Thread: Thoughts on the Poetry Challenge

In times gone by artists of all sorts lived from commissions. Did the limits imposed by this reduce the work? Did working within limits enhance other work they did?
I always call it the “Poetry challenge” rather than the “Poetry competition”, there is a competitive element, but it does not matter too much who won or lost, but that you wrote the poem, to paraphrase.
Writing about something you are deeply concerned with can be easy in some ways, bringing the same level of attention to someone else’s subject requires effort. The practice should reflect when you go back to writing on your own subjects.
One of the things I thoroughly enjoy about the challenge is the huge variation in point of view we get on a single subject, I find it stimulating.
I would like to see more discussion and analysis of the poems after the challenge is finished, I think it can be very valuable not only for the poets, but for the commentators who then give their thoughts concrete form.
I expect I shall add other thoughts, but this will do for starters, has anyone else any thoughts they can add?

I agree that challenges and prompts are a good way of stretching limits. I also think that a level of competition is a healthy way to encourage people to grow in their ability.

I have started making the main challenge open for two weeks and have reduced the voting time to one week. A fresh challenge only once a month seemed too long a space, When I tried two challenges back to back they seemed too frequent. What do the you think? have I got it right for now?

This time when I put the poll on I asked "Who do you think deserves to win?", in the past I have phrased it variously, which poem was best? which did you like?, I want people to make a considered judgement, to make it more worthwhile for the contestants. Do you think the phrasing has any effect?