It was in Steele’s book, “All the Fun’s in How You Say a Thing”, that I was first introduced to supplementary stress in scanning meter, and realized it’s usefulness in creating interesting lines and rhythms, even if not writing a strictly metrical poem.  Here’s an introduction to meter written by Steele, in which he introduces the concept.

https://learn.lexiconic.net/meter.html

I'd been wanting to get back to Steele's concept of supplementary stress. I call it Steele's, but I'm not sure he was the first write of it. His book was the first place I had learned of it, though. I learned more about it by reading books from other authors, however. 

A lot of writers learn the basics of meter, then figure, "That's it!" or decide to eschew meter completely.  Meter, however, is part of English's basic structure. For those of us who learn English growing up, it is instilled in us as we learn the language. We use the rules automatically, but we often don't stop to think about them. Steele developed (?) a scansion technique which allows us to examine our lines for not only accent, but also for the level of stress we apply to a line. I've found it helpful in developing an ear for the levels of stress we use in a line. I no longer use the technique as much any more, as I can hear the results better now than I could when I was younger (through practice), but occasionally I'll run scan a line in my head to find out why I don't like it. I think the technique is useful for establishing rhythms, which are based on the foundation of meter. So, I thought I'd discuss it here in case someone finds it useful.

English is an accentual (not stress) language, and most of the time we speak we speak in iambs - the first syllable of a 'foot' is unaccented, the second accented. I say basically - because it is not tightly consistent. There are exceptions. If we listen for the syllables with the strongest accent, we get this:

I'd been /wanting /to get/ back to/ Steele's con/cept of/ supple/mentar/y stress. (bold represents the accented syllable).

Ok. Those don't look like iambs, they look like trochees (first syllable accented, second syllable unaccented.) But the pattern alternates mostly every other syllable, which is what is important for our purpose for our purpose as writers. But, just for the sake of discussion, let's call the first foot a short foot (consisting of only one syllable), and the last foot an anapest (two unaccented syllables and one accented), so the basic scan will look like this.

I'd /been want/ing to/ get back/ to Steele's/ concept/ of sup/plement/a-ry stress.

But again, we don't speak in terms of an-again off-again accents. Nor we should we write in that manner. But if we're not careful, especially when writing metrical poetry, we can write in a manner which exacerbates the beat. It sounds kind of sing-songy.  One complaint about metrical poetry is the feel of a heavy beat. Good poetry, metrical or otherwise, shouldn't IMO.  So how do we keep that from happening?

Let's start talking about stress.  If we use numbers to indicate level of stress (and work on the assumption ALL syllables are stressed to some degree), syllables that fall on the accent will have more stress than those which don't:

2        1       2      1   2     1    2       1     2             1    2     1   2       1   2     1  1    2
I'd /been want/ing to/ get back/ to Steele's/ concept/ of sup/plement/a-ry stress.

But if we listen carefully, we can hear in the sentence different levels of stress - not just two levels.  Where do they come from?

Let's look at words with more than on syllable - each of which have their own accent; sometimes a secondary accent.  'Concept': we accent the first syllable. 'Supplementary': 'ment' gets the strongest accent, but there is another, lighter accent on 'sup', as well as on 'y'. Not sure of the accent(s) on a word? Check a good dictionary. They mark the accents in the pronunciation.

SO let's overlay these accents onto the stress.  'Meant' has a light stress, we'll add one increment of stress onto the syllable. 'Con' and 'sup' are stronger accents, so we'll 2 increments of stress, resulting in:

2        1        3     1   2     1     2       1      2           3    2    1    4      1    3     1  2     1
I'd /been want/ing to/ get back/ to Steele's/ concept/ of sup/plement/ar-y stress.

What about one syllable words? How are they accented? We tend to accent words that have meaning, or content, such as nouns verbs and adjectives.  Non-content words (articles, prepositions, etc) are not. So let's go back to the line, and add a stress level to each word that isn't a non-content word.

3        2       3      1   2     2     3       1      3           3    2     1   4      1      3   1   2    3     
I'd /been want/ing to/ get back/ to Steele's/ concept/ of sup/plement/ar-y stress.

Are there other forms of stress? Sure. Sometimes we intentionally over stress a syllable to make a point:  I wanted the RED dress. Also the concept of line stress: that one syllable in a line gets more stress than any others. And if you're not writing metrical, just ignore the foot dividers when you're done.

3      2      3  1    2   2      3    1   3        3      2   1   4   1    3  1  1  3
I'd been wanting to get back to Steele's concept of supplementary stress.

The scanned stress should be very close to what you hear when you speak the line (no system's perfect)

So after all this, how does this help us as writers? Try applying this technique to some lines you've written.  If you come up with a stress pattern that only comes up with two numbers, or is 'choppy', like 1-3-1-3-1-3, it will probably feel boring after a bit. Look for lines that flow smoothly - kind of like a melodic line in music. If the line's choppy, look at rearranging words, or introducing different words: especially words of multiple syllables. I think you'll find your lines will become more interesting.

