Hi Victoria, me back again, taking issue with you sticking up for the British in poetry - which is a first, for me, I think! I suspect 'borders' in poetry, and of course, almost everything, got blown away by the explosion in online and digital around two decades ago. It was and is, an overwhelming show of power. It feels now a bit like arguing for an 'Olde England' of thatched pubs and Morris dancers on the green, to limit the poetry prize to these (increasingly small, shoddier and marginalised) lumps of rock.
To the idea of 'democratising' the process of who are chosen as tojudge - I think a vogueish, media-savvy 'commentator on the mores of our times', but a poetry outsider, like a Paxman used to be, or maybe a Rory Stewart (whatever you think of either, personally) has obvious attractions, but how much poetry are they really reading when not paid to pronounce on it? Would their authority in the subject be undermined, and therefore trust in their judgements debased?
And of course, look no further than Trump for where democracy (albeit a highly manipulated 'democracy') can get us. A triumvirate of very different 'authorities' does at least offer some chance of 'checks and balances' on the result (though taking onboard what you say about the 'mean' and 'consensus' drift, being a possibly deleterious effect). No perfect way to do this, as no competition is perfect, in poetry and art more than most things, naturally.
My positive from the poem is, in terrible times, the judges had a collective desire to see the times expressed in poems engaging with the issues of the day - even the second-placed 'Axe' seems to speak, albeit more metaphorically, to the disgruntled 'binary' we find ourselves in) ,rather than being hermetically sealed in a more conventionally 'Poet-y' set of poems. The reaction to Auden's 'September 1st, 1939' at the time, was laudatory - no less than E.M Forster getting behind it - for the way it captured the political and psychological moment, and it has rarely gone far away ever since, but as you know, Auden disowned it and wouldn't have it in his 'Collected', for being trite and itself 'dishonest'. I think this winning poem great for at least trying (though in your view failing) to capture something of the crises of our times, but of course, decades on, will it seem crass, over-simplified or performative, to audiences, not to mention the poet themselves?!
I wonder if the most underrated aspect of the National Poetry Competition might be the longlist.
This year 108 poets were recognised. For some, it will be their first poetic venture. Others will be early in their careers, or just experienced poets who need a bit of encouragement. To see their work not only scrutinised but admired by renowned poets will be precisely the kind of boost they need to keep at it: to read more, to discuss more, to write more and become advocates of poetry in their communities.
This longlisting they will have achieved entirely on the merits of their poem, not their standing in the poetry hierarchy or their stance on any issue of the day. If the NPC can identify this 'out-crowd' writing in English, so much the better, wherever in the world they happen to live.
For an organisation whose role is "to help poetry and poets thrive" the longlist serves a valuable purpose. Maybe, the Poetry Society should consider giving even more support to this cohort of worthy winners.
Absolutely, Jem. The NPC Anthology would be a true record of contemporary poetry as well as an attractive Poetry Society Membership benefit. Could even generate some incremental bookshop revenue for them.
The richest part of any prize is the longlist/shortlist and that is where, in my experience, the really considered thinking takes place. In many ways it's a shame there needs to be a winner! One obviously then gets accused of undermining the whole process (not entirely unfairly). And it takes more resources to support a cohort then it does an individual. But I agree, more could be done. Personally I would like to see poetry prizes place greater emphasis on the anthology - pitch it as an opportunity to be published and receive a little more encouragement, perhaps, than through a magazine.
Why do we need competitions anyway? To decide who gets to be at the top of the pyramid? I don't like my poems being held captive while I wait for a yes or no. I'm free to share mine where and when I like. Competitions and submitting poems is also really expensive. I don't like having to ask for a free pass; I don't like being made to feel like a beggar.
Yes I think many poets just don't enter them. I don't either. I think their main practical function is to raise money for the societies or magazines that run them.
Excellent discussion. I agree that the National Poetry Prize should be restricted to UK residents and I think a variety of awards, eg: for best comic poem, best poem by a young poet etc, would be a great idea. I am also very much in favour for a sort of People's Vote - worth thinking how that could be done. I hope these ideas will be channelled to the Poetry Society. It would be interesting to offer a right to reply for them - I'd love to hear their feedback and their justification for opening up the Prize so widely (and bagging so much dosh from over 20k entrants!
