Analyzing Scansion
[This is a work in progress but I didn't want to leave you in suspense...]
This section addresses analyzing the scansion you have noted in your script. If you don't know how to get this far, see The Basics tab.
First, a quick recap of what you learn from iambic pentameter [IP] lines and what you should already know so far.
IP lines are like an emotional baseline. It represents calm, ordered, "normal" thought. (Although within a heightened reality, or they would be speaking prose.) A quote from the previous section:
Since you've scanned your whole text, you know where it is broken and where it is regular, so you know generally what is setting you off and when.
We'll look at scanning a whole speech in a few minutes, but for now, let's zoom in on one broken line.
x / x / x x / x / x / x
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heaven
So I see:
1. iamb ( x / ) Good friend
2. amphibrach ( x / x ) go to him
3. iamb ( x / ) for by
4. iamb ( x / ) this light
5. amphibrach ( x / x ) of heaven
We can see that in this scanning, the 2nd and 5th feet are switched out for amphibrachs. Now, I have a little secret, which is that I've studied the whole speech, and I'm working on a theory that saying facts she is certain of calms her down, but swearing up and down and talking about imaginary details gets her worked up.
So by this theory (and of course anyone could argue this theory, but this is what I do, I come up with a working theory and adjust it to the evidence, so just go with it),
OK, recap. I started out by just saying the line naturally, with the stresses where I wanted them to go, being as most of it is monosyllabic so I got to pick. Then I scanned it like I said it. Then I analyzed the feet as I found them. This scanning of the line works for me, so it's "right" for me. But if I've gotten Shakespeare's version, well, no one can say, he's been dead a long time. Still, I'm going to chalk this up to him: Shakespeare switched out the 2nd and 5th feet for something other than iambs.
And if he can, then I can too. (And who's to say I got it right the first time?) So I'm going to take the first foot and make it a spondee for funsies, since it's monosyllabic so it could go either way:
/ / x / x x / x / x / x
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heaven
Now this is slightly different. I'm emphasizing Iago's apparent "goodness", which fits easily with the play as a whole, as everyone thinks he's "honest Iago", and so this way I'm doing my part to lay that groundwork. However, it kinda monkeys with my theory that she uses iambs for "facts" because facts calm her down, so maybe not... It also makes her sound like she's buttering him up to go do it, which isn't her style, so... Hmmm. Maybe not a spondee. Or maybe I try it out both ways in rehearsal and see what feels right. Or maybe I leave it up to the night, and say it differently each time.
Here's the important part of that last bit: If one night I suddenly feel the need to butter him up, or emphasize his goodness,I now know how to do it. I need to spondee the first foot.
Another change I might make is to get rid of the final amphibrach and pronounce it "heav'n", which ends on a stress and makes a nice, certain iamb to go along with the two before it. It does conflict with the theory that flowery swearing breaks her meter, when we look at it in context, but I also like the sound of her being so sure and certain right at the top (this is the second line of the speech). But remember how I noted there was lots to play with in the amphibrach? Not so much play in an iamb, and I'm not sure I want to give that juicy stuff up.
I could also change my operative from "to", and say it
x / / x / x / x / x / x
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heaven
This is how metrical substitution works in practice. For the next step, doing the whole speech, I'm going to print it out and work it out by hand, and then scan the image and post it here, since typing scansion is so tricky, and then probably add some text after to explain myself more fully. Stay tuned!
EDIT: Eureka! This line I picked is actually one of Matt Radford's "murmured caesuras"! It has a feminine ending (an amphibrach in the fifth foot), and a caesura (if you count the semi colon). So he would (on the lovely day he gets to play Desdemona, haha) put a hitch pause, a slight "murmur" (imagine that in a posh Brit accent) at the semi colon.
Good friend, go to him; [hitch] for by this light of heaven
When I do the line I do in fact put a little hitch, I guess, a little tiny nanobeat to let my request land... And might I now argue that this is more evidence that "of heaven" is, in fact, an amphribrach?
This section addresses analyzing the scansion you have noted in your script. If you don't know how to get this far, see The Basics tab.
First, a quick recap of what you learn from iambic pentameter [IP] lines and what you should already know so far.
IP lines are like an emotional baseline. It represents calm, ordered, "normal" thought. (Although within a heightened reality, or they would be speaking prose.) A quote from the previous section:
Think of your character's emotions, (positive, negative, or ambiguous/mixed) as a thermometer. As the meter breaks, the mercury rises. (An alternate analogy I like is a line graph with spikes of activity. Take your pick.)
If it breaks a little, the mercury / needle on the graph moves a little. If it breaks a lot, it moves a lot.
If it breaks at the beginning of the line and then lowers / flatlines, you pulled yourself together. If it starts out ok and then breaks, your temperature is rising / you're starting to spike, emotionally speaking.
So, thinking about the content of your lines, something is causing your thermometer to rise or needle to jump. What are you talking about that could cause this?
We'll look at scanning a whole speech in a few minutes, but for now, let's zoom in on one broken line.
