That *!%%##!! metre again!

[David Campbell]

Hi Neville

Pity we can’t sit down and chat about this, but the website does have the advantage of allowing others to join in! I understood what you meant about the sound of speech, but what I’m trying to do is highlight the reality that judges face in written poetry competitions. We have to make hard decisions based on what’s in front of us on the page.

You’re suggesting that there should be more flexibility with, for example, “family” being accepted as “fam’ly” because of contemporary usage, and you give the word “Worcestershire” as another example. But there I have to disagree. “Worcestershire” is one of those unusual words (much like the Irish names Siobhan and Naimh) that are never pronounced in contemporary usage exactly as they’re written. They’re idiosyncratic. It’s not the case, as with “family” or “offering”, that they should be pronounced as written, but people often (lazily?) drop a syllable.

“Family” has 3 syllables. If we accept “fam’ly” then what happens to “anomaly” and “homily” and “simile”? I always pronounce these as written but, as a judge, do I have to guess whether contemporary usage might be “anom’ly”, “hom’ly” and “sim’le”? That’s the problem. Do judges have to allow for variations in these and countless other situations? Where does the guesswork end? Who decides what contemporary usage is? (Obviously, the flexibility you’re talking about is not a problem in performance competitions. You can pronounce words any way you like…sometimes with great comic effect!)

Once words are on the page and a judge is trying to separate the top few poems in a written competition, then “family” required to be pronounced as “fam’ly” could be the difference between a prize and the discard pile. That might seem harsh, but decisions have to be made and there will be beautifully written poems on a short-list with perfect metre and rhyme. It’s simpler and fairer to stick with the rules.

I agree that Les Murray would never enter a bush poetry competition, but wasn’t suggesting he would. I offered the poem as an example of the sort of thing (purely in terms of metre and rhyme, not subtlety and complexity) that judges see in competitions. (I can’t give an actual competition example as all poems are destroyed or returned when judging is complete.) We get poems in which there are rhymes, but not in a regular pattern. There is also metre, but it’s not consistent. It’s Australian in content. It can most certainly be performed. But is it ABPA-style bush poetry? How far away from the standards of rhyme and metre can flexibility go?

Which brings me to Tamworth and the Blackened Billy. You were quite correct in your earlier post about my comments at the presentation. The poem was an experiment and I was delighted that the judge (Keith Jones) saw fit to recognise it. Some might say when they see it (I think Frank is publishing it in the upcoming issue of the magazine) that it breaks the rules. But, although the structure is different to anything I’ve used before, I’d argue that, despite perhaps pushing boundaries a little, it still operates well within the conventions of rhyme and metre. It’ll be interesting to see if there’s any reaction.

Finally, I’m very much in favour of exploring flexibility in bush poetry, but entrants in written competitions must remember that a judge needs to see a clear distinction between deliberate flexibility and carelessness or lack of skill.

Cheers
David

[Neville Briggs]

but entrants in written competitions must remember that a judge needs to see a clear distinction between deliberate flexibility and carelessness or lack of skill

Yes indeed, absolutely !! David, I heartily concur with that statement.

After having heard your reading of your poem at Tamworth I look forward to seeing it in the mag. Sounds very interesting.

[Stephen Whiteside]

I enjoyed your Blackened Billy winner in the ABPA mag, David. I can't see how it breaks any rules. It lays out a pattern - albeit a slightly unusual pattern - in the first verse, and sticks to it meticulously. Isn't that what bush verse is all about?

[David Campbell]

Agree entirely, Stephen, but not sure that everyone would. There's a change of metre in the middle of each stanza, and some mightn't like that. There's also an unusual (although consistent) mix of masculine and feminine line-endings, and the repeated double-rhyme with the second part presented as a one-word line. Just a bit different, that's all, and it's never easy to predict how others will react. Then again, given the VP Read poem in the magazine, there may well be an argument that it's not "pure bush" poetry! But that's a different discussion.

Incidentally, there are two variations from my original in the published version...not sure how they crept in. I wrote "the toil of ringers shearing" (i.e. he wants her to have a capacity for hard work) not "the toll of ringers shearing", and the last line should read "this day that you are born".

Cheers
David

[Maureen K Clifford]

I liked it also David - very different . Toil v toll - probably eyesight related. I don't think it actually distracted from the poem - I had just accepted it as perhaps shearers who hadn't made the grade falling by the wayside as it were. It was an absolute hoot to read The Truth of Waltzing Matilda - thoroughly enjoyed that as well.

Cheers

Maureen

[Robyn]

David,
I think it's great that you are pushing the boundaries but still producing work that resonates, which A Father's Prayer did for me. Farming is now a 21st century occupation, we buy and sell over the internet, download weather apps for iphones, drive airconditioned utes and tractors and all that sort of thing. We can respect our past,but I certainly don't want to be stuck in it! As for it not being 'bush', I think bush parents have as many hopes and dreams for their children as city parents. IMO, it would be a sad day indeed if a poem about parental affection were disqualified on the grounds of content.
And like Maureen, I loved The Truth about Waltzing Matilda. Congratulations!
Robyn

[David Campbell]

Many thanks, Maureen and Robyn. The issue of exactly what constitutes 'bush' poetry is an interesting one, and I'm sure there are quite a few people who agree with what Val Read wrote. I don't. I prefer the more general idea that's it's poetry with rhyme and metre about Australians and our way of life. That allows a lot of scope, and I'd argue very strongly that it needs to deal with contemporary issues as well as historical ones if it is to remain viable. There are poets like Ellis who write evocatively and authoritatively about 'bush' life because they've lived and breathed it...they provide a hugely valuable historical record...but Ellis also writes about contemporary issues (and wins prizes).

We need to write to our strengths and interests, whatever they may be. Val seems to be suggesting that judges should automatically reject good (in terms of quality) poems simply because they aren't "purely bush"...i.e. discriminate according to subject matter. I can't agree with that. If that's the way it's to be, then count me out. And where, for example, would it leave Heather's beautifully written 'Mirth' in the magazine? Or Charlee Marshall's brilliant 'November' and Zondrae's moving response? Would Val dismiss these as "general odes"?

Better stop there...could write a book on this one. Maybe it needs a separate thread.

Cheers
David

[Mal McLean]

Well, I think from my experience that if you don't write about the "bush" you don't get much of a look in. The poems I have written about city life when I finally learned my rhyme and metre craft, albeit poorly, would not be worth entering into a competition. Good rhyme and metre is my love in poetry so I keep plugging away for the joy of writing. Maybe one day, I will write one so well that it will get a gong, but that's not why any of us should write, I think. David is no doubt correct. We should write to our strengths. Relax and enjoy the wordcraft.

In the meantime I am sick and tired of the sight of Godzillard and Krudd.




Mal

[David Campbell]

Don't worry, Marty, I won't tell anybody.

Mal, you're probably right that there are still some competitions where "bush" is pretty much all that's accepted, but the overall scene seems to be more flexible these days. It would be a great pity if something as well done as your 'To Autumn, My Mistress' was ignored because of some narrow definition. Definitely 'gong' material!

Cheers
David

[Mal McLean]

I hope the scene is becoming more flexible David. As far as I can tell the ABPA is the only national home for formalist poetry. There may be others, but I have not found them yet. If we remain too restrictive in subject matter we could be shooting ourselves in the foot. Anyway...."about Australia and Australians" is the guiding principle. Thank you for your kind appreciation of "To Autumn, My Mistress."

Mal