarcasm.
>Don't worry, I can take it.
Good.
>And yes, everything spoken or written is "metrical."
So you claim. If you define "metrical" that way, I don't consider it
at all fruitful to discus "metricality" with you. I do NOT define it
that way, nor do most metrical enthusiasts of my acquaintance.
>I'm glad to see you acknowledge this, since it wasn't clear from your earlier posts.
Uh, Margaret, you seem to have misplaced the sarcasm again, dear.
Now, run off and find the regular meter in most free verse. Then
we'll talk.
LonWolve
once more, instead of arguments you only present us with offensive
remarks. I find your approach to the honest dicussion attempted by
others very ugly.
LW
In article <3afa04a0...@news.supernews.com>, jsgo...@yahoo.com
says...
Dale Houstman
>
> >And yes, everything spoken or written is "metrical."
>
> So you claim. If you define "metrical" that way, I don't consider it
> at all fruitful to discus "metricality" with you. I do NOT define it
> that way, nor do most metrical enthusiasts of my acquaintance.
>
meter is very similiar to that which exists between musical rhythm and the
"beat". One is a much "looser" quality. Certainly rhythm lies behind meter,
but meter is a group of traditional and set emphasises (emphases?). I do
know - for instance - that I write rhythmically, but - honestly - I'm not
much on metrical verse. Once - in a class - some other student managed to
break down one of my pieces into four or five different metrical groups. I
was amazed - but not particularly interested.
That said, I must say I do like metrical verse, and when I have read it out
loud, I have tended to keep an eye out for the line breaks and such, but
more for the emotional risings and fallings of the work, so it's a
compromise for me no doubt.
Not that that was any help...
dmh
Jim Sheard
wrote:
<snip>
>I can't think of a way to test it, other than to record some. Anyone
>dislike metrical poetry but willing to record the short metrical poem
>of your choice?
I'm around, if anyone does record a sound file - assuming you were
thinking of lodging any results on the aapc site, Julie?
Can I just clarify something? Do you mean people who reject formal/
metrical poetry in a modern context?
Jim
--
Meet the regulars and read the FAQ
http://www.aapcsite.plus.com/
JAS Carter
Sheard <j...@jsheard.co.uk> warbled oh so charmingly:
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 23:36:41 -0400, jsgo...@yahoo.com (JAS Carter)
>wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>I can't think of a way to test it, other than to record some. Anyone
>>dislike metrical poetry but willing to record the short metrical poem
>>of your choice?
>
>I'm around, if anyone does record a sound file - assuming you were
>thinking of lodging any results on the aapc site, Julie?
>
>Can I just clarify something? Do you mean people who reject formal/
>metrical poetry in a modern context?
I don't think it's limited to those who reject it in a modern context,
since those people would, I'm assuming, at least NOT reject it in a
not modern context. So, I think such a person would read the same way
I do, they simply have an extra level of judgment they bring to bear
on the completed work.
So, no. I think I'm talking about people who really really just don't
like metrical poetry, who find it rigid, sing-songy, constrained,
artificially arranged, something.
I know they're out there! I can hear them breathing!
JAS Carter
Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
Ha. No, it was helpful.
If you came to a line end that was unpunctuated, would you inflect
downward, as if it had a full stop, and give a pause before
continuing? And does rhyme make any difference in the way you read?
Randall Wright
<a...@def.com> wrote:
- "JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
- news:3b00a620....@news.supernews.com...
- > On Wed, 09 May 2001 20:13:42 GMT, in alt.arts.poetry.comments
- > "Margaret" <a...@def.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
-
- > How does this apply to a discussion of how they are read?
-
- I suppose I misunderstood the discussion. Silly me. You meant only whether
- or not to read in a sing-song voice? Whether to pause at the end of lines?
- Whether to hit the rhymes hard? Whether to let one's voice lilt with the
- iambs and trochees? In short, you were talking about the performance
- aspects of poetry? A valid discussion, I suppose. But I'm certainly no
- performer or actor, so I won't offer any advice to those who are. I suspect
- there's no single "right" or single "wrong" approach, but there are many
- "rights" and many "wrongs."
- >
-
- > If a poem does not contain regular meter, I (and most people who write
- > in meter) would not call it metrical. If you want to define
- > "metrical" as "having rhythm," be my guest. It is impossible for
- > language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
- > or written is "metrical." That seems to be a pretty pointless
- > definition of the word, since it doesn't exclude anything, but hey,
- > have fun.
-
- I certainly do have fun! I wish you would, too. But you've merely spoken,
- once again, about "most people" and you really haven't backed up your
- opinion. (What would you say if I said "most people" think *you're* wrong
- and I'm right? Maybe then you'd have to resort to an actual discussion of
- who is right and who is wrong, rather than simply telling me I've been
- overruled by the silent majority). Anyway, I've said that every successful
- poem I can think of is metrical, and I asked you if you had any actual
- counter-examples. Instead of coming up with any, you resorted to sarcasm.
- Don't worry, I can take it.
-
- And yes, everything spoken or written is "metrical." I'm glad to see you
- acknowledge this, since it wasn't clear from your earlier posts. But this i
- s certainly not a "pointless" definition of the word just because it won't
- serve to draw the distinction that you feel like discussing --and which is a
- valid one. (The word "language" also covers everything spoken or written,
- but the word "language" is not pointless). You're referring, it seems, to
- degrees of metricality, and since all language is metrical it appears you
- agree after all that there's no such thing as "non-metrical" poetry, just
- poetry that is more or less metrical than other poetry. I still maintain
- that all successful poetry is more highly metrical than typical
- conversational speech, however. If you disagree, you can do it in one of
- two ways. (1) You can tell me that most people think I'm wrong, and I will
- be duly chastened. (2) You can direct me to poems that disprove my point.
- Hey, you've invited me to be your guest, now you can be mine.
Margaret, will you do a stranger a favor and look up meter in a poetry
book. I thought I knew what meter was but then your posts came along so I
looked it up in Kinzie's A Poet's Guide to Poetry and guess what. I was
right all along. I'd tell you to look up "metrical" but it does not have a
seperate entry in Kinzie's book and surely you know it means pertaining to
meter. I'd type it all out for you but I'm too lazy. One sentence though
is "Meter as a term discriminates the stress-contour of verse from that of
prose." That right there should lead one to believe that everything spoken
or written is NOT "metrical", no?
Randy
LonWolve
> book. I thought I knew what meter was but then your posts came along so I
> looked it up in Kinzie's A Poet's Guide to Poetry and guess what. I was
> right all along. I'd tell you to look up "metrical" but it does not have a
> seperate entry in Kinzie's book and surely you know it means pertaining to
> meter. I'd type it all out for you but I'm too lazy. One sentence though
> is "Meter as a term discriminates the stress-contour of verse from that of
> prose." That right there should lead one to believe that everything spoken
> or written is NOT "metrical", no?
> Randy
Randy,
I agree with you but I believe that you should address this post to
Julie Carter and not Margaret, as she (Julie) was the one who first
suggested that all that is spoken/written is metrical.
In her first post Margaret clearly stated that this is not the case, and
later she said what she said while trying to put some sense in the head
of the opinionated (but without good reason so) creature named Julie.
Be Cool,
LW
cythera
<rwright.extrabit-ya024...@news.newsguy.com> :
Thanks for this. I noticed this point, (which they both agreed upon), and
had a slightly different thought: is it actually true that *all* language has rhythm (which, in the context of this discussion, is a.k.a. "meter")?
Off the top of my head, I would guess that at least one language may very
well not have one or even both.
Enough terms need to be defined and agreed upon for certain discussions,
such as this one, to hold up long that it seems to me it would be
fruitful -- or at least different -- to try a new approach. My suggestion: placing some vocabulary, e.g. "metrical poetry," on the poetry.comments web-site, for ready access.
cythera.
>
>Randy
_______________________________________________
Submitted via WebNewsReader of http://www.interbulletin.com
JAS Carter
cythera <donot...@interbulletin.bogus> warbled oh so charmingly:
>Thanks for this. I noticed this point, (which they both agreed upon), and
>had a slightly different thought: is it actually true that *all* language has rhythm (which, in the context of this discussion, is a.k.a. "meter")?
Important distinction. My whole point is that rhythm is NOT aka
meter. If someone says that "all poems have meter" they are misusing
the term "meter," in my opinion. All poems, at least in English, have
rhythm. English has rhythm. That was my point.
>Off the top of my head, I would guess that at least one language may very
>well not have one or even both.
It's possible, though I find it rather unlikely, simply because it
seems we can find patterns in even random noises.
Which can lead to another question: Is the word "rhythm" dependent on
a pattern? Or does rhythm simply refer to the fact that the sounds
are discrete (even if random) and last for measurable amounts of time?
So, a hum wouldn't have rhythm. Hum. Or, more precisely, a monotone
hum wouldn't have rhythm. But as soon as you add more tones, or break
the original tone into parts, you have a rhythm even if the rhythm is
undefined?
If, and it's a big if, that is true, then all languages would have
rhythm, including sign language, since it's the breaking of the flow
of sound/motion into discrete units that produces the rhythm.
thoughperhapsyoucouldmakeanargumentthatthisislanguageandhasnorhythmatleastinthisformsinceitisnondiscrete?
Hell, I don't know.
>Enough terms need to be defined and agreed upon for certain discussions,
>such as this one, to hold up long that it seems to me it would be
>fruitful -- or at least different -- to try a new approach. My suggestion: placing some vocabulary, e.g. "metrical poetry," on the poetry.comments web-site, for ready access.
Whose definition are you going to go by? I define metrical poetry as
"poetry with an established regular meter." That is the common
definition, and it is a workable one, I think.
If we make "metrical" synonymous with "having rhythm" then the
definition of "metrical poetry" becomes "poetry." That doesn't seem a
workable definition. Why add the "metrical" if it's a necessary
condition of poetry?
Mike Billard
JAS Carter <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3afa04a0...@news.supernews.com...
> On Wed, 09 May 2001 21:11:38 GMT, "Margaret" <a...@def.com> ate
> sausages and exclaimed:
>
> >
> >And yes, everything spoken or written is "metrical."
>
> So you claim. If you define "metrical" that way, I don't consider it
> at all fruitful to discus "metricality" with you. I do NOT define it
> that way, nor do most metrical enthusiasts of my acquaintance.
