There’s a big difference between deviating from a consistent stress pattern, and ignoring stress patterns entirely. Some types of deviations are allowed, but some aren’t.
Certainly, the poet should deviate from a consistent pattern, or avoid patterns completely, only if they know what they’re doing. But using the term “allowed”, in discussion of poetry (or any art) is wrong wrong wrong.
Some types of deviations are allowed, but some aren’t.
Tell that to, for instance, T S Eliot (unless you want to maintain that just about the only real poetry he wrote was “Old Possum’s book of practical cats”).
There’s nothing wrong with preferring poetry that broadly fits the traditional forms, with somewhat-regular metre and so forth. I generally do, too, and I don’t much like Swimmer963′s poem here. But … “not allowed”? Really?
If you prefer, “most people will think it sucks if you do because it violates instinctive aesthetic preferences”. Knowing which deviations work to gain you status and which do not is the difference between Picasso and my 3 year old nephew.
Yes, I do prefer, and I don’t see any reason why I should pretend that jimrandomh meant that when he wrote “Some types of deviations are allowed, but some aren’t”. In any case, it seems scarcely credible that Swimmer963 is unaware that poetry has traditionally tended to have (perhaps even by definition) a lot of metrical regularity and that many people strongly prefer it to be that way, so on your reading jimrandomh’s comment seems to convey little actual information. (And what actual information there was seemed to imply that all poetry should be iambic tetrameter, which is just ridiculous.)
Also: You might want to consider the possibility that Swimmer963 (or jimrandomh or T S Eliot) might have criteria of poetic merit other than “what will gain me status”. (I find that a lot of the comments here about status, signalling, etc., give me the impression that their authors haven’t appreciated how indirect a lot of this stuff is. Yes, a lot of human behaviour can be explained in terms of status-seeking; that doesn’t mean that the people who do those things are actually, literally, seeking status. A lot of human behaviour can be explained in terms of trying to optimize one’s reproductive success, but the humans behaving in those ways are often going out of their way to avoid actual reproduction. The same goes for status.)
[EDITED to add: Those remarks about status often seem to me like very clear examples of status-seeking behaviour themselves. “See how much more sophisticated I am, seeing through what Picasso might have said about beauty or artistic integrity to the status-seeking core beneath.”]
“In any case, it seems scarcely credible that Swimmer963 is unaware that poetry has traditionally tended to have (perhaps even by definition) a lot of metrical regularity and that many people strongly prefer it to be that way, so on your reading jimrandomh’s comment seems to convey little actual information.”
Apparently I was more unaware than I thought. Almost all the poetry I’ve read recently doesn’t rhyme or fit into iambic pentameter, to the point that when I read poetry that does, it almost feels weird. (Granted, a lot of what I read is medieval and translated into English from Latin. Maybe it rhymed originally.)
My understanding of Latin poetry (pretty dang limited) is that it’s based around meter dictating use of long and short syllables (rather than stressed and unstressed, as in English poetry), and that rhyme wasn’t much used (it’s too easy!). So it probably was in meter in the original Latin, but a different sort of meter.
Yes, I do prefer, and I don’t see any reason why I should pretend that jimrandomh meant that when he wrote “Some types of deviations are allowed, but some aren’t”.
Some would consider the meaning colloquially well understood.and actually find your technicality hard to imagine without prompting.
Also: You might want to consider the possibility that Swimmer963 (or jimrandomh or T S Eliot) might have criteria of poetic merit
It would be absurd to assume that I hadn’t. Since you had trouble with (or were trying to attack) the “not allowed” language I presented it in language that did not rely on being inside the reality of the game for it to make sense.
Those remarks about status often seem to me like very clear examples of status-seeking behaviour themselves. “See how much more sophisticated I am, seeing through what Picasso might have said about beauty or artistic integrity to the status-seeking core beneath.
