Scansion utility

[roetzheimw]

Is anyone familiar with a utility that will automatically scan poetry (Scansion)? This seems like something that must be out there, but I can't find it. My metre is, shall we say, a bit rough and I'm hoping for the poetic equivalent of a metrical spelling checker! <g>

WHR

[HowardM2]

Since scansion is dependent in part upon pronunciation, nothing of the sort has been devised; even if it were, I wouldn't trust it, any more than I'd trust a grammar checking program (none of which work). You just have to learn to do it the old fashioned way, by ear. And that's possible only with a lot of practice.

[prokopton]

Aha! You need MS-Word Ultimate &#174 (http://www.everypoet.org/pffa/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4890) with Poetry Checker.

Geoff
Howard, that's a lovely pair of bicuspids you're sporting!
- you old pitcher plant, you.

[roetzheimw]

Well, at least this helps me to laugh at myself!

WHR

[Dunc]

Well, at least | this helps | me to laugh | at myself!

This line is anapaestic tetrameter with a catalectic second foot.

MeterMat

[Nanphi]

For checking iambic pentametre I (a) close both hands; (b) pronounce the line aloud in a natural speaking voice; (c) raise one finger of my right hand on every strong stress, one finger of my left hand on weak or unstressed syllables. If I'm not raising fingers alternately, if the first up wasn't my left thumb, or if I reach the end of the line with fingers still down (less than 10 syllables) or have raised all ten and haven't finished the line yet (more than 10 syllables), I know something is very wrong. Usually, of course, I catch the error well before the end of the line. Then I reword, deciding if I can perhaps get over some hump with an acceptable substitution, perhaps a trochee. I inspect each line in total isolation from the context of the poem. It may often be necessary to experiment with various alternative wordings and change the rhymes. Once each line seems metrically sound, I read the whole poem aloud a number of times to check the effects of enjambement and the overall "rhythm". It's important to say the lines aloud, not read them silently on the page. How strictly "metrical" you want to be will depend on whether you're using a set form. A sonnet requires a rather high degree of precision. In less formal verse you might permit yourself some irregularities, and it might become apparent that the poem as you've conceived it refuses to conform to your original chosen pattern; change the pattern or head toward "rhythmical" free verse instead. There's nothing worse than a poem that feels crammed by force into an unsuitable metrical strait-jacket (with telltale missing articles, weird syntax, inversions). When you're done--and your waste-basket overflows with discarded paper, you've run out of swear-words, etc.--it should all sound totally spontaneous and natural, as if it just has to be exactly the way it is. Ideally!

Unfortunately, scansion isn't an exact tool; stresses are relative and the words are influenced by those that precede and follow them. So there's no automatic artifical checker. Your ear will tell you what's accurate and pleasing, but the ear has to be trained by practice. It can help to forget about rhyme and write blank verse; I was advised to do this when I first started fiddling with metres and I've found it most useful as an exercise, although I haven't been able to produce many readable blank verse poems.

One tip on avoiding anapests in iambic metres: beware of prepositional phrases. There's nothing like "in the X" or "with the X" to slip the pests in, because you'll often find that a stress on the preposition, although technically not impossible, sounds wrong when you actually say it. The same is true with clauses connected by "and"/"or".

Good luck. You're not alone in your struggle, believe me.
- Nanphi

[roetzheimw]

Thanks Nanphi. I appreciate the help.

WHR