![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() The document goes on to cite spondaic substitution used “here and there,” which not only contradicts Frost’s observation about loose and strict iambics, but assumes the randomness of “here and there.” In the end, the notion of variations cannot even hope for standard variations (a meager type of control) and collapses into contradictions. One such text states flatly, “iambic pentameter as a system (emphasis mine) allows the first foot to be inverted,” without a hint that a purpose would be required that is, systematically variations need not have reference purpose. Even top-flight, Ivy League standards seem to reflect the preponderance of the use of “metrical variation” as “random variation”. “Loose” strongly connotes indifference to purpose, i.e. Elsewhere he notes of pentameter, “…the type with five obvious offbeats and beats can claim only a smallish plurality in our verse.” He cites TVF Brogan in The New Princeton Encyclopedia of Poetry and Poetics who “suggests the figure of 25 percent.” Robert Frost, in Collected Poems, Plays, and Prose, observes “…in our language there are virtually two, loose iambic and strict iambic.” (This implies the widespread use and acceptances of “loose iambic” and interestingly, he gives it primacy in the order. Timothy Steele notes in the Introduction to “The Fun’s in How You Say a Thing,” that “… most pentameters do not feature uniform fluctuations” (emphasis mine). Although this term technically includes both random variation and controlled variation, its use to mean only random variation is extremely widespread. “Metrical variation” is widely used in discussing late twentieth and early twenty-first century poetry writing. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |