![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Cock-up: no conspiracy
Aug. 6th, 2013 02:24 pmHm. Am in two minds about this article. On the one hand, I agree with him about the poem. I thought it was awful too, for the reasons given and for others (hate the jog-trot, nursery-rhyme rhythms) and couldn't fathom what the judges saw in it. (Mind you, like all the other unsuccessful entrants I'm probably biased.) I particularly identify with the caustic but fair comment: "The broken jar of cherries which spreads its juice everywhere makes our poet think of 'the shame and surrender of the refugee'. I don't think he thought (or saw) anything of the kind. He thought, shit, the cherry jar is broken, that's what he thought, and it is a cardinal rule of good writing that you don't try and make the reader believe something that is obviously untrue."
On the other hand, I'm not sure I like the idea of competition judges being told to "now tell us in words we can believe in why this poem won" and having their decisions, as subjective no doubt as anyone else's, minutely analysed. Unless, of course, there were any suspicion of impropriety, ie rewarding one's mates. I don't believe that to be the case here, perhaps because I know one of the judges personally and do not doubt her probity, though I certainly don't share the poetic taste that chose this poem. I hope the phrase "words we can believe" wasn't intended to cast doubt on the judges' motives, but if not, it is ill-chosen. I suppose judges ought to be prepared to defend their decisions, and where there are only two, one must assume they were both enamoured of the poem. But there's an aggressive tone to this article (though it's extremely incisive and accurate, IMO) that might, I think, put people off doing what is honestly quite a time-consuming job in the first place.
On the other hand, I'm not sure I like the idea of competition judges being told to "now tell us in words we can believe in why this poem won" and having their decisions, as subjective no doubt as anyone else's, minutely analysed. Unless, of course, there were any suspicion of impropriety, ie rewarding one's mates. I don't believe that to be the case here, perhaps because I know one of the judges personally and do not doubt her probity, though I certainly don't share the poetic taste that chose this poem. I hope the phrase "words we can believe" wasn't intended to cast doubt on the judges' motives, but if not, it is ill-chosen. I suppose judges ought to be prepared to defend their decisions, and where there are only two, one must assume they were both enamoured of the poem. But there's an aggressive tone to this article (though it's extremely incisive and accurate, IMO) that might, I think, put people off doing what is honestly quite a time-consuming job in the first place.
