testing something new xD

[michaelsbearre]

I'm testing a new form and metering thingy. Never written like this, always been free form so tell me what you think. No real relevance to the poem. Just an exercise.


Alone in this decaying wasteland,
Broken and tormented by shadows of the past.
Only here and now, do I long for what will never be.
I yearn for all that’s taken, all that won’t last.
Bleeding tears within my hands,

I struggle to know a bitter difference,
Of how things of the world should be and forever was.
Intangible to what’s happened and regretting every mistake I made,
I hold onto memories shedding tears over all that’s been lost.
With these demons, I doubt my existence.

[Delta40]

I like the 2nd stanza better.

[michaelsbearre]

I like the 2nd stanza better.

Thank you, I'm trying new things. Never heard of ABCBA stuff before. So, thought I might try it. IDK hurhur

[cogs]

great effort, michael! this fits within the coldness of your avatar. the struggling is the good part.

[MorpheusSandman]

I'm not sure what metering/formal thing you're trying. You said "ABCBA" which is a rhyme scheme, but usually in such a scheme there will be a metrical pattern too, and I can't really sense one here, except maybe a loose 46753, which creates too many sharp increases and decreases of metrical feet. Also, the ABCBA scheme really cries out for the C line to be rhymed as well. I always feel such dangling end-rhymes are awkward unless used to make some kind of point.

[michaelsbearre]

I'm not sure what metering/formal thing you're trying. You said "ABCBA" which is a rhyme scheme, but usually in such a scheme there will be a metrical pattern too, and I can't really sense one here, except maybe a loose 46753, which creates too many sharp increases and decreases of metrical feet. Also, the ABCBA scheme really cries out for the C line to be rhymed as well. I always feel such dangling end-rhymes are awkward unless used to make some kind of point.

What is your degree of education on poetry?

[MorpheusSandman]

Nothing from a university, if that's what you mean. I've spent the last 4 years reading a lot of poetry textbooks, critics, and poetry itself, as well as just thinking on the matter, reflecting on my work and that of others, considering what I feel works and what doesn't.

[michaelsbearre]

Nothing from a university, if that's what you mean. I've spent the last 4 years reading a lot of poetry textbooks, critics, and poetry itself, as well as just thinking on the matter, reflecting on my work and that of others, considering what I feel works and what doesn't.

Interesting. Usually I deal with criticism from editors and my publisher in which is a good thing. However, in your criticism, I am not sure if you intend to be condescending or not, but if you have the time to post all the faults of a piece of work, you should at least give suggestions to make the piece of work better. For evolution of anything to become better, solutions should and must be addressed instead of listing problem a,b,c,d,e,f, and g then move on.

In addition, your comparisons of other writers and suggesting other writers study the writers you hold in reverence really doesn't constitute as feed back. It's like saying: "I love poet A. Study poet A so that way you will be awesome like poet A (When in fact it's your own personal opinion that poet A is awesome and it's being reflected as a global fact).

Just as a suggestion for future critiques, can you please explain why a single line didn't work instead of globalizing a piece of work. Writers need to know line by line why something works for someone and not another. Only reason I bring this up is because this is what I do with my editors when working on a book and the work is molded, sculpted and the end result is a lot better when feed back is given line by line instead of globalizing an entire piece into a single opinion.

My poetry receives little proofreading because I got a much bigger thing on my hands, but critiques are wonderful if given in the proper way.

Your recent critique:

"I'm not sure what metering/formal thing you're trying. You said "ABCBA" which is a rhyme scheme, but usually in such a scheme there will be a metrical pattern too, and I can't really sense one here, except maybe a loose 46753, which creates too many sharp increases and decreases of metrical feet. Also, the ABCBA scheme really cries out for the C line to be rhymed as well. I always feel such dangling end-rhymes are awkward unless used to make some kind of point." Is an incredibly vague critique, and to know my error, I need more information.

As in; "Line 2, doesn't flow very well, but line 7 flows excellent. Consider revising the flow of Line 2 and 3".

Or, "Line 4's metering disrupts the entire poem" or anything you can think. Just be more specific instead of globalizing an entire piece of work and then say:"Study this guy and that guy" cause that's just shifting your chance to critique onto someone else.

NEVER in professional editing are editors referring their authors elsewhere, so I don't feel referring a poet to another poet is a good source of editing.

Thank you for the feed back, just please be more specific. Sorry it's so long.

