Techniques — David Campbell, “From a Judge’s Desk”
The following text is taken (with Author’s permission) from a discussion thread in the ABPA Online Forum
This
is a fairly long post, but it’s prompted by recent comments
on the
website (for example, in the grammar thread of this section) and in the
ABPA magazine about the decisions that judges make in written
competitions, and why we make them. In the hope of shedding some
further light on the situation, here’s a summary of how I
approach the
judging process, including particular reference to those basic elements
of bush poetry that really need to be emphasised.
It’s
important to stress at this point that I’m referring to
written
competitions. Those who write purely for fun, or as a rewarding means
of self-expression, can obviously approach their poetry in any way they
please. And verse written for performance purposes is also an entirely
different matter, as there is scope for far more flexibility with the
spoken word. A skilful performer can easily cover up a multitude of
technical faults in a poem, but in a written competition there is
nowhere to hide. There are basic rules that need to be followed, and
I’m very careful when it comes to applying those rules. To
ignore them,
or gloss over them, in making final decisions about prize-winners, is
to risk devaluing the craft of writing bush poetry.
That
may seem a strong statement, but it concerns me to read occasional
arguments for relaxing the rules of written competitions. If that
happens, then where does a judge draw the line? How approximate can
rhymes be? For example, I have seen “joke” rhymed
with “dope” and
“advice” rhymed with “strife”.
If these are allowed, the whole concept
of rhyme becomes fairly meaningless. And with metre, how irregular can
it be before it becomes closer to free verse than bush poetry? One of
the joys of judging bush verse is that there are objective criteria
from which to begin the process.
We
need to remember that we are following a great poetic tradition in
Australia, and those who read the published work of prize-winners will
make judgements about the whole bush poetry scene based on what they
see before them. They will also, significantly, make an assessment
regarding the integrity of individual competitions based on the quality
of successful poems. We have seen examples in the past where
competitions have suffered a loss of reputation because a
non-accredited judge has made a poor decision. Such situations must be
avoided as much as possible.
I make that
observation as a judge of both bush verse and free verse, in
recognition of the fact that, in an open competition (i.e. one that
allows any style of poetry), free verse entries will predominate. In
annual poetry anthologies that accept any style there is unlikely to be
even one poem that could be classified as bush verse. The only major
yearly production that I’m aware of which includes bush
poetry
interspersed with other writing is 'Award Winning Australian Writing'
(Melbourne Books)…the 2010 edition includes poems by Max
Merckenschlager, Carolyn Eldridge-Alfonzetti, Arthur Green, Ellis
Campbell, Zondrae King, and Don Adams. The rest of the book consists of
short stories.
So although bush verse
enjoys tremendous popularity at festivals around the country, and has a
dedicated following of enthusiasts, it is not currently the default
form of poetry in Australia, either in the general community or in
schools. I have found that entering bush verse in an open competition
is generally not going to result in an award. There are some
exceptions, but they are few and far between. If this situation is to
improve, I’d argue that judges must do everything possible to
promote
the highest standards of written work…and that means
enforcing the
basic fundamentals.
In this context, I’d
like to refer to the issue raised by Stephen in his Forests of Poetry
thread. He reported that another writer had challenged bush poetry on
the grounds that it was a superseded art form perfected 100 years ago,
so what was the point of pursuing it today, other than to parody it?
Stephen, Zondrae, Will (and others) make some excellent points in
reply, and I’d like to re-emphasise the observation that the
public
face of bush poetry is thus very important in demonstrating that, as an
art form, it most definitely does have relevance today. Not only does
it deal with modern-day issues, it is a very valuable instrument in
developing the language skills of young children.
Kids
love rhythm and rhyme, and traditional verse is a powerful medium that
can be used very effectively by educators in the pre-school years, as
well as in primary and secondary schools. That is why the work done by
those bush poets who go out into schools is so important. An early
appreciation of rhyming verse can lead to enhanced skills in all forms
of writing. It is all too easy to criticise bush verse on the grounds
that it is outdated, and to see free verse as the
‘modern’ form. I
prefer to see them as different points on a spectrum, each with
advantages and disadvantages, and each capable of providing valuable
insights into the human condition. They are not so much competing with
each other as providing a variety of avenues to understanding. I enjoy
both and use them for different purposes. And one of the strengths of
bush verse is as a vehicle for the appreciation of consistent metre and
accurate rhyme.
