HOME | DD

Description
So. Metre.
It has become a dirty word in some poetry circles.
It conjures images of withered, grey-haired men laboriously counting out beats and stresses whilst coughing up phlegm because of all the dust in their cramped and quasi-arcane libraries.

It really isn't all THAT bad, trust me.

So, without getting too 'old-man' technical - What is metre? what is it good for?
And, importantly, how does one use it?

Well, let's see if we can come up with some workable and easily understood answers by the end of this.

#1: What is metre?

Technical Language: The most well known metre, 'Accentual Syllabic Metre' is the rhythmic arrangement of syllables and patterns of stresses in a poetic line.

Translation: Metre is a poetic device that allows you to consciously orchestrate the flow of rhythm in a poem by paying attention to the natural rise and fall of the spoken word, and how to align those patterns of word-emphasis in an effective way.

#2: What is metre good for?

Basically, metre is like a 'Do-it-yourself' templated rhythm creator.
It's like having an instrumental music machine with set pieces of music already programmed in: Once you learn what those pre-programmed bits of music are, you can slot them in ANYWHERE that they sound nice. You can even alter them for different effects.

THAT is metre. You can use it to create many types of rhythm upon demand, and you can use it to create that rhythm so it is nice and smooth and glides like words on ice.

#3: How does one use it?

Before I get into that, it is time for *Drum roll please*

DarkCrescendo's METRICAL HISTORY 101! *Applause*

*AHEM*

Metre as we know it stemmed from Greek (and then Latin) rules of poetic composition.
They had it easy, because the Greek language was IDEALLY suited to this idea of 'stressed/unstressed syllables'.
They had two types of syllables, namely: Long and Short.
Metre back then came down simply to Long vs Short syllables. Nice and easy: Just pick a metric pattern, find the right words with the right syllables, add a dose of poetic device, then fifty minutes in the microwave on high: Done.
But they all got wiped out by alien dinosaurs with 'post-trochaic stress syndrome'. Some old men with grey hair cried their hearts out at the news.

Then some smart-alec Humanists came along several centuries later (HELLO RENAISSANCE!!!!) and adapted the poetic rules of those ancient languages to the languages of the time (including Elizabethan English).

That's where things got a little more complicated, a little more difficult, a little more 'Domain of the hyper-literate': You see, English doesn't have a simple 'Stressed/unstressed' 'Long/Short' approach to linguistic composition.
It has something like 3 or 4 levels of 'stressed' and 'unstressed' when talking about English usage.
Confusing and not-very-helpful, huh?

Right now, I bet you're thinking 'Dammit. That idiot DarkCrescendo has just turned Metre from something little known but vaguely comprehendable into something that only an Oxford Professor of Poetry could handle. Talk about shooting himself in the foot.'

Well - maybe... but NO.

Herein DarkCrescendo gets to the point.

You see, metre doesn't HAVE to be that difficult.
Sure, we CAN go the whole masochistic metric mojo and develop THAT level of comprehension... but let us be realistic here: we don't need to.
This is where we can bring in some of this Modernist 'Rule-bending' we all love to talk about so much.

For modern day metre, we only really need to consider the comparative level of stress between syllables.

And that links back into question #3: How does one go about using metre?

Some pre-requisites:

1. You need to pay attention to HOW words are spoken: Where does the strongest emphasis in a word appear? (For example, according to orthodoxy, 'emphasis' has the strongest stress/accent on the EM syllable - EMphasis.)
Now, unless you speak/hear in monotones, you can with a little effort (or a really good dictionary with markers to locate word-accent) pick up HOW words are spoken. You may even begin to appreciate some of the hidden music of the English Language.

2. You need patience.
I mean it: Shakespeare didn't learn Iambic Pentameter in a day, and neither will you.
Hell, almost a year down the track, and I'm still learning a lot of new things about metre. However, it won't take too long before you have a basic grasp of the principles.

Okay, enough stalling, and on to the meat of the matter.

Metre consists of two structural elements: Metric lines, and Metric feet.
A metric line consists of a certain number of metric feet.

