The Bards' Bistro - Page 4 - Writers Forum

Cran · 12-12-2007, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Selorian

I'm not trying to be the bad guy here, but shouldn't there be some approval from staff for rewrites of the system before it is just assumed that is what's going to happen?

It's only a discussion, Selorian ...
please don't assume it's anything more than that, yet ...

it's a discussion arising from comments made by judges and others,
and something you also advocated, if I recall ...
and something in which you have been participating -
I haven't seen any decisions being made, only opinions and ideas ...

Pete_C had some ideas about excising the opinion, and clarifying some aspects, of the format used, and offered to draft it -
I think we'd like to see that at least before even thinking about
committing to any resolutions, or requesting any changes from staff ...

Shawn · 12-12-2007, 09:33 PM

In regards to the "Alliteration and Assonance" category, I felt that, in light of all rhetorical study, alliteration and assonance could be considered relatively minor.

A short list of rhetorical terms, including some of the schemes and tropes of poetry is in the right frame on this site:

Silva Rhetoricae: The Forest of Rhetoric

There are many, many more, which is why I felt that poems should be judged on their mastery of figurative language, not necessarily minor qualities in repetition.

Bob, my background in literature spreads only back to five years of adolescent passion; I'm by no means an expert on poetry or what comprises good poetry. In a lot of ways, most of the things I know are unnecessary in modern terms. Who really wants to call a pun a paronomasia? Or substitution as paraphrasis? Or who wants to know what a pysma is?

Ha... I make myself laugh sometimes. Sorry. Just a bit of bomphiologia for me.

The simple point is... any poem is complex. And for what we're doing here, I think the "inner ear" approach is much better in the long run. Unless we procure rhetorical doctorates.

A lot of what I found missing in the entries was metaphor. A simple device, yes, but it does powerful things. Contrasting complex themes with simple, everyday situations can do much to increase the power of the message. Using rhetorical devices can do even more to do that. Studying your craft, especially when it comes to poetry, is important; but I don't think it's more important than the message.

I digress.

I felt that my responses, especially toward the end entries, did not provide any real constructive criticism; and for that, I apologize.

The simple truth of this particular contest was, as I believe the scores show, Baron constructed a poem that put us in a situation to which a lot of poets can relate, he connected us with the emotions and the senses, and he brought us through a complete journey (emotionally) from beginning to end in a short period of time. And, in that, it was an excellent work. Poets must realize, from their participation here, that we must move away from general statements of a situation or a theme or a setting, and we must bring the poem to the reader, slap them about the face, and tell them how it is. I view the contest as improving a craft and moving forwards. Judging against each other is not going to make progress, but it will lead to stagnation. I think Pete's poem, which was not tallied due to his being a judge, is comparable to Baron's in the fact that it put the reader in a situation that, though not stark, was recognizable and translatable.

And, though it may be taboo to mention, Voodoo's poems (hush) were quite like this, and though I didn't tell it to him enough, his poetry did spark emotions and bedazzled the senses, at times. Look at these examples and look at the classics and memorize them. It's through this that we can begin to understand the inner workings of a piece and compose our own.

Some aren't cut out for heavy verse. I very rarely write anything heavy because not a profound thought has spilled through my pen and onto the paper. Light poems that recall a sense or an emotion can evoke just as much change as The Wasteland, even. Hughes, Dickinson, and Whitman are good examples of people that can pull off light verse.

I just keep rambling.

Anyway, I feel that the judging system was a good representation of what a score should be. It could be improved and modified to suit a more modest means; but I think that, as writers, we should hold ourselves just as accountable as any great has ever been.

Ilasir Maroa · 12-12-2007, 09:51 PM

I agree with Shawn that three kinds of repetition does not a good category make. Rhetoric is so much more. A more general category of rhetorical devices would be much more conducive to accurate scores. Even rhyme and rhythm could fall under the category of rhetoric in that they are manipulations of speech that give power and vividness to normal words.

