What do you think?

[Firebird]

Poetry, like democracy, is now concerned far too much with competition rather than being representative. This is no surprise as we live in one of the most ring-wing capitalist societies in Europe. Whether we like it not, the more extreme capitalism becomes the more the ethos of capitalism (competition) permeates all levels of society and culture and this is what's happened with poetry.

There is far too much self-promotion by the successful poets, who always seem to be clawing for audiences and praise. Of course, this is all couched in niceness and the rhetoric of inclusivity but in reality there are a few winners who feel good about themselves and their work because they feel that they are better poets than the vast majority of us. Surely, this is the type of mentally we poets should be against.

The irony is that most of the poetry that wins competitions or is published in the 'top' magazines is neither truly good or bad but somewhere in-between and will be forgotten about in less than a generation. So there's really no need for this over competitive culture that turns most of us into losers. All the overblown praise and aggrandisement is just the hot air of the present.

It would be much better if poetry wasn't sold like a vacuum cleaner and if most of the time poets and critics took a more moderate, circumspect approach and let time judge whether a poet or poem is truly good. This would allow for a less hierarchical poetry culture and one that is more inclusive and representative, and one that is more likely, in my opinion, to produce good poetry.

[Ros]

Nah, disagree with almost all of this.

Ros

[Firebird]

That's fair enough. But why?

[Ros]

That's fair enough. But why?

Sorry, not meaning to sound rude! Was on my phone.

To expand:

Poetry, like democracy, is now concerned far too much with competition rather than being representative. - When was poetry ever concerned with being 'representative'? Representative of what?

we live in one of the most ring-wing capitalist societies... - not sure I agree with this either but let's not get sidetracked by politics... however I think it's too simplistic to say competition=capitalism (or vice versa).

There is far too much self-promotion by the successful poets, - I haven't particularly noticed this. Anyone trying to sell a book (partic of poetry) has to push pretty hard for anyone to notice it. Even best selling poets manage to sell only a couple of thousand copies. I would say that some poets are much better than others (though agree that they may not last the test of time). Not sure why we should be against the idea that some are better than others - what else would you suggest, that everyone publishes everything and someone in the future wades through it all and assigns value? There are many places to publish poetry, partic. on the web, and to my mind publish a vast range of quality. The whole thing is a lot more open and democratic than it ever was. But despite many wanting to be published, very few are actually willing to pay for poetry books. You're very happy to have your work published - is that self-promotion? No, it's that you probably feel there's no point in writing something you're pleased with if no one reads it, and it may give others pleasure (I'm assuming your feelings here!). Isn't the motivation of more successful poets the same?

I can't be bothered with the competition thing myself, and do agree that sometimes the winning works leave me cold. But, on the whole, a lot of the 'winning' work has something to recommend it. I just can't see the poetry world as big enough to complain about ' overblown praise and aggrandisement' - even with the most famous poets, the chap on the Clapham omnibus has probably not heard of them. But poetry is a craft and an artform, and I find it more irritating when people write any old drivel and think it's worth publishing. I'm absolutely all in favour of everyone having a go at writing, or writing as therapy etc etc, but not that everything produced is of equal value.

Ros

[Firebird]

Hi Ros,

When was poetry ever concerned with being 'representative'?

Maybe never, but wouldn't it be a good thing if poetry represented as broad a scope of experience and lifestyle as possible. sRepresentative of what?

Of the vast variety of experiences of life out there and poets themselves. I agree that the internet has improved this situation though.

we live in one of the most ring-wing capitalist societies... - not sure I agree with this either but let's not get sidetracked by politics...

This is important, because politics influences culture whether we like it or not. Can you think of a country with more right wing economic policies in Europe? I can't.

however I think it's too simplistic to say competition=capitalism (or vice versa).

I agree, but competition is an important component of capitalism. It is the factor that is meant to motivate people to do well in their chosen field.

There is far too much self-promotion by the successful poets, - I haven't particularly noticed this. Anyone trying to sell a book (partic of poetry) has to push pretty hard for anyone to notice it. Even best selling poets manage to sell only a couple of thousand copies. I would say that some poets are much better than others (though agree that they may not last the test of time). Not sure why we should be against the idea that some are better than others - what else would you suggest, that everyone publishes everything and someone in the future wades through it all and assigns value?

No, I too think that some poets write better poems than others. However, there are far too many competitions that produce a culture of winners and losers. This is an unpleasant culture in my opinion. Most are clearly just ways to make money.


There are many places to publish poetry, partic. on the web, and to my mind publish a vast range of quality. The whole thing is a lot more open and democratic than it ever was. But despite many wanting to be published, very few are actually willing to pay for poetry books. You're very happy to have your work published - is that self-promotion? No, it's that you probably feel there's no point in writing something you're pleased with if no one reads it, and it may give others pleasure (I'm assuming your feelings here!). Isn't the motivation of more successful poets the same?

