Judging Competitions

[Bob Pacey]

I know a lot of our posters are judges and a lot of the others enter quite a few competitions.


What would you reckon about a competition where both the public and the judges combined to decide the winners ?

The judges do their thing and then all the poems are posted somewhere for those attending the festival to view and vote ?

Even if the judges narrowed t down to 12 or some acceptable number.

Just thinking

Bob

[Terry]

G/day Bob

The tendency now in some of the bigger comps is to have two or three judges, in hope of getting a more balanced result.

I'm a bit old fashioned myself and prefer just the one judge (not that it worries me one way or the other), I just like the idea of one persons opinion rather than being judged by committee so to speak - many don't share my opinion.

I reckon judging is a pretty thankless task.
It's a bit like umpiring footy or something, it doesn't matter how many umpires you have, fans will be just as unhappy with them.
And judges like umpires have different interpretations, but that's poetry.

Cheers

Terry

[Shelley Hansen]

Hi Bob

That's an interesting concept. I like the idea of a "popular" choice - but ideally I think it should be separate from the judge/s choice.

Of course, that probably means more sponsorship money - for two prizes instead of one. It would probably only work in the larger competitions associated with poetry festivals - e.g. the State Championships and larger musters. They do it with art competitions (e.g. the Archibald prize).

Taking it a step further (and assuming there was enough prize money), you could do the same for performance pieces - i.e. a popular choice performer for the muster/festival.

Terry opens an interesting can of worms about the judging styles of competitions. As we've discussed before, it is much harder to succeed in a competition where a committee of judges is involved. It is even more difficult if there are three independent judges (such as the Bush Lantern). You rarely get two judges who score similarly, or who are drawn to the same topics/styles. There are of course, pros and cons for both single and multiple judges. May I say, the same applies for performance competitions.

Interestingly, I just got my feedback from the Man From Snowy River/Vic Championships written competition. Three judges were involved. Scoring was wildly different, as were comments. For one poem I was marked as "needs attention" in the rhythm/metre section, but that particular judge offered no comment or suggestion about where I'd gone wrong. For the same poem, another judge marked my rhythm/metre as "satisfactory", while the third marked it as "very good".

Such is the variability (and frustration) of written competition! I don't have a problem about those three judges' differing opinions ... I just wish that the one who told me my rhythm/metre "needs attention" had told me where!! Constructive suggestion might have given me the tools to turn it into a poem that would be a winner on a future occasion.

Food for thought, indeed!

Cheers, Shelley

[Maureen K Clifford]

It works on Dancing for the Stars and many other TV competitions - I think it has some merit - the public vote would probably have little to do with technicalities and technique - but then poetry for the masses has never taken that into account anyway - perhaps we need to take a step away from all of that when deciding a poems 'worthiness' and come back to what I term 'user friendly' poetry. Confess to using that principle when deciding what goes into the TAT Poetry magazine - it doesn't have to be perfect or prize winning but it does and must be user/reader friendly.

[David Campbell]

I agree with Shelley, Bob…best to keep them separate. It’s hard enough to get any sort of consensus with judges (who supposedly know what they’re doing) without trying to incorporate public opinion. “The people” would go for subject-matter/entertainment value and pay little attention to metre, rhyme, and the quality of the poetry. So you’re likely to get very different results. That’s been our experience at Toolangi in the “Adults Writing for Children” category where the first choice made by a group of local children has, as far as I can recall, never been the same as the one chosen by the judge.

Shelley’s frustration with the score sheet information is understandable, and I’ve indicated my dislike of those sheets on previous occasions. Ticking category boxes reduces a poem to a series of component parts which may or may not be relevant. I have no problem with the indicators themselves, which are much better than they used to be, but to suggest they all have equal weighting and require a tick is highly questionable. For example, under “structure” it says: “Flows smoothly from start to finish. Progresses logically through stanzas to a forceful appropriate conclusion.” This is best suited to a poem with a storyline and a climax. Which box would you tick for a purely descriptive poem?

I keep the sheets as a reminder of the vagaries of the judging process, and in this context they are useful, although perhaps not for the purpose intended. To me, they give as much information about the judge(s) and the competition as the poem. For example, a judge recently gave one of my poems a bare pass (“satisfactory”) for grammar, punctuation and spelling. So, as a former teacher of senior English, I have filed that judge’s name away for future reference. Much as Shelley has undoubtedly done with the judge who said her "rhythm/metre" needed attention. Shelley doesn’t make mistakes with metre.

Having multiple judges can compensate for individual opinions, and it certainly helps to underline the diversity of those opinions. For example, in one competition my entry was ranked 5th, 9th and 24th. (Oddly, the highest overall score out of 100 came from that last judge!) In another three-judge competition my entry came 1st, 4th, and somewhere outside the top 20 with the third judge. And the poem selected as the best by that third judge wasn’t included in the top 20 by either of the other judges!

All of which re-emphasises the fact that written competitions are something of a lottery. There are just too many variables. Poems can miss out time after time, and then suddenly pop up with a prize. That’s just the way it goes.

Cheers
David

[Terry]

G/day David

I agree that having anything but a official judge or judges would be very hard to control.

As I mentioned, although I'm happy to have just a single judge, I'm not fussed either way.

I also agree with your point about the present score sheets - with all those things to consider and mark accordingly,
I can't help but wonder if the actual appeal of the poem tends to be diminished at least a little.

I suppose this leads to the often asked question, are comps more of an English test or a poetry one - both I guess.

Cheers Terry

[Shelley Hansen]

Hi again

To David ...

Thank you so much for your vote of confidence in my rhythm and metre. I do appreciate your commendation - though I have to say that although I try very hard, I know I am guilty of stress errors from time to time. That's why I wished the low-marking judge had given me some examples of where my poem "needed attention" - so I could take a fresh look at the phrases in question.

You make some pertinent points in your comments. I know for sure (from judges' feedback) that I've missed out in past writing competitions with purely descriptive poems, because they "don't tell enough of a story". I love both narrative and descriptive poetry, so on the rare occasions when I do receive a mention for a descriptive poem (as I did at Dunedoo and in the WA Championships), I am extraordinarily delighted!

It's back to the old apples-vs-oranges comparisons, isn't it? How do you rate The Man From Snowy River next to My Country? They couldn't be more different - yet both so Australian, and each a masterpiece in its own right. A judge's nightmare, I'm sure!

To Terry ...

Your last comment is very apt, and I guess it all depends upon the judge/s. Some seem to be sticklers for accuracy at all costs, while others place more emphasis on the heart and soul of a piece. I think accuracy is important (otherwise why bother?) but not at the expense of content or reader appeal. It's a bit like playing a musical instrument - technical perfection does not necessarily guarantee that your listeners will be moved or stirred by your sound.

When you get a poem that ticks all the boxes - correct rhyme/rhythm, spelling, punctuation, etc - and which also has that mysterious "wow" factor - then you truly have a winner! That, I'm sure, is every judge's (and writer's) dream!!

Cheers, Shelley