05-09-2014, 01:19 PM
I would have to say that I agree with everyone on this thread. There are many ways to vary lines, rhythm, and meter. And there are a few different scansion techniques and methods. The rule of three is a solid method for poets and readers alike, and will probably help you find the most natural way to arrange a line--at least in my experience. Scanning foot by foot is useful to look at the different tricks the masters used for effect--volume, speed, sense, sound, etc.--and to help you understand modulation, and learn just how much a syllable can change depending on what's around it. I use both, and for me one would be useless without the other.
In a poem that is predominately IP it is possible to vary the rhythm and meter without disrupting the normative meter overmuch. Whether or not the varied lines--especially if they contain three-beat feet or less than four iambs--should be called IP is an old argument not really worth getting onto IMO. The only question that really matters is whether or not it works. That can only be decided on a poem by poem, line by line, foot by foot basis--even if the line contains only five iambs and nothing else. There are methods that have withstood the true test--the test of time-- that were used used in some of the classics. We cannot not duplicate them. We can, however, achieve similar effects though study and practice. We can also develop and improve our own ears and methods by gaining further understanding of past successes. We can aspire to them, but we cannot insist a line is good, or metrically sound, or even would have worked then--much less today--simply because it contains the same variations a master used ages ago in a particular line.
An anapest didn't work because anapests work in IP. And changes in meter and rhythm aren't anomalies. And, if a line is difficult for you to scan, that doesn't make it anomalous either. They worked for the /poem/ (meter aside) because they were right for the poem, and the artist knew it. End of story.
I'm sure milo would concede that changes and variations in meter and rhythm have been successful in the past, in many different forms. But he has put a lot of time and effort into helping beginners here learn about meter, rhythm, and scansion; he isn't going to let others get confused by compromising on the very definition of IP just to suit another's fancy.
In a poem that is predominately IP it is possible to vary the rhythm and meter without disrupting the normative meter overmuch. Whether or not the varied lines--especially if they contain three-beat feet or less than four iambs--should be called IP is an old argument not really worth getting onto IMO. The only question that really matters is whether or not it works. That can only be decided on a poem by poem, line by line, foot by foot basis--even if the line contains only five iambs and nothing else. There are methods that have withstood the true test--the test of time-- that were used used in some of the classics. We cannot not duplicate them. We can, however, achieve similar effects though study and practice. We can also develop and improve our own ears and methods by gaining further understanding of past successes. We can aspire to them, but we cannot insist a line is good, or metrically sound, or even would have worked then--much less today--simply because it contains the same variations a master used ages ago in a particular line.
An anapest didn't work because anapests work in IP. And changes in meter and rhythm aren't anomalies. And, if a line is difficult for you to scan, that doesn't make it anomalous either. They worked for the /poem/ (meter aside) because they were right for the poem, and the artist knew it. End of story.
I'm sure milo would concede that changes and variations in meter and rhythm have been successful in the past, in many different forms. But he has put a lot of time and effort into helping beginners here learn about meter, rhythm, and scansion; he isn't going to let others get confused by compromising on the very definition of IP just to suit another's fancy.