tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20782819.post3630680150417054775..comments2023-11-12T13:22:30.358+01:00Comments on andrewjshields: DPP historyAndrew Shieldshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02804655739574694901noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20782819.post-84375065245533687202007-06-30T05:28:00.000+02:002007-06-30T05:28:00.000+02:00The comment that poems shouldn't be subjected to c...The comment that poems shouldn't be subjected to competition is rather naive, as your comment about publication decisions indicates. Every poetry prize manifestly arrives through competition. <BR/><BR/>Certainly the judging is very subjective and I'd be surprised if there was wide consensus. However, the value of the exercise to me is not to see if we "share a common scale for quality," but whether or not one can articulate one's responses to a poem. In other words, rather than simple "thumbs up or thumbs down," a comment on the poem should indicate to some degree what kind of scale of value was employed in reaching a decision. The fact that voters mostly didn't take the time to praise their favorite or justify their choice was a bit disappointing to me.<BR/><BR/>I'm not skeptical of competitions, but I am skeptical of judgments with no comment.<BR/><BR/>I like the idea of picking the worst poem!Donald Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06391024449222256377noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20782819.post-37715903818885860482007-06-26T19:46:00.000+02:002007-06-26T19:46:00.000+02:00In the 12 weeks of the voting, only two poems mana...In the 12 weeks of the voting, only two poems managed a majority of the votes cast in any given week.<BR/><BR/>"Whether we share a common scale for quality": that is the precise purpose of the exercise.Andrew Shieldshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02804655739574694901noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20782819.post-1043858593445959552007-06-26T17:30:00.000+02:002007-06-26T17:30:00.000+02:00I'm going to assume everyone here understands that...I'm going to assume everyone here understands that quality is not absolute, and particularly in a literary context it's not only subject to personal taste but also can be assigned on myriad scales.<BR/><BR/>It's similar in the real world: Is Everest more breathtaking than the Grand Canyon? Yellowstone prettier than the Matterhorn? (In what weather?) I think parents feel some of the same emotions about their children: They're each unique, but none is less valuable than the others.<BR/><BR/>But the quality exercise--having to pick one, just one, to carry the burden of your vote--suggests an interesting problem. It's not so much a vote to determine which poem is best as it is a vote to determine whether we share a common scale for evaluating quality. Will there be a consensus?<BR/><BR/>And sure, this is an unscientific sample, and it's a small and highly self-selecting pool of voters.<BR/><BR/>But I'd say as a sometime participant that the results show what ought to cheer most of us: There's seldom a consensus. In most weeks it seems to me the "winner" has not taken a majority of the votes. Quality in poetry IS a highly subjective judgment. Which seems about the way it ought to be.<BR/><BR/>(An interesting test, though harder to set up, would be to single out the worst of several mediocre poems.)<BR/><BR/>In that context, Brian makes an intriguing point: If each of us likes different poems best, week after week, how's an editor to choose?mrjumbohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00564375101442753257noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20782819.post-3683498447051743772007-06-23T23:52:00.000+02:002007-06-23T23:52:00.000+02:00Maybe we should have a competition of poetry edito...Maybe we should have a competition of poetry editors. Who is the best editor? Who makes the best choices? ;)Brian Campbellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17182888011015400963noreply@blogger.com