My motivation for writing poetry is that I enjoy it and can't stop myself doing it. Competitions rarely motivate me to write, but I know those who it does. Getting published does feel nice though. I think there is a difference between what motivates you to write poetry and then the way you promote your poetry. A lot of small poetry presses now won't take poets unless they are willing to push/self-promote their own work.

I can't be bothered with the competition thing myself, and do agree that sometimes the winning works leave me cold. But, on the whole, a lot of the 'winning' work has something to recommend it. I just can't see the poetry world as big enough to complain about ' overblown praise and aggrandisement' -

I'm not going to mention specific reviews here, but some use superlatives that would lead you to think that the poet was the best thing since Dylan Thomas.

One of the ways competitions are sold is to praise last years winner in an overblown way. We'd all like to have our own poem praised in such a way. And that's what the sell. You'd think a lot of the time you were reading about Dylan Thomas.


even with the most famous poets, the chap on the Clapham omnibus has probably not heard of them.

Yes, this is a shame.


But poetry is a craft and an artform, and I find it more irritating when people write any old drivel and think it's worth publishing. I'm absolutely all in favour of everyone having a go at writing, or writing as therapy etc etc, but not that everything produced is of equal value.

By the way, Graves is a very positive development in poetry.

[Ros]

I think there's perhaps a distinction between the big competitions, which do sometimes feel like the same people choosing and voting for each other, and the small ones. Most small comps (those run by magazines) are there to fund the magazine - eg Poetry Business, Interpreter's House. They just couldn't keep the mags going without the entry fees from competitions. I don't know any poets whose main aim is to win comps, but I assume there are some. There is competition to get into the better mags, though, which can also feel a bit like a fool's game. But I don't know how else you'd get people published - there has to be selection in the process somewhere.

Ros

[Firebird]

Hi Ros,

Yes, I agree, there's always going to be an element of competition when selecting poems or publication.

One way journals could make poets feel that they aren't competing with other poets, is to describe what the editor/s are looking for or not looking for in a poem. Criteria referenced you might say - a little like 'Agenda'. If they only receive a few poems that match what they want, they only publish a few, and if they receive a lot, they publish a lot. This can be done much more easily online as space isn't an issue and a journal is not forced to publish more than it wants to fill pages.

One way of making journals more representative of the different types of poetry and experience of life out there is if the editor has an eclectic taste - likes many different types of poetry. A little like Snakeskin.

It's a shame these two approaches to editing aren't really compatible.

[David]

An impressive little dialogue this. I don't really have anything much to add, but thought it only right to acknowledge the conversation.

As long as there are more people writing poems than people publishing them, the lonely scribbler's life is going to be one of disappointment punctuated by occasional moments of euphoria. I don't see how that can ever be transcended, unless one ascends to the level of the Poetry Gods (by most of whom I'm just as unimpressed as you two are).

David

[Firebird]

David, thanks. I'm pleased you found it interesting. Yes, the fact there are 'poetry gods' only makes things worse.

I posted the start to this thread on the Magma Blog in response to the blog post 'What makes for a competition-winning poem?'. However, this was two days ago and I'm assuming the moderators censored my response, as it still hasn't appeared. If it has been censored it's a sign that Magma don't really want an open conversation about what's happening in British poetry as they claim. I hope they still prove me wrong though.

Ros,

I was just thinking about your distinction between big competitions and smaller ones run by magazines. I would honestly like to think too there was a difference, but I can't. I understand that the smaller competitions often keep magazines afloat, which is a regrettable situation, but an understandable one even so. That's what poverty or lack of funds often does: it divides. I understand why the proliferation of competitions may be seen as a necessary unpleasantness in the poetry world, but it's a great shame. If so much arts council funding hadn't been withdrawn, this situation probably wouldn't be so extreme. Quality poetry magazines, such as 'Other Poetry', have been mothballed or even disbanded after their funding was fully/partly withdrawn by the arts council. It's right wing politics again. Sorry.


Best,

Tristan

[Antcliff]

I don't enter single poem competitions and take no interest in who wins or not. I am far from unique. No doubt there are keen compers out there, but my sense is that most active poets are not particularly interested. My next door neighbour won a biggish poetry comp and duly spent all the prize money on fees entering others. Which, really, is all I can usefully say on the subject.

As for mags. On the whole, for the most part, all things being equal, the bigger mags get things about right I suspect. The political poem I had in Magma is one of my best. One smaller one was again one of my best. Rejected other poems in the submission were inferior....although I am sure I did not think that the time. Two other appearances on the short list for publication there involved poems that were the best in the submission. I would say the same sort of thing concerning other submissions in Envoi, Rialto, Gutter and other places. It may be that my experience is not typical. Perfection? No. But I do not let perfection be the enemy of the good (on the whole). As for whether or not any poem will last for generations...well, no, they will probably not last to the end of the week. But there is little point in worrying about the judgment of history.

