Judge’s Adjudication - Christopher North
First of all, some reminders. One poem was disqualified for being considerably over the line limit. Another risked disqualification by employing a very small font size.
The last point causes me to open with some practical suggestions to poets considering further entries to poetry competitions. Attention to these details could prevent entries from falling at the first fence.
1) Basic punctuation. Many entries ignored the basic rules of punctuation. Punctuation is vital in poetry because it is one of the tools used in the creative act. Line breaks are punctuation. The decision whether or not to start each new line with a capital letter is a decision of punctuation. The poet should think as much about punctuation as about word choices. One word, noun sentences should be used sparingly if at all. Commas should be considered with great care. Punctuation guides the reading. One way to check your punctuation is to ask a friend to read the poem aloud (a good idea anyway) - incorrect punctuation tends to become obvious. ‘Eats shoots and leaves’ applies to poetry as much as prose.
2) To develop the punctuation point: it is I think important to regard the white space around the poem as part of the punctuation. It informs the reader. It can set a tone. Many entries ignored this altogether. Blocks of text were crushed up into one corner of the A4 page or spread-eagled unnecessarily over two pages. Presentation is important, especially as even basic word processing programmes make it easy.
3) Spelling. An incorrectly spelt word is not a disaster but it’s always a bad point. The sensitive reader cannot get round it, as it attracts far too much attention. With the internet available and ‘spell-check’ facilities on every computer there is much less excuse for it nowadays. I regret to say there were howlers in some entries.
4) And a subtler general point - the thread in a poem. When assessing a poem, it is worth checking whether the reader can negotiate it with reasonable facility. Even wildly imaginative poems need a handrail running through them to guide the reader. There should be a connection between the first line and the last. And, incidentally, spend a lot of time on the first line and the last.
So all that said, what was I looking for in the entries to this competition? Poetry is such a slippery art form. A poem can break virtually all the normal rules and still carry a charge that flashes in the mind of the reader, taking him or her into uncharted and fascinating waters. Poetry can play new tricks and re-interpret old ones. It can employ magical effects never seen before or which have been around so long they’ve been forgotten. At root a winning poem is one that surprises, delights, charms, alarms or persuades. It causes a strong emotional reaction. It stays on in the mind.
An abiding characteristic, it seems to me, of winning poems is their ability to give the reader a share in them - allow readers to develop their version of the poem, to fit it into their cosmology, their way of remembering and interpreting the world. I think artists refer to this as ‘the beholder’s share’. Don Paterson talked about the contract between the poet and the reader - it’s a 50/50 one. The poet provides an imaginative canvas on which readers can place their own images chosen from their memories, knowledge and emotional background.
These were some of the thoughts I had whilst looking through the entries, all of which were read at least twice - and all aloud.
In the commended poems I was engaged by ‘Letter from a Survivor’ for its spare but carefully controlled tone - as careful as the embroidery it describes. ‘The Middlesex University Lecturer Discovering Ducks have Regional Accents’ was exceptionally amusing and beautifully crafted, with a dig at too easy acceptance of racial stereotypes. ‘Your Dad, His Tiller’ cleverly employed plain language to capture a loved character - without undue sentimentality. The ‘Object of White Noise: The Oak Park Sestina’ was a fascinating, experimental, impressionistic hurtle through modernism with exceptional use of a wide vocabulary, reference and form. One poem from a sequence on ‘Scenes from Childhood’: ‘Important Event’ caught an incident with absolute clarity - a single image that brought to life a whole period.
I was specially drawn to ‘Feet of Clay’, a poem written after a visit to the terracotta army in Xian. Tourist poems frequently fall down from superficiality but this poem persuades, partly by the superb closing stanza - a perfect example of the reader being allowed into the poem.
‘Liar’ is a beautifully crafted fragment of dramatic monologue - not a word wasted, with choices that are startling and original. I found I hadn’t drawn breath throughout the whole read.
And so to the winners:
My third prize goes to ‘In Retreat,’ a poem laden with strange yet somehow familiar imagery, the suggestion of narratives which the reader can interpret in a number of ways and an overwhelming brittleness and feel of impending disaster. There is no doubt that the collective unconscious of the nation is aware that we are essentially a country at war and I think it’s this that partly informs this poem. I recognised my personal anxieties in those expressed in the poem without in any way being directed. This is difficult for a poet to do and it’s achieved here very well.
Second prize goes to a poem that indicates a mastery of form in the poet. It employs the sestina - but that does not need pointing out, as the thread of the poem’s narrative is clear as if shining through the controlled unravelling of its central argument. You forget that there is formalised use of line endings. Masterly; a philosophical argument I remember from my childhood - though later, of course, becoming very well trodden ground..
It was very difficult to choose between these commended and prize-winning poems so I would interject here to say that to some extent all these poems can be considered in a group together, but after a great deal of mulling and re-reading and walking round the village with the words in my head, I award first prize, a first amongst equals, to ‘Parts of Us’ because it perfectly captures a quality in relationships that some of us are lucky enough to have - and perhaps others seek, but, at the same time, wryly understanding that all is not perfect in this apparently best of all perfect worlds. This is a poet who is freed up but controlled, deftly using a nautical metaphor but mixed with invention, humour and worldly wisdom. A fine poem, and my congratulations to the poet and to the other prize-winners: indeed to all the commended poets. I should mention there were twenty or so other shortlisted poems that were just below the bar.