>
Nor do most scholars. Alfred Corn doesn't define meter that way in his book
"The Poem's Heartbeat." Timothy Steele doesn't either in his exhaustive
study "Missing Measures." None of the contributers to "Meter in English A
Critical Engagement" (which include people like Nims, Turco, and Hass)
defines meter that way. Sure, all things written and spoken (in English) are
subject to varying degrees of stress between syllables (which is what forms
the basis for meter in English), but that characteristic is not the same as
meter. It is the manipulation of the ordering of words to create a
discernible pattern among the stresses that creates meter. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
we can dig as deeply into quantitative meter and syllabic meter as anyone
wants, if anyone wants, but speaking to such characteristics as duration and
syllable count (instead of stress or accent) as metrical foundations doesn't
change the need for a discernible pattern to be present. If it's metrical it
must have something other than an arbitrary and occasional recurrence. And
many, many poems correctly called "nonmetrical" are, indeed, nonmetrical.
And if we really need examples we can call upon Wallace Stevens or William
Carlos Williams as easy sources.
Mike Billard
LonWolve <fot...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1564b12f1...@news.lineone.net...
> Randy,
> I agree with you but I believe that you should address this post to
> Julie Carter and not Margaret, as she (Julie) was the one who first
> suggested that all that is spoken/written is metrical.
Wrong. To quote Julie, she said,
"If you want to define
'metrical' as 'having rhythm,' be my guest. It is impossible for
language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
or written is 'metrical.' That seems to be a pretty pointless
definition of the word, since it doesn't exclude anything, but hey,
have fun."
That is directly opposite of what you claim she said. In fact, Julie states
that if one wishes to expand the definition of meter to cover everything
written or spoken it renders the whole discussion pointless. Which it does.
A non-metrical poem may very well have some metrical consistency here and
there and it may very well intentionally use the occasional metrical device
for emphasis. A non-rhyming poem may (in fact most likely will) have a few
words that rhyme throughout it. It may even rhyme intentionally for special
emphasis in certain places. We might as well say that all poems are rhymed,
metrical verse. Because by such broad definitions they are. In fact, this
paragraph, by the new definition, is a rhymed, metrical poem. I think I'll
submit it to Atlantic Monthly or maybe Poetry. What do you think?
LonWolve
I quote: "It is impossible for
language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
Can you tell me what this means? Is it correct?
LW
Dale Houstman
answers to these questions) would depend on the nature of the poem being
read. Obviously at one end of the metrical poetry scale you have such
wonderful things as "The Owl And The Pussycat" where I would think a certain
amount of emphatic archness and strong defintion of rhymes would enhance the
performance: especially if the audience is children. But - in general - I
would allow the content and emotional ebbs and flows to determine all the
rest. Truth be told, these things change every time I read the damn things!
But - honestly - I am no performer. In fact I tend to read poetry (my own
and others) at a breakneck speed that is quite my own, creating a sort of
"post-modern" incomprehensibility I've been told. But this is neither here
nor there: what is "right." Supposedly (from ear-witness accounts) Poe used
to read "The Raven" (his very popular performance piece) in a near whisper,
while most tend to read it in a very melodramatic fashion. All in all I
would think performace is an entirely different species of art in this
regard, and one that can include or exclude any "respect" for the original
text. It really only matters if that performace is "successful" in some way,
even if success is measured by how much a poem is undercut by the act.
Personally, I get very tired of the over-reverent style I hear a lot of out
here in the Midwest, a very earnest and measured tip-toeing through the
poem, as if it were made of thin crystal. I can imagine Shakespeare's
sonnets being yelled non-stop into your face, and judging that a rousing
act.
So - what am I saying? - I don't know.
Take it from here.
dmh
Margaret
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9denkt$ddl$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> Nor do most scholars. Alfred Corn doesn't define meter that way in his
book
> "The Poem's Heartbeat." Timothy Steele doesn't either in his exhaustive
> study "Missing Measures." None of the contributers to "Meter in English A
> Critical Engagement" (which include people like Nims, Turco, and Hass)
> defines meter that way. Sure, all things written and spoken (in English)
are
> subject to varying degrees of stress between syllables (which is what
forms
> the basis for meter in English), but that characteristic is not the same
as
> meter. <snip. If it's metrical it
> must have something other than an arbitrary and occasional recurrence. And
> many, many poems correctly called "nonmetrical" are, indeed, nonmetrical.
> And if we really need examples we can call upon Wallace Stevens or William
> Carlos Williams as easy sources.
>
It looks like I was wrong. In a way, I kind of knew it, too, but plunged
ahead notwithstanding. I think it was Robert Lowell who once said that any
two words rhyme with one another in the sense that they sound more like each
other than they sound like no word at all. He was making a didactic point
about rhyming. By claiming that all poems are metrical, maybe I wanted to
make the same kind of didactic point...but I'm no Lowell and have no right
to do so, and it fell flat. Still, I would maintain that examples of truly
great non-metrical poems are few and far between. William Carlos Williams,
at his best, is musical if not metrical, and arguably the metrical patterns
are so pronounced that passages, at least, could be called metrical. (There
are certainly poems that straddle the line between metrical and
non-metrical, just as there are slant rhymes that get slanter and slanter
until one would not even say that they rhymed at all). And Wallace Stevens
frequently writes with a regularity akin to blank verse, and with a
metricality and rhytm and cadence that are formal enough to be called
metrical. Now that I've eaten some crow, I'd like to hear specific examples
of poems that you feel are great (or near-great) but which are clearly, in
your view, non-metrical. I don't doubt they exist. I do doubt they are
plentiful.
Catalephsis
> I wonder if those of you who hate metrical poetry read metrical poetry
> the same way I do. I don't mean a "right way" versus a "wrong way,"
> just if you are reading them differently, and if the difference would
> in any way explain the difference in appreciation.
I recently heard a recording of Ezra Pound reading some work. He was clearly
trying to do a Yeats impression. The suggestion made by someone was that
poets read their own work for the *rhythm*, while often other readers will
read the work for the *sense*.
I'd sort of agree, except where very strict, regular meter is used. Some
Victorian metrical poetry, for me, is too regular and I'd probably end up
reading it with a lot of exaggeration on the stresses, rather like ancient
Greek poetry (although I'm in the dark there and can't get much sense of the
lyricism).
I've always preferred irregular, sprung rhythms and I often work more from a
syllabic count and total stress count per line, rather than precise
placement of stresses. And that's only when I'm consciously working in
meter. I think this has something to do with my trust in 'internal
rhythms' - can't remember who thought this up.
So, yes, I probably read any strictly and obviously metered poetry
differently to irregular meter, or free verse. The more natural the
lyricism is, the more I try and get into a 'flow' of the music. For
example, I read:
"(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),
And I will show you something different from either
Your shadow at morning striding behind you
Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;
I will show you fear in a handful of dust."
Very differently to:
"O O O O that Shakespeherian Rag--
It's so elegant
So intelligent"
(Eliot, The Waste Land, in case anyone didn't know.)
> I can't think of a way to test it, other than to record some. Anyone
> dislike metrical poetry but willing to record the short metrical poem
> of your choice?
I can't think of a way to test it without a microphone.
GT.
Tiniap
since you brought it up, you care to recommend some of the 'essential'
metrical poets I should read? I have before me a whole summer to catch up on
some reading and I'd love to look at more styles/approaches that i don't
usually read, much less write.
Thanx
Andrew.
>===== Original Message From jsgo...@yahoo.com =====
>I wonder if those of you who hate metrical poetry read metrical poetry
>the same way I do. I don't mean a "right way" versus a "wrong way,"
>just if you are reading them differently, and if the difference would
>in any way explain the difference in appreciation.
>
>I can't think of a way to test it, other than to record some. Anyone
>dislike metrical poetry but willing to record the short metrical poem
>of your choice?
>
>
>--
>Julie Carter
>
>
>http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
So mek dem send one big word after me
I ent serving no jail sentence
I slashing suffix in self-defense
I bashin future wit present tense
and if necessary
I making de Queen's English accessory/ to my offence.
(John Agard)
JAS Carter
ate sausages and exclaimed:
>Hey Julie, others
>
>since you brought it up, you care to recommend some of the 'essential'
>metrical poets I should read? I have before me a whole summer to catch up on
>some reading and I'd love to look at more styles/approaches that i don't
>usually read, much less write.
Do you mean modern stuff, or canon stuff?
My brain just went completely blank.
Mikel Potts
(in message <3b018f55...@news.supernews.com>):
> On Fri, 11 May 2001 13:17:42 -0400, Tiniap <Tin...@MailAndNews.com>
> ate sausages and exclaimed:
>
>> Hey Julie, others
>>
>> since you brought it up, you care to recommend some of the 'essential'
>> metrical poets I should read? I have before me a whole summer to catch up
>> on
>> some reading and I'd love to look at more styles/approaches that i don't
>> usually read, much less write.
>
> Do you mean modern stuff, or canon stuff?
Ooo, canon fodder? Two bales please.
Tiniap
>ate sausages and exclaimed:
>
>>Hey Julie, others
>>
>>since you brought it up, you care to recommend some of the 'essential'
>>metrical poets I should read? I have before me a whole summer to catch up on
>>some reading and I'd love to look at more styles/approaches that i don't
>>usually read, much less write.
>
>Do you mean modern stuff, or canon stuff?
I was debating that when i sent the first message and still haven't made up
my
mind. The truth is it'll be whatever i can get my hands on from my badly
stocked library.
So gimme both <bearing in mind, my choice will likely come down to only two
books>
Andrew
>
>My brain just went completely blank.
>
>
>
>--
>Julie Carter
>
>
>http://www.everypoet.com/poetry/general/ep_jasc.htm
------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Sheard
wrote:
<snip>
>So, no. I think I'm talking about people who really really just don't
>like metrical poetry, who find it rigid, sing-songy, constrained,
>artificially arranged, something.
>
>I know they're out there! I can hear them breathing!
Scary.
I was recently helping someone to prepare a reading of 'Sussex' by
Kipling - for a funeral. I was struck by how people who are not very
familiar with poetry are completely fixated by the metrics and
structure, finding it difficult to speak poetry for its sense, even
when the end-stops, syllable stresses or tones which they produce are
bizarre.
That rigid, sing-songy thing must be instilled at some early brush
with poetry. I don't know what you think, but it seems to me that
when a metrical poem is read aloud for sense, the music should shape
itself - a tough test of quality. Although readers should, of
course, allow themselves to relish and roll around in the sound to an
extent.
Jim
--
http://www.jsheard.co.uk/poetry
texts and sound files
C M Szucs
news:naz+Ou4bZgFYf=UP5WjyI...@4ax.com...
> Scary.