Does everyone need to do this?  No - poets who have been writing for some time learn to hear the subtle stress levels. There are probably some blessed people with a natural ear.  I've only met one such person, and I was insanely jealous lol. For the rest of us, give it a try. See what happens. If you think ut doesn't help, you've lost nothing but a little time.  I think most people, however, will get something out of it.

More later on pauses, rests, caesuras and other factors that affect rhythm.

I like the sprung rhythm of G.M. Hopkins, it can be heard in Joni Mitchell's song 'Coyote'.  

I used to use the recording function on my computer when trying to get the stress right,
being Australian, my dialect of English is very flat, much less stressed than either UK or USA English.

Hopkin’s lines - standard example of his sprung rhythm:

3.   1.  2    3.   2.      3.   1.       3.  1.  3.   1.   2.       1.  3.   1  
Marga/ret are /you griev/ing ||  ov/er Gol/dengrove / unleaving?



3-1/2-3/2-3/1-3/1-3/1-2/1-3/1 (feminine ending)

Using the above mentioned scan, all but one of these feet goes from lesser to stronger stress - iambic.  So it’s equally accurate to call it sprung, using Hopkins basic meter, or iambic using Steele’s supplementary stress. Basic meter is easy to interpret different ways. 2 iambs equal 1 diiamb, for example.  So what’s the difference in calling a line iambic or diiambic? When it comes down to it, metrical scanning is just a way of annotating speech patterns to facilitate discussion  Calling it one or the other doesn’t change how it’s spoken. I’ve personally found Steele’s method of scanning more accurate. At least, more useful for my purposes. It provides me with more useful information for designing a line.

Also note how the numbers in those lines jump to 1 quite a bit, between 2s and 3s. You can see the metrical bounce, just as you can hear it when you speak the lines. Want to get rid of the bounce? Rephrase the line so stresses move in a less digital manner: 1-2-3-2-3-4-3-2-3, for example.

All the numbers almost make it more confusing

(07-08-2019, 11:43 PM)CRNDLSM Wrote:  All the numbers almost make it more confusing

It takes a bit of practice.  Easier, I suppose, for someone with a bit of musical background, who can look at it like notes on a scale.

It looks like more obfuscation to those already well-versed in meter. I'll stick to what I know.

(07-10-2019, 09:56 AM)Seraphim Wrote:  

(07-08-2019, 11:43 PM)CRNDLSM Wrote:  All the numbers almost make it more confusing

It takes a bit of practice.  Easier, I suppose, for someone with a bit of musical background, who can look at it like notes on a scale.

It's not for everybody. Many have no interest in the technical aspects.  It is certainly not a prerequisite for writing formal verse.  You can learn all you need by reading poetry and copying the greats.

(07-10-2019, 09:15 PM)churinga Wrote:  

(07-10-2019, 09:56 AM)Seraphim Wrote:  

(07-08-2019, 11:43 PM)CRNDLSM Wrote:  All the numbers almost make it more confusing

It takes a bit of practice.  Easier, I suppose, for someone with a bit of musical background, who can look at it like notes on a scale.

It's not for everybody. Many have no interest in the technical aspects.  It is certainly not a prerequisite for writing formal verse.  You can learn all you need by reading poetry and copying the greats.

Some people can learn ‘all they need’ that way; not all. Not many, imo. It’s an important aspect to learning, yes. But there’s so much more to learning than copying what we read. We have to learn why their poetry works, and how they accomplished their results. technical aspects. Great writers didn’t get great by not understanding them. I’ve always viewed writing as analogous to house building. A carpenter with no blueprint, no tools, who has never apprenticed or learned the skills, will rarely build a good house. Technical aspects are a part of writing any genre. Knowledge of them cannot hurt, and most likely will help writers of all skill levels see results in their writing which they like. But if someone doesn’t want to learn those aspects, it is their choice.

You can try to write like a great writer and fail, and in that way succeed at being an original writer. You can try to write like all great writers at once and hit bullseyes eventually. You can try to write like bad writers and fail, which is what I attempt to do.

(07-10-2019, 11:14 PM)rowens Wrote:  You can try to write like a great writer and fail, and in that way succeed at being an original writer. You can try to write like all great writers at once and hit bullseyes eventually. You can try to write like bad writers and fail, which is what I attempt to do.

I try to write like me -for better or worse - and I’m constantly looking for ways to improve how I deliver a clear, concise message without beating the reader over the head; how I make it interesting to reader. I am a voracious student who focuses on learning every aspect of a topic. I also like analogy:

My son is musically gifted. I am not. He started intense training at age 11. I couldn’t help in any way, he had professionals doing that. I only ever gave him one piece of advice: learn all you can, study various genre and techniques. Study the musical score, dissect it, play with it, practice it until you understand it as well as humanly possible. Make all of these components an integral part of your art. Then, when you walk out on the stage, throw the score away and sing from the heart.

I believe we should write that way, as well.

I operate on Abbott-Costello mathematics. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, as long as it works. Like I said before, everything for me is moving in and out of context. When I need specific types of knowledge and skill, I study. But after I use it, I forget it. The next time I have to learn it all over. With some poems, not knowing is more useful than knowing. It's good to learn and forget. I already forgot who Tim Steele is. Sounds like a wrestler I met on the independent circuit in the '90s.