Thus, with regard to
metre, I will count syllables and check that stresses fall where they
should. I will search for the metric pattern established in the first
verse and see if it is followed through the rest of the poem. I will
penalise poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, and rhymes that are not
perfect. I’m not going to delve into the technical aspects of
these
issues here, for Ellis’s notes (when they reappear on the
website), and
detailed explanations given by Glenny (and others) provide excellent
coverage of the basic skills required.
Some
may say that this approach is too pedantic and limits what bush poetry
might be…I disagree. There is still plenty of scope within
the rules to
produce original, imaginative, high-quality work, and there are many
poems that illustrate that fact, both from the past and the present.
The work of C. J. Dennis, for example, encompasses a wonderful range of
metric patterns, language styles (particularly his use of the
vernacular), and rhyme schemes. In the present day, the poetry of Ron
Stevens shows how enjambment can be used to brilliant effect. And the
above-mentioned book provides some other fine examples of contemporary
bush verse.
It’s important to emphasise
at this point that good poetry goes well beyond technical skill.
Technical failure is usually the first step that separates out the
weaker poems. When it comes to choosing the actual prize-winners from
those that make it through to the short-list, that’s when the
going
gets tough for a judge. A top-quality poem transcends metre, rhyme,
punctuation, spelling and grammar to move into that realm where a judge
sits back and thinks: “Wow!” This is where an
interesting idea combines
with striking imagery to produce a memorable poem that one is happy to
read again and again. Or perhaps clever wordplay and a madcap story
create a laugh-out-loud humorous piece.
It
is at that final stage when small differences and an individual
judge’s
particular interests and sensibilities come into play. In my case, for
example, I don’t like the still reasonably common practice of
putting a
capital letter at the beginning of each line. Punctuation should assist
the reader. Unnecessary capital letters interrupt the flow of
lines…and
are used by some writers to completely avoid responsibility for any
other form of punctuation!
Neither do I
approve of the practice of omitting syllables in order to fit the
rhythm…for example “ev’ry”,
“ev’ning”,
“fam’ly”, and
“mem’ry”. The
language should be as natural as possible, so that there is no sense
that metre or rhyme are being forced in any way. A reader should be
able to enjoy the poem without wincing at awkward phraseology, erratic
metre, or clumsy rhymes.<
Heather asked
in one thread whether preambles are acceptable in written competitions.
I agree with Glenny’s comment that a poem should stand on its
own,
without any need for background history or explanation. In fact, a
preamble might suggest that the poet has doubts about the strength of
the work. In some cases a preamble seems to be used as proof that the
poem is based on fact, but that should have no influence on a
judge’s
decision.
Thus, at the final point of
decision-making, judging is very subjective. Every ABPA-accredited
judge will have his or her particular view, which is why writing bush
poetry for competition purposes can be part exhilaration and part
frustration. It explains why a poem may be completely ignored in
several competitions and then suddenly land a prize. That is why
perseverance is so important. Written verse is challenging, but also
most rewarding when others appreciate what you have done, whether for
competition purposes or not. The learning process never stops because
there is always room for improvement.
As
stated earlier, we have a wonderful tradition of poetry in Australia,
and today’s bush poets are writing about a huge range of
contemporary
themes. There are a great many opportunities for writers, and written
competitions play an important part (but by no means the only one) in
carrying on that tradition. I hope the above comments are of some
assistance in indicating the factors I consider to be important in
doing just that.
David Campbell.
Articles
- David Campbell —
From a Judge’s Desk - Glenny Palmer —
An Exercise in Writing Humour
“Unstrained Melody” writing tools - Ellis Campbell —
1. Rhyme and Reason
2. Rhyme
3. Metre
4. Pattern
5. Words
6. Poetic Terminology
7. Inverted Phrases
8. Don’t Make Your Poems Too Personal
9. Terminology
10. Importance of First Stanza
11. Metaphors and Similes
Finally...
But... - Noel Stallard —
Performance Tips