On the question of eligibility, I couldn't (on a quick search) determine whether eligibility was officially extended at some point -- though I suspect so -- or whether it was always theoretically open worldwide but just didn't attract as many international entrants until recently. Obviously the internet has made it much easier over the last 20 years for poets to find details of big competitions around the world so it might be a bit of both.
Rattle magazine do quite a clever thing with their poetry competition -- there's the standard big prize + 10 runner ups but in addition all their subscribers get a chance to vote for their favourite of the shortlist ("Readers' Choice Awards"). https://rattle.com/page/poetryprize/
First, you are first among the several Substacks I receive daily/weekly. You are a virtual support group, friends around a table with a shared love of an art form as undefinable as abstract sculpture. Whenever I doubt myself, feel energies flag, wonder why I don't take up gardening instead (visible, edible results), I engage TFP and finish refreshed. Go forth, old man, and try to make something of merit. Thanks for letting me eavesdrop your constructive conversation. Loved, in particular, this line. LMAO:
Perhaps what the author of ‘The Gathering’ set out to do was to write in a muddled way about feeling muddled.
While on one level I agree with your remark that it might be a good idea to create categories, a series of prizes for the National Poetry Society competition, how could this be done? There are no objective factors such as length of race, weight of competitor etc to provide tick gridlines. Victoria mentions categories such as best prose poem, best traditional poem, best ‘freestyle’ poem, best comic poem. But what of the poems that step boldly beyond the frame and dip their toe into others?
I was listening recently to a weekly radio programme in which five recordings of one particular work of classical music is compared and ‘graded’ by a panel of three experts who all have experience in the particular area of the music selected. It’s always very interesting because the compare and contrast factor becomes very evident as you listen. Last week it was the Tenebrae Responsories by Gesualdo, not something a whole heap of people listen to. And yet, even for judging the interpretations (for my money, interpretation does have elements of re-creation) of a musical subject which might be deemed rather narrow, the judges’ opinions were quite contradictory. The recordings were sung by very small groups of singers except one which used a choir. One panel member felt he was unable to judge this version alongside the others as the ‘project’ did not come from the same place. And so we’re back to: did the poem fulfil what it set out to do.
While I felt frustrated and disappointed by this year’s 1st prize choice, and sorry for other poets further down the list, I suppose there is no easy solution. We all bemoan reaching the limits of democracy, and maybe the seemingly limitless ambitions of contemporary poetry and art in general, are just difficult to adjust to, though I suspect it was always thus. Unpopular choices will always be made. Let’s just hope that the unknown really great poets will get to shine, and not be written out of history like the many women composers of the past whose music is currently being returned to the concert halls.
Whatever. Loud applause once again to Victoria and Hilary for so brilliantly teasing out the knots.
Thanks Ed. In a category competition, I think it would have to be just up to the entrant to decide what category best fitted their poem. Anything else would be very unwieldy I agree.
“Everyone knows competitions of any kind and in any sphere are a blunt tool.” This is a bit too relativistic for me. Poetry competitions are particularly blunt when compared to a running race or many other forms of competition.
I’d be fascinated to know the process for judging this mammoth competition.
On the ‘national’ question - are poetry society members limited to UK? If so, it might make sense to limit the contest to British poets. Still, I think it’s not entirely true that very many young-ish poets have no ear for the roots of American literature, given that US literature forms (and has for a long time) a pretty substantial part of our compulsory literature education in British schools, and is the dominant literary culture generally in the English speaking world - much of the contemporary poetry introduced at higher levels is US/US influenced now. Not to mention the dominance of US publications in the online sphere. There’s a whole generation of 30-40 something British poets who are obviously writing in a lineage including US poets…as well as British influences. But isn’t this a part of the evolution of language and the dissolution of physical geography enabled by the internet, which makes the poetry of the last couple of decades distinct from what came before? I guess you could argue that it’s worse, but I don’t think you can deny that the internet has altered how we read, write and think about literature in many ways.
Yes, on the process the only information I've seen divulged is that there is no winnowing procedure as there is in many other large competitions -- that all entries go direct to the judges. I suppose each year's panel probably works out a procedure of its own from that point. You don't have to be a UK resident to join the Poetry Society, but you also don't have to be a member of the Poetry Society to enter the National Poetry Competition (though if you are you can enter two poems for the competition for the usual price of one).
