06-02-2012, 03:26 PM
I have seen and commented on this before.
It can be read as lines of 7-8-4-4, or 3-4-4-4-4-4
However, to me the lineation as is seems awkward, and there appears no profit from this awkwardness that I can perceive. I can see no rationale for these two long lines hanging out over two shorter lines, especially as the longer lines are obviously composed of two shorter lines. So to me this seems like a stylistically odd choice, but of course it is yours to commit. Another problematic area is, that although it is basically in accentual verse, the reader still expects a certain regularity. That is to say after your eponymous refrain "I would talk to you of beauty" which is followed the first time by iambs, one does not expect the next time to be trochee. To expect the reader to read the first syllable as a soft accent one time, but then a hard accent the next is begging for a disruption that causes at least a temporary pause.
Regardless, for me this play on what I call the "Question Refrain", is not really a form I enjoy. For despite any profundities it might contain between the refrains, it seems my mind skims over this in anticipation of another hammering of the refrain. Not unlike a dog being trained by electric shocks.
The rhyme is at least more supportive of the form, in fact it sits in in nearly an unconscious level. There is nothing disruptive nor outstanding about it.
As I've already commented on this poem at an earlier time, I think this is sufficient for now.
Dale
It can be read as lines of 7-8-4-4, or 3-4-4-4-4-4
However, to me the lineation as is seems awkward, and there appears no profit from this awkwardness that I can perceive. I can see no rationale for these two long lines hanging out over two shorter lines, especially as the longer lines are obviously composed of two shorter lines. So to me this seems like a stylistically odd choice, but of course it is yours to commit. Another problematic area is, that although it is basically in accentual verse, the reader still expects a certain regularity. That is to say after your eponymous refrain "I would talk to you of beauty" which is followed the first time by iambs, one does not expect the next time to be trochee. To expect the reader to read the first syllable as a soft accent one time, but then a hard accent the next is begging for a disruption that causes at least a temporary pause.
Regardless, for me this play on what I call the "Question Refrain", is not really a form I enjoy. For despite any profundities it might contain between the refrains, it seems my mind skims over this in anticipation of another hammering of the refrain. Not unlike a dog being trained by electric shocks.
The rhyme is at least more supportive of the form, in fact it sits in in nearly an unconscious level. There is nothing disruptive nor outstanding about it.
As I've already commented on this poem at an earlier time, I think this is sufficient for now.
Dale
How long after picking up the brush, the first masterpiece?
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.
The goal is not to obfuscate that which is clear, but make clear that which isn't.