The most common Metric lines a person writing in English will deal with are as follows:

Dimeter: (Two feet per line)
Trimeter: (three feet to a line)
Tetrameter: (four feet to a line)
Pentameter: (five feet to a line)
Hexameter: (six feet to a line)

The most common Metric feet a person writing in English will deal with are as follows:

Iambic feet (less stressed / more stressed) 'toDAY'
Trochaic feet (more stressed / less stressed) 'YOda'
Spondaic feet (Two strongly/equally stressed syllables) 'DAMN YOU!'
Anapestic feet (two equally less stressed syllables followed by a comparatively more stressed syllable) 'to a MAN'
Dactylic feet (One strongly stressed syllable followed by two less [but about equally] stressed syllables) 'PEStilent'

So... stressed yet?

Let's try and simplify all that blather into something more manageable.

In the following examples
- is a less stressed/accented syllable by comparison to ' / '
/ is comparatively more stressed/accented than ' - '

An Iamb: ( - / )  toDAY
Iambic pentameter: 'today we fly up high to dive and die!' ( -/ -/ -/ -/ -/ )

A Trochee: ( / - ) YOda
Trochaic Tetrameter: 'Yoda cannot English handle.' ( /- /- /- /-)

A Spondee: ( / / ) DAMMIT! (As opposed to the less emphatic trochee, 'DAMN it')
Spondaic Dimeter: 'Dammit Asshole!' ( // //)

An Anapest: ( - - / ) 'to a MAN'
Anapestic Trimeter 'To a man they were killed by the gods!' ( --/ --/ --/ )

A Dactyl: ( / - - ) 'PEStilent'
Dactylic Tetrameter: 'These are just pestilent purposeless syllables' ( /-- /-- /-- /-- )

Is a pattern beginning to form yet? Can you begin to feel the basic rhythm of those metric feet?

Here is a link that may also aid you with figuring out how words are stressed: oak.ucc.nau.edu/tn24/wordstres…

A quick recap:

Metre consists of lines containing a certain number of metric feet.
Metric feet consist of a certain pattern of comparatively stressed/unstressed syllables.

The type of metre (eg: iambic pentameter) is determined by the type of metric foot most present in a line (eg: iambic feet), and the number of metric feet (eg: 5 feet, or 'pentameter').

Hopefully, by now, if I start throwing words like 'trochee' or 'iamb' at you, you won't look at me like I'm some kind of lunatic.

On to previously unasked Question #4: 'But what does it all mean?'

So we have all these types of metre. What can they do? What are their effects?
Well, a large part of that is to be discovered through personal experimentation, but there are some basic guiding principles upon which to launch one's experiments from:

1: Iambic metre is what English is often most easily adapted to. It tends to hold to a fairly regular rhythm. However, if not used carefully, it can become rather monotonous.

2: Trochaic verse tends to be slightly more emphatic, slightly more rapid in pace than iambs. English language is also well-suited to trochaic metre.

3: Spondees tend not to fit well in entire lines, but rather can be substituted in place of another metric foot to add emphasis.

4: Anapests tend to create a very rapid pace.

5: Dactyls tend to resemble the rhythm of a demagogue - someone preaching to the masses with passion. It can be used effectively to create emphatic lines.

Here is an excerpt from S.T Coleridge's poem 'Metrical Feet', with an oldeschoole view:

Trochee trips from long to short;
From long to long in solemn sort
Slow Spondee stalks, strong foot!, yet ill able
Ever to come up with Dactyl's trisyllable.
Iambics march from short to long.
With a leap and a bound the swift Anapests throng.

Mythbusting: Is metre by definition 'monotonous'?

I know some of you may have developed the idea that metre creates a monotonous rhythm that will inevitably be boring.
This is only true if you aren't using metre effectively.
Monotonous rhythm is a sure sign, in modern usage, that you are doing it poorly and need to revise your use of it.

Metre works best with good enjambment, assonance, and effective use of punctuation.
Enjambment and Punctuation are both regulators of word-flow, both rhythmically and conceptually.
In regards to metre, it is the rhythmic flow that you can adjust effectively through enjambment and punctuation.

Compare (ignore how boring the actual phrase is. We are looking at the rhythm here)

'I rode my horse and rode it well into the night and into day.' (regular iambic octametric line [8 feet to octometer] )

with

'I rode my horse, and rode it well
into the night and into day' (2 lines of standard iambic tetrameter)

The first example runs on for far too long without any change in tempo or tone.
By placing one comma and one linebreak, the phrase becomes less rhythmically bland.

