Are there limits to metre and rhyme?

[David Campbell]

I don’t know that poets necessarily need such technical detail as the names of the various metric structures, Neville. As long as they have a basic understanding of how metre and rhyme work together there’s plenty of fun to be had.

But by the same token, Val, you’d have to acknowledge that in every one of your many competition wins a judge has had to carefully analyse what you’ve written against certain criteria. It’s what’s expected. All I’m trying to do in this thread is get a clearer picture of the current thinking about metre and rhyme. Your answer seems to be: “I don’t care…I know what I like!”

Imagine you’d paid extra to get a written assessment from a judge for one of your poems and the report came back simply saying: “I didn’t like it!” Not very helpful, is it?

You see, of the four poems that I’ve asked to be rated here, the one I “like” the most is Les Murray’s Cockspur Bush, mainly because of its use of language. And yet if I gave it a prize in a bush poetry competition I suspect there would be a strong protest about the irregular metre (and other aspects, as Manfred has pointed out). So I’m asking for some guidance with the question: “Are there limits to metre and rhyme?”

Well said, Neil.

Thanks, Manfred. That should set people thinking!

Cheers
David

[Bob Pacey]

I understand what you mean Val and fully support your right to have that view.

Cheers Bob

[Mal McLean]

It just occurred to me that these debates are profoundly important in shaping the future of Australian formal poetry. Even if no one else knows about it, the beginnings of a new movement or at least, a future direction, may well be traced to these pages.

Be proud.

Mal

[manfredvijars]

Manfred you left out "poetic content." We don't have a criteria for that!

You're right Vic. I pulled that crireria straight off the ABPA web-page. There was nothing there about 'poetic content'.

However I'm sure, outside of any competition criteria, the following ...

a. Story,
b. Grammar,
c. word usage,
d. application of grammar,
e. rich language and
f. WOW factor.

should somewhat cover 'poetic content' given that it's a poetic piece assessed by a poet-judge?

[manfredvijars]

PS.

There is some 'rich' language towards the end of the piece from where I would have given up on the metre ...

"my shape is cattle-pruned to a crown spread sprung
above the starve-gut instinct to make prairies
of everywhere. "

Treating the concepts above a little differently perhaps ...

"my shapes are crowns of spinafex sprung and spread above the starve-gut instinct to make prickly plains of everywhere"

Maybe this language would scare our people off ??

[Maureen K Clifford]

WOW - What a great post this is - I had no idea exactly what it was the judges based their decisions on - that in itself gives the rest of us some interesting insight don't you think? The Australian content comment by Mannie I find extremely noteworthy. How many of us would even have considered that using a non Australian species could result in a negative in the point score - I'm taking that on board.

Mal's comment I totally endorse -

It just occurred to me that these debates are profoundly important in shaping the future of Australian formal poetry. Even if no one else knows about it, the beginnings of a new movement or at least, a future direction, may well be traced to these pages.

Paterson's "Anthony Considine" I had never read before - thanks Peely for bringing it to our attention. Personally I loved it but it seems to have no Australian content apart from the Author and it has a Panther in it which so isn't Australian so I suppose that would give it a Fail.

Thank you Mannie and David for sharing with us a little of what is involved. Most of us would really have no idea of what is involved and the technicalities that come into play and I for one am overawed by the knowledge and dedication our judges bring to the craft of poetry, we are so lucky that you are generous enough to share some of that insight with the rest of us, and lucky that we do have thinking people like Neville who go beyond the like/don't like comment to help us stretch our boundaries.

[David Campbell]

That's a very useful perspective, Maureen. Thank you. When you're regularly involved with written competitions you tend to assume that everyone is aware of how the judging process usually works, including the ABPA Judging Sheet and its contents. But that's clearly not the case. Just to add further clarification, the Sheet (which is only officially used in some bush poetry competitions, by the way) also requires judges to give ratings to grammar, spelling and punctuation, language, storyline, and to a section called "Overall" which states: "An original concept or a novel approach to a well-worn subject. A poem that, within the guidelines, impacts greatly upon the reader. Has that 'Wow' factor." Then there's space for giving a final mark out of 100.

One of the things that bothers me about this approach is that it requires assessment of attributes that a particular poem may not have at all, and it assumes that appreciation of poetry can be split into discrete component parts. For example, how could you rate Cockspur Bush on "storyline"? How do you rate a C. J. Dennis vernacular poem on "grammar, spelling and punctuation"? In a sense, the Judging Sheet pushes poems into a straitjacket that assumes certain specific criteria will be satisfied, whereas real enjoyment may come from something far less tangible. So judges have to balance all these aspects when (as Glenny has been doing with Copper Croc entries) writing detailed reports for those who have requested them. You can't teach the "wow" factor, so the advice we give has to relate to those areas that can be readily identified...such as rhyme and metre. Which is why it is so important to understand what people in the bush poetry community currently think is acceptable in this regard. Hence this thread.

All ratings/contributions/suggestions/opinions welcome!

Cheers
David

[Vic Jefferies]

a. Story,
b. Grammar,
c. word usage,
d. application of grammar,
e. rich language and
f. WOW factor.

should somewhat cover 'poetic content' given that it's a poetic piece assessed by a poet-judge?

Nope! None of that has anything to do with poetic content! You could be describing an essay or a written report.
All of these things are present in good verse. Poetic content is the thing that differentiates between mechanically written technical verse or writing, and poetry. I remember suggesting at the time that the judging criteria
was being discussed that we should include poetic merit.
Let's face it there have been some pretty dreadful "poems" awarded first prize which bore no resemblance to poetry simply because they satisfied the "technical" requirements.
As I understand it a poem must touch the senses. Must move the person reading/hearing it in some way otherwise it is not poetry.

[vwalla]

Gosh
It seems I made a " Boo Boo " by saying "I don't Care"
All I was trying to say was - Please keep Bush Poetry "CAREFREE" entertaining
and enjoyable without the Politics
I would never criticise Judges. I certainly realise what a thankless job it would be and after reading David and Manfred's explanations of their criteria I have more appreciation of their efforts. Keep up the good work.
This is certainly a case of getting into trouble without even trying!
Val W

[Neville Briggs]

You didn't make a boo-boo Val.
This is not an exam. or politics as far as I can make out.

I was challenging the notion, that we see so often, that poetry technicalities are some sort of burden, the stuff of egghead nerdishness and a damper on enjoyment. Not so. After all, rhyme, metre, and stanza divisions are all technicalities. All part of the basic tools of trade of the poet.

Technicality is related to the word technique, surely we care about technique in our bush poetry.