Judge's Report

[Terry]

Hi again David,
I was thinking more along the lines of the polish and use of expressive language, which helps, no matter what type of poetry you write.

I agree you can't please everybody including every judge.

To me, one of the great things about poetry is that we are all individuals with our own styles, likes and dislikes, so no matter what we write there is a fair chance someone out there might like what we do and of course there will be others that don't, but does it really matter.

Cheers Terry

[David Campbell]

Matt: That's not quite what happened. It was part of a thread started by Neville in January last year. I presented five variations of the same stanza and set the challenge of rating them from best to worst. Only one person ranked them in the same order as I did and that was John Peel...without, as far as I know, using a numerical scoring system.

Will Moody did a detailed analysis of the metric structure of each stanza and then applied three different scoring systems (one of them the ABPA version), but none of his methods produced a result that matched mine. Part of my response to Will was that it was fascinating to see the different conclusions reached depending on the scoring system he used. Will's final result placed the stanza I ranked first in second last place.

Terry: I know what you mean about the 'polish', although it's important that this not be too contrived. And yes, each to his (or her) own with the fervent hope that someone out there will like it!

Cheers
David

[Vic Jefferies]

Thank you for the article David. I found it extremely interesting and though I don't necessarily disagree with Jackson's methods, from her writing I think she indicates she approached the task with some preconceived ideas of what constitutes an award winning poem.
I would like to see (read) the poem she chose as the winning entry. Perhaps I may be surprised, though I doubt it.

[Stephen Whiteside]

Thanks for posting this, David.

There are a couple of points I would like to pick up on.

I have certainly looked at my fair share of modern poetry books over the years, but I have gradually dropped the habit, because I don't think there is much there for me. Modern free verse has so little in common with poetry that has rhyme and metre, it seems ridiculous to call them both 'poetry'. We need new words.

The analogy with the painter is worth exploring. It's not quite fair to compare the poet who doesn't keep up with the latest trends in poetry with the painter who doesn't visit galleries. Galleries generally contain a far greater variety of artworks than do modern poetry books. A painter can always bypass the modern art section and look at the old masters if he chooses.

Of course, realist painters still exist. They often do quite well financially, but do not win the attention or respect of modern critics. Are we bush poets like them, faithfully perpetuating an outmoded art form appreciated by the general public for its accessibility, but scorned by academics and critics? Perhaps so.

Of course, rhyme and metre is only criticised when written without music. Nobody ever questions the right of song lyrics to rhyme. Perhaps we should all become songwriters!

[Terry]

G/day Stephen,
You raise some good points there.

I also wonder just how qualified a dedicated free verse person is to judge rhyming poetry.

Cheers Terry