>
> I was recently helping someone to prepare a reading of 'Sussex' by
> Kipling - for a funeral. I was struck by how people who are not very
> familiar with poetry are completely fixated by the metrics and
> structure, finding it difficult to speak poetry for its sense, even
> when the end-stops, syllable stresses or tones which they produce are
> bizarre.
>
> That rigid, sing-songy thing must be instilled at some early brush
> with poetry. I don't know what you think, but it seems to me that
> when a metrical poem is read aloud for sense, the music should shape
> itself - a tough test of quality. Although readers should, of
> course, allow themselves to relish and roll around in the sound to an
> extent.
>
I completely agree with you. I think we can blame it on two major factors:
first, most people are force-fed nursery rhymes as children (hence the onset
of the sing-song thing), and, second, at least in my somewhat limited
experiences, we are not exposed enough to oral reading. People in general
are not taught how to read poetry; rather, a teacher says "Here is a poem;
go read it." Personally, I was not taught how to read poetry until my
junior year in college. As an English major, I find that totally ludicrous.
Carrie
--
Go, lemmings, go!
Richard Daish
verse". If you don't like metrical poetry, you don't like poetry!
Rhyme is not obligatory, but rhythm is.
--
Richard J Daish (uk)
"Mike Billard" <mbil...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:9deoum$j0h$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Dale Houstman
"Richard Daish" <richar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9dpt6n$ibf$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> According to Oxford English Dictionary. a poem is a composition in
"metrical
> verse". If you don't like metrical poetry, you don't like poetry!
> Rhyme is not obligatory, but rhythm is.
>
there are plenty of examples of both non-metric and non-rhythmic poetry, and
these can be found most readily in the areas of concrete poetry and the
Language Poets, who are often willfully non-rhythmic, the dictionary
definition notwithstanding. Also there is a large tradition of prose poetry
which is only metrical in the widest sense that rhythms will occur in
well-constructed pieces. But I think you would be hard-pressed to say poetry
MUST have meter. It simply isn't true.
dmh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Hrm. That's an interesting idea.
>
>I thought perhaps people who didn't like metrical poetry were
>emphasizing the metrical aspects more than I do, rigorously
>end-stopping lines, perhaps, that I would read as if they were
>enjambed, or forcing trochaic substitutions to sound like iambs?
Trained musicians don't pause at the bar line, but use it as the cue
that tells them where to place the rhythmic emphases that allow the
listener to parse the music. So, I think, skilled poetry readers: the
neophyte inserts a caesura at the end of every line, but the more
experienced reader has trained himself to read beyond the end of the
line, fixing with his eye the beginning of the next even as he utters
the last.
That being said I suspect, though I can't prove, that metrical poetry
was at one time read with more of an emphasis on the formal rhythmic
schema than it is today.
Each age tends to impose its own aesthetic, its own ideals, on its
artistic heritage. Consciously or not, we use our own artistic tools
to realize the works of the past, and our age is a decidely prosaic
and informal one; I suspect that our readings of historical poetry to
reflect that.
Then too, recordings of poetry from the early 20th Century sound
rather formal and stentorian to me -- and yet they were made well
after poetry had undergone the stylistic sea-change of the time. These
performances sit, as does early modernism itself, in the penumbra
between the old and the new, breaking away from yesterday while
retaining and modifying and building upon it.
Also, the ancillary evidence with which I'm familiar -- everything
from the operatic conventions of the time to the structure of early
movies to the complexities of 19th Century etiquette -- suggests to
me that the delightful if stilted complexities of formal structure and
pattern were as much a part of performance as they were of creation.
And now for a basely controversial assertion: expressive formality,
well asserted, carries with it a deep primitive power that's lost from
today's outre-on-the-outside marshmallow-mush-on-the-inside poetry
world. Mallomars! I try to read formal verse not as the schoolmarm
would, but the savage, if he were gifted with deep thought.
Josh
Bruce Tindall
>OK, Julie said that everything written/spoken is unavoidably rhythmic.
No, she did not.
>I quote: "It is impossible for
>language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
>or written is 'metrical'"
>Can you tell me what this means? Is it correct?
Yes, I can tell you what this means. It means that "by *that* definition,"
that is, the definition mentioned in the previous sentence, the
definition with which she disagrees, all utterances are metrical.
Julie shows that the conclusion follows from a faulty premise.
Look up "syllogism" in a dictionary.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Bruce Tindall
Richard Daish <richar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>According to Oxford English Dictionary. a poem is a composition in "metrical
>verse". If you don't like metrical poetry, you don't like poetry!
>Rhyme is not obligatory, but rhythm is.
My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary does not contain any
such definition. I think you are quoting and misattributing a
definition from an old edition of some other dictionary; I've
often seen it cited (and ridiculed) as a definition that's
outdated, if indeed it was ever a good definition.
Also, as Dale points out, you've totally missed the point of the
whole discussion in this thread of the difference between "meter"
and "rhythm."
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Nic Ollivère
<richar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>According to Oxford English Dictionary a poem is a composition in "metrical
>verse". If you don't like metrical poetry, you don't like poetry!
I have such a Dictionary published in 1998. Nowhere in its definition
of the word 'poetry' does it mention 'metre', or 'metrical'. In the
defintion of the word 'poem' it has, in brackets, that it is something
'sometimes involving metrical composition'.
>Rhyme is not obligatory, but rhythm is.
Correct; but rhythm is different from metre; not all poetry is
metrical. This has always seemed so obvious to me that I'm astounded
people are having an argument about it.
LonWolve
In article <9drlki$l4e$1...@panix6.panix.com>, tin...@panix.com says...
> LonWolve <fot...@altavista.net> wrote:
> >OK, Julie said that everything written/spoken is unavoidably rhythmic.
>
> No, she did not.
Yes she did. Just read below!
If you still don't get it then read her whole msg.
>
> >I quote: "It is impossible for
> >language not to have rhythm, so by that definition, everything spoken
> >or written is 'metrical'"
> >Can you tell me what this means? Is it correct?
>
> Yes, I can tell you what this means. It means that "by *that* definition,"
> that is, the definition mentioned in the previous sentence, the
> definition with which she disagrees, all utterances are metrical.
> Julie shows that the conclusion follows from a faulty premise.
> Look up "syllogism" in a dictionary.
>
>
I am afraid that you are wrong my friend. Julie made her whole case on
distinguishing "rythm" from "meter". She said that not everything
spoken/written is "metrical" but it *is* unavoidably "rhythmic". The
supposed theory, that you claim was presented by the other party, which
as you say was "all utterances are metrical", simply never existed. The
theory (or rather the hypothesis) was that "all poetry - more or less-
is metrical". Turns out this *is* an issue on debate beyond not only on
this ng but in various literary books/papers too.
I know very well what a syllogism is. Do you? BTW it is "the coclusion
follows from the premises" - plural.
Take Care,
LW
LonWolve
poetry /'poh·itri/ n
1a metrical writing; verse
1b a poet's compositions; poems
2 writing that is arranged to formulate a concentrated imaginative
awareness of experience through meaning, sound, and rhythm
3 a quality of beauty, grace, and great feeling <~ in motion>
Penguin Hutchinson Reference Library
Copyright (c) 1996 Helicon Publishing and Penguin Books Ltd
---
po•em
Pronunciation: (pO'um), [key]
—n.
1. a composition in verse, esp. one that is characterized by a highly
developed artistic form and by the use of heightened language and rhythm
to express an intensely imaginative interpretation of the subject.
2. composition that, though not in verse, is characterized by great
beauty of language or expression: a prose poem from the Scriptures; a
symphonic poem.
3. something having qualities that are suggestive of or likened to those
of poetry: Marcel, that chicken cacciatore was an absolute poem.
Webster's dictionary & Random House
---
po•et•ry
Pronunciation: (pO'i-trE), [key]
—n.
1. the art of rhythmical composition, written or spoken, for exciting
pleasure by beautiful, imaginative, or elevated thoughts.
2. literary work in metrical form; verse.
3. prose with poetic qualities.
4. poetic qualities however manifested: the poetry of simple acts and
things.
5. poetic spirit or feeling: The pianist played the prelude with poetry.
6. something suggestive of or likened to poetry: the pure poetry of a
beautiful view on a clear day.
Webster's dictionary & Random House
---
Now, it turns out that I can say "poetry is metrical" and be right and
you can say "poetry is rhythmic" and also be right, or we can be both
wrong. It also seems to me that there has to be some definite way to
ditinguish between prose and poetry.
To me meter is an essential quality of poetry. I believe that the metric
form has this way (related to the way the brain works?) of eliciting
emotions/feelings more efficiently than prose does (and while both prose
and poetry may be about the same setting/images and written by thesame
person). I think this is the whole point in poetry versus prose.
Comments/corrections appreciated.
Peace,
LW
sophie
<snip>
>
>> Julie shows that the conclusion follows from a faulty premise.
>> Look up "syllogism" in a dictionary.
<snip>
>>
>I know very well what a syllogism is. Do you? BTW it is "the coclusion
>follows from the premises" - plural.
anybody who seems to be this stupid has to be putting it on.
surely.
**
sophie
see that nifty little conclusion staggering out of the pub
JAS Carter
<Tin...@MailAndNews.com> warbled oh so charmingly:
>>===== Original Message From jsgo...@yahoo.com =====
>>On Fri, 11 May 2001 13:17:42 -0400, Tiniap <Tin...@MailAndNews.com>
>>ate sausages and exclaimed:
>>
>>>Hey Julie, others
>>>
>>>since you brought it up, you care to recommend some of the 'essential'
>>>metrical poets I should read? I have before me a whole summer to catch up on
>>>some reading and I'd love to look at more styles/approaches that i don't
>>>usually read, much less write.
>>
>>Do you mean modern stuff, or canon stuff?
>
>I was debating that when i sent the first message and still haven't made up
>my
>mind. The truth is it'll be whatever i can get my hands on from my badly
>stocked library.
>So gimme both <bearing in mind, my choice will likely come down to only two
>books>
Okay, some people who've done some great things with metrical verse
include (I dislike some of these poets, but still consider them
important):
Shakespeare
Spenser
Donne
Milton
Pope
Keats
Shelley
Frost
cummings
Millay
Wilbur
Berryman
Mortensen
Hecht
Gioia
Oh lord. I'm forgetting everyone. Sorry. There are a ton of people
not on this list who should be.
LonWolve
The presense of offensive remarks in your posts, plainly demonstrates
your lack of arguments or your grudgy lil self. Take your pick.
LW
In article <08EZWLAY...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
Mike Billard
LonWolve <fot...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.156b80584...@news.lineone.net...
> In article <9drlr7$lif$1...@panix6.panix.com>, tin...@panix.com says...