As to constructive criticsim, none of my responses offered anything even on the verge of being comparable to those of Shawn, or Cran in the Poetry Section Challenges. I think that while subjective categories allow for more use of the "inner ear," more detailed categories and descriptions would be better for constructive reviews from the judges. If we do decide to effect changes to the current system, the value of rhetoric in poetry, and the value of detailed benchmarks in the creation of constructive critiques need to be given considerable weight.

wheelz1138 · 12-12-2007, 10:56 PM

Ilasir: on the previous page you mentioned my previous post and my use of the phrase "better guidelines"... I believe I was misunderstood. I meant better guidelines as to what is expected in judging criteria. Either way, I'm happy with however future competitions are judged. I write how I write, and that will remain the same. I just feel bad for those lowest scores in the last competition. My input in this discussion is now over, as I pushed my way in unfairly anyway.

Selorian · 12-12-2007, 11:22 PM

wheelz, the discussions is open to all. That is why we're having it here. I just didn't want anyone to think that something was going to happen before it did. Rushing to conclusions was one of the problems the previous discussions suffered from. It seemed best to try to keep people from being disappointed.

I'll come back to this when I'm not so tired and am making more sense.

d.b.potts · 12-13-2007, 12:30 AM

I hate to chime in uninvited, but I do really like Cran's idea for scoring. It leaves more room for stylistic differences, and it gives the judges more room to play with. I would rather be scored on general merit than technical aptitude.

But I'm easy.

Regards,
d.b.

Ilasir Maroa · 12-13-2007, 01:32 AM

But poetry is all about the creative use of the technical aspects. By which I mean you use the techniques of poetry to convey your meaning in a pleasing and powerful way. I think what people are saying is that multiple categories for different kinds of technique are less palatable, because it may force the poems to bejudged on points that aren't part of their intended design. I think that it is important to consider, though, that a poem with so few technical aspects as to be negatively affected by a reasonable group of categories would be a sparse and undercut piece indeed.

wheelz1138 · 12-13-2007, 01:41 AM

Selorian, I just feel like I'm not really adding much to the discussion. I also feel my words are being construed to give the belief that I think the technical aspects to poetry aren't important. I disbelieve that. They are important, but to be judged mainly by that is a flawed system. Poetry is also about feeling and message, which the current system only slightly addresses. A more balanced system would be more appropriate, such as Cran's.

Ilasir Maroa · 12-13-2007, 02:15 AM

Wheelz, you are adding to the discussion. And no one is trying to misconstrue your words. I personally am simply trying to understand your point of veiw. Technical aspects are by no means the be-all and end-all of poetry.

But the current system has three or five categories that are in essence asking the judges to allocate points on the general merit of the piece. These include: Overall Impact, Originality, Form and Flow, Beauty/Power/Education/Entertainment, and possibly even Polish.

That makes exactly half of the score dependent on less than technical aspects of the piece. The technical categories are grossly misleading. That is why I have advocated a large widening of these categories to include as many methods and techniques as possible. Assonance and Alliteration, and Rhyme and Meter are gross oversimplifications, and ought to be revised to allow for more subjective, less focused categories of poetic technique.

Reading through Cran's categories, I see no real improvement on the problems presented in the curren model. Cran's is much more general, of course, but is also less informative as to what certain elements actually represent.

The reason I have pushed so much to keep as large an amount as possible of points based on technical aspects is that no single person here understands even a majority of poetic techniques.

I think that maybe the best thing to do would be to modify the current system in the direction of Cran's but include examples of technical aspects that should be loked for by the judges.

Rather than tell the judges what to look for, I think it would be better to have a small number of more general technical categories, and merely provide supplementary information as to the individual techniques. This avoids putting undue emphasis on technical aspects, while making sure that clever use of said techniques is recognized and adressed in the final scoring.

I hope I have not put my foot in my mouth here. I am merely offering my opinion on the way to best give proper weight to all relevany aspects of poetry, and am certainly open to alteration of my ideas to better fit the wishes of the majority of participating (in this discussion) poets and administrators.

wheelz1138 · 12-13-2007, 02:40 AM

As I said before, I haven't added anything to this discussion, in that I can't express the true meaning of anything I've said here. I also think I keep repeating myself, in an attempt to do so, yet failing. I enjoy writing, though know little of the technical aspects of poetry. Let those who are more adept at judging be judges and decide how to judge. I'll just keep writing.

