A Note on Richard Cureton's Response

Abstract

Since my hope that Richard Cureton's Rhythmic Phrasing in English Verse (Cureton 1992; RPEV) will be widely read and deeply influential is much stronger than my sense of its limitations, I regret that we have fallen into a rhythm--is that the right word? of response and counterresponse. The first part of my review consisted of a necessarily condensed summary of those parts of RPEV that I consider most significant, and I am relieved to note that its author did not come across any misrepresentations serious enough to warrant a complaint. The reasons I proceeded to sketch some of my reservations were, as I believe I made clear, a fear that Cureton's work might not have the impact it deserved, owing to certain aspects of its argument and its presentation, and a desire to promote fruitful discussion of it. I see little point, therefore, in producing a rejoinder to his objections to my review. His Response will give readers unacquainted with the book a taste of his methods, assumptions, and rhetoric and will afford them a more informed judgment of my assessment. The latter, it should be noted, has specific and limited aims; I am not currently engaged in producing a countertheory of phrasal movement and have no illusions of being able to do so without devoting considerable time and effort to the project. (Even the much-simplified account of phrasing that I give in Poetic Rhythm [Attridge 1995] proved a considerable challenge to write.) While I understand Cureton's impatience with comments from critics who have not invested as much in this endeavor as he has, it must be remembered that the advancement of knowledge is at all times shaped by readers who identify problems