Extract

i.introduction

Some claims about poems are uncontroversial: that a poem is composed in dactylic hexameter, as in Homer's epics, or in iambic pentameter, as in Shakespeare's sonnets, or in no particular traditional meter, as in most of e. e. cummings's work; that it rhymes following an abab pattern or that it does not; that it is very long, very short, or any length in between; that it employs sophisticated diction, archaic language, or common everyday words; that its similes and metaphors are novel or cliché. Such claims may easily be ascertained by those able to count syllables, those able to distinguish the stressed syllables from the unstressed ones, and those familiar with the varieties of poetic meter; by those able to tell whether two or more words sound alike; by those able to distinguish different text lengths; by those able to recognize when words are of the garden‐variety kind.1 Except for familiarity with the kinds of poetic meter, “those” are most of us. We may call these ‘base,’‘lower level,’ or ‘structural’ properties.

You do not currently have access to this article.