Christopher North
Almassera Vella
Relleu
Alicante
SPAIN
January 2012
First of all, some reminders. One poem was disqualified for being considerably over the line limit. Another risked disqualification by employing a very small font size.
The last point causes me to open with some practical suggestions to poets considering further entries to poetry competitions. Attention to these details could prevent entries from falling at the first fence.
1) Basic punctuation. Many entries ignored the basic rules of punctuation. Punctuation is vital in poetry because it is one of the tools used in the creative act. Line breaks are punctuation. The decision whether or not to start each new line with a capital letter is a decision of punctuation. The poet should think as much about punctuation as about word choices. One word, noun sentences should be used sparingly if at all. Commas should be considered with great care. Punctuation guides the reading. One way to check your punctuation is to ask a friend to read the poem aloud (a good idea anyway) - incorrect punctuation tends to become obvious. ‘Eats shoots and leaves’ applies to poetry as much as prose.
2) To develop the punctuation point: it is I think important to regard the white space around the poem as part of the punctuation. It informs the reader. It can set a tone. Many entries ignored this altogether. Blocks of text were crushed up into one corner of the A4 page or spread-eagled unnecessarily over two pages. Presentation is important, especially as even basic word processing programmes make it easy.
3) Spelling. An incorrectly spelt word is not a disaster but it’s always a bad point. The sensitive reader cannot get round it, as it attracts far too much attention. With the internet available and ‘spell-check’ facilities on every computer there is much less excuse for it nowadays. I regret to say there were howlers in some entries.
4) And a subtler general point - the thread in a poem. When assessing a poem, it is worth checking whether the reader can negotiate it with reasonable facility. Even wildly imaginative poems need a handrail running through them to guide the reader. There should be a connection between the first line and the last. And, incidentally, spend a lot of time on the first line and the last.
So all that said, what was I looking for in the entries to this competition? Poetry is such a slippery art form. A poem can break virtually all the normal rules and still carry a charge that flashes in the mind of the reader, taking him or her into uncharted and fascinating waters. Poetry can play new tricks and re-interpret old ones. It can employ magical effects never seen before or which have been around so long they’ve been forgotten. At root a winning poem is one that surprises, delights, charms, alarms or persuades. It causes a strong emotional reaction. It stays on in the mind.
An abiding characteristic, it seems to me, of winning poems is their ability to give the reader a share in them - allow readers to develop their version of the poem, to fit it into their cosmology, their way of remembering and interpreting the world. I think artists refer to this as ‘the beholder’s share’. Don Paterson talked about the contract between the poet and the reader - it’s a 50/50 one. The poet provides an imaginative canvas on which readers can place their own images chosen from their memories, knowledge and emotional background.
These were some of the thoughts I had whilst looking through the entries, all of which were read at least twice - and all aloud.
In the commended poems I was engaged by ‘Letter from a Survivor’ for its spare but carefully controlled tone - as careful as the embroidery it describes. ‘The Middlesex University Lecturer Discovering Ducks have Regional Accents’ was exceptionally amusing and beautifully crafted, with a dig at too easy acceptance of racial stereotypes. ‘Your Dad, His Tiller’ cleverly employed plain language to capture a loved character - without undue sentimentality. The ‘Object of White Noise: The Oak Park Sestina’ was a fascinating, experimental, impressionistic hurtle through modernism with exceptional use of a wide vocabulary, reference and form. One poem from a sequence on ‘Scenes from Childhood’: ‘Important Event’ caught an incident with absolute clarity - a single image that brought to life a whole period.
I was specially drawn to ‘Feet of Clay’, a poem written after a visit to the terracotta army in Xian. Tourist poems frequently fall down from superficiality but this poem persuades, partly by the superb closing stanza - a perfect example of the reader being allowed into the poem.
‘Liar’ is a beautifully crafted fragment of dramatic monologue - not a word wasted, with choices that are startling and original. I found I hadn’t drawn breath throughout the whole read.
And so to the winners:
My third prize goes to ‘In Retreat,’ a poem laden with strange yet somehow familiar imagery, the suggestion of narratives which the reader can interpret in a number of ways and an overwhelming brittleness and feel of impending disaster. There is no doubt that the collective unconscious of the nation is aware that we are essentially a country at war and I think it’s this that partly informs this poem. I recognised my personal anxieties in those expressed in the poem without in any way being directed. This is difficult for a poet to do and it’s achieved here very well.
Second prize goes to a poem that indicates a mastery of form in the poet. It employs the sestina - but that does not need pointing out, as the thread of the poem’s narrative is clear as if shining through the controlled unravelling of its central argument. You forget that there is formalised use of line endings. Masterly; a philosophical argument I remember from my childhood - though later, of course, becoming very well trodden ground..
It was very difficult to choose between these commended and prize-winning poems so I would interject here to say that to some extent all these poems can be considered in a group together, but after a great deal of mulling and re-reading and walking round the village with the words in my head, I award first prize, a first amongst equals, to ‘Parts of Us’ because it perfectly captures a quality in relationships that some of us are lucky enough to have - and perhaps others seek, but, at the same time, wryly understanding that all is not perfect in this apparently best of all perfect worlds. This is a poet who is freed up but controlled, deftly using a nautical metaphor but mixed with invention, humour and worldly wisdom. A fine poem, and my congratulations to the poet and to the other prize-winners: indeed to all the commended poets. I should mention there were twenty or so other shortlisted poems that were just below the bar.
Christopher North
Almassera Vella
Relleu
Alicante
SPAIN
January 2012