[MorpheusSandman]

Firstly, I wasn't trying to be condescending. My criticism was addressed to your own note that "I'm testing a new form and metering thingy," and I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by that. The rhyme scheme (ABCBA) is, I believe, what Lewis Turco called an "envelope quintet," but which is not a very common scheme. But you mentioned "metering" and I'm not sure about that either, because the lines don't scan with any consistent pattern:

Alone in this decaying wasteland, -/-/-/-//
Broken and tormented by shadows of the past. /---/--/---/
Only here and now, do I long for what will never be. /-/-/--/-/-/-/
I yearn for all that’s taken, all that won’t last. -/-/-/-/-//
Bleeding tears within my hands, /-/-/-/

I struggle to know a bitter difference, -/--/-/-/-(-)
Of how things of the world should be and forever was. -//--/-/--/-/
Intangible to what’s happened and regretting every mistake I made, -/---//---/-/--/-/
I hold onto memories shedding tears over all that’s been lost. -//-/--/-/--/-//
With these demons, I doubt my existence. --/--/--/-

When I said "I can't really sense (a metrical pattern) here," this is what I meant; I don't see a pattern to the accents. It begins in a kind of iambic pentameter with a catalectic final foot, but by L2 the meter just explodes and you have a weird dactyl/iamb/anapest/quartus paeon... It doesn't get any less weird from there. So when you said you were testing a new metering, I kept looking for what the meter was supposed to be.

As for your, errr, criticism of my criticism, let me say this: there's a lot of poetry posted on this board, and I try to offer my opinions on most of it. Sometimes it's just a short note about whether I like it or not, other times it's more of an analysis of its technical features, other times it's an interpretation, other times it's more of a work shop where I suggest fixes. I don't have a set method for critiquing poetry, but usually if I offer fixes it's because I have a sense of what the poet was trying to accomplish. Because you yourself said this was just a test of meter and form, and because I don't know what that test is, I don't know what advices to offer to fix it.

As for suggesting other poets, I usually do this when a piece reminds me of another poet's work, or because I think there's something to be learned from how another poet rendered a subject. One of the most important skills a poet can learn is how to glean ideas (especially technical) from the great poets, so when I recommend other poems/poets, this is the reason. You say it's not helpful, but maybe that's just because you don't know how to read those poems and learn the lessons they have to teach. Either way, this is not something I do all the time in critiques either.

As for explaining why a single line doesn't work VS globalizing: I think both are important. A great poem should be more than the sum of its parts. Sometimes it's only parts that need fixing, other times the entire overall structure is flawed and needs addressing. Again, it's not a consistant thing. I constantly pick out single lines (or even words) in poems that I think are worth noting for one reason or another. But, again, because you said yourself this was an experiment in form and meter, those are the things I addressed, and NOT specific lines.

If you want me to offer a more detailed critique, advise me as to what you want addressed and what your intention was to begin with. I don't try to impose my poetic tastes onto others, which means I can't offer fixes if I don't know what you were going for.

[michaelsbearre]

Firstly, I wasn't trying to be condescending. My criticism was addressed to your own note that "I'm testing a new form and metering thingy," and I wasn't exactly sure what you meant by that. The rhyme scheme (ABCBA) is, I believe, what Lewis Turco called an "envelope quintet," but which is not a very common scheme. But you mentioned "metering" and I'm not sure about that either, because the lines don't scan with any consistent pattern:

Alone in this decaying wasteland, -/-/-/-//
Broken and tormented by shadows of the past. /---/--/---/
Only here and now, do I long for what will never be. /-/-/--/-/-/-/
I yearn for all that’s taken, all that won’t last. -/-/-/-/-//
Bleeding tears within my hands, /-/-/-/

I struggle to know a bitter difference, -/--/-/-/-(-)
Of how things of the world should be and forever was. -//--/-/--/-/
Intangible to what’s happened and regretting every mistake I made, -/---//---/-/--/-/
I hold onto memories shedding tears over all that’s been lost. -//-/--/-/--/-//
With these demons, I doubt my existence. --/--/--/-

When I said "I can't really sense (a metrical pattern) here," this is what I meant; I don't see a pattern to the accents. It begins in a kind of iambic pentameter with a catalectic final foot, but by L2 the meter just explodes and you have a weird dactyl/iamb/anapest/quartus paeon... It doesn't get any less weird from there. So when you said you were testing a new metering, I kept looking for what the meter was supposed to be.

