I know that scansion isn't the easiest thing in the world to do. It's even harder to talk authoritatively about it. I'll wager that it's hardest of all to write a poem in metrical feet and still have it sound like normal English.
Or maybe it's not that hard. Keats probably wasn't that concerned about counting lines or whether or not opiate had two syllables or three. Rather, he could likely hear the way the poem was supposed to sound as he was writing it--poets have a knack for not having to think about it. I think we can hear the way the poem sounds, but when we try to dissect each line the rhythm tends to disappear. Also if we think too scientifically about it, it takes all of the life out of the poem--like dissecting a live frog.
So, when we do prosody, what are we looking for? Why not just enjoy the rhythm? I'm not sure.
Helen Vendler says, "You can experience a poem with great pleasure as a general reader; or you can also learn how to explore it, to gain the more experienced pleasure that a student of architecture feels inside a Renaissance palace, or that an engineer feels looking at the San Francisco Bay Bridge. In every case study adds to what you are able to perceive...[Poems] keep you company in life."
I bet she has had to convince lots of students of why prosody is important. I agree that sometimes paying attention to prosody can lead to a greater appreciation of a poem. I think "Ode to a Nightingale" is one such poem.
No comments:
Post a Comment