> > In article <9dpt6n$ibf$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>,
> > Richard Daish <richar...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> > >According to Oxford English Dictionary. a poem is a composition in
"metrical
> > >verse". If you don't like metrical poetry, you don't like poetry!
> > >Rhyme is not obligatory, but rhythm is.
> >
> > My copy of the Oxford English Dictionary does not contain any
> > such definition. I think you are quoting and misattributing a
> > definition from an old edition of some other dictionary; I've
> > often seen it cited (and ridiculed) as a definition that's
> > outdated, if indeed it was ever a good definition.
> >
> > Also, as Dale points out, you've totally missed the point of the
> > whole discussion in this thread of the difference between "meter"
> > and "rhythm."
> >
> poetry n
>
> poetry /'poh·itri/ n
> 1a metrical writing; verse
> 1b a poet's compositions; poems
> 2 writing that is arranged to formulate a concentrated imaginative
> awareness of experience through meaning, sound, and rhythm
> 3 a quality of beauty, grace, and great feeling <~ in motion>
>
> Penguin Hutchinson Reference Library
> Copyright (c) 1996 Helicon Publishing and Penguin Books Ltd
>
Well, as Bruce said, that's *not* the OED, is it? I've got a little
dictionary here that has an interesting definitition. Let's take a look at
that one:
"A poem is an instance of *verbal art*, a text set in verse, bound speech.
More generally, a poem conveys heightened forms of perception, experience,
meaning, or consciousness in heightened language, i.e. a heightened mode of
discourse."
Now, before anybody gets their panties in a gather, the definition goes on
for several thousand more words and addresses such things as "metrical
writing" and "verse" and the more modern notions of the poem (if one can
consider notions over 150 years old as "more modern"), at least as it
pertains to the western tradition, as being comprised of other units than
the metrical foot and even the line. For instance, the definition goes on to
say,
"What most readers understand as 'poetry' was, up until 1850, set in lines
which were metrical, and even the several forms of vers libre and free verse
(qq.v.) produced since 1850 have been builty largely on one or another
concept of the line. Lineation is therefore central to the traditional
Western conception of poetry. Prose is cast in sentences; poetry is cast in
sentences cast into lines."
And the definition says much, much more. Which is as it should be. My point
is that it is ridiculous in the extreme to expect any one or two sentence
definition to adequately explain something as diverse and far ranging as the
art of poetry, regardless of the reputation of the dictionary from which the
definition comes. The definition I'm quoting from can be found in "The
Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics." If one counts both the
"Poetry" and "Poetry, Theories Of" entries in that encyclopedia, there are
nearly sixteen pages of very small, two column print dedicated to defining
poetry.
BTW: As for definition #3 above ("a quality of beauty, grace, and great
feeling <~ in motion>") Donald Hall has this to say:
"When we hear about the poetry of golf or direct-mail advertising or hair
implants, we hear someone who cannot distinguish poems from solid waste."
Bruce Tindall
>Trained musicians don't pause at the bar line, but use it as the cue
>that tells them where to place the rhythmic emphases that allow the
>listener to parse the music. So, I think, skilled poetry readers: the
>neophyte inserts a caesura at the end of every line, but the more
>experienced reader has trained himself to read beyond the end of the
>line, fixing with his eye the beginning of the next even as he utters
>the last.
Many prosodists consider the end of the line to cause a slight
pause -- "half a comma," as one of them (I forget who) wrote.
But, yeah, a lot of inexperienced readers put about three periods'
and a paragraph-break's worth of silence at then end of the line,
not to mention inflecting the pitch of the last word as if it were
the end of a sentence, etc., and if somebody reads metrical
poetry that way, they're almost certain to hate it.
Charles O. Hartman has a long discussion of the rhythmic effects
of the end of a line, in both metrical and free verse, on both
the line being ended and the beginning of the next line, in his
book _Free Verse_.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
Margaret
>
> > > Also, as Dale points out, you've totally missed the point of the
> > > whole discussion in this thread of the difference between "meter"
> > > and "rhythm."
You are right. I feel kind of guilty since I was an early contributor to
this thread who sloppily confused "meter" and "rhythm." Odd that I conceded
my error but so many have persisted in their defense of what I have
recanted. Anyway, some personal sniping aside, it seems to have engendered
an interesting thread.
>
> And the definition says much, much more. Which is as it should be. My
point
> is that it is ridiculous in the extreme to expect any one or two sentence
> definition to adequately explain something as diverse and far ranging as
the
> art of poetry, regardless of the reputation of the dictionary from which
the
> definition comes.
Yes, I do believe that defining poetry is one of the central purposes of
poetry itself. Consider a few "adagia" of Wallace Stevens:
"Poetry is the expression of the experiecne of poetry."
"The poem is a nature created by the poet."
"Poetry is the sum of its attributes."
"Poetry is the scholar's art."
"The body is the great poem."
"Poems are new subjects."
"Poetry is a search for the inexplicable."
"Poetry is the statement of a realtion between a man and the world."
"Poetry must resist the intelligence almost successfully."
"The poet represents the mind in the act of defending us against itself."
"Every poem is a poem within a poem: the poem of the idea within the poem
of the words"
"Poetry is a response to the daily necessity of getting the world right."
"A poem need not have a meaning and like most things in nature often does
not have."
"The theory of poetry is the theory of life."
"All poetry is experimental poetry."
Not to mention his poems about poetry, etc. Poetry is an activity of life
that mimics and is part of life. Almost no important definition of poetry
is expressed in building-block terms like meter or form. As quoted above,
all poetry is experimental. Discussing poetry is like discussing life.
That's why we enjoy discussing it, isn't it?
Anyway, sorry for my blunder but I'm happy it provided the likes of Mike and
others to say such smart things about poetry.
sophie
and the fact that you have managed to piss off virtually everyone here,
including me, indicates nothing to you except our lack of arguments,
bitchiness, and grudgy-lil-selfness.
just checking.
**
sophie
LonWolve
Dale Houstman
"Margaret" <a...@def.com> wrote in message
news:tKhM6.26190$l5.12...@typhoon.nyc.rr.com...
Like the Stevens' quotes. The surrealist thought the central point of life
was a pursuit of the marvelous in all its forms, and that the Poetic (with a
big P) was the greatest tool in that adventure. Of course, none of these
definitions give the easy answer so looked for by those who would reduce all
human imagination to a game of numbers and commerce, but who's trying to
please them at any rate? As the judge said about pornography: you'll know it
when you see it. All definitions of poetry (and art and beauty) eventually
fail, but - then again - so do our bodies and minds. Some minds (as Chuckles
etal prove) before others...
dmh
>
>
Mike Billard
> news:9ds5qe$rtr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> >
> > > > Also, as Dale points out, you've totally missed the point of the
> > > > whole discussion in this thread of the difference between "meter"
> > > > and "rhythm."
>
> You are right. I feel kind of guilty since I was an early contributor to
> this thread who sloppily confused "meter" and "rhythm." Odd that I
conceded
> my error but so many have persisted in their defense of what I have
> recanted. Anyway, some personal sniping aside, it seems to have
engendered
> an interesting thread.
>
> >
> > And the definition says much, much more. Which is as it should be. My
> point
> > is that it is ridiculous in the extreme to expect any one or two
sentence
> > definition to adequately explain something as diverse and far ranging as
> the
> > art of poetry, regardless of the reputation of the dictionary from which
> the
> > definition comes.
>
> Yes, I do believe that defining poetry is one of the central purposes of
> poetry itself.
I hold a sort of nebulous idea that the definition of poetry is nothing
short of all the poems ever written. Therefore, any poet trying to write
poems is actively participating in adding to the definition. And of course
that can't be done without a healthy relationship with what has already come
before. Which means in a roundabout way that I enthusiastically agree with
what you say. Every serious poet has an obligation to the art, in my
opinion, to define poetry in his own terms (which will necessarily change
throughout his life) and then to strive toward that ideal. Donald Hall (the
poet I quote almost as often as Hugo) closes his wonderful essay "Poetry and
Ambition" with this statement: "No poem is so great as we demand poetry be."
> Consider a few "adagia" of Wallace Stevens:
>
> "Poetry is the expression of the experiecne of poetry."
> "The poem is a nature created by the poet."
> "Poetry is the sum of its attributes."
> "Poetry is the scholar's art."
> "The body is the great poem."
> "Poems are new subjects."
> "Poetry is a search for the inexplicable."
> "Poetry is the statement of a realtion between a man and the world."
> "Poetry must resist the intelligence almost successfully."
> "The poet represents the mind in the act of defending us against itself."
> "Every poem is a poem within a poem: the poem of the idea within the poem
> of the words"
> "Poetry is a response to the daily necessity of getting the world right."
> "A poem need not have a meaning and like most things in nature often does
> not have."
> "The theory of poetry is the theory of life."
> "All poetry is experimental poetry."
These are all good. I'm constantly culling the poems and essays and
interviews of poets for such pearls of wisdom, especially those that
reinforce or expand on an idea I already have. I've borrowed and applied to
poetry a quote I found in, of all things, a science fiction novel that goes
"We are the only species that tries to ef the ineffable." I think that's
what we try to do with poetry, to ef the ineffable. We try to do other
things too, but that quote is so slogan worthy I can't help myself.
>
> Not to mention his poems about poetry, etc. Poetry is an activity of life
> that mimics and is part of life. Almost no important definition of poetry
> is expressed in building-block terms like meter or form. As quoted above,
> all poetry is experimental. Discussing poetry is like discussing life.
> That's why we enjoy discussing it, isn't it?
Whenever someone wonders at how much time I spend talking about poetry I
think about a story Robert Hass tells where he and a few other poets stayed
up all night long arguing over *one* line in a Wallace Stevens poem. The
line? "Nothing that is not there and the nothing that is" from the poem "The
Snowman." I take comfort in knowing there are others as deeply, and in some
cases more deeply, obsessed as I am.
>
> Anyway, sorry for my blunder but I'm happy it provided the likes of Mike
and
> others to say such smart things about poetry.
>
I don't always say smart things, but I always appreciate the opportunity to
talk about poetry. Thanks, Margaret, for the opportunity.
gnarl
> I hold a sort of nebulous idea that the definition of poetry is nothing
> short of all the poems ever written. Therefore, any poet trying to write
> poems is actively participating in adding to the definition.
Romantic, but a good definition.
I might muse that poetry, though made of words, can never be defined by
such. Nothing less than the multitude of examples would do, otherwise
one might as well try calling a map the land.
g.(too close to bed to make much sense)
j r sherman
>
>LonWolve <fot...@altavista.net> said
>
>and the fact that you have managed to piss off virtually everyone here,
hey, speak for yourself, weasel-ass.