(07-10-2019, 11:57 PM)rowens Wrote:  I operate on Abbott-Costello mathematics. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, as long as it works. Like I said before, everything for me is moving in and out of context. When I need specific types of knowledge and skill, I study. But after I use it, I forget it. The next time I have to learn it all over. With some poems, not knowing is more useful than knowing. It's good to learn and forget. I already forgot who Tim Steele is. Sounds like a wrestler I met on the independent circuit in the '90s.

Then I suspect this thread won’t be useful to you.

2        1        3     1   2     1     2       1      2           3    2    1    4      1    3     1  2     1
I'd /been want/ing to/ get back/ to Steele's/ concept/ of sup/plement/ar-y stress.

I know it's hard to line these things up perfectly, I imagine the 4 is above the 'sup'.  Rythymically, 'steeles' takes up two beats, so the backslash would fit -
2.       1.     2.     1.      1.  3.   1.    2.   1. 1.  2
Ste/ele's con/cept of sup/ lemen/tary stress

With a swing triplet instead of up down rock or polka

I suppose the pronunciation of Steele is regional - which will change how we stress syllables.  That’s why developing our ear to hear subtle changes is important, I think.

 2.    1.    3.    1.   2.   4  2.    3. 2.  2.   3
Ste/ele's con/cept of /supple/menta/ry stress

Is how I hear it, without going through the ‘scan’ process

---

Thinking about it through the scan, ‘sup’ would only be 3, except imo line stress (that there’s always one syllable stressed more than all the others) elevates it.

---

But however we scan it, I hear a slight rise in stress between ‘cept’ and ‘of’

One thing I learnt is that scanson requires one to read the whole poem each time you perfect the meter and everything else. Each line effects the next, so that the scanson can't be read in isolation. The first line effects the scanson of the last. It is all about the meaning of the language.  

Technical knowledge is not necessary.  Just as reading music is not necessary to play, sing or compose music.  Think of all the great blind musicians. It can all be done by ear. Technical knowledge helps to analize and explain art but it has nothing to do with creating it. It can be a straitjacket or a lifejacket.  Depends on the artist.

Any musician will tell you you have to practice

(07-11-2019, 02:46 AM)churinga Wrote:  One thing I learnt is that scanson requires one to read the whole poem each time you perfect the meter and everything else. Each line effects the next, so that the scanson can't be read in isolation. The first line effects the scanson of the last. It is all about the meaning of the language.  

Technical knowledge is not necessary.  Just as reading music is not necessary to play, sing or compose music.  Think of all the great blind musicians. It can all be done by ear. Technical knowledge helps to analize and explain art but it has nothing to do with creating it. It can be a straitjacket or a lifejacket.  Depends on the artist.

What does ones sight have to do with music? How many ‘greats composers don’t have a working knowledge of music theory? But its digressing from the topic. Choose whether or not you want to use the techniques. *shrug*. It’s entirely up to you.

(07-11-2019, 09:53 AM)Seraphim Wrote:  

(07-11-2019, 02:46 AM)churinga Wrote:  One thing I learnt is that scanson requires one to read the whole poem each time you perfect the meter and everything else. Each line effects the next, so that the scanson can't be read in isolation. The first line effects the scanson of the last. It is all about the meaning of the language.  

Technical knowledge is not necessary.  Just as reading music is not necessary to play, sing or compose music.  Think of all the great blind musicians. It can all be done by ear. Technical knowledge helps to analize and explain art but it has nothing to do with creating it. It can be a straitjacket or a lifejacket.  Depends on the artist.

What does ones sight have to do with music? How many ‘greats composers don’t have a working knowledge of music theory?  But its digressing from the topic.  Choose whether or not you want to use the techniques. *shrug*. It’s entirely up to you.

Here are some composers who can't read music. 
Ry Cooder, Irving Berlin, Sir Paul McCartney, Jimi Hendrix, Erroll Garner, Chet Baker, John Lennon, Buddy Rich, Robert johnson, Stevie Wonder, Ray Charles, Bix Beidebecker. Elvis Preseley. Eric Clapton. 

I am not rubbishing your post, it is interesting but I wrote formal poetry long before I knew anything about it technically.

i'm with you on this one rowens, i use or don't use a meter of choice and i want to i'll swap it around. for me it's how i hear it, not how i think someone else will hear it. if i'm writing to a form like a sonnet i'll usually follow the rules but if i'm free writing i'll usually do it in what sound right that said i do like meter in a poem.

(07-10-2019, 11:57 PM)rowens Wrote:  I operate on Abbott-Costello mathematics. It doesn't matter if it makes sense, as long as it works. Like I said before, everything for me is moving in and out of context. When I need specific types of knowledge and skill, I study. But after I use it, I forget it. The next time I have to learn it all over. With some poems, not knowing is more useful than knowing. It's good to learn and forget. I already forgot who Tim Steele is. Sounds like a wrestler I met on the independent circuit in the '90s.