[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 3 KB, 416x385, Meter.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1993178 No.1993178 [Reply] [Original]

Hey, need some help.

I'm trying to learn how to properly write poetry and I'm a bit confused when it comes to stressed and unstressed words in poetry.

I've seen poems that are supposedly written in Iambic but for example the word "me" will be unstressed and at other times it will stressed.

Example:
That time of year thou mayst in me behold.
"Me" is stressed in this example.

Tell me not in mournful numbers.
"Me" is unstressed.

Is the rule of stressed words up to the writer of the poem to determine whether a words has emphasis on it or not?

Thanks in advance.

>> No.1993184
File: 87 KB, 500x363, 130582796119.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1993184

Well, yeah - emphasis of words, rhythm or form is all under the hand of the poet.

>> No.1993193

This issue is discussed well in John Hollander's book "Melodious Guile". There's an essay there about how rhythm affects stress pattern and meaning.

If you're learning how to properly write poetry, Hollander is probably your best guide: his book "Rhyme's Reason" is pretty indispensible.

>> No.1993194

>>1993184
Ok, thanks. I'm trying to write something nice but its been hard to because there have been gray areas that come up like this.

>> No.1993201

I don't think your second example is in iambic, for starters, and second if it were in iambic the "me" would be stressed, as an iamb is an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed.

Tell(u) me(s) not(u) in(s) mourn(u)ful(s) num(u)bers(s)

But it's not iambic. I looked it up, yes, it's written in trochaic octameter. I knew I recognized the line, but couldn't place it.
The meter is what determines the stresses, not the word, and you pick up the meter based on reading the words, which was how I knew at first glance that it wasn't iambic.

>> No.1993203

>>1993193
Thanks, I'll try to find his book next time I go to the library.

>> No.1993208

>>1993184
>>1993193

These guys somewhat clarify my point about
>The meter is what determines the stresses, not the word, and you pick up the meter based on reading the words,
There's a natural rhythm you can fall into when reading something, and using meter is an attempt to fit the correct words into the meter you're using. So, the emphasis rests on the poet, but the emphasis has to meet a rhythm which a reader can recognize within the meter. That's the true skill in writing verse, and it's a very difficult skill to sharpen.

>> No.1993211

http://www.cummingsstudyguides.net/xmeter.html

The first example you cite is iambic, while the second is trochaic.

But beyond that, it's just looking at language.

When you say "tell me" do you emphasize the me, or the tell? The tell, of course, unless you're dealing with multiple people.

While in the first example,
"That time of year thou mayst in me behold."
note the order of -important- words: time, year. Because those are more important than that and of, they set the rhyming pattern to "that TIME of YEAR thou MAYST in ME beHOLD"

>> No.1993213

>>1993201
Ah shit, my bad, the second example is trochaic. Sorry.

>The meter is what determines the stresses, not the word.
Oh ok, I had a feeling but I wasn't sure. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

>> No.1993217

>>1993211
I always forget to think about this when I say stuff like "natural rhythm," it does help to spell it out a little more specifically like you've done here, thanks for that way of explaining it, it's much more useful than my ambiguous phrase.

>> No.1993219

>>1993201

Octameter would have eight feet, not eight syllables

>> No.1993223

>>1993208
Yeah, that all makes sense now. I'm so glad you said all of this. I've been trying to write one poem for like two days and it came out really bland, I couldn't figure out what words and syllables were stressed and what weren't. I'm glad its more up to the poet to determine. Thanks again for the help.

>>1993211
>When you say "tell me" do you emphasize the me, or the tell? The tell, of course, unless you're dealing with multiple people.

That makes sense now, I was unaware if there was some list of words that are stressed and unstressed or if it was a matter of language.

Thanks man

>> No.1993224

I want to hug everyone in this thread right now. Thanks for all of the help!

>> No.1993225

>>1993219
I thought in English verse you count by the syllables, hence iambic pentameter is only five feet?

>> No.1993231

>>1993225

Iambic pentameter is five feet but ten syllables as one iamb is made of two syllables. Think of any line of iambic pentameter you know and then how many syllables it has.

>> No.1993234

>>1993225
I've always seen it referred to in that way, but I'm really only familiar with a couple different forms of formal verse in English. As I understood it, even in Latin and Greek poetry it was still counted by the number of syllables, not the feet.

>> No.1993239

>>1993231
Wait, what? Trochaic is two feet as well, so it would still be trochaic octameter?

>> No.1993241
File: 35 KB, 177x278, 1311735003652.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1993241

Behemoth, I was wondering if I could get some clarification on two poems:

Born into dropping hanging hands port-side,
when, and only, homely beds made us a harbour;
our flimsy hand-tools waving, missing heads
like nobodies; "nobody's kissing."