>including me,
you don't know the true pleasure one gets from annoying you. it's like poking a
stick at a dumb dog.
>indicates nothing to you except our lack of arguments,
>bitchiness, and grudgy-lil-selfness.
you're so stupid you can't even come up with your own insults.
i am not shocked. with you i never am.
>just checking.
i'd put a mirror to your lips.
most sincerely,
j r sherman
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Now, it turns out that I can say "poetry is metrical" and be right and
>you can say "poetry is rhythmic" and also be right, or we can be both
>wrong. It also seems to me that there has to be some definite way to
>ditinguish between prose and poetry.
>
>To me meter is an essential quality of poetry. I believe that the metric
>form has this way (related to the way the brain works?) of eliciting
>emotions/feelings more efficiently than prose does (and while both prose
>and poetry may be about the same setting/images and written by thesame
>person). I think this is the whole point in poetry versus prose.
>
>Comments/corrections appreciated.
While I agree that meter is a powerful tool, I'm afraid I have to
concur with what others have said about the distinction between meter
and rhythm. Poetry is always rhythmic, as is speech. But poetry is
*not* always metrical. That would require an identifiable meter, which
free verse lacks. Nor need there be, nor can there be, a rigorous test
to distinguish poetry from prose. The definitions in a dictionary are
merely a statistical reflection of usage, because words are subtle
beasties: apart from a few rigorous mathematical and logical terms,
they're based on multivariate correlation rather than identity, and
attempts to identify them with a logically discrete Platonic concept
usually fail.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
<mbil...@erols.com> wrote:
>I hold a sort of nebulous idea that the definition of poetry is nothing
>short of all the poems ever written. Therefore, any poet trying to write
>poems is actively participating in adding to the definition.
I think that correlates quite well with contemporary aesthetic theory.
Form is created by content, by a statistical ordering of the elements
in a data set. The two are only locally separable. And meter is a
subset of form, while rhythm is a subset of content. Meyer explains it
beautifully in terms of information theory.
Josh
sophie
>In article <QBDApKAH...@blueyonder.co.uk>, sophie says...
jim,
what did I do to deserve this?
snif,
**
sophie
LonWolve
He was probably drunk or something. Which makes me wonder: is he ever
sober?
LW
In article <cJBDLKAM...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
sophiej...@blueyonder.co.uk says...
LonWolve
So, what is it that makes you label something as a poem and post it here
instead of another ng on prose? Do you store your poetry and prose in
the same directory of your hard-drive?
> Nor need there be, nor can there be, a rigorous test
> to distinguish poetry from prose.
If the reader's reaction, in reading the two, is different then there
has to be a definition of poetry capable of distinguishing it from
prose. The fact that it is hard to define poetry should not cause us to
treat everything with a chaotically holistic attitude.
Take Care,
LW
Dale Houstman
than - as you seem to be taking it - "there is absolutely no way to
distinguish." Truth be told there are many prose pieces (lots of Kafka,
Melville, even Fitzgerald) which sound like poetry, and - for all intents
and purposes short of the author's claim - are poetry. And there are poems
(some of Rimbaud's Illuminations for example) which would seem like prose.
It is not taking a "holistic" approach to say that easy distinctions are
usually lazy distinctions. And - as the history of poetry and poetry
definition has proven decisively by now) there can never be a set definition
of poetry (or any art form) which satisfies all the examples or all the
readers. This is just a fact. Unless you finally have a definitive
definition you would like to amuse us all with?
dmh
LonWolve
> I think that is why they used the modified phrase "rigorous test" rather
> than - as you seem to be taking it - "there is absolutely no way to
> distinguish." Truth be told there are many prose pieces (lots of Kafka,
> Melville, even Fitzgerald) which sound like poetry, and - for all intents
> and purposes short of the author's claim - are poetry. And there are poems
> (some of Rimbaud's Illuminations for example) which would seem like prose.
> It is not taking a "holistic" approach to say that easy distinctions are
> usually lazy distinctions. And - as the history of poetry and poetry
> definition has proven decisively by now) there can never be a set definition
> of poetry (or any art form) which satisfies all the examples or all the
> readers. This is just a fact. Unless you finally have a definitive
> definition you would like to amuse us all with?
>
> dmh
Nope. I don't have no perfect definition of poetry. I still think there
must be one though, for if something is different than something else
there has to be a reason behind it.
LW
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
Well, most definitions, like elementary particles, are defined only
statistically. That is holistic, but I don't think it's chaotic!
Rather, it's somewhere between the completely structured and the
completely chaotic or entropic.
We can find an extremely high or lumpy correlation in our perceptions,
and apply labels to those correlations, such as spoons or forks, but
there will always be runcible spoons -- in-between states that can't
be precisely categorized with a finite number of labels. That's a
necessary concommitant of describing an infinite number of
possibilities with a finite number of words. And because the labels
apply to correlations made over an arbitrary length of time, not to a
specific finite set of objects, the definitions change with
experience. They reflect, as Mike Billard suggested, the sum of all
that has been produced -- or more precisely, the sum of all that has
been observed by an individual or a set of individuals or even,
hypothetically, the set of all individuals that have been or will be.
Which isn't to say you can't come up with useful definitions, or that
anyone would mistake The Waste Land for a novel. It's just that, as
Dale pointed out, attempts to tuck stochastic processes into a finite
number of discrete logical elements can never be completely
successful: part of the shirt works its way out and the waistline
changes over the years.
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>Nope. I don't have no perfect definition of poetry. I still think there
>must be one though, for if something is different than something else
>there has to be a reason behind it.
Off the top of my head I'd say that there's always a definition that
fits any set. It's the trivial one -- the set itself. Unfortunately,
there are an infinite number of those, and so *everything* is
different from everything else. In practice, we classify things on the
basis of a finite number of correlated characteristics, choosing only
those coefficients which are high enough to be useful (cf. the
apocryphal bit about the Eskimos having 100 words for different kinds
of snow). Those correlated characteristics constitute the "reason"
behind the class, or at least they're a manifestation of it. But --
they're based on a partial analysis of a finite subset of an infinite
number of possibilities. Worse than that, they presuppose that the two
parties in a communication have had the same experiences and made the
same statistical analyses, when in fact they haven't. So there's no
finite definition with complete applicability, unless it's
proscriptive, i.e., synthetical rather than analytical, and to the
ongoing horror of the French Academy most definitions aren't.
Josh
Catalephsis
'poeion' from the Ancient Greek word meaning 'creation' (both noun and verb
would apply.)
Discuss that if you wish. I think it sums up everything 'poetic'.
LonWolve <fot...@altavista.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.156c78853...@news.lineone.net...
Bruce Tindall
>The definition of poetry can be found in the root of the word itself -
>'poeion' from the Ancient Greek word meaning 'creation' (both noun and verb
>would apply.)
>
>Discuss that if you wish. I think it sums up everything 'poetic'.
My linguist friends keep reminding me that "etymology is not
definition," but just in case none of them is listening, I'll
say that the etymology of "poetry" reconfirms the fact that
poetry, like any other kind of "making", is a craft with a
history and traditions that can be extended or modified or broken,
but must in any case first be learned if the "made thing" (the
"poem") is to be any good at all.
In Greece you see signs everywhere on workshops and delivery trucks
for "wine poets" (vintners), "iron poets" (blacksmiths), etc.
I seriously doubt that any of these artisans or craftspersons
just grabs a bunch of grapes or a red-hot chunk of metal and
starts "letting the (wine, iron, whatever) flow from his ~~heart~~".
At best he'll end up with vinegar, at worst with third-degree burns.
B "mmmmm, Santorini white" T
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
LonWolve
Dale Houstman
"Catalephsis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
news:5GBM6.1221$gQ6....@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> The definition of poetry can be found in the root of the word itself -
> 'poeion' from the Ancient Greek word meaning 'creation' (both noun and
verb
> would apply.)
>
> Discuss that if you wish. I think it sums up everything 'poetic'.
Maybe, but it seems as unsatisfying as almost anything else I've heard. So
from your notion can we assume anything is poetry, since everything is
created? Doesn't strike me as particularly edifying on the subject.
dmh
Catalephsis
Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
news:3b030022$0$332$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
>
> "Catalephsis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:5GBM6.1221$gQ6....@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > The definition of poetry can be found in the root of the word itself -
> > 'poeion' from the Ancient Greek word meaning 'creation' (both noun and
> verb
> > would apply.)
> >
> > Discuss that if you wish. I think it sums up everything 'poetic'.
>
> Maybe, but it seems as unsatisfying as almost anything else I've heard. So
> from your notion can we assume anything is poetry, since everything is
> created? Doesn't strike me as particularly edifying on the subject.
But then again, the rest of the discussion so far has been an argument about
what constitutes 'creativity'. Which might bring us back to square one with
my definition, but then again, if Hallmark card messages are a 'form' of
poetry, then yes, anything created is poetry. Children are poetic. Marxist
theory was poetic. Philip Sidney argued that some philosophy is poetic. A
lot of people here would argue that the stuff people call poetry isn't
creative, therefore it isn't poetic. There is creation and then there is
replication.
I'm sticking by this, on a very personal opinion level, obviously. I don't
think creativity can be denied in anything, but the subjectivity of poetry
stems from the hierarchy of creativity. The more creation brought about in
a single action, the more recognisable this is as poetic. Santorini white,
lots of creativity. Retsina... Hmm, now there's a flavour you don't want to
repeat.
Of course, part of the problem is when people misapply the term 'poetic'.
That, again, is subjective. Definitions ought to be objective, non? And I
think the definition I provided was. There's no quantifiable judgement in
the definition, only in the interpretation of the definition. Which by my
standards is kind of poetic as well.
Joshua P. Hill
wrote:
>I seriously doubt that any of these artisans or craftspersons
>just grabs a bunch of grapes or a red-hot chunk of metal and
>starts "letting the (wine, iron, whatever) flow from his ~~heart~~".
>At best he'll end up with vinegar, at worst with third-degree burns.
LOL
Josh
Dale Houstman
>
> Dale Houstman <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message
> news:3b030022$0$332$65a9...@news.citilink.com...
> >
> > "Catalephsis" <catal...@ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:5GBM6.1221$gQ6....@monolith.news.easynet.net...
> > > The definition of poetry can be found in the root of the word itself -
> > > 'poeion' from the Ancient Greek word meaning 'creation' (both noun and
> > verb
> > > would apply.)
> > >
> > > Discuss that if you wish. I think it sums up everything 'poetic'.