Olly Buckle · 12-13-2007, 04:31 AM

Ilasir:- The reason you have pushed technical aspects to be used is that no-one understands technical aspects? This seems contradictory, if we don't understand them how can we use them, if the judges don't understand them how can they use them? Do you mean that it would be good to see an exposition of technical aspects to raise the general level of awareness possibly? not wanting to put words in your mouth but that paragraph really stopped me.

Cran · 12-13-2007, 05:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ilasir Maroa

Reading through Cran's categories, I see no real improvement on the problems presented in the curren model. Cran's is much more general, of course, but is also less informative as to what certain elements actually represent.

The reason I have pushed so much to keep as large an amount as possible of points based on technical aspects is that no single person here understands even a majority of poetic techniques.

I think that maybe the best thing to do would be to modify the current system in the direction of Cran's but include examples of technical aspects that should be loked for by the judges...

yes! ... preferably explanatory examples, Ilasir - so we can all learn ...

that's exactly the sort of thing I was asking for in the earlier discussion -
I'm not being modest when I say what I don't know about poetry could fill libraries ... I might be good at what I do, but I'm just as unschooled and motivated by personal aesthetics (or inner ear) as, it seems, the next guy ...

it was for this reason, and the model from which mine was drawn, that I had to be general, and then ask that those with proficiency in the craft of poetry add the details - without such (and I think it might also be true of the general LM guide), the guidelines had to remain flexible enough to suit judges or reviewers of any calibre; ie, those who knew their stuff could apply it ... those going on instinct or intuition could still follow in their fashion ...

what I did try to do was distinguish the construction (craft, objective assessment) from the effectiveness (art, subjective assessment), and weight the total 60/40 towards the subjective, because that has come through strongly in other discussions about poetry (there were advocates of purely subjective assessment, of course - but I feel that is extreme and counterproductive).

whatever the model, or score weighting, I think it would be of benefit to identify the general aspects (which can be thought of as the "must have something of") - and within each, the different groupings or possibilities (which can be thought of as the "may have something of") - and, as many of us admit to technical ignorance, perhaps a brief definition of the less familiar terms ...

Baron · 12-13-2007, 09:46 AM

If I go to a horse show, horses and riders in the show are not being judged against all those that have ever been, they are judged against the others in a show, likewise with any form of competition. Competitors are judged against other competitors. To suggest that scoring in this competition should apply to anything other than poems entered is just creating an unnecessary complication.

I like the format used for judging this particular challenge and think that it needs only minor tweaking, the main area being the assonance and alliteration section.

Ilasir Maroa · 12-13-2007, 03:56 PM

I'm not pushing for the awarding of points for use of technical aspects, but for the effective use of technical aspects. And yes Cran, I did mean explanatory examples or else how would they be useful? There are many people of different levels who participate in this conteset, and will possibly particpate in the furture judging of this contest. They should not be barred for being less than the perfect poet, but it is important that they not be excused either. I would never advocate any sort of discrimination against anyone of any level of expertise. I simply think there should be some effort to account for discrepencies in knowledge. As far as i am concerned, just making note of the pertinent techniques is sufficient. No one should be forced to spend their time and effort looking for every single device. As long as the information is there for the participants to reference, then I think the main goal of learning and improvement (and fun) through these competitions has been achieved.

In reference to my comments on your system, Cran, I was simply noting the responses of those in favor of immediate adoption of the system on the basis of "I like it." I had no intention of disparaging or otherwise making negative remarks about the system itself, which I think does a good job on the subjective side, and leaves room open for objective measurement.

Cran · 12-13-2007, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron

If I go to a horse show, horses and riders in the show are not being judged against all those that have ever been, they are judged against the others in a show, likewise with any form of competition.

Actually, no ... they are judged against benchmarks (times, faults, heights, etc) - the same is true of many such events (diving, dancing, gymnastics, etc). While entrants compete against each other, they are judged individually - ie, if there were only one entrant, that entrant would still be judged against the benchmarks.