Hi Victoria, me back again, taking issue with you sticking up for the British in poetry - which is a first, for me, I think! I suspect 'borders' in poetry, and of course, almost everything, got blown away by the explosion in online and digital around two decades ago. It was and is, an overwhelming show of power. It feels now a bit like arguing for an 'Olde England' of thatched pubs and Morris dancers on the green, to limit the poetry prize to these (increasingly small, shoddier and marginalised) lumps of rock.
To the idea of 'democratising' the process of who are chosen as tojudge - I think a vogueish, media-savvy 'commentator on the mores of our times', but a poetry outsider, like a Paxman used to be, or maybe a Rory Stewart (whatever you think of either, personally) has obvious attractions, but how much poetry are they really reading when not paid to pronounce on it? Would their authority in the subject be undermined, and therefore trust in their judgements debased?
And of course, look no further than Trump for where democracy (albeit a highly manipulated 'democracy') can get us. A triumvirate of very different 'authorities' does at least offer some chance of 'checks and balances' on the result (though taking onboard what you say about the 'mean' and 'consensus' drift, being a possibly deleterious effect). No perfect way to do this, as no competition is perfect, in poetry and art more than most things, naturally.
My positive from the poem is, in terrible times, the judges had a collective desire to see the times expressed in poems engaging with the issues of the day - even the second-placed 'Axe' seems to speak, albeit more metaphorically, to the disgruntled 'binary' we find ourselves in) ,rather than being hermetically sealed in a more conventionally 'Poet-y' set of poems. The reaction to Auden's 'September 1st, 1939' at the time, was laudatory - no less than E.M Forster getting behind it - for the way it captured the political and psychological moment, and it has rarely gone far away ever since, but as you know, Auden disowned it and wouldn't have it in his 'Collected', for being trite and itself 'dishonest'. I think this winning poem great for at least trying (though in your view failing) to capture something of the crises of our times, but of course, decades on, will it seem crass, over-simplified or performative, to audiences, not to mention the poet themselves?!
Really enjoyed your insights into the judging processes and prize culture!
I wonder if the most underrated aspect of the National Poetry Competition might be the longlist.
This year 108 poets were recognised. For some, it will be their first poetic venture. Others will be early in their careers, or just experienced poets who need a bit of encouragement. To see their work not only scrutinised but admired by renowned poets will be precisely the kind of boost they need to keep at it: to read more, to discuss more, to write more and become advocates of poetry in their communities.
This longlisting they will have achieved entirely on the merits of their poem, not their standing in the poetry hierarchy or their stance on any issue of the day. If the NPC can identify this 'out-crowd' writing in English, so much the better, wherever in the world they happen to live.
For an organisation whose role is "to help poetry and poets thrive" the longlist serves a valuable purpose. Maybe, the Poetry Society should consider giving even more support to this cohort of worthy winners.
Absolutely, Jem. The NPC Anthology would be a true record of contemporary poetry as well as an attractive Poetry Society Membership benefit. Could even generate some incremental bookshop revenue for them.
The richest part of any prize is the longlist/shortlist and that is where, in my experience, the really considered thinking takes place. In many ways it's a shame there needs to be a winner! One obviously then gets accused of undermining the whole process (not entirely unfairly). And it takes more resources to support a cohort then it does an individual. But I agree, more could be done. Personally I would like to see poetry prizes place greater emphasis on the anthology - pitch it as an opportunity to be published and receive a little more encouragement, perhaps, than through a magazine.
Why do we need competitions anyway? To decide who gets to be at the top of the pyramid? I don't like my poems being held captive while I wait for a yes or no. I'm free to share mine where and when I like. Competitions and submitting poems is also really expensive. I don't like having to ask for a free pass; I don't like being made to feel like a beggar.
Yes I think many poets just don't enter them. I don't either. I think their main practical function is to raise money for the societies or magazines that run them.
Excellent discussion. I agree that the National Poetry Prize should be restricted to UK residents and I think a variety of awards, eg: for best comic poem, best poem by a young poet etc, would be a great idea. I am also very much in favour for a sort of People's Vote - worth thinking how that could be done. I hope these ideas will be channelled to the Poetry Society. It would be interesting to offer a right to reply for them - I'd love to hear their feedback and their justification for opening up the Prize so widely (and bagging so much dosh from over 20k entrants!
On the question of eligibility, I couldn't (on a quick search) determine whether eligibility was officially extended at some point -- though I suspect so -- or whether it was always theoretically open worldwide but just didn't attract as many international entrants until recently. Obviously the internet has made it much easier over the last 20 years for poets to find details of big competitions around the world so it might be a bit of both.
