So I was receiving feedback from someone the other day (not on this site) on my latest poem, which was an Italian sonnet. They said that the meter reads as a bore to the ear, which was basic iambic pentameter; I had the meter set up as strictly such, line-by-line, all 140 syllables. They said that they were expecting variations in the meter and that, intrinsically, variations are what's expected when writing in meter. I responded that since it was my first time writing in form I didn't want to go too far out the box that was established long before me, because to do otherwise might make me come off as ignorant and like I didn't know what I was doing.

1. Is it expected of a novice poet to strictly stick to the meter they've committed to? Or is it expected of a poet, novice or veteran, to vary the meter with, for example, a couple spondees if they are writing in iambic?

2. If it is expected of a novice poet to strictly stick to the meter they've committed to, should novice poets also be encouraged to experiment? 

One last thing: I typically thought that poets spend their time perfecting their craft only so they can begin experimenting with convention when they feel they are more comfortable or they have a significant amount of credible works under their belt. Should this be the model formula for every poet's catalog?

It's always good to know how to do things. But if it's a bore to you to practice the forms, then do something else. Poetry is more than verse. There is verse, and then there is poetry. They're not the same thing. If you're determined to master these historical 'forms', there's nothing in the world wrong with that. But just expect that there are hundreds of meter-experts in this world, helpful ones let me stress, who are all technique and no substance, who sit on our worldwide spiderweb waiting for a young fly to tie up and torture in their frustating, and frustrated, precise know-how. . . . I know I didn't answer your question, but that's not what I do.

---

Read great poets. And mostly only great poets. And bring your experience and sensations and thoughts to the dance. If you learn to read, and truly love reading as much as you love your sorrows and joys and dreams and neuroses and sex life or lack of, you'll find that whatever subject you're writing on, the form will come of its self. Or 'itself', as grammar nazis cold to linguistic nuance insist. The thing is to sound natural, and not forced into form. It never hurts to practice badly; in fact, it's going to help you more down the line. Our craft comes from our hardwork; our substance comes from the peculiar experiential effects of our failures and infused joys.

No, writing in form was not a bore. It was actually very fun and challenging for me to think of phrases that read in iambic pentameter, all while considering the rhyme scheme. In fact, this is why I'd think it would be more of a challenge and respectable by the reader if your poem reads naturally in spite of conforming perfectly to form, but this critic insisted on having variations in the meter to avoid boring the reader. And it's not like this guy was some random bloke on the internet, he seemed like he knew his stuff and what he was talking about. So I guess another one of my bottom-line questions are: Is it encouraged to vary your meter if, for instance, you're writing an English sonnet?

I never get any encouragement, so I don't know. But it seems like the person was trying to get you to write something that didn't bore him. Variations don't seem necessary to me. Maybe he meant it sounded too much like clockwork, tick tock tick tock.

---

Did he mean variation within the meter or variation in meter?

Maybe include the example, it may help. Frequently, an abundance of end stops creates boring metric poetry and a little enjambment is the cure but it is tough to say without the example

It has always been my belief that the entire purpose of these long established patterns, like iambic pentameter, is to follow them exactly.  To deviate is to not be writing in iambic pentameter.  Right? Especially if you are modeling your poem after a specific form, like a sonnet, in order to master it.

You can absolutely write in perfect IP, without variation, and not have it seem boring. Milo's suggestion of including enjambment is the ideal solution, as it's usually the end-stop rhyme (the chime effect) that causes something to sound far too sing-song and repetitive - not the meter. So yes, an example would be really helpful.

There are millions of examples of perfect, unvaried meter that prove your critic wrong, but I'd say it's not the meter he/she actually meant or if he/she did, then he/she doesn't really know enough to make that sort of comment. Variations can be both welcome and distracting, depending on who's doing them and how they're done. As to your question about novices experimenting, I think you're spot on in that you should try to master the rules before you break them, but always be aware that they're not really rules and poets are fickle, feral creatures...

Beg pardon if this was already mentioned above, but as I see it if you're writing (for example) an Italian Sonnet, writing in perfect meter is perfectly alright.  Departing from meter should have a purpose beyond inability to fit the meter, but, then, writing in the form should have a purpose beyond just fitting the form (learning it in order to use it later, with or without departures, would be an example of a purpose).

