[New-Poetry] terror dactyls

[Bob Grumman]

Alexander Dickow wrote:
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> "dactyl goes against the lyrical seriousness
>  I 
> consider one of a sonnet's essentials"
>
> That seems odd to me, Bob, since the dactyl's "proper
> place" has historically been the "highest" genre of
> all (to some), the epic. They can be used quite
> forcefully even in English, and seem to me to suit
> "lyric seriousness" perfectly well. But then, I'm
> profoundly, almost viscerally opposed to the notion
> that metrical forms "naturally" correspond to any
> stylistic register -- especially that of "natural
> breath" or "natural speech" (besides, if you really
> want to imitate whatever you think is "natural
> speech", why not use non-accentual syllabic rhythms,
> which can satisfy the taste for symmetry without the
> thoroughly artificial constraints of the iamb, or any
> regular foot for that matter? I love syllabics). The
> assertion that anything is "natural" just makes every
> critical bone in my body ache....
> With all due respect....
> Amicalement,
> Alex 
>
>   

As I said, Alex, it's subjective.  But I'm only being prescriptive about 
what should count as a sonnet, not about how poems should be composed.   
And giving an opinion about the size of common reflective thought 
compared with the size of a sonnet.  Would it be okay to call a 
two-hundred-line iambic pentameter poem a "sonnet?"  If not, why not?

To answer quickly because I've got all kinds of things goin' on here.

--Bob