Picasso painted (ugly paintings). I have no idea what he said it is what he did that demonstrates his understanding and I’d be surprised if he could verbalize it particularly well.
Nobody expects much status for explaining that the helium nucleus consists of two protons and (usually) two neutrons. It’s trivial, not deep. Nor do I expect more than maybe a karma or two for explaining what Jim meant—and that would be for the courtesy not for any particular demonstration of sophisticated insight.
find your technicality hard to imagine without prompting
What “technicality”? The idea that by “allowed” jimrandomh might have meant something akin to “allowed”?
(Perhaps you’re under the impression that I took it to mean that some actual authority will actually punish you for writing less-metrical poetry. If so, then it seems that you were simultaneously complaining of my alleged literal-mindedness while reading my words over-literally yourself.)
I presented it in language that did not rely on being inside [etc.]
If I’m understanding this correctly, you are now claiming that you thought I misinterpreted “allowed” as referring to being allowed because I was “outside the reality of the game” and didn’t understand that poetry (and, given that you took Picasso as an example, other art) is all about status.
Which is odd, since the sort of greetings-card verse jimrandomh was trying to get Swimmer963 to write doesn’t in fact have very high status among readers of poetry and the not-allowed claim is just as false when understood in terms of status as when understood in terms of artistic merit, social acceptability, utilitarian ethics, or anything else I can think of.
I have no idea what he said
For sure, nor was I implying that you do have any idea what he said.
explaining that the helium nucleus consists of two protons and (usually) two neutrons
The claim that good artists know “which deviations work to gain you status and which do not” is not parallel to that trivial claim, because it implies that what those artists are aiming at is status, which is certainly controversial and (so far as I can see) probably false. (I don’t think, and didn’t say, and didn’t suggest that you think, that it’s deep.)
I made no claims about how much status you were hoping to gain by talking about status, and the mistake of conflating status and karma never even occurred to me. Perhaps you didn’t notice the word “more” in what I wrote?
I used to write poetry mainly in that style, but I find it a) time consuming, and b) I often can’t use the words I really want to use because they don’t fit. Not to mention almost all modern poetry doesn’t use this pattern, and poetry that does tends to feel archaic. But like I said, this isn’t something I do often.
It’s a long time since these were regarded as essential to poetry!
There’s a big difference between deviating from a consistent stress pattern, and ignoring stress patterns entirely. Some types of deviations are allowed, but some aren’t.
Certainly, the poet should deviate from a consistent pattern, or avoid patterns completely, only if they know what they’re doing. But using the term “allowed”, in discussion of poetry (or any art) is wrong wrong wrong.
In the spirit of charity, I normally unpack “X is not allowed” in these sorts of discussions to mean “X is very unlikely to achieve our shared goals.”
The question of what, if anything, can profitably be assumed as shared goals in art is admittedly a trickier question.
Tell that to, for instance, T S Eliot (unless you want to maintain that just about the only real poetry he wrote was “Old Possum’s book of practical cats”).
There’s nothing wrong with preferring poetry that broadly fits the traditional forms, with somewhat-regular metre and so forth. I generally do, too, and I don’t much like Swimmer963′s poem here. But … “not allowed”? Really?
If you prefer, “most people will think it sucks if you do because it violates instinctive aesthetic preferences”. Knowing which deviations work to gain you status and which do not is the difference between Picasso and my 3 year old nephew.
Yes, I do prefer, and I don’t see any reason why I should pretend that jimrandomh meant that when he wrote “Some types of deviations are allowed, but some aren’t”. In any case, it seems scarcely credible that Swimmer963 is unaware that poetry has traditionally tended to have (perhaps even by definition) a lot of metrical regularity and that many people strongly prefer it to be that way, so on your reading jimrandomh’s comment seems to convey little actual information. (And what actual information there was seemed to imply that all poetry should be iambic tetrameter, which is just ridiculous.)