Personally, I find that sometimes being forced (i.e. forcing myself) to write in a form can lead to creative thinking.  For example, if I'm writing a sonnet which requires problem and solution (rather than statement and turn), the commonplace search for a solution is actually broadened by the desperate need to find one that fits the form rather than one that fits my predisposition as to what the solution "should" be.  Same can happen anywhere:  finding the rhyme can also reveal a different and better direction for the work.

[/soapbox]

rowens- Variation within the meter.

Include an example of his critiques or my poem? If the poem, I was afraid of turning this thread into a critiquing one which is why I originally didn't do so. The actual sonnet can be found in the mild-moderate forum. I'll be happy to include the first couple lines though:

Cicadas sung the honest words that two 
familiar strangers smothered with esprit
and games, to us in soothing secrecy.
It wasn't through a golden shaft but through

As for the critic's comments, he didn't really mention anything about enjambments and end stops in his feedback. The meter being "perfect" was the main issue for him.

duke- Completely agree with your final sentiments there. As I was writing and figuring out what words could fit snugly into the meter, the main ideas/themes seemed to morph in the process. I've said it once here and I'll say it again, this is was what made writing in form fun yet challenging to me.

Thank you everyone for your takes.

Alex

So, you have used enjambment, and I don't really see that the meter's badly used - in fact, you do have variations from traditional sonnetry at least if you count your slight caesuras and fairly light tone. It's not ponderous and neither is it a dull da-dum da-dum. I will go and check out the full version.

But I'd say it sounds like one guy's opinion and fair play to him, but he's got the wrong reason for his boredom.

It,s always good to learn how to do something first, then you can experiment.

(08-10-2018, 07:23 PM)billy Wrote:  It,s always good to learn how to do something first, then you can experiment.

In fact, you can't really experiment without knowing something first.

I guess this is as good a place as any to talk about language and experiments. I had an argument with a college professor a while back about language. I argued, as I do, though I had no real intention of changing the person's mind. I said that most people think, or at least formulate how they're going to express themselves in society, in language. So if you teach people that you can only write in a certain way, and enforce it in the way they talk too, you're in a way limiting the way this person thinks. The brain paths the neuroscientists talk about: If you want to make new paths you have to use language new-ly. But I'm glad they teach how to use language properly, there needs to be a base and some ground to work from. . . . I just didn't know why the person disagreed with me in general about that it's allowed, and happens anyway, that language changes, and changes in language change people. But I guess there needs to be firm people set in their ways too to hold society together.

(08-12-2018, 11:32 PM)rowens Wrote:  I guess this is as good a place as any to talk about language and experiments. I had an argument with a college professor a while back about language. I argued, as I do, though I had no real intention of changing the person's mind. I said that most people think, or at least formulate how they're going to express themselves in society, in language. So if you teach people that you can only write in a certain way, and enforce it in the way they talk too, you're in a way limiting the way this person thinks. The brain paths the neuroscientists talk about: If you want to make new paths you have to use language new-ly. But I'm glad they teach how to use language properly, there needs to be a base and some ground to work from. . . . I just didn't know why the person disagreed with me in general about that it's allowed, and happens anyway, that language changes, and changes in language change people. But I guess there needs to be firm people set in their ways too to hold society together.

It's an interesting subject that I believe was explored a little in the recent film "Arrival". Might go back and watch it again. Thanks for the prompt.

You talking about the Amy Adams movie? That was one of the last movies I saw at the theatre. Redheads. Her and Jessica Chastain. Or however you spell it. And Amy Adams isn't even a natural redhead. But it reminds you of Kurt Vonnegut. And Lacan. And several other people. William Burroughs even, if Wjames is reading. I'd say Shem, but I know he's not around.

---

And about reading:. People. No. I just want to say that when I read I sound everything out in my head. It never occured or occurred to me that you can read without doing that. I tried reading, just scanning the words, gathering the information and not sounding out the words in my head. It made me feel sick. Never do that again.

---

If people actually do that. Don't tell me. God. It's so really horrible.

---

The whole idea. It never occurred to me before. It's horrible. I wish I never thought it.