05-08-2014, 05:04 PM
I started out writing in heavily cadenced free verse in my 20's. As I learned more about meter, I started to gravitate to that. However, the original free-verse tendency never left me.
Today, I write out my lines counting syllables as I go. Counting syllables just helps me to get the poem into rough form. If I am aiming for iambic pentameter, I'll end up with lines in the range of 9 to 11 syllables. Some lines will have four accented syllables, some will have five, and some will have six. The problem (if it's a problem) is that if the lines sound good to me, I will often leave them as they are. Consequently, I rarely achieve perfect IP. Some lines will scan as iambic tetrameter and some will scan as iambic pentameter, and many of the lines will have frequent anomalies (although many will be perfectly iambic).
Non-poets who read my poetry have no problem with it, while formalist poets get bent out of shape over the imperfect meter. My advice to them is, "Read it as if it were free-verse" -- but because the poem comes close to sounding like metered poetry, they still don't like it. Without a doubt, I'm stretching the envelope. My tendency is to feel that poetry in general is headed in my direction: cadenced but not rigidly metrical.
Nonetheless, I want to discuss the issue of metrical anomalies. I'm curious to know what people consider acceptable and unacceptable.
Here's the second stanza of a poem about a friend dying in a hospital. The form is four lines of IP and one line of iambic trimeter.
Such faith they had once to crane their faces in
The breeze, and reach green arms to birds and sun;
The motherly sun, which warms my nervous thighs,
Which nurtured once their petals’ sheen, will presently
Turn their petals dry ...
The fourth and fifth lines are the problem:
which NUR / tured ONCE / their PET / al's SHEEN / will PRES / ent ly
x TURN / their PET / als DRY
The fourth line would appear to have six feet, with a pyrrhic as the final foot. However, since the lines run together, and since the first foot is a headless iamb, I read them like this:
which NUR / tured ONCE / their PET / al's SHEEN / will PRES
ent ly TURN / their PET / als DRY
.. as if the first foot of the fifth line were an anapest. And since anapests are acceptable substitutions in iambic meter, I feel that these lines are okay as they are. But I'm curious to hear other people's opinions. (Note: Frost slipped anapests into many of his iambic poems -- "Mowing" is a good example.)
Today, I write out my lines counting syllables as I go. Counting syllables just helps me to get the poem into rough form. If I am aiming for iambic pentameter, I'll end up with lines in the range of 9 to 11 syllables. Some lines will have four accented syllables, some will have five, and some will have six. The problem (if it's a problem) is that if the lines sound good to me, I will often leave them as they are. Consequently, I rarely achieve perfect IP. Some lines will scan as iambic tetrameter and some will scan as iambic pentameter, and many of the lines will have frequent anomalies (although many will be perfectly iambic).
Non-poets who read my poetry have no problem with it, while formalist poets get bent out of shape over the imperfect meter. My advice to them is, "Read it as if it were free-verse" -- but because the poem comes close to sounding like metered poetry, they still don't like it. Without a doubt, I'm stretching the envelope. My tendency is to feel that poetry in general is headed in my direction: cadenced but not rigidly metrical.
Nonetheless, I want to discuss the issue of metrical anomalies. I'm curious to know what people consider acceptable and unacceptable.
Here's the second stanza of a poem about a friend dying in a hospital. The form is four lines of IP and one line of iambic trimeter.
Such faith they had once to crane their faces in
The breeze, and reach green arms to birds and sun;
The motherly sun, which warms my nervous thighs,
Which nurtured once their petals’ sheen, will presently
Turn their petals dry ...
The fourth and fifth lines are the problem:
which NUR / tured ONCE / their PET / al's SHEEN / will PRES / ent ly
x TURN / their PET / als DRY
The fourth line would appear to have six feet, with a pyrrhic as the final foot. However, since the lines run together, and since the first foot is a headless iamb, I read them like this:
which NUR / tured ONCE / their PET / al's SHEEN / will PRES
ent ly TURN / their PET / als DRY
.. as if the first foot of the fifth line were an anapest. And since anapests are acceptable substitutions in iambic meter, I feel that these lines are okay as they are. But I'm curious to hear other people's opinions. (Note: Frost slipped anapests into many of his iambic poems -- "Mowing" is a good example.)