| User | DavidHirt | | Topic | Scansion | | Message | So.... Scansion. I could have put this under the writing section but then no one would have ever seen it or cared.
How exact of a process is scansion? Is it academic? Is there one way to scan any poem? What defines scansion? How do YOU read a poem? What about how the writier writes the poem... his intent? What about in a spoken piece? What do you think? The first time I was ever even introduced to the idea of scansion I Argued with my professor. But when he told me I was wrong, I didn’t question him and learn to scan like a good boy. Now... I see scansion as nebulous and based entirely on writer or speaker intent... as I did as a college Freshman.
Another thought... are scansion and intent two different things? |
|| Replies ||
| User | DavidHirt | 2006-05-30 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Dialect and diction is a huge point when dealing with scansion and actually part of what brought this up. What words get stressed not every dialect stresses words the same. |
| User | Lost Sheep | 2006-05-30 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | One of the problems with scansion is that as the internet draws the world closer, we run into people that pronounce things differently than we do. That leads to trouble with accented syllables and even rhyme.
For that reason, I think we need to grant writers a little more leeway in thier structure and judge the intent.
Steve (way over my head) |
| User | DavidHirt | 2006-05-30 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Then there is the idea that the only people who talk about scansion or feet are probably the type of poet who would know that the line you gave as an example is obviously trocheeic. If they wanted it Iambic, they would add a syllable at the beginning. It’s unfortunate more people don’t understand scansion... it would probably help a lot of younger poets out... and once youo understand scansion... you can use it or abuse as is neccessary. |
| User | DaleP | 2006-05-29 | | | Subject | Intent | | Message | Intent; that would be an easy out.
All an author would need do is say my intent
Is that this be read as iambic. So let’s take a query line’
Why so pale and wan fond lover. Now here I
think the stress would fall on why, pale, wan, lov,
But, if I were to say my intent is that this be read iambic.
It must fall. so, and, fond, er. But really how would I
scan it? Why so/ pale and/ wan fond/ lover. Well I really
think the primary stress is on why, pale, wan, lov,
But I do see a strong secondary stress on so, and fond.
Now intent or not if I were just reading this line, I
would not scan it as all iambic. Not even if the rest of
the poem is iambic. Now if the form he was using
called for iambic tetrameter would I disqualify the poem
because of this one line, I would not, however if most
of his lines are off, like this one I might.
|
| User | DavidHirt | 2006-05-29 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Difference in interptetation is the big thing with it for me. Stress may seem to be inherent in some words but not all. And what happens around words and their silences effects those stresses. It comes down to intent. I think. |
| User | DaleP | 2006-05-28 | | | Subject | Scansion | | Message | Scansion: The way it was presented to me is an arbitrary scheme.
And as with all arbitrary schemes one has to agree on rules to be followed.
Now I am sure David at least is aware of the basic feet and how one goes about
deciding which foot is which, the grey area seems to be where a given
stress falls, My reading leads me to believe that every effort should me
made to follow the intent of the writer, after all he is the one speaking
and as such he is deciding which syllables to stress. However some nod
must be given to the art and the reader, if one diverges too far from natural
speaking rhythms and is not available to interpret his poem, the reader
will certainly not read the poem as intended. I suppose that when presented
with a form that is traditionally iambic, the educated reader would make
every allowance to scan the poem as iambic.
Now in saying all of that I still feel it is the authors responsibility to be
as clear as possible in his use of language, There are many sonnets
written these days were it is very hard to give the author a break
and just scan his poem as iambic. Verse should follow natural speaking
patterns as closely as possible and if your intent is iambic your stresses
should fall on natural stresses, like rhyme you should not have to force
a stress. So how do we decide where a natural stress falls? In most
cases this is evident, but not always and I am afraid there is no one right
answer, at times it does seem quite arbitrary. So my feeling is that as long
as most of the lines scan iambic and it is a grey area the nod be given
to the author. However I would like to see that most of the poem is indeed
iambic before I just assume and give the nod to an author.
Now you bring up the spoken piece of poetry, I should think that someone
speaking out of natural stress patterns would just sound funny.
But then I am reminded of the deference between one of my lit instructors
reading the Raven and Vincent Price reading the Raven one butchered it
and the other elevated it to a fine piece of art. So I guess the idea here is
If a person stresses a word that is not normally stressed how should one scan
it, well do we really have a choice if the speaker stresses it, then it is stressed.
However when we are reading a poem how are we going to know to stress?
Now that one I don’t have an answer for, I don’t think it’s fair for a writer to
To want, require or expect a reader to stress other than naturally stressed words.
Now how to read a poem, as in regard to scanning I read the entire poem
first, I try to find the natural flow of a poem and define the authors intent.
The better the writer and his use of literary devices and sign post the
easier finding the intent and rhythm is. This of course includes reading
aloud as well as getting a sense of the mood.
Now my feeling is that scansion will always be more of an art with rules
than a science based on laws, There is just too much variation in the
English language, the best one can hope for is to use the rules as guide post.
Unfortunately this means there will always be room for differences in
Interpretation.
|
| User | Blue Monk | 2006-05-28 | | | Subject | untitled | | Message | Bearing in mind that I just heard of it, I looked a couple of searches up and it appears to be a strictly academic and very exact, mathmetical type of poetry analysis. So much for academics. Given that many works are currently done without the benefit of punctuation, such analysis could be quite subjective to the reader (or your prof.).
If the writer didn’t want it to be subjective, more punctuation should have been in evidence, or the intended scansion should have been submitted with the poem. Paradoxical? Sounds like poetry to me.
Rule No. 1 - The professor is always right.
Rule No.2 - If the professor is wrong, refer to rule No. 1.
Golden Rule - Never attempt to correct the professor (especially if he’s wrong) in front of anyone else.
Unfortunately, you usually don’t pick up on these rules until your junior year, assuming you get that far. |
| | |