> >
> > Maybe, but it seems as unsatisfying as almost anything else I've heard.
So
> > from your notion can we assume anything is poetry, since everything is
> > created? Doesn't strike me as particularly edifying on the subject.
>
> But then again, the rest of the discussion so far has been an argument
about
> what constitutes 'creativity'.
It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems much of the conversation has been
about the role of rhythm and meter and imagery and such.
> Which might bring us back to square one with
> my definition, but then again, if Hallmark card messages are a 'form' of
> poetry, then yes, anything created is poetry. Children are poetic.
Marxist
> theory was poetic. Philip Sidney argued that some philosophy is poetic. A
> lot of people here would argue that the stuff people call poetry isn't
> creative, therefore it isn't poetic. There is creation and then there is
> replication.
You're using poetic in an accepted form, but it doesn't speak to the
question at hand really. no one will deny that certain sensations are poetic
in this wide way, or that (indeed) Darwin is poetic. But is it poetry?
That's more the point: poetry as such is the literary form of the poetic.
The Surrealists saw the Poetic as a thing apart from poetry, as a sort of
asymptote of human imagination. And that is a thing worth discussing I
suppose (although with difficulty), and - in effect - a more attractive
arena for me, since I am not one particularly drawn to discussions of
technical aspects. Andre Breton defined poetry as "words making love on the
page" and that - also - is no more or less helpful in the long run. One
might even define poetry as that essential substance that defies definition
the best. Who knows?
>
> I'm sticking by this, on a very personal opinion level, obviously. I don't
> think creativity can be denied in anything, but the subjectivity of poetry
> stems from the hierarchy of creativity. The more creation brought about
in
> a single action, the more recognisable this is as poetic. Santorini
white,
> lots of creativity. Retsina... Hmm, now there's a flavour you don't want
to
> repeat.
I like retsina. none of my friends understand this.
>
> Of course, part of the problem is when people misapply the term 'poetic'.
> That, again, is subjective. Definitions ought to be objective, non?
Well as much as is possible, but definition is essentially a paraphrase, and
some things cannot be paraphrased without corruption. At best definitions
may serve as rough markers in a very large field of connotations,
denotations, and correspondances.
>And I think the definition I provided was.
I don't know. It's probably not arguable, but there is the same problem of
scale between "creative" and merely "being created" as there is between "the
poetic" and "poetry" so it strikes me that the vagueness is merely being
shifted.
dmh
Richard Daish
quoting from the definition the word "poem". "Poetry" is defined here as
"composition in verse or metrical language", and "the expression of
beautiful or elevated thought, imagination or feeling in appropriate
language, such language containing a rhythmical element and having usually a
metrical form." (1581)
I realise that language must change and evolve, but over recent years that
change appears to have been much quicker. Thus prose, and usually bad prose,
which has been broken into un-even lines is given the title "poetry".
This only serves to undermine good, rhythmical, poetry and debase its
appreciation.
Even doggerel has more poetic qualifications than a lot of the stuff which I
read, purportedly as poetry!
--
Tel: 01727 834044
Mobile: 07790 919757
Fax: 01727 810863
E-mail: richar...@btinternet.com
Richard J Daish
29b Blenheim Road
St Albans
Herts
AL1 4NS
zinc_
news:9dvtej$1s$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> I do not know if the dictionary has changed since my 1984 version, but I
was
> quoting from the definition the word "poem". "Poetry" is defined here as
> "composition in verse or metrical language", and "the expression of
> beautiful or elevated thought, imagination or feeling in appropriate
> language, such language containing a rhythmical element and having usually
a
> metrical form." (1581)
> I realise that language must change and evolve, but over recent years that
> change appears to have been much quicker. Thus prose, and usually bad
prose,
> which has been broken into un-even lines is given the title "poetry".
> This only serves to undermine good, rhythmical, poetry and debase its
> appreciation.
> Even doggerel has more poetic qualifications than a lot of the stuff which
I
> read, purportedly as poetry!
>
I remember reading that, at about the time the of Domesday Book (at least
during part of it), in the span of about 40 years, English transformed from
Old to Middle without a comment by the monks who wrote the book - even
though they were basically chronicling land ownership. I'll bet we're in one
of those language warps where you can't really see how fast things are
changing if you're living in it.
Morfydd Turberville
=====
>I do not know if the dictionary has changed since my 1984 version, but I was
>quoting from the definition the word "poem". "Poetry" is defined here as
>"composition in verse or metrical language", and "the expression of
>beautiful or elevated thought, imagination or feeling in appropriate
>language, such language containing a rhythmical element and having usually a
>metrical form." (1581)
>I realise that language must change and evolve, but over recent years that
>change appears to have been much quicker. Thus prose, and usually bad prose,
>which has been broken into un-even lines is given the title "poetry".
>This only serves to undermine good, rhythmical, poetry and debase its
>appreciation.
>Even doggerel has more poetic qualifications than a lot of the stuff which I
>read, purportedly as poetry!
I agree with all of the above. Well stated.
A piece of advice which is somewhat OT, however. It is generally not a good
idea to list your phone numbers and address on the Internet. There are some
very weird people out there who might well use them.
Mop
>
>
<snip>
>E-mail: richar...@btinternet.com
Leaving this address is sociable enough :-)
<snip>
------------------------------------------------------------
One should give only what people want, and in the way they need or want it -
Phillip Levy, The Flutes Of Autumn
Dale Houstman
"Richard Daish" <richar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9dvtej$1s$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
was
> quoting from the definition the word "poem". "Poetry" is defined here as
> "composition in verse or metrical language", and "the expression of
> beautiful or elevated thought, imagination or feeling in appropriate
> language, such language containing a rhythmical element and having usually
a
> metrical form." (1581)
> I realise that language must change and evolve, but over recent years that
> change appears to have been much quicker. Thus prose, and usually bad
prose,
> which has been broken into un-even lines is given the title "poetry".
> This only serves to undermine good, rhythmical, poetry and debase its
> appreciation.
> Even doggerel has more poetic qualifications than a lot of the stuff which
I
> read, purportedly as poetry!
>
Philistinism. What do you consider to be this "purported" poetry? There are
many good examples of non-rhythmic (and certainly non-metrical) poetry.
dmh
Catalephsis
> > But then again, the rest of the discussion so far has been an argument
> about
> > what constitutes 'creativity'.
>
> It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems much of the conversation has been
> about the role of rhythm and meter and imagery and such.
Yes. I was referring to the current thread-within-a-thread, but perhaps we
could try and gear this back towards meter/rhythm.
> > Which might bring us back to square one with
> > my definition, but then again, if Hallmark card messages are a 'form' of
> > poetry, then yes, anything created is poetry. Children are poetic.
> Marxist
> > theory was poetic. Philip Sidney argued that some philosophy is poetic.
A
> > lot of people here would argue that the stuff people call poetry isn't
> > creative, therefore it isn't poetic. There is creation and then there is
> > replication.
>
> You're using poetic in an accepted form, but it doesn't speak to the
> question at hand really. no one will deny that certain sensations are
poetic
> in this wide way, or that (indeed) Darwin is poetic. But is it poetry?
The complication for me arises between the adjective (sorry, is that the
right word? I get easily grammar-garbled) and the noun, 'poetics'. The
former can be applied to anything, really, as you've said. A really bad
poem is not necessarily poetic in this first sense, at least by my
standards. There has to be something new, even if the novelty only applies
to a subjective response - the poem is 'totally from the heart' and poetic
for one person and 'full of cliché and tripe' for another.
> That's more the point: poetry as such is the literary form of the poetic.
The second definition then. That would be an entire dictionary of poetic
forms. This statement to me reads 'poetry IS poetics' - and of course the
results of applying poetics to language. You'd therefore need an entire
dictionary of poetic terms and definitions (and there are several around) to
define poetry. Which is something akin to what Mike Billard was saying -
(paraphrasing) "poetry is every poem written and the poetics (theories of
poetry)".
I agree that to learn poetry you need to study for the whole of your life,
but I recall a discussion we had about inspiration - it often helps to do
something completely different to poetry to be able to write poetry. Is this
a part of poetics? Is there something 'poetic' (in the first sense) about
skydiving, hiking, etc. because it inspires poetry/creativity? The Ancient
Greek root-definition appears to be looking into the source for actual
writing - not the writing itself. The general application of the word holds
true for them, mainly because the 'poetics' were very limited.
So yes, maybe a new definition is needed, but then again, this desire to
limit will perhaps fall apart when a new form of poetry arises that
challenges the set definitions. (Sounds like I'm coming back to Mike's
definition). Which justifies the broad definition in one sense.
> The Surrealists saw the Poetic as a thing apart from poetry, as a sort of
> asymptote of human imagination. And that is a thing worth discussing I
> suppose (although with difficulty), and - in effect - a more attractive
> arena for me, since I am not one particularly drawn to discussions of
> technical aspects.
OK. But the challenge I'd put to you here is that the Surrealists were a
branch of the Modernist movement and they, along with minimalists,
formalists, absurdists, cubists (possibly), Baudelaire and Laforgue, etc.
etc. are what makes it impossible to define modernism except in the broadest
of terms. This example shows that to provide an inclusive definition
requires generalisation.
But onto the Surrealist notion of the Poetic. I'm a bit unsure of your
phrase 'asymptote of human imagination'. Do you mean they were trying to
push the limits of imagination, reaching as high as possible to some kind of
ideal?
> Andre Breton defined poetry as "words making love on the
> page" and that - also - is no more or less helpful in the long run. One
> might even define poetry as that essential substance that defies
definition
> the best. Who knows?
I recently picked up a Bloodaxe book called "Strong Words" (ed. Matthew
Sweeney and W.N. Herbert). It is a collection of 'short statements by poets
about poetry'. I think the first thing it shows is how subjective the
argument can be. Poetry or not poetry? That is the question. Interesting
resource; you can learn a lot *about* poetry, but I'm not sure if there's an
idea of what poetry is lurking behind it all.
> I like retsina. none of my friends understand this.
So do I, vaguely. Although I also like chicken.
> > Of course, part of the problem is when people misapply the term
'poetic'.
> > That, again, is subjective. Definitions ought to be objective, non?
>
> Well as much as is possible, but definition is essentially a paraphrase,
and
> some things cannot be paraphrased without corruption. At best definitions
> may serve as rough markers in a very large field of connotations,
> denotations, and correspondances.
I guess you're right here. Language itself is a corruption of the idea,
which is why it is so important for poetry to explain things, to
reinterpret. Language kind of becomes organic through the possibilities of
poetry, as does understanding of life.
> >And I think the definition I provided was.