One can also substitute different metric feet into a line:

'Spurring my horse, I rode him well
into the night and into day'

Here I have simply taken the first iamb of the first line, and replaced it with a trochee.
See the difference in effect? (The same principle of altering the rhythm slightly also works well in freeverse).

Another important thing that can affect metre is tone of voice.
For example:
'Screw you...' (defeated tone/trochiac foot) - note how the vowels are drawn out, slowing the pace.
and
'SCREW you!' (emphasis on action, angered tone/trochaic foot) - note how the vowels are shorter, more clipped, speeding the pace (which suits the sentiment well).

How about
'Screw YOU!' (emphasis on subject, angered tone/iambic foot) - note that here, with emphasising the subject, the syllables are once again drawn out to create the emphatic effect.

Above are all the basic principles of learning/using metre - and for much of that you'll want to play around with yourself, to see what works best for you.
Much of the fun in learning metre is finding out what sort of changes in effect a simple substitution/linebreak/comma/change of tone can have.

Question #5: So what? Why should I bother?

The funny thing is this - learning about metre, understanding how it works, and why it works: all these contribute to your ability to manipulate rhythm.

What is more, you will start looking at sequences of lines, know exactly where the rhythm is 'a bit off', know why that is so, and be able to say 'Well, if I put a trochaic word in between these words here, it will improve things'. (And that applies to your use of freeverse too)

You will be able to consciously approach rhythm, rather than just relying on your own talent to hear the quality of sound.
"A talent once refined becomes a skill of great renown" - Laut Fuhl

Personally, I know for a fact that my freeverse improved substantially after I started learning to use metre effectively in poetry.

Another reason to learn metre is simply this: Why handicap yourself by NOT learning it?
In any art, if you know many techniques, your options in creative expression become far more expansive.

Two links:
unix.cc.wmich.edu/~cooneys/tch… - This is the best place to start when trying to get a grasp on the basic types of metre.

members.aol.com/lucyhardng/poi… - This contains an excellent section on metre. The rest of the site is worth a look at too, as it contains a lot of good advice on all things poetic.

Finally - don't give up if it doesn't seem to work for you at first. Like most skills, knowledge and understanding of metre needs to be trained.

Good luck. Feel free to direct to me any questions you may have.
Benedictions

:) (Smile) — Description
So. Metre.
It has become a dirty word in some poetry circles.
It conjures images of withered, grey-haired men laboriously counting out beats and stresses whilst coughing up phlegm because of all the dust in their cramped and quasi-arcane libraries.

It really isn't all THAT bad, trust me.

So, without getting too 'old-man' technical - What is metre? what is it good for?
And, importantly, how does one use it?

Well, let's see if we can come up with some workable and easily understood answers by the end of this.

#1: What is metre?

Technical Language: The most well known metre, 'Accentual Syllabic Metre' is the rhythmic arrangement of syllables and patterns of stresses in a poetic line.

Translation: Metre is a poetic device that allows you to consciously orchestrate the flow of rhythm in a poem by paying attention to the natural rise and fall of the spoken word, and how to align those patterns of word-emphasis in an effective way.

#2: What is metre good for?

Basically, metre is like a 'Do-it-yourself' templated rhythm creator.
It's like having an instrumental music machine with set pieces of music already programmed in: Once you learn what those pre-programmed bits of music are, you can slot them in ANYWHERE that they sound nice. You can even alter them for different effects.

THAT is metre. You can use it to create many types of rhythm upon demand, and you can use it to create that rhythm so it is nice and smooth and glides like words on ice.

#3: How does one use it?

Before I get into that, it is time for *Drum roll please*

DarkCrescendo's METRICAL HISTORY 101! *Applause*

*AHEM*

Metre as we know it stemmed from Greek (and then Latin) rules of poetic composition.
They had it easy, because the Greek language was IDEALLY suited to this idea of 'stressed/unstressed syllables'.
They had two types of syllables, namely: Long and Short.
Metre back then came down simply to Long vs Short syllables. Nice and easy: Just pick a metric pattern, find the right words with the right syllables, add a dose of poetic device, then fifty minutes in the microwave on high: Done.
But they all got wiped out by alien dinosaurs with 'post-trochaic stress syndrome'. Some old men with grey hair cried their hearts out at the news.

Then some smart-alec Humanists came along several centuries later (HELLO RENAISSANCE!!!!) and adapted the poetic rules of those ancient languages to the languages of the time (including Elizabethan English).

