Great discussion. I'm not sure you can dispense with feet since they define meter; it's the interaction between the template (meter) and underlying linguistic stress (rhythm) that's so interesting, as your discussion makes clear. I do think that we could do better at formulating the rules that, in practice, govern what counts as metrical within different contexts, as you suggest. For instance in English you can always promote the final syllable of a dactylic word (like vanity) so that the final unstressed syllable falls in a stressed position; it's fine. Apparently that's not OK in Russian (according to Nabokov's book on meter). There are things you can do with elision in the 18th century that you can't in the 19th. In the Renaissance you often have the option of shortening or lengthening diphthongs to fit the meter. And then there's a whole range of things that are sort of OK and sort of not; you would probably need to take a probabilistic approach. It would be interesting to see these historically specific aspects of meter / rhythm spelled out in a clear way.
Can't you define the template for iambic pentameter as "weak-strong-weak-strong..." without using the notion of a foot?
Re the historical stuff, yes!, I've seen fascinating stuff about, for example, how the variations Shakespeare permitted in his iambic pentameter differed from those Milton permitted (Gilbert Youmans, for example has written about Milton).
You could and you're right that if there weren't any other meters except iambic, it might make more sense to just describe it as the variation of stressed syllables with a given line length. I also agree that it doesn't make sense to describe breaks in meter in metrical terms--as the substitution of a trochee for an iamb, or something like that, which seems like a misunderstanding of what the relationship is between meter and rhythm. But as long as English has other possible meters, such as dactyls, even if they're not nearly as important, using the conventional terms to describe meter seems just as economical to me, unless there's something I'm not understanding. I would also hate to lose the prescriptive element of prosody, which comes with the terms. The self-conscious application of technical rules--even if they're varied or discarded later on--seems to me to be a big part of what differentiates accentual-syllabic meter from the medieval four-beat line.
I find Derek Attridge's opinions (theories?) most interesting on this count. Maybe you could snag an interview with him! He treats poetic rhythm in English as relying more on "beats" than anything else, and describes how English language's stress-timed nature allows it to glide over the top of the underlying beat structure.
I think that's what we're seeing when we spot all these loose-iambic lines, that sometimes appear more like anapests, or something else entirely. The stress-timing of English allows it to "work" regardless.
I am also fairly sure there's theories of Milton that attempt to demonstrate that he's more of a "Syllabic" poet than a strictly Iambic Pentameter poet. More on this: from what I can tell, Christopher Ricks' ideas of the "heroic line" kind of incorporates the iambic part rather than the strict repeating pentameter part into great English poetic lines.
Again, this is all based on my pretty weak understanding. I do find it amazing how loosely understood this stuff tends to be, and also how hidden away is the firm discussion about it. I think a lot of academics would rather spent their careers discussing "themes" than metre.....
Now what I'd really like to know is a firm explication of Manley Hopkins' "sprung rhythm".......
How is meter related to the meaning a reader experiences, in your view? And does that relationship change depending whether the reading is done silently or aloud?
That's the million dollar question, and I wish I had an answer. One expert on meter I read complained that linguists, while they care a lot about testing their theories on lots and lots of data (they'll tell you what percentage of lines in Paradise Lost exhibit such-and-such feature), and think that the views about meter that circulate in literary criticism are outdated, have basically nothing to say about the aesthetic function of meter, or its impact on the reading experience. They seem just to not care, while of course it's the main concern of the critics. My secret dream is to someday have something interesting to say on this topic...
Thank you. Thinking about it more, I suppose that rhythm affects emotion, which affects meaning. But I read Shakespeare (for example) as sentences, and his sentences make sense. I read (whether verse or prose) for sense primarily. The rhythm feels nice in the mind or in the reading aloud, but I don't think it helps me make sense of the sentences.
If I read "poetic poetry" that doesn't need to make literal sense, I read for imagery and emotion.
Myself, I write prose. I scan my paragraphs many times to make sure the sentences have a rhythm that pleases me.
Do linguists and critics study the rhythm of prose in the great novels? Or only in verse?
