deepundergroundpoetry.com
An Alexandrine Challenge
robert43041 (Viking) has made the claim that if a poster here cannot cast words in "the Alexandrine form" (see below for what this is), he or she should not be considered a good poet or legitimately lay claim to that title. Leaving aside the fact that, so far as I know, he himself has never written anything in this form, but still thinks (even if only implicitly) that he deserves to be called by it, let's take him at his word, and see if those here who have arrogated to themselves that title (J-Z, are you listening?) are able to produce what robert/viking says he or she must be able to produce to be recognized as a poet worth his salt -- that is to say, write something that displays the characteristics noted here that something in "the Alexandrine for" must possess:
"[The] alexandrine [form is the] , verse form that is the leading measure in French poetry. It consists of a line of 12 syllables with major stresses on the 6th syllable (which precedes the medial caesura) [(a metrical pause or word break, which may or may not be realized as a stronger syntactic break)] and on the last syllable, and one secondary accent in each half line. Because six syllables is a normal breath group and the secondary stresses can be on any other syllables in the line, the alexandrine is a flexible form, adaptable to a wide range of subjects. Its structural metrical principle is stress according to sense; the form thus lends itself to the expression of simple or complex emotions, narrative description, or grandiose patriotic sentiment (it is known as the heroic line in French poetry)."
Although I make no claims about being deserving of any literary title, I think I can meet Robert's criteria for determining whether or not I have the right to do so by posting here what's below. Will others here, especially Robert and J-Z , show that they are up to doing so as well? Or will they, instead, respond to this challenge by saying something like "I have no need to prove I am a poet, let alone by this means since it is beneath me" which not only contests the validity of Robert's claim about what one **must** be able to do to be worthy of being regarded a poet, but actually is a disguised admission that they do not have the ability to compose something in this form?
*****
Young men
In love, but so naive | and soon to find our hearts
too easily betrayed | by women calculant,
we turned to bitterness | and pledged ourselves to take
as compensation for | our pain what we could get
from them, not caring if | we brought the fairer sex
to tears or made them grieve, | lament their choice of men.
"[The] alexandrine [form is the] , verse form that is the leading measure in French poetry. It consists of a line of 12 syllables with major stresses on the 6th syllable (which precedes the medial caesura) [(a metrical pause or word break, which may or may not be realized as a stronger syntactic break)] and on the last syllable, and one secondary accent in each half line. Because six syllables is a normal breath group and the secondary stresses can be on any other syllables in the line, the alexandrine is a flexible form, adaptable to a wide range of subjects. Its structural metrical principle is stress according to sense; the form thus lends itself to the expression of simple or complex emotions, narrative description, or grandiose patriotic sentiment (it is known as the heroic line in French poetry)."
Although I make no claims about being deserving of any literary title, I think I can meet Robert's criteria for determining whether or not I have the right to do so by posting here what's below. Will others here, especially Robert and J-Z , show that they are up to doing so as well? Or will they, instead, respond to this challenge by saying something like "I have no need to prove I am a poet, let alone by this means since it is beneath me" which not only contests the validity of Robert's claim about what one **must** be able to do to be worthy of being regarded a poet, but actually is a disguised admission that they do not have the ability to compose something in this form?
*****
Young men
In love, but so naive | and soon to find our hearts
too easily betrayed | by women calculant,
we turned to bitterness | and pledged ourselves to take
as compensation for | our pain what we could get
from them, not caring if | we brought the fairer sex
to tears or made them grieve, | lament their choice of men.
Published 24th Dec 2021
| Edited 25th Dec 2021
Author's Note
What inspired this was a claim that unless someone could write as Molière and others did in "the Alexandrine form", one had no right to the title "poet.
All writing remains the property of the author. Don't use it for any purpose without their permission.
likes 0
reading list entries 0
comments 3
reads 315
Commenting Preference:
The author encourages honest critique.
Anonymous
25th Dec 2021 00:32am
Given: that french is much different than English, in terms of rhythm & accent & syllabics;
The Alexandrine--there's some liberal substituting here, like "calculate," where the stress is the first syllable, not the last (this distinction becomes important because we're 1) focusing on 2 stresses per half-line; & 2) the last syllable is assumed to be the stronger); or placing the stress on "for"; or trying to reduce the 2nd half of the 1st line to 2 stresses--
These tend to come off as watered-down iambs, with lots of pyrrhic feet, most commonly in the middle of the 1st half of each line.
That's a result of English's tendency to arrange itself into Iambs--
As Pound pointed out to Eliot, it's no mean feet to "break the spine of Iambic pentameter"--often, when we try to get out of it, the result is what Lowell referred to as "muddled" (I believe that was the word he used).
Also, I don't understand the grammatical function of the word "calculate" in the 2nd line--"calculate" is a verb there, but who is calculating? The women? That doesn't make sense, grammatically. And if it's supposed to refer to "we," the "men," then 1) it needs a comma before it; & 2) it mixes the tenses with the past tense verb in the 3rd line; & 3) is there supposed to be an object with it, or a dependent clause?
I can't figure out the meaning. Essentially, it looks like it's missing a subject--who or what is doing the calculating? Which means the modifying phrase above is dangling.
Interesting experiment.
The Alexandrine--there's some liberal substituting here, like "calculate," where the stress is the first syllable, not the last (this distinction becomes important because we're 1) focusing on 2 stresses per half-line; & 2) the last syllable is assumed to be the stronger); or placing the stress on "for"; or trying to reduce the 2nd half of the 1st line to 2 stresses--
These tend to come off as watered-down iambs, with lots of pyrrhic feet, most commonly in the middle of the 1st half of each line.
That's a result of English's tendency to arrange itself into Iambs--
As Pound pointed out to Eliot, it's no mean feet to "break the spine of Iambic pentameter"--often, when we try to get out of it, the result is what Lowell referred to as "muddled" (I believe that was the word he used).
Also, I don't understand the grammatical function of the word "calculate" in the 2nd line--"calculate" is a verb there, but who is calculating? The women? That doesn't make sense, grammatically. And if it's supposed to refer to "we," the "men," then 1) it needs a comma before it; & 2) it mixes the tenses with the past tense verb in the 3rd line; & 3) is there supposed to be an object with it, or a dependent clause?
I can't figure out the meaning. Essentially, it looks like it's missing a subject--who or what is doing the calculating? Which means the modifying phrase above is dangling.
Interesting experiment.
I meant to write "calculant". an adjective.
In any case, are you going to try your hand at composing something in this form?
In any case, are you going to try your hand at composing something in this form?
26th Dec 2021 2:58pm
How disappointing that those on DUP who claim in one way or another to be masters of the art of poetry have not taken up the challenge. I wonder why that is.