>
> I don't know. It's probably not arguable, but there is the same problem of
> scale between "creative" and merely "being created" as there is between
"the
> poetic" and "poetry" so it strikes me that the vagueness is merely being
> shifted.
Is that the first time I've read 'I don't know' in one of your posts?!?
Could be, but I'd second that. As you've pointed out, semantics aren't all
that much fun to discuss. But a definition of poetry, by nature would
probably have to be quite vague, or it would fall down. Alternatively, it
has to involve the entire field of poetry, which is what most poets are
learning and expanding. To say you 'know' poetry is to restrict your
capacity to learn poetry. Therefore, 'I don't know what poetry is' is a
valid solution for me. As long as I don't give up trying to find out.
Bruce Tindall
>Thus prose, and usually bad prose,
>which has been broken into un-even lines is given the title "poetry".
Sure, there's terrible free verse, just as there's terrible metrical
verse. I infer, though (and please correct me if I'm wrong) that
you're suggesting that all non-metrical verse is indistinguishable
from "prose broken into uneven lines", and I can't agree with that.
There are many attributes of poetry besides meter: so-called "musical"
effects such as alliteration and rhyme; countless rhetorical and
syntactic effects; image; narrative; allusion; level of diction;
and on and on and on.
And lineation contributes its own effects: even if a text *was*
originally written as prose, it becomes something much different
when broken up into lines, because lineation affects the rhythm,
it affects the attention the reader pays to certain words (such
as the first and last words in a line), it makes enjambment possible,
and on and on and on. If the text was composed as verse (that is,
in lines) in the first place, these effects are probably going
to be much more pronounced than they'd be in broken-up prose.
Then there's also the question of poetries in languages other
than English, many of which don't even have the concept of meter.
Are the Hebrew psalms poetry? Of course they are. Are they
metrical? Nope.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
sophie
richard,
I would seriously advise you not to publish your contact details on
usenet.
like, seriously, man.
I mean this.
>I do not know if the dictionary has changed since my 1984 version, but I was
>quoting from the definition the word "poem". "Poetry" is defined here as
>"composition in verse or metrical language", and "the expression of
>beautiful or elevated thought, imagination or feeling in appropriate
>language, such language containing a rhythmical element and having usually a
>metrical form." (1581)
>I realise that language must change and evolve, but over recent years that
>change appears to have been much quicker. Thus prose, and usually bad prose,
>which has been broken into un-even lines is given the title "poetry".
>This only serves to undermine good, rhythmical, poetry and debase its
>appreciation.
>Even doggerel has more poetic qualifications than a lot of the stuff which I
>read, purportedly as poetry!
>
>
>--
**
sophie
Dale Houstman
> Hi Dale,
>
> > > But then again, the rest of the discussion so far has been an argument
> > about
> > > what constitutes 'creativity'.
> >
> > It doesn't seem that way to me. It seems much of the conversation has
been
> > about the role of rhythm and meter and imagery and such.
>
> Yes. I was referring to the current thread-within-a-thread, but perhaps we
> could try and gear this back towards meter/rhythm.
I don't know ("don't know" is a verbal tic of mine): I think as much has
been said on that as is necessary: all language is rhythmic but not
necessarily metrical.
>
>
> The complication for me arises between the adjective (sorry, is that the
> right word? I get easily grammar-garbled) and the noun, 'poetics'. The
> former can be applied to anything, really, as you've said. A really bad
> poem is not necessarily poetic in this first sense, at least by my
> standards.
And it remains the most important standard for me: I am not acutely
intrigued by the technical aspect of a poem, despite there being so many
great examples of that. But my interest lies in the nature of metaphorical
balance, explosive imagery, and the exploration of new sensations. Personal
no doubt. I am intrigued by Rimbaud's idea that "self" doesn't really exist,
that it is really a small cross-section of an active process. So - I am not
overly thrilled by all the subjective poetics, again in spite of the many
fine examples. "I is another" is a sort of watchword for my own adventures
in the Poetic. One temporarily locates one's place in the process by
"nailing" it to a piece of paper: it is happening in an ongoing continuum.
Thus each new composition is an attempt to fix some aspects of that struggle
between a fading "self" and language. One succeeds or fails as it goes. So -
I am less interested in meter and rhyme than in metaphor and the images
metaphor throws off like sparks.
>
> > That's more the point: poetry as such is the literary form of the
poetic.
>
> The second definition then. That would be an entire dictionary of poetic
> forms. This statement to me reads 'poetry IS poetics' - and of course the
> results of applying poetics to language.
I should have capitalized "Poetic." I am NOT speaking of that handbook of
ritualized and fixed examples that make up poetics, but of that process I
have alluded to (vaguely) which carries along our linguistic attempts at
capturing it.
>You'd therefore need an entire
> dictionary of poetic terms and definitions (and there are several around)
to
> define poetry. Which is something akin to what Mike Billard was saying -
> (paraphrasing) "poetry is every poem written and the poetics (theories of
> poetry)".
Yes, plus any new experiements that grow out of an awareness of that history
and then add to it meaningfully, opening up new arenas of sensation, or
exploring in some interesting manner a small part of the whole field. Many
"smaller writers" (and some of my favorities) are like this: not innovators
but "fine-tuners."
>
> I agree that to learn poetry you need to study for the whole of your life,
> but I recall a discussion we had about inspiration - it often helps to do
> something completely different to poetry to be able to write poetry. Is
this
> a part of poetics? Is there something 'poetic' (in the first sense) about
> skydiving, hiking, etc. because it inspires poetry/creativity?
One should not be too anxious to segregate any artform from the ongoing
adventure of living. One can become too enamored of one's "skill" and thus
go into a creative loop that leads to nothing more than mere competency.
>The Ancient
> Greek root-definition appears to be looking into the source for actual
> writing - not the writing itself. The general application of the word
holds
> true for them, mainly because the 'poetics' were very limited.
But not - to judge from their myths - their imaginations, which are as dark
and frenetic as anything we've ever seen.
>
> > The Surrealists saw the Poetic as a thing apart from poetry, as a sort
of
> > asymptote of human imagination. And that is a thing worth discussing I
> > suppose (although with difficulty), and - in effect - a more attractive
> > arena for me, since I am not one particularly drawn to discussions of
> > technical aspects.
>
> OK. But the challenge I'd put to you here is that the Surrealists were a
> branch of the Modernist movement and they, along with minimalists,
> formalists, absurdists, cubists (possibly), Baudelaire and Laforgue, etc.
> etc. are what makes it impossible to define modernism except in the
broadest
> of terms. This example shows that to provide an inclusive definition
> requires generalisation.
One of their goals - certainly - was to trash the ancient definitions. But
this wasn't only to be punks about it: they hoped (possibly against all
hope) to substitute a new order of the human imagination. One must always
keep in mind also that surrealism - unlike the others isms - was not
primarily an art movement, so it had bigger fish to fry, even if it turns
out their pan was too small. But - honestly - I am not driven to find a
definition for poetry, as - from my vantage point - I keep discovering it
most when I am least looking for it. Poetry (the literary function) doesn't
"stick out" for me as being the most crucial aspect of what I am trying
always to find (and by looking for it masking beneath my ego): as Frank
O'Hara said (roughly), "I have never read a Whitman poem that is as
interesting as a movie." Humor aside, he is relegating poetry to being one
of a large number of possibly experience, one which he (obviously) indulged
in greatly, but not separately placed in a pantheon.
> But onto the Surrealist notion of the Poetic. I'm a bit unsure of your
> phrase 'asymptote of human imagination'. Do you mean they were trying to
> push the limits of imagination, reaching as high as possible to some kind
of
> ideal?
And never quite reaching it yes. It is obvious - from a reading of the
surrealists - that they believed highly in "suspended and permanent desire"
much in the way Mao talked up the "permanent revolution." They weren't so
good with desire attained, and wouldn't know what to do with it if it fell
into their pulsating laps. One tries to keep "tuned" to the "aneurysms" of
the Marvelous by indulging in activites which dissolve the self: automatism,
chance, communal efforts, and the like.
>
>
> I guess you're right here. Language itself is a corruption of the idea,
> which is why it is so important for poetry to explain things, to
> reinterpret. Language kind of becomes organic through the possibilities of
> poetry, as does understanding of life.
But this is where I diverge: I think the "idea" (the thought) does not
predate language.
>
> > >And I think the definition I provided was.
> >
>
> Is that the first time I've read 'I don't know' in one of your posts?!?
> Could be, but I'd second that. As you've pointed out, semantics aren't all
> that much fun to discuss. But a definition of poetry, by nature would
> probably have to be quite vague, or it would fall down. Alternatively, it
> has to involve the entire field of poetry, which is what most poets are
> learning and expanding. To say you 'know' poetry is to restrict your
> capacity to learn poetry. Therefore, 'I don't know what poetry is' is a
> valid solution for me. As long as I don't give up trying to find out.
Agreed: a suspended voyage...
dmh
Richard Daish
"Morfydd Turberville" <Mor...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:3B08...@MailAndNews.com...
> Thanks for that advice. I'm new to newsgroups, and I didn't realise that
my signature file would be at the end of the document - it's just another
email! Mind you, most of the people on here seem to be on the other side of
the Atlantic, so I doubt they would phone me!
Richard Daish
short of all the poems ever written", you then have to define what
constitutes a poem. As with any art, or art form, the only definition
allowable would be a qualitative one, else chimpanzees let loose on a
keyboard would be writing poetry, as they paint "pictures", when given a
brush loaded with paint. It is a picture, but it is not art. So it is with
many modern poems - they are words, but words alone do not make a poem, nor
thoughts, nor emotions make a poem. The very essence of poetry is its
movement, its journey from the first starting statement to its finality,
with its metre gently leading the reader to a state of higher thought,
granting satisfaction and education to the reader. The metre is used to
convey meaning just as much as the words. Consider this short poem and the
notes after it:
A Dream of Death
It's a lonely road that I must travel
And it's far beyond the peace.
The endings of my life unravel
And the noises round me cease
Beneath my feet, the sand and gravel
Bear the marks of no-one's tread.
Way beyond their clamorous cavil
Alone I face the fear and dread.
Across the clearing stands the shamble
Of a house once proud and tall
Roofless, doorless, o'ergrown with bramble,
Yet my heart still knows its call.
I push my way inside this place
And I lay down on its floor.
The rain falls gently on my upturned face
But now . . . I can feel it no more.
Notes
The iambic metre in the first three stanzas is used to represent the
heartbeat of a dying man, in this case, the writer. The change in metre to
stressed syllables in the last two lines of the poem is indicative of the
pounding of the heart heard in the ears as the blood pressure drops. The
break in the last line is where physical death occurs, leaving the poet with
his final thought.