Then we grew up
again and as one,
but forgot times
with the hands;
somehow they
praised crimes,
sailing onward
under stands.

As if we had abandoned it, glorious nostalgia,
amid jeering fears jesting the children's tears;
yet vile spears would fall forever, queer sea-soaked rain,
and post-spoke reflection be anchor chains,
veering hearing the crowd constantly
making us somebodies; "somebody's love story."

This first one has gotten a good amount of comments from people I've had read it that the rhythm and form seems "forced" and "just to please the audience," but I feel it just reads better as so. It was mentioned by others that my other "free-form poems" held a higher standard of talent, though I disagree to some extent.

Here's the second poem:


First
down, the rain,
off-beat the cobbles near a still;
rushing or man-made pools, too.

Swells typhoon quietly, but,
dark swallows engulf the sky;

drown us in these umbrella towns.

"These people fish outside mountains,"
on our disfiguring end with
rock-side fester marks in mist.

in, eroding faces above,
the sky fell down on us before haven,
and, out, rejoiced.

Basically, my point is, how do you craft a poem without any sort of rhythm without sounding like you're just sounding out rigid phrases in form? I feel like it has no ring to it.

>> No.1993242

>>1993239

I think you might have some trouble with math or logic. One trochee (one foot of trochaic verse) and one iamb (one foot of iambic verse) each are two syllables. One foot is not one syllable.

What would you say is the meter of this:
"To be, or not to be; that is the question"

>> No.1993256

>>1993241
Honestly, I had to read these a few times and I still have no idea what to make of them, but from a purely technical standpoint:

The first one you're forcing due to the internal and slant rhymes. There isn't a consistency to the rhymes, and it's jarring.
The second one I think people are just telling you it's good. I don't understand the line breaks and the punctuation confuses me, but it's possible at 4 in the morning I'm missing something here. The umbrella towns line is nice, there's an interesting ring to it.

>Basically, my point is, how do you craft a poem without any sort of rhythm without sounding like you're just sounding out rigid phrases in form? I feel like it has no ring to it.
And that's the equally difficult skill of free verse, which many people seem to take for granted, and assume that free verse is just a vomiting out of thoughts and feelings.
The trick with free verse is to rely wholly on every other technique found in poetry to communicate a prosody.
How do you do that?
Fucked if I know. I've managed it once or twice maybe, usually I don't. I think the key is to lay out a balance to the tools used and to rely on imagery, metaphor, and paradox to create something both cerebral and evocative. As far as anything further or deeper than that goes, ummmm good luck and ask a pro instead of an amateur.

>> No.1993258

>>1993242
Did you just not read the whole thread or are you still the same anon who told me that a poem done in trochaic with eight syllables is not trochaic octameter?
10 syllables = pentameter
8 syllables = octameter

Done.

>> No.1993262

>>1993258
Look, I said that this line:

Tell me not in mournful numbers

is in trochaic octameter.

Then this anon: >>1993219
Who confused the fuck out of me. Because that's not right, in English verse you count the number of syllables, not the number of feet. Just like you said here: >>1993231

>> No.1993265
File: 6 KB, 171x252, 1312693176516s.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1993265

>>1993256
>>1993256

Thanks for the response - I do realize people are leaning towards the second just because of their tastes, not necessarily because it's good. I really should consider discussing this stuff with somebody published or something.

I think I really should expand my poetry reading as well.

>> No.1993269

>>1993258
Pentameter = 5 feet, 10 syllables
Octameter = 8 feet, 16 syllables

Wiki it dude

>> No.1993271

>>1993262

It doesn't take much to confuse you. I guess a pentagon has ten sides while an octagon has eight, right?

>> No.1993272

>>1993269
Oh, ok. That's where I was wrong, sorry, like I said originally I'm not familiar with it.

>> No.1993275

>>1993271
Yeah, it was a dumbass mistake because I was thinking penta meant ten for some bizarre reason. Yeah, it was stupid.

>> No.1993278

>>1993275

It's nice to see someone admitting a mistake, and I'm sorry for not being nice. But when you're not familiar with something, and someone disagrees with you, you should check to see whether you are right before continuing.

>> No.1993282

>>1993275
It's alright - you're actually cool, on topic and helpful.

>> No.1993284

>>1993278
I thought I was right because I'm knowledgeable about poetry. I don't know what the fuck I was thinking or why I kept thinking it was that way. I went outside to smoke a cigarette, and that's when I slapped my hand to my forehead and realized I went full retard.

>> No.1993297

>>1993284
>>1993284

Well it is 4 AM Behe, you got to pardon yourself.