ABPA - Australian Bush Poets Association

I am currently deeply ensconced in judging a written competition. I became so tired of scrawling the same thing about glitches on entrants' hard copies that I've typed it out for them....so....should you be deeply ensconced in crafting your own entry into a competition the following may save you, and the pending judge, much grief.

Judge’s Note:

I am coming across the same problems so regularly, that rather than continue to scratch the same thing all over your hard copies, I will attach same, to elaborate on my individual notations scrawled therein.

1. The use of a capital at the start of every line is obviously counter-productive to poetry. The practice was abandoned in 1939. To adjust this in your pc: In your ‘Word’ programme untick ‘Capitalise each new line.’ You can then choose exactly where you do, or do not, require a capital. (Obviously not in the middle of a sentence, which occurs when every line of poetry begins with a capital.)

2. When you are satisfied with the structure of your first stanza, you must repeat that structure throughout the rest of your poem. (There are exceptions, but they require a very advanced writer’s skill.) Wherever you are using a weak beat (unstressed syllable) in a line ending, you must continue that pattern. (and vice versa for using a strong beat.) This applies equally as much to internal rhyme. I have been thoroughly enjoying a poem, and suddenly....the applicable line ending’s stress changes...and I weep. It results in throwing the meter out...from its original structure. I am then obliged to put an otherwise wonderful poem to one side, as it no longer qualifies for any award. (n.b. this is not because of pedantic ‘rules.’ It is because the reader then has to work to pick up the newly introduced rhythm, because the piece no longer ‘flows’ as it did. That is why, if the accepted poetry writing techniques are not engaged, that the poem no longer qualifies for any award.)

3. The use of punctuated contractions (or abnormally ‘abbreviated’ words) is not acceptable in a poem crafted by a wordsmith. A true ‘wordsmith’ finds another, more suitable word. When you enter a wordsmith’s competition, a dedicated and informed judge will abhor this practice...because...it is forcing the meter. With generally accepted forms of contractions like ‘‘ere,’’ and ‘‘o’er’’ if the style of the poem lends itself to the ‘‘archaic’’ I will allow it. Some other judges may not. I suggest that you are far better to write, eg. ‘‘history’’ than ‘‘hist’ry’’ as if I can see the author’s intention, and there is a modicum of applied talent apparent, I allow the former...but never the latter. Other judges may think otherwise, so your best practice is to find another, more suitable word, or restructure your line.

4. I personally dislike preambles on written poems unless they are essential. eg. to explain an unusual pronunciation essential to the meter of the poem, or some other component that the judge may not be reasonably expected to know. The poem should stand on its own in relating the message/story. I suggest that you are better to head such (a valid) instance as ‘‘Author’s Note.’’

I do hope that this helps....

I'm sure it will Glenny.

Just a thought

I had an interesting thing happen to me a while back, I used a word (slurry) in a poem about dryblowing , which left the poor old judge confused. Dryblowing to him suggested dry, while slurry sounded like something wet.

The line was 'He washes dirt in sieves of steel then feeds the slurry to the wheel' It was only after reading his comments that I realized that there are probably very few people who know much about dryblowing, so I changed ' I fed the slurry to the wheel' to 'I fed what's left onto the wheel'

What I'm rabbiting on about here is, if you're writing about something that may confuse, perhaps you should choose words that will make sense to the uninitiated and save yourself and the poor old judge a problem.

Cheers Terry

You're onto it Terry. I'd be interested to know his comments. I'm only an old poet sheila but I know what it is to don wellingtons & move slurry about. But that may be just what you are pointing out? I'm obviously also thinking of 'slurry' as 'wet.' Perhaps this is where an 'Author's Note' (short) at the end of the poem may be beneficial? However, if I was confused about some terminology I would normally be inclined to investigate that before making up my mind. Google is your friend. Of course that is the absolute ideal that a poor old judge with yet another 200 poems to judge may not have the time to pursue.

Personally, I prefer your original line. Also your adapted line would have disappointed me, regardless of your courtesy, because 'I fed what's left onto the wheel' is not as well expressed as the former...but...I would see a new problem in that the stress falls awkwardly on the word 'onto.' I think that 'onto' is normally spoken as 'ONto', whereas in that line it is spoken/read as 'onTO' if you are maintaining the meter. So you are damned if you do & damned if you don't, eh mate?

I just think that sharing these intricacies we come across is of value to writers & judges alike.....so I chucked it on here.....

Terry, I reckon you're much better off sticking to your original text rather than 'dumbing it down' for a judge. Is it REALLY that important to win a competition? Isn't it more important to write poems you are proud of and believe in unapologetically? Besides, it does no harm at all to challenge your reader a little.

Beautiful description Terry exactly what happens . I'm with Stephen tell the story as you know it to occur.

I for one would be disappointed if a judge who did not understand a descriptive comment like that did not take the time to follow up its use in the context of the poem.

That is if the poem met most other criteria and was in the final stages of judging.



Bob

Well said, Glenny. I agree wholeheartedly with every point you've made.

David

Thank you David. That does indeed give me much more confidence. (It's a somewhat daunting task at times, eh?)...

Cheeers
Glenny

I agree the original line was the best - by far

Stephen it wasn't about winning, I doubt that poem would win anything anyway.
I was only trying to point out the need to remember that some things well known to you, maybe be a complete mystery to others and in fact make little or no sense at all to them.

I may have used a poor example here of what I was trying to say, which was, you may on occasion need to choose your words a little more carefully than I did here - oh well back to the drawing board.

And by the way I don't in anyway blame the judge and in any case the poem at that stage had a few other problems as well.

Cheers Terry

Glenny

You can say that again!

One thing I keep hammering away at is the importance of remembering that a judge is dealing with each entrant's poem as just one among many...maybe 100, maybe 200 or more. And we're under time constraints because the organisers want the results ASAP. So the poem has to stand out to attract attention...great story/marvellous imagery/innovative...whatever. But it also has to be flawless (or pretty damn close!) in structure, because there will be other entries that are perfect technically.

I was speaking to another judge about a major competition last year and asked: "What percentage of entries fell by the wayside on the first reading?" The answer was: "About 80%." And many of those would have lost out for exactly the reasons you've outlined here, particularly the second point because that relies on a sound understanding of that perennial bugbear, metre.

David

Stephen Whiteside wrote:Terry, Is it REALLY that important to win a competition?

I take it that the assumed answer is..No. I'm with you Stephen.

About a hundred years or so ago, the French art establishment called The Salon, used to run grand art competitions. The winners got huge money prizes, titles, medals and were honoured as masters of the craft. People like the painters Manet, Monet, Pissaro, Gaugin and Van Gogh and Degas were rejected as being no good for any award or even display.

To-day the vast collection of "award winning " paintings is stashed away in the basements of the museums and largely regarded as being of little artistic value.
The pictures of Van Gogh, Manet, Pissaro, Degas are now displayed as treasures of art.
Mind you, the pictures of Messonier et al that languish in the basement are examples of technical brilliance, no doubt about that.

There's a message there I think ? Maybe it's got something to do with Manfred's theory of owning the future..I wonder ?