That's where things got a little more complicated, a little more difficult, a little more 'Domain of the hyper-literate': You see, English doesn't have a simple 'Stressed/unstressed' 'Long/Short' approach to linguistic composition.
It has something like 3 or 4 levels of 'stressed' and 'unstressed' when talking about English usage.
Confusing and not-very-helpful, huh?

Right now, I bet you're thinking 'Dammit. That idiot DarkCrescendo has just turned Metre from something little known but vaguely comprehendable into something that only an Oxford Professor of Poetry could handle. Talk about shooting himself in the foot.'

Well - maybe... but NO.

Herein DarkCrescendo gets to the point.

You see, metre doesn't HAVE to be that difficult.
Sure, we CAN go the whole masochistic metric mojo and develop THAT level of comprehension... but let us be realistic here: we don't need to.
This is where we can bring in some of this Modernist 'Rule-bending' we all love to talk about so much.

For modern day metre, we only really need to consider the comparative level of stress between syllables.

And that links back into question #3: How does one go about using metre?

Some pre-requisites:

1. You need to pay attention to HOW words are spoken: Where does the strongest emphasis in a word appear? (For example, according to orthodoxy, 'emphasis' has the strongest stress/accent on the EM syllable - EMphasis.)
Now, unless you speak/hear in monotones, you can with a little effort (or a really good dictionary with markers to locate word-accent) pick up HOW words are spoken. You may even begin to appreciate some of the hidden music of the English Language.

2. You need patience.
I mean it: Shakespeare didn't learn Iambic Pentameter in a day, and neither will you.
Hell, almost a year down the track, and I'm still learning a lot of new things about metre. However, it won't take too long before you have a basic grasp of the principles.

Okay, enough stalling, and on to the meat of the matter.

Metre consists of two structural elements: Metric lines, and Metric feet.
A metric line consists of a certain number of metric feet.

The most common Metric lines a person writing in English will deal with are as follows:

Dimeter: (Two feet per line)
Trimeter: (three feet to a line)
Tetrameter: (four feet to a line)
Pentameter: (five feet to a line)
Hexameter: (six feet to a line)

The most common Metric feet a person writing in English will deal with are as follows:

Iambic feet (less stressed / more stressed) 'toDAY'
Trochaic feet (more stressed / less stressed) 'YOda'
Spondaic feet (Two strongly/equally stressed syllables) 'DAMN YOU!'
Anapestic feet (two equally less stressed syllables followed by a comparatively more stressed syllable) 'to a MAN'
Dactylic feet (One strongly stressed syllable followed by two less [but about equally] stressed syllables) 'PEStilent'

So... stressed yet?

Let's try and simplify all that blather into something more manageable.

In the following examples
- is a less stressed/accented syllable by comparison to ' / '
/ is comparatively more stressed/accented than ' - '

An Iamb: ( - / )  toDAY
Iambic pentameter: 'today we fly up high to dive and die!' ( -/ -/ -/ -/ -/ )

A Trochee: ( / - ) YOda
Trochaic Tetrameter: 'Yoda cannot English handle.' ( /- /- /- /-)

A Spondee: ( / / ) DAMMIT! (As opposed to the less emphatic trochee, 'DAMN it')
Spondaic Dimeter: 'Dammit Asshole!' ( // //)

An Anapest: ( - - / ) 'to a MAN'
Anapestic Trimeter 'To a man they were killed by the gods!' ( --/ --/ --/ )

A Dactyl: ( / - - ) 'PEStilent'
Dactylic Tetrameter: 'These are just pestilent purposeless syllables' ( /-- /-- /-- /-- )

Is a pattern beginning to form yet? Can you begin to feel the basic rhythm of those metric feet?

Here is a link that may also aid you with figuring out how words are stressed: oak.ucc.nau.edu/tn24/wordstres…

A quick recap:

Metre consists of lines containing a certain number of metric feet.
Metric feet consist of a certain pattern of comparatively stressed/unstressed syllables.

The type of metre (eg: iambic pentameter) is determined by the type of metric foot most present in a line (eg: iambic feet), and the number of metric feet (eg: 5 feet, or 'pentameter').

Hopefully, by now, if I start throwing words like 'trochee' or 'iamb' at you, you won't look at me like I'm some kind of lunatic.

On to previously unasked Question #4: 'But what does it all mean?'