Also: You might want to consider the possibility that Swimmer963 (or jimrandomh or T S Eliot) might have criteria of poetic merit other than “what will gain me status”. (I find that a lot of the comments here about status, signalling, etc., give me the impression that their authors haven’t appreciated how indirect a lot of this stuff is. Yes, a lot of human behaviour can be explained in terms of status-seeking; that doesn’t mean that the people who do those things are actually, literally, seeking status. A lot of human behaviour can be explained in terms of trying to optimize one’s reproductive success, but the humans behaving in those ways are often going out of their way to avoid actual reproduction. The same goes for status.)
[EDITED to add: Those remarks about status often seem to me like very clear examples of status-seeking behaviour themselves. “See how much more sophisticated I am, seeing through what Picasso might have said about beauty or artistic integrity to the status-seeking core beneath.”]
“In any case, it seems scarcely credible that Swimmer963 is unaware that poetry has traditionally tended to have (perhaps even by definition) a lot of metrical regularity and that many people strongly prefer it to be that way, so on your reading jimrandomh’s comment seems to convey little actual information.”
Apparently I was more unaware than I thought. Almost all the poetry I’ve read recently doesn’t rhyme or fit into iambic pentameter, to the point that when I read poetry that does, it almost feels weird. (Granted, a lot of what I read is medieval and translated into English from Latin. Maybe it rhymed originally.)
My understanding of Latin poetry (pretty dang limited) is that it’s based around meter dictating use of long and short syllables (rather than stressed and unstressed, as in English poetry), and that rhyme wasn’t much used (it’s too easy!). So it probably was in meter in the original Latin, but a different sort of meter.
Meter != iambic pentameter, though!
Some would consider the meaning colloquially well understood.and actually find your technicality hard to imagine without prompting.
It would be absurd to assume that I hadn’t. Since you had trouble with (or were trying to attack) the “not allowed” language I presented it in language that did not rely on being inside the reality of the game for it to make sense.
Picasso painted (ugly paintings). I have no idea what he said it is what he did that demonstrates his understanding and I’d be surprised if he could verbalize it particularly well.
Nobody expects much status for explaining that the helium nucleus consists of two protons and (usually) two neutrons. It’s trivial, not deep. Nor do I expect more than maybe a karma or two for explaining what Jim meant—and that would be for the courtesy not for any particular demonstration of sophisticated insight.
What “technicality”? The idea that by “allowed” jimrandomh might have meant something akin to “allowed”?
(Perhaps you’re under the impression that I took it to mean that some actual authority will actually punish you for writing less-metrical poetry. If so, then it seems that you were simultaneously complaining of my alleged literal-mindedness while reading my words over-literally yourself.)
If I’m understanding this correctly, you are now claiming that you thought I misinterpreted “allowed” as referring to being allowed because I was “outside the reality of the game” and didn’t understand that poetry (and, given that you took Picasso as an example, other art) is all about status.
Which is odd, since the sort of greetings-card verse jimrandomh was trying to get Swimmer963 to write doesn’t in fact have very high status among readers of poetry and the not-allowed claim is just as false when understood in terms of status as when understood in terms of artistic merit, social acceptability, utilitarian ethics, or anything else I can think of.
For sure, nor was I implying that you do have any idea what he said.
The claim that good artists know “which deviations work to gain you status and which do not” is not parallel to that trivial claim, because it implies that what those artists are aiming at is status, which is certainly controversial and (so far as I can see) probably false. (I don’t think, and didn’t say, and didn’t suggest that you think, that it’s deep.)
I made no claims about how much status you were hoping to gain by talking about status, and the mistake of conflating status and karma never even occurred to me. Perhaps you didn’t notice the word “more” in what I wrote?
I used to write poetry mainly in that style, but I find it a) time consuming, and b) I often can’t use the words I really want to use because they don’t fit. Not to mention almost all modern poetry doesn’t use this pattern, and poetry that does tends to feel archaic. But like I said, this isn’t something I do often.