Postmodern Prosody and Line Measure, or Magic

Ten years ago I was searching for an explanation to this question: when do you end a line of poetry. I had been writing free verse for many years and had played with many ways of ending lines. None made sense. None worked. Then I was introduced to meter. It was not love at first sight. I came kicking and screaming. But that’s another story. (Although I will say that books by Derek Attridge and Timothy Steele finally won me over.) This one involves a posting at william watkins’ blog called Postmodern Prosody and Line Measure. I have never read a free verse explanation of the line that I have understood, and I’m afraid to say this one is no exception. I will condense and somewhat rearrange his theory for readability, but you should read the whole thing for yourself.

I have used the term line measure before to refer to the rhythmic nature of lineation. Within the avant-garde tradition that I work in … phrases, phonemes and gaps will form the basic unit of regard. I won't get into why such a basic deep structure of rhythm works, mainly because I don't know and nor does anyone else it would seem.

Four elements combine to produce a prosody of the line central to avant-garde, postmodern and all forms of traditional poetics.

1. There is the number of lines, probably restricted in some way.
2.. There is the length of the line, its reach/duration.
3. There is the distribution of the line across the pagespace or field of the poem.
4. And then lastly there is the beat of the lines, which may all share certain basic measures in common.

Now to theseecstasies. (his poem)

1. The number of lines was fixed at nine:
-Nine subdivides into three units of three so each instance is in excess of the couplet.
-Nine is also far enough away from fourteen, in the right direction, to avoid the usual references to the sonnet.
-Nine sounds great in poetic language.
-And three is the magic number
-Having said all this nine was also arrived at randomly so the above are merely reasons why I kept nine, not explanations for why I chose it.

2. The duration/reach of the line was developed over time to reach a point beyond which the line could easily be spoken out loud, easily kept in the mind as one single cognitive unit or phrase, and which could not be accommodated easily in material forms as a single line.

3. In terms of distribution, I was attracted to the stretching of the material and cognitive fields of the poem to accommodate the line, the idea being to undermine these naturalised processes and produce something other than that.

4. Finally the beat. There is an internal cohesion and tension in each line, which works, on the whole, as a single unit of significance. Association, word play and hypertaxis are the three main things to look out for here

One can see the line measure is a sophisticated and complex mode of prosodic organisation and disruption.

Now I know what the theory of the line is in free verse: MAGIC. That’s why no one knows how the basic deep structure works.

My apologies to William Watkins.