So we have all these types of metre. What can they do? What are their effects?
Well, a large part of that is to be discovered through personal experimentation, but there are some basic guiding principles upon which to launch one's experiments from:

1: Iambic metre is what English is often most easily adapted to. It tends to hold to a fairly regular rhythm. However, if not used carefully, it can become rather monotonous.

2: Trochaic verse tends to be slightly more emphatic, slightly more rapid in pace than iambs. English language is also well-suited to trochaic metre.

3: Spondees tend not to fit well in entire lines, but rather can be substituted in place of another metric foot to add emphasis.

4: Anapests tend to create a very rapid pace.

5: Dactyls tend to resemble the rhythm of a demagogue - someone preaching to the masses with passion. It can be used effectively to create emphatic lines.

Here is an excerpt from S.T Coleridge's poem 'Metrical Feet', with an oldeschoole view:

Trochee trips from long to short;
From long to long in solemn sort
Slow Spondee stalks, strong foot!, yet ill able
Ever to come up with Dactyl's trisyllable.
Iambics march from short to long.
With a leap and a bound the swift Anapests throng.

Mythbusting: Is metre by definition 'monotonous'?

I know some of you may have developed the idea that metre creates a monotonous rhythm that will inevitably be boring.
This is only true if you aren't using metre effectively.
Monotonous rhythm is a sure sign, in modern usage, that you are doing it poorly and need to revise your use of it.

Metre works best with good enjambment, assonance, and effective use of punctuation.
Enjambment and Punctuation are both regulators of word-flow, both rhythmically and conceptually.
In regards to metre, it is the rhythmic flow that you can adjust effectively through enjambment and punctuation.

Compare (ignore how boring the actual phrase is. We are looking at the rhythm here)

'I rode my horse and rode it well into the night and into day.' (regular iambic octametric line [8 feet to octometer] )

with

'I rode my horse, and rode it well
into the night and into day' (2 lines of standard iambic tetrameter)

The first example runs on for far too long without any change in tempo or tone.
By placing one comma and one linebreak, the phrase becomes less rhythmically bland.

One can also substitute different metric feet into a line:

'Spurring my horse, I rode him well
into the night and into day'

Here I have simply taken the first iamb of the first line, and replaced it with a trochee.
See the difference in effect? (The same principle of altering the rhythm slightly also works well in freeverse).

Another important thing that can affect metre is tone of voice.
For example:
'Screw you...' (defeated tone/trochiac foot) - note how the vowels are drawn out, slowing the pace.
and
'SCREW you!' (emphasis on action, angered tone/trochaic foot) - note how the vowels are shorter, more clipped, speeding the pace (which suits the sentiment well).

How about
'Screw YOU!' (emphasis on subject, angered tone/iambic foot) - note that here, with emphasising the subject, the syllables are once again drawn out to create the emphatic effect.

Above are all the basic principles of learning/using metre - and for much of that you'll want to play around with yourself, to see what works best for you.
Much of the fun in learning metre is finding out what sort of changes in effect a simple substitution/linebreak/comma/change of tone can have.

Question #5: So what? Why should I bother?

The funny thing is this - learning about metre, understanding how it works, and why it works: all these contribute to your ability to manipulate rhythm.

What is more, you will start looking at sequences of lines, know exactly where the rhythm is 'a bit off', know why that is so, and be able to say 'Well, if I put a trochaic word in between these words here, it will improve things'. (And that applies to your use of freeverse too)

You will be able to consciously approach rhythm, rather than just relying on your own talent to hear the quality of sound.
"A talent once refined becomes a skill of great renown" - Laut Fuhl

Personally, I know for a fact that my freeverse improved substantially after I started learning to use metre effectively in poetry.

Another reason to learn metre is simply this: Why handicap yourself by NOT learning it?
In any art, if you know many techniques, your options in creative expression become far more expansive.

Two links:
unix.cc.wmich.edu/~cooneys/tch… - This is the best place to start when trying to get a grasp on the basic types of metre.

members.aol.com/lucyhardng/poi… - This contains an excellent section on metre. The rest of the site is worth a look at too, as it contains a lot of good advice on all things poetic.

Finally - don't give up if it doesn't seem to work for you at first. Like most skills, knowledge and understanding of metre needs to be trained.

Good luck. Feel free to direct to me any questions you may have.
Benedictions