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heavenA little context is helpful. Desdemona has turned unwittingly to the villain for help with her husband's sudden and unwarranted jealousy. Perhaps its the context of the speech that makes me naturally scan it as follows, you might scan it differently, but let's just see where I go with it.
x / x / x x / x / x / x
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heaven
So I see:
1. iamb ( x / ) Good friend
2. amphibrach ( x / x ) go to him
3. iamb ( x / ) for by
4. iamb ( x / ) this light
5. amphibrach ( x / x ) of heaven
We can see that in this scanning, the 2nd and 5th feet are switched out for amphibrachs. Now, I have a little secret, which is that I've studied the whole speech, and I'm working on a theory that saying facts she is certain of calms her down, but swearing up and down and talking about imaginary details gets her worked up.
So by this theory (and of course anyone could argue this theory, but this is what I do, I come up with a working theory and adjust it to the evidence, so just go with it),
- Good friend is an iamb because she's sure that he is her friend and on her side
- Go to him is an amphribrach because she's not sure he will go to Othello for her. The stress is for the urgency of her request, the unstresses are an acknowledgement she's asking for something he might not give and she's a sweet girl who asks, not commands.
- For by this light is two iambs because she's sure of her innocence
- Of heaven is an amphibrach EITHER because she's starting to ramp up into swearing up and down, which tends to break her meter, OR could be a reference to their isolation in Cyprus and Othello's sudden change of heart, perhaps heaven's light doesn't reach here? OR it's because of her ingenue-ness that she demurely has more unstressed beats (7 unstressed and 5 stressed)... Lots of stuff to play with there.
OK, recap. I started out by just saying the line naturally, with the stresses where I wanted them to go, being as most of it is monosyllabic so I got to pick. Then I scanned it like I said it. Then I analyzed the feet as I found them. This scanning of the line works for me, so it's "right" for me. But if I've gotten Shakespeare's version, well, no one can say, he's been dead a long time. Still, I'm going to chalk this up to him: Shakespeare switched out the 2nd and 5th feet for something other than iambs.
And if he can, then I can too. (And who's to say I got it right the first time?) So I'm going to take the first foot and make it a spondee for funsies, since it's monosyllabic so it could go either way:
/ / x / x x / x / x / x
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heaven
Now this is slightly different. I'm emphasizing Iago's apparent "goodness", which fits easily with the play as a whole, as everyone thinks he's "honest Iago", and so this way I'm doing my part to lay that groundwork. However, it kinda monkeys with my theory that she uses iambs for "facts" because facts calm her down, so maybe not... It also makes her sound like she's buttering him up to go do it, which isn't her style, so... Hmmm. Maybe not a spondee. Or maybe I try it out both ways in rehearsal and see what feels right. Or maybe I leave it up to the night, and say it differently each time.
Here's the important part of that last bit: If one night I suddenly feel the need to butter him up, or emphasize his goodness,I now know how to do it. I need to spondee the first foot.
Another change I might make is to get rid of the final amphibrach and pronounce it "heav'n", which ends on a stress and makes a nice, certain iamb to go along with the two before it. It does conflict with the theory that flowery swearing breaks her meter, when we look at it in context, but I also like the sound of her being so sure and certain right at the top (this is the second line of the speech). But remember how I noted there was lots to play with in the amphibrach? Not so much play in an iamb, and I'm not sure I want to give that juicy stuff up.
I could also change my operative from "to", and say it
x / / x / x / x / x / x
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heaven
One interesting change here is that I start off with more stresses and fall into more unstresses as the line goes along (which fits with what is happening). This also balances out the stresses and unstresses to six each. If, however, I apply the two adjustments I just mentioned, I get
/ / / x / x / x / x /
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heav'n
/ / / x / x / x / x /
Good friend, go to him; for by this light of heav'n
Now I suddenly have 7 stresses and four unstressed ones. Wow, this version has a very different tone. This Desdemona is much stronger, I keep seeing her grab Iago's lapels and getting right in his face. She's Joan of Arc all of a sudden. I kinda like it. I'd have to see the rest of the speech in context and see if she can keep this attitude up, but it's not necessarily amiss here. She's desperate for help and certain of her innocence. It also means she starts off hard but pulls herself together into iambs, which is interesting, given that it's at the top of a speech which gets more broken as it goes... a little bravado at the top that comes apart as she talks about the reality of Othello getting medieval on her?
And is this changing my view of sweet ingenue Desdemona? Is that a good thing? Or maybe if I don't see her as Joan of Arc, this is all a red flag that I'm headed down the wrong path and should walk some of these changes back, pick and choose. Hmm.
And is this changing my view of sweet ingenue Desdemona? Is that a good thing? Or maybe if I don't see her as Joan of Arc, this is all a red flag that I'm headed down the wrong path and should walk some of these changes back, pick and choose. Hmm.
EDIT: Eureka! This line I picked is actually one of Matt Radford's "murmured caesuras"! It has a feminine ending (an amphibrach in the fifth foot), and a caesura (if you count the semi colon). So he would (on the lovely day he gets to play Desdemona, haha) put a hitch pause, a slight "murmur" (imagine that in a posh Brit accent) at the semi colon.
Good friend, go to him; [hitch] for by this light of heaven
When I do the line I do in fact put a little hitch, I guess, a little tiny nanobeat to let my request land... And might I now argue that this is more evidence that "of heaven" is, in fact, an amphribrach?