Great discussion. I'm not sure you can dispense with feet since they define meter; it's the interaction between the template (meter) and underlying linguistic stress (rhythm) that's so interesting, as your discussion makes clear. I do think that we could do better at formulating the rules that, in practice, govern what counts as metrical within different contexts, as you suggest. For instance in English you can always promote the final syllable of a dactylic word (like vanity) so that the final unstressed syllable falls in a stressed position; it's fine. Apparently that's not OK in Russian (according to Nabokov's book on meter). There are things you can do with elision in the 18th century that you can't in the 19th. In the Renaissance you often have the option of shortening or lengthening diphthongs to fit the meter. And then there's a whole range of things that are sort of OK and sort of not; you would probably need to take a probabilistic approach. It would be interesting to see these historically specific aspects of meter / rhythm spelled out in a clear way.
Can't you define the template for iambic pentameter as "weak-strong-weak-strong..." without using the notion of a foot?
Re the historical stuff, yes!, I've seen fascinating stuff about, for example, how the variations Shakespeare permitted in his iambic pentameter differed from those Milton permitted (Gilbert Youmans, for example has written about Milton).
You could and you're right that if there weren't any other meters except iambic, it might make more sense to just describe it as the variation of stressed syllables with a given line length. I also agree that it doesn't make sense to describe breaks in meter in metrical terms--as the substitution of a trochee for an iamb, or something like that, which seems like a misunderstanding of what the relationship is between meter and rhythm. But as long as English has other possible meters, such as dactyls, even if they're not nearly as important, using the conventional terms to describe meter seems just as economical to me, unless there's something I'm not understanding. I would also hate to lose the prescriptive element of prosody, which comes with the terms. The self-conscious application of technical rules--even if they're varied or discarded later on--seems to me to be a big part of what differentiates accentual-syllabic meter from the medieval four-beat line.
Thank you—and yes, agreed, I’d like to read that historical account too!
I find Derek Attridge's opinions (theories?) most interesting on this count. Maybe you could snag an interview with him! He treats poetic rhythm in English as relying more on "beats" than anything else, and describes how English language's stress-timed nature allows it to glide over the top of the underlying beat structure.
I think that's what we're seeing when we spot all these loose-iambic lines, that sometimes appear more like anapests, or something else entirely. The stress-timing of English allows it to "work" regardless.
I am also fairly sure there's theories of Milton that attempt to demonstrate that he's more of a "Syllabic" poet than a strictly Iambic Pentameter poet. More on this: from what I can tell, Christopher Ricks' ideas of the "heroic line" kind of incorporates the iambic part rather than the strict repeating pentameter part into great English poetic lines.
Again, this is all based on my pretty weak understanding. I do find it amazing how loosely understood this stuff tends to be, and also how hidden away is the firm discussion about it. I think a lot of academics would rather spent their careers discussing "themes" than metre.....
Now what I'd really like to know is a firm explication of Manley Hopkins' "sprung rhythm".......
I’ve read several explanations of sprung rhythm but of course they all disagree about what it is.
I’m working on something about Attridge’s view right now!
I’d say it’s that the common sense explanation is correct! But Brad would agree with you I imagine.
How is meter related to the meaning a reader experiences, in your view? And does that relationship change depending whether the reading is done silently or aloud?
you might find this interesting https://www.commonreader.co.uk/p/unmade-words-how-robert-frost-became-the-poet-of-his-generation-with-tones-that-havent-been-brought-to-book
I do love Frost…
The best. In another life, I would do a phd in frost
That's the million dollar question, and I wish I had an answer. One expert on meter I read complained that linguists, while they care a lot about testing their theories on lots and lots of data (they'll tell you what percentage of lines in Paradise Lost exhibit such-and-such feature), and think that the views about meter that circulate in literary criticism are outdated, have basically nothing to say about the aesthetic function of meter, or its impact on the reading experience. They seem just to not care, while of course it's the main concern of the critics. My secret dream is to someday have something interesting to say on this topic...
You should 100% write about this, Brad, would be excellent.
Thank you. Thinking about it more, I suppose that rhythm affects emotion, which affects meaning. But I read Shakespeare (for example) as sentences, and his sentences make sense. I read (whether verse or prose) for sense primarily. The rhythm feels nice in the mind or in the reading aloud, but I don't think it helps me make sense of the sentences.
If I read "poetic poetry" that doesn't need to make literal sense, I read for imagery and emotion.
Myself, I write prose. I scan my paragraphs many times to make sure the sentences have a rhythm that pleases me.
Do linguists and critics study the rhythm of prose in the great novels? Or only in verse?
Ward Farnsworth talks about the rhetorical use of rhythm in prose writing (Classical English Style), though his focus is not on fiction as such.