As for your, errr, criticism of my criticism, let me say this: there's a lot of poetry posted on this board, and I try to offer my opinions on most of it. Sometimes it's just a short note about whether I like it or not, other times it's more of an analysis of its technical features, other times it's an interpretation, other times it's more of a work shop where I suggest fixes. I don't have a set method for critiquing poetry, but usually if I offer fixes it's because I have a sense of what the poet was trying to accomplish. Because you yourself said this was just a test of meter and form, and because I don't know what that test is, I don't know what advices to offer to fix it.

As for suggesting other poets, I usually do this when a piece reminds me of another poet's work, or because I think there's something to be learned from how another poet rendered a subject. One of the most important skills a poet can learn is how to glean ideas (especially technical) from the great poets, so when I recommend other poems/poets, this is the reason. You say it's not helpful, but maybe that's just because you don't know how to read those poems and learn the lessons they have to teach. Either way, this is not something I do all the time in critiques either.

As for explaining why a single line doesn't work VS globalizing: I think both are important. A great poem should be more than the sum of its parts. Sometimes it's only parts that need fixing, other times the entire overall structure is flawed and needs addressing. Again, it's not a consistant thing. I constantly pick out single lines (or even words) in poems that I think are worth noting for one reason or another. But, again, because you said yourself this was an experiment in form and meter, those are the things I addressed, and NOT specific lines.

If you want me to offer a more detailed critique, advise me as to what you want addressed and what your intention was to begin with. I don't try to impose my poetic tastes onto others, which means I can't offer fixes if I don't know what you were going for.

Thank you, I'm trying to become familiar with metering because I've never heard of it. I've been researching like mad trying to wrap my head around it and finally found something that may have helped. That is all. So here is another thing I've tried with metering.


Back before the setting sun, /-/-/-/
Long ago before hell could come. /-/-//-/
Angels in flight, casting their might, -/-/-/-/
Spreading death and fear all through the night. /-/-/----/

I don't know if marking it right.

[cogs]

which leads me to my question: what is the rule for stress combinations, when some words someone may stress, and another may unstress? is it just dictated by the context it's in, or is there some consonant/vowel rule?

michael, i see you express yourself very well, and are serious about your work. morpheus sandman has been quite helpful to my improvement.

[michaelsbearre]

which leads me to my question: what is the rule for stress combinations, when some words someone may stress, and another may unstress? is it just dictated by the context it's in, or is there some consonant/vowel rule?

michael, i see you express yourself very well, and are serious about your work. morpheus sandman has been quite helpful to my improvement.

Thank you, I do intend to learn from morph, but his crit has been vague. I admit, I know nothing of metering, abcba, and my previous research was a false pursuit. The guy didn't know anything about it so I didn't know what the heck I was trying to do. So, never yahoo! it again. I went to youtube and got a much better feel for what metering actually is. I love to write and I'm trying to make it a living, so any feed back to improve it is welcomed. I just appreciate more detailed analysis's of my work. I don't mean to offend morph because he seems educated in his advice, I feel I could learn more on more detailed crits.

[cogs]

that's a great idea to watch videos. is english your first language?

[MorpheusSandman]

Back before the setting sun, /-/-/-/
Long ago before hell could come. /-/-//-/
Angels in flight, casting their might, -/-/-/-/
Spreading death and fear all through the night. /-/-/----/

I don't know if marking it right.I think lines 1 and 2 are right, but I would mark:

Angels in flight, casting their might /--//--/
Spreading death and fear all through the night. /-/-/-/-/ or /-/-//--/


which leads me to my question: what is the rule for stress combinations, when some words someone may stress, and another may unstress? is it just dictated by the context it's in, or is there some consonant/vowel rule?This is actually quite a complicated question. One source that you might find extremely helpful is Patrick Gillespie's blog called PoemShape where his primary subject is English stress and how it's been used in metrical poetry throughout the ages. One thing to keep in mind is that thoughts have changed about this over time. Early on, English poets wanted to develop a rhythmic system that was as legitimate as the Greeks and Romans and the Dactylic Hexameter of their great writers like Homer, Virgil, and Ovid. In the early days of English prosody there were two competing systems: alliterative accentual verse (such as in Beowulf) and accentual-syllabic rhymed verse (such as in Chaucer). Chaucer's rhymed iambic pentameter eventually "won out" and became the dominant form for the next 4 centuries of English prosody. Even in that time the form was modified. EG, Shakespeare's blank verse is iambic pentameter, but used more to imitate the rhythms of natural speech, and it dropped Chaucer's end-rhymes.