As for the evils of some feeling unduly superior or unduly inferior...well, yes, to be resisted. But a certain self-regard and self-promotional stance may be an essential part of the shell needed to be involved in the arts. The probability that we are great poets is low. However, the probability that we will be helped by over-estimating is quite high.

One way journals could make poets feel that they aren't competing with other poets....

Surely we are not such frail flowers, Tristan?

Seth

[Ros]

One way journals could make poets feel that they aren't competing with other poets, is to describe what the editor/s are looking for or not looking for in a poem. Criteria referenced you might say - a little like 'Agenda'. If they only receive a few poems that match what they want, they only publish a few, and if they receive a lot, they publish a lot. This can be done much more easily online as space isn't an issue and a journal is not forced to publish more than it wants to fill pages.

One way of making journals more representative of the different types of poetry and experience of life out there is if the editor has an eclectic taste - likes many different types of poetry. A little like Snakeskin.

It's a shame these two approaches to editing aren't really compatible.

You can see what an editor likes by reading the publication. Why should a (generally unpaid, doing it for love) editor publish poetry that isn't to their taste just to be representative? There's always room for another mag if people have a burning feeling there's an area being missed. Even with all the subsidies in the world, there are going to be more people wanting publication than there are to publish it, so competition is inevitable. And who are the readers for all this poetry? That's the missing point here. I'm sure writing is good for people, in a general sense. I'm less sure reading mediocre poetry is any use to anyone. And I read a lot of it...

Ros

[Firebird]

Hi Seth,


I don't enter single poem competitions and take no interest in who wins or not. I am far from unique. No doubt there are keen compers out there, but my sense is that most active poets are not particularly interested. My next door neighbour won a biggish poetry comp and duly spent all the prize money on fees entering others. Which, really, is all I can usefully say on the subject.

Fair enough!

As for mags. On the whole, for the most part, all things being equal, the bigger mags get things about right I suspect. The political poem I had in Magma is one of my best. One smaller one was again one of my best. Rejected other poems in the submission were inferior....although I am sure I did not think that the time. Two other appearances on the short list for publication there involved poems that were the best in the submission. I would say the same sort of thing concerning other submissions in Envoi, Rialto, Gutter and other places. It may be that my experience is not typical. Perfection? No. But I do not let perfection be the enemy of the good (on the whole).

My issue with Magma is not their editorial process. I too had a small poem published by them, which I think is the best poem I've written by a long way. My issue with them is that they don't seem to want open debate about the culture of competitions in the poetry scene in the UK.

As for whether or not any poem will last for generations...well, no, they will probably not last to the end of the week. But there is little point in worrying about the judgment of history.

I agree, but a little more moderation when praising poems wouldn't go a miss.

As for the evils of some feeling unduly superior or unduly inferior...well, yes, to be resisted. But a certain self-regard and self-promotional stance may be an essential part of the shell needed to be involved in the arts.

I think this depends on what 'level' you wish to be involved.

The probability that we are great poets is low. However, the probability that we will be helped by over-estimating is quite high.

One way journals could make poets feel that they aren't competing with other poets....

Surely we are not such frail flowers, Tristan?

No we probably aren't. But it's not about that. It's about lessening the culture of competition because it's divisive in most instances.

Seth[/quote]

Cheers,

Tristan

[Antcliff]

No we probably aren't. But it's not about that. It's about lessening the culture of competition because it's divisive in most instances.

I am not entirely convinced. Surely anyone who enters a comp accepts that many will not win...but hopefully not them. So they can hardly object to a promoted level of division that they accepted when they paid their fee? And those who dinnae enter single poem comps, like me, can probably live with not having entered. They had the option, but opted to spend their money more wisely (or less). So who, really, has a legitimate complaint? If I have detected the main thrust of your polemic it is that some end up being unduly exalted, others unduly crushed.

But does it really amount to much though? Surely in most cases everyone has forgotten who won the prize by the end of the awards night? If they got a palace, then it might be different. But what they really get is cash to cover their journey, a stop over at the house of a friend or a modest B and B, a mention on p27 of a mag. Of course they might get a mention on half a page in a supplement in a Sunday paper. But by the time they cut that out and post it on the wall there will be the next day's "Rising Poet to Watch" on p.87. And, really, is anybody all that crushed just because Lavinia Throstlethrush won 400 pound at the Little Chigley Poetry Comp and got to share the stage with somebody or other who won it 15 years ago? I hope you will forgive my slightly comic tone on this. But surely this sort of stuff is far more comic than evil?

Seth

[Ros]

Think I'd have to agree with Seth here. It's quite possible to be deeply involved in the poetry 'world' and pretty much ignore the competitions.

I may be missing your main point, Tristan. Are you suggesting that in an ