06-04-2011, 09:33 AM
Many formalist “purists” dislike enjambment, fearing that it threatens their end-stopping rhymes and destroys the natural “flow” of a poem. Let’s discuss that idea.
Enjambment or "running-on" means that the end of a line doesn't necessarily coincide with a natural break in syntax, even though the line itself may fit into a metric scheme eg.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
-- Shelley, "Ozymandias"
When we read a poem in a set meter like iambic pentameter, it's expected that the lines will be end-stopped ie. each line will contain a complete phrase and be end-punctuated. Enjambment -- while still following the rules of meter and rhyme -- alters the way a line is read and has an effect on speed and tension. Often enjambment produces a caesura (hard pause or break) in lines which changes the pace at which a line is read. Enjambment creates a contrast between meter and syntax, which we expect to be "in synch", so it will often make us pause and possibly re-read a section. In this way, enjambment actually changes the direction in which a poem is read. We are thrown off balance, consciously or otherwise. Enjambment can add dimension to the meaning of a poem and creates ambiguity -- as you read it, you're expecting an end-stopped line and you read the line as if it has stopped, so discovering that the phrase is incomplete requires an adjustment. Enjambment also helps to soften rhyme and make a poem sound more like natural speech (as do caesuras).
Milton's sonnets are a brilliant example, like this one:
When I consider how my light is spent (sonnet XIX)
When I consider how my light is spent,
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide;
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask: but Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best: his state
Is kingly: Thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."
(Admittedly, Milton was a lot better at using enjambment than he was in coming up with creative titles for his poems.)
So yes, the accusations are true: enjambment DOES interrupt the flow of a poem for the reader. It's supposed to -- and it's just as important to consider the effects of enjambment in a piece of free verse as formal poetry. Are you breaking your lines where you do for a reason, or is it just arbitrary? The poetic line is a powerful tool, the strongest unit you have in your poem -- don't waste it.
Enjambment or "running-on" means that the end of a line doesn't necessarily coincide with a natural break in syntax, even though the line itself may fit into a metric scheme eg.
I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
-- Shelley, "Ozymandias"
When we read a poem in a set meter like iambic pentameter, it's expected that the lines will be end-stopped ie. each line will contain a complete phrase and be end-punctuated. Enjambment -- while still following the rules of meter and rhyme -- alters the way a line is read and has an effect on speed and tension. Often enjambment produces a caesura (hard pause or break) in lines which changes the pace at which a line is read. Enjambment creates a contrast between meter and syntax, which we expect to be "in synch", so it will often make us pause and possibly re-read a section. In this way, enjambment actually changes the direction in which a poem is read. We are thrown off balance, consciously or otherwise. Enjambment can add dimension to the meaning of a poem and creates ambiguity -- as you read it, you're expecting an end-stopped line and you read the line as if it has stopped, so discovering that the phrase is incomplete requires an adjustment. Enjambment also helps to soften rhyme and make a poem sound more like natural speech (as do caesuras).
Milton's sonnets are a brilliant example, like this one:
When I consider how my light is spent (sonnet XIX)
When I consider how my light is spent,
Ere half my days in this dark world and wide,
And that one talent which is death to hide
Lodged with me useless, though my soul more bent
To serve therewith my Maker, and present
My true account, lest He returning chide;
"Doth God exact day-labour, light denied?"
I fondly ask: but Patience, to prevent
That murmur, soon replies, "God doth not need
Either man's work or his own gifts. Who best
Bear his mild yoke, they serve him best: his state
Is kingly: Thousands at his bidding speed,
And post o'er land and ocean without rest;
They also serve who only stand and wait."
(Admittedly, Milton was a lot better at using enjambment than he was in coming up with creative titles for his poems.)
So yes, the accusations are true: enjambment DOES interrupt the flow of a poem for the reader. It's supposed to -- and it's just as important to consider the effects of enjambment in a piece of free verse as formal poetry. Are you breaking your lines where you do for a reason, or is it just arbitrary? The poetic line is a powerful tool, the strongest unit you have in your poem -- don't waste it.
It could be worse
sorry about that leanne. and good post 
(feel free to delete me if it doesn't fit in the thread)