Rattle magazine do quite a clever thing with their poetry competition -- there's the standard big prize + 10 runner ups but in addition all their subscribers get a chance to vote for their favourite of the shortlist ("Readers' Choice Awards"). https://rattle.com/page/poetryprize/
First, you are first among the several Substacks I receive daily/weekly. You are a virtual support group, friends around a table with a shared love of an art form as undefinable as abstract sculpture. Whenever I doubt myself, feel energies flag, wonder why I don't take up gardening instead (visible, edible results), I engage TFP and finish refreshed. Go forth, old man, and try to make something of merit. Thanks for letting me eavesdrop your constructive conversation. Loved, in particular, this line. LMAO:
Perhaps what the author of ‘The Gathering’ set out to do was to write in a muddled way about feeling muddled.
While on one level I agree with your remark that it might be a good idea to create categories, a series of prizes for the National Poetry Society competition, how could this be done? There are no objective factors such as length of race, weight of competitor etc to provide tick gridlines. Victoria mentions categories such as best prose poem, best traditional poem, best ‘freestyle’ poem, best comic poem. But what of the poems that step boldly beyond the frame and dip their toe into others?
I was listening recently to a weekly radio programme in which five recordings of one particular work of classical music is compared and ‘graded’ by a panel of three experts who all have experience in the particular area of the music selected. It’s always very interesting because the compare and contrast factor becomes very evident as you listen. Last week it was the Tenebrae Responsories by Gesualdo, not something a whole heap of people listen to. And yet, even for judging the interpretations (for my money, interpretation does have elements of re-creation) of a musical subject which might be deemed rather narrow, the judges’ opinions were quite contradictory. The recordings were sung by very small groups of singers except one which used a choir. One panel member felt he was unable to judge this version alongside the others as the ‘project’ did not come from the same place. And so we’re back to: did the poem fulfil what it set out to do.
While I felt frustrated and disappointed by this year’s 1st prize choice, and sorry for other poets further down the list, I suppose there is no easy solution. We all bemoan reaching the limits of democracy, and maybe the seemingly limitless ambitions of contemporary poetry and art in general, are just difficult to adjust to, though I suspect it was always thus. Unpopular choices will always be made. Let’s just hope that the unknown really great poets will get to shine, and not be written out of history like the many women composers of the past whose music is currently being returned to the concert halls.
Whatever. Loud applause once again to Victoria and Hilary for so brilliantly teasing out the knots.
Thanks Ed. In a category competition, I think it would have to be just up to the entrant to decide what category best fitted their poem. Anything else would be very unwieldy I agree.
“Everyone knows competitions of any kind and in any sphere are a blunt tool.” This is a bit too relativistic for me. Poetry competitions are particularly blunt when compared to a running race or many other forms of competition.
I did find the discussion very interesting though, especially the thoughts around the disadvantages of having a panel of judges.
Thanks Tristan.
Yes you're right. They are not really a 'competition' in that sense are they, more like a job search or something like that.
I’d be fascinated to know the process for judging this mammoth competition.
On the ‘national’ question - are poetry society members limited to UK? If so, it might make sense to limit the contest to British poets. Still, I think it’s not entirely true that very many young-ish poets have no ear for the roots of American literature, given that US literature forms (and has for a long time) a pretty substantial part of our compulsory literature education in British schools, and is the dominant literary culture generally in the English speaking world - much of the contemporary poetry introduced at higher levels is US/US influenced now. Not to mention the dominance of US publications in the online sphere. There’s a whole generation of 30-40 something British poets who are obviously writing in a lineage including US poets…as well as British influences. But isn’t this a part of the evolution of language and the dissolution of physical geography enabled by the internet, which makes the poetry of the last couple of decades distinct from what came before? I guess you could argue that it’s worse, but I don’t think you can deny that the internet has altered how we read, write and think about literature in many ways.
Yes, on the process the only information I've seen divulged is that there is no winnowing procedure as there is in many other large competitions -- that all entries go direct to the judges. I suppose each year's panel probably works out a procedure of its own from that point. You don't have to be a UK resident to join the Poetry Society, but you also don't have to be a member of the Poetry Society to enter the National Poetry Competition (though if you are you can enter two poems for the competition for the usual price of one).