In general, back then the meter itself imposed itself on stress. So when you came across a syllable that wouldn't normally be stressed, but was in a stress position in the meter, it was "promoted," meaning it was stressed anyway. Likewise, if you came across a syllable that was usually stressed, but was in an unstressed part of the meter, it was "demoted," meaning it wasn't stressed. What this did is it allowed poets to dictate the way in which poems were read, which meant different meanings emerged depending on those stresses. Afterall, wouldn't you agree that these three lines have different meanings:

I love you!
I love you!
I love you!

In the first, the stress on the "I" makes it sound as if the speaker is saying "I (rather than someone else) love you", in the second it sounds as if the speaker is saying "I love (rather than just like) you", while in the third it sounds as if the speaker is saying "I love you (rather than someone else)." Well, classical poets used iambic pentameter to dictate where the stresses went and what that meant for what the poems meant. A good reading of such a poem is Shakespeare's Sonnet 116 (http://poemshape.wordpress.com/category/shakespeare-poetry-discussed/sonnet-116/) by Patrick.

Now, again, rules change over time. The Romantics sought to bring more of everyday, common diction into poetry, and after the rise of free-verse it was thought that if meter was to exist at all then poets had to make language dictate the meter and stresses rather than the meter dictating the stresses of the language. This has lead to a lot of controversy over the dissonances created in poetry between meter and natural stresses and, indeed, it's not always clear when we should stress poetry according to the meter, or stress it according to the natural rhythms and assume that the poet has used what's called metrical variations. Metrical variations are an essential aspect of metrical art, and again I'd highly recommend Stephen Fry's The Ode Less Traveled or Paul Fussell's Poetic Meter and Poetic Form on the subject.

ultimately, there is no hard and fast rules about when and when not to stress. Stress is always relative, but it's as relevant as much to historical context as it is to the natural rhythms of the language itself. There are just sometimes when we can't look to natural rhythms to dictate stress because stress varies between different people in different idioms and depending on exactly what's being said.

A good general guide (though far from exhaustive) is that because English is stress-timed it likes it stresses to be equally apart. Now, words that typically take stress are monosyllabic verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs, while monosyllabic prepositions, articles, and conjunctions are usually unstressed. In disyllabic words the stress is usually (certainly not always) on the first stress, trisyllabic words usually like stress on the first or middle syllable, while quatorsyllabic words usually like stresses on the first and third syllables (certainly not always). Most multisyllabic words like to take at least one stress with a few exceptions (like the "into" "onto" thing I told you about in another thread). The general idea is that you can construct natural meter by following most of these basic rules. A quick example of iambic pentameter might be:

I LOOKED inSIDe the HOUSE and SAW a DOG

Notice how four of the words that don't take stress are prepositions (in), articles (the, a) and a conjunction (and) while the words that are stressed are a verb (looked), the second half of a preposition (side), a noun (house) a verb (saw) and a noun (dog). So you can see the basics of English rhythm there.

Here's a more complex example from a famous Keats poem:

BRIGHT STAR! Would I were as STEAD-FAST as THOU ART!

Now, that's an unusual opening line for iambic pentameter, because it contains three metrical substitutions in the form of spondees: Bright star, stead-fast, and thou art. These are in "monosyllabic adjective/noun, monsyllabic adjective/adjective, and monosyllabic noun/verb combination, so it's difficult not to stress any of these pairings. Two words that are certainly unstressed are the prepositions "as". "Would I" is an interesting ambivalent stress. Should it be "WOULD i" or "would I"? Well, here's a point where context helps you out; the meter would tell you that "I" should be stressed, since "Would" is in an unstressed position. But it's even more likely "Would" shouldn't be stressed since it's followed by two-consecutive stresses in "Bright Star". Plus, by stressing "Would" instead of "I," you'd also have to stress "were", and then you're really distorting the meter.

But also notice the pattern of stresses and unstressed words: You have the three spondees: Bright Star, stead-fast, thou art; You have the central trio of "Would I were" where only "I" is stressed, and the lone "as" between "stead-fast" and "thou art". This is a superb example of a poet using stresses to enhance the meaning of what's being said. The spondees are all associated with the bright-star (in fact, if you reverse it you get: "thou art stead-fast bright star"), and their consistent stress-stress rhythm contrasts with the words associated with the speaker where, eg, the "I" is a stress island between the unstresses of "would" and "were." So the meter itself emphasizes the "stead-fastness" of the "bright star" subject and the lack of stead-fastness of the speaker.

Really, this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as stress in English meter goes.

[michaelsbearre]

Thank you sir morphy