Stanza 1 The lonely road represents the feeling of isolation from other
people during death - others may be involved, but the dying person is
committed. The next three lines tell of the silent, unspoken panic, which is
felt by many at the point of death.
Stanza 2 The poet here tells again of his loneliness, but he is forgiving
others for their treatment of him while he lived. Cavil is mockery, or
finding fault unfairly.
Stanza 3 The poet has now accepted that he is going to die, and is seeing
his death as a form of returning home, yet it has been ruined by his conduct
in life. What should have been a joyous occasion, is now accepted for the
corrupted and imperfect fact that is represented by the house.
Stanza 4 With a last effort of will, he embraces death as a friend, and
finds the experience not unpleasant, enjoying the sensation as if of gentle
rain.
(End of notes)
That is what I mean.
--
Catalephsis
> my signature file would be at the end of the document - it's just another
> email! Mind you, most of the people on here seem to be on the other side
of
> the Atlantic, so I doubt they would phone me!
Hell, I went to school in Elstree, but goddamned if I'm honking ya bell
anyways. (He says in his worst American accent...)
Welcome to the group, anyway.
George.
LonWolve
Who wrote this?
Thanks!
LW
In article <9e3usr$kft$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com>,
richar...@btinternet.com says...
Morfydd Turberville
>my signature file would be at the end of the document - it's just another
>email! Mind you, most of the people on here seem to be on the other side of
>the Atlantic, so I doubt they would phone me!
>
>
Oh, I don't know. I've gotten to talk to a few people across the pond since
I
have been on here. But then I gave them my phone number privately with that
intention. :-)
Anyways, nice to "see" a new face around here.
Mop
JAS Carter
<richar...@btinternet.com> ate sausages and exclaimed:
>The very essence of poetry is its movement, its journey from the first starting statement to its finality,
>with its metre gently leading the reader to a state of higher thought,
And what if a poem doesn't have meter?
And what if it doesn't move? And what if it doesn't lead, or doesn't
lead to higher thought?
What if it just is?
--
Julie Carter
Mike Billard
Richard Daish <richar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9e3usr$kft$1...@neptunium.btinternet.com...
> Have you not fallen into a little trap here. By defining poetry as
"nothing
> short of all the poems ever written", you then have to define what
> constitutes a poem. As with any art, or art form, the only definition
> allowable would be a qualitative one, else chimpanzees let loose on a
> keyboard would be writing poetry, as they paint "pictures", when given a
> brush loaded with paint. It is a picture, but it is not art. So it is with
> many modern poems - they are words, but words alone do not make a poem,
nor
> thoughts, nor emotions make a poem. The very essence of poetry is its
> movement, its journey from the first starting statement to its finality,
> with its metre gently leading the reader to a state of higher thought,
> granting satisfaction and education to the reader. The metre is used to
> convey meaning just as much as the words.
So you choose to pretend nonmetrical poetry isn't poetry. I doubt WCW feeles
particularly threatened by your definition despite the fact it is excludes
most of his work. The fact is any definition that does not adequately
explain all variations of the art is a defective definition. Your definition
is defective and needs to be modified. Robert Pinsky says it best in the
beginning of his book "The Sounds of Poetry":
"There are no rules. However, principles may be discerned in actual
practice: for example in the way people actually speak, or in the lines
poets have written. If a good line contradicts a principle one has
formulated, then the principle, by which I mean a kind of working idea,
should be discarded or amended."
There are plenty of poems (probably hundreds of thousands) that contradict
your principle. You'd do well to either discard it or amend it.
Richard Daish
"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b058aaf...@news.supernews.com...
Can you therefore call it poetry?
If you say "yes", then any rubbish can be called poetry, and this would
demean poets.
If you say "no", the you have to make a qualitative judgement on whether the
piece is a poem. As you describe it, it does not, to me, sound like poetry.
The mere fact of its existence does not imbue it with any qualities
whatsoever.
JAS Carter
<richar...@btinternet.com> ate sausages and exclaimed:
>
>
>
>"JAS Carter" <jsgo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:3b058aaf...@news.supernews.com...
>> On Fri, 18 May 2001 20:56:27 +0100, "Richard Daish"
>> <richar...@btinternet.com> ate sausages and exclaimed:
>>
>> >The very essence of poetry is its movement, its journey from the first
>starting statement to its finality,
>> >with its metre gently leading the reader to a state of higher thought,
>>
>> And what if a poem doesn't have meter?
>>
>> And what if it doesn't move? And what if it doesn't lead, or doesn't
>> lead to higher thought?
>>
>> What if it just is?
>
>Can you therefore call it poetry?
Yes.
>If you say "yes", then any rubbish can be called poetry, and this would
>demean poets.
Bull. You want the definition of poetry to include these things. But
I consider them neither necessary nor sufficient. We can just start
with meter, if you choose. Are you saying *all* poems have meter?
Catalephsis
> Can you therefore call it poetry?
> If you say "yes", then any rubbish can be called poetry, and this would
> demean poets.
It HAS to be called poetry.
"The whole nature of artistic endeavour is promote the existence of elites;
without elites there would be no excellence, no talent." - Will Self, "Cost
of Letters".
So you need this shit to surround the diamonds, right?
Catalephsis
news:9e6f1k$9ut$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
> Can you therefore call it poetry?
> If you say "yes", then any rubbish can be called poetry, and this would
> demean poets.
It HAS to be called poetry.
Woeisme
Richard,
The Poet's Handbook
by Judson Jerome, Lit. Prof.
"On the one hand, poetry is anything you want to call it. If you say it
is poetry, it is poetry, and no one can deny it. That doesn't mean it is
good poetry. And most good poetry, whatever its other qualities, is
metrical writing.
*Metrical* means measured, a measure, or predetermined form, forces a
poet to put his thoughts into a framework. The framework requires the poet
to pick and choose, polish, twist, to manage these contortions with grace.
It is the tug-of-war between form and content that makes the art of the
poem. Prose lies flat on the page. Poetry (good poetry, that is) stands up
off it, rounded like a piece of sculpture, because if its imposed form."
I'm not entirely satisfied with this definition of "Metrical", like for
example does it include free verse? But the idea that an art form is a
matter of perspective, that anything can be art, but to be really good art
has to at least have some structure is a valid one.
But, in defense of this definition of metrical...
Glossary of Poetic Terms from BOB'S BYWAY
Compiled, edited and cross-referenced by Robert G. Shubinski, 1996 - 2001.
"The 'free' in free verse refers to the freedom from fixed patterns of
meter and rhyme, but writers of free verse employ familiar poetic devices
such as assonance, alliteration, imagery, caesura, figures of speech etc.,
and their rhythmic effects are dependent on the syllabic cadences emerging
from the context .
The one characteristic that distinguishes free verse from rhythmical
prose is that free verse has line breaks which divide the content into
uneven rhythmical units of cadence."
Michael
--
Richard Daish <richar...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:9e6f1k$9ut$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
>
>
Woeisme
Bruce,
Ok, so it's kind of late to jump in here but I wanted to suggest that
the line breaks, for me, are equivalent to music's time signature such as
4/4 time like in a waltz where the musical phrasing is dividable by so many
4/4 timed measures. There doesn't have to be a down beat at the end of
everyone (although I understand a funk rhythm needs a beat at the start of
one). Anyways, I read lines as a cue to rhythmical phrasing and even as
music can change times throughout a piece so too can a poem.
Michael
--
"Bruce Tindall" <tin...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9ds84i$rpl$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> Joshua P. Hill <XXjos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >Trained musicians don't pause at the bar line, but use it as the cue
> >that tells them where to place the rhythmic emphases that allow the
> >listener to parse the music. So, I think, skilled poetry readers: the
> >neophyte inserts a caesura at the end of every line, but the more
> >experienced reader has trained himself to read beyond the end of the
> >line, fixing with his eye the beginning of the next even as he utters
> >the last.
>
> Many prosodists consider the end of the line to cause a slight
> pause -- "half a comma," as one of them (I forget who) wrote.
>
> But, yeah, a lot of inexperienced readers put about three periods'
> and a paragraph-break's worth of silence at then end of the line,
> not to mention inflecting the pitch of the last word as if it were
> the end of a sentence, etc., and if somebody reads metrical
> poetry that way, they're almost certain to hate it.
>
> Charles O. Hartman has a long discussion of the rhythmic effects
> of the end of a line, in both metrical and free verse, on both
> the line being ended and the beginning of the next line, in his
> book _Free Verse_.
>
> --
> Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com
>
Joshua P. Hill
<mike...@pathwaynet.com> wrote:
> But, in defense of this definition of metrical...
>
>
>Glossary of Poetic Terms from BOB'S BYWAY
>Compiled, edited and cross-referenced by Robert G. Shubinski, 1996 - 2001.
>
> "The 'free' in free verse refers to the freedom from fixed patterns of
>meter and rhyme, but writers of free verse employ familiar poetic devices
>such as assonance, alliteration, imagery, caesura, figures of speech etc.,
>and their rhythmic effects are dependent on the syllabic cadences emerging
>from the context .
> The one characteristic that distinguishes free verse from rhythmical
>prose is that free verse has line breaks which divide the content into
>uneven rhythmical units of cadence."
Sounds like a good definition to me.
Josh
Bruce Tindall
>Glossary of Poetic Terms from BOB'S BYWAY
>Compiled, edited and cross-referenced by Robert G. Shubinski, 1996 - 2001.
>
> "The 'free' in free verse refers to the freedom from fixed patterns of
>meter and rhyme, but writers of free verse employ familiar poetic devices
>such as assonance, alliteration, imagery, caesura, figures of speech etc.,
>and their rhythmic effects are dependent on the syllabic cadences emerging
>from the context .
> The one characteristic that distinguishes free verse from rhythmical
>prose is that free verse has line breaks which divide the content into
>uneven rhythmical units of cadence."
This corresponds mostly (not 100%) with the definition Charles O.
Hartman uses in his book "Free Verse: An Essay on Prosody" --
metrical verse is verse whose prosody relies on a *numeric*
measurement, e.g., number of stresses per line, number of
syllables per line, a combination of those two (as in accentual-
syllabic verse), number of long and short syllables, etc.,
whereas free verse is verse whose prosody is non-numeric.
Note that he doesn't say that free verse lacks prosody;
rather, the experience of the poem in time is controlled by
some means other than counting something. The rest of his
book is concerned with how free verse does that.
--
Bruce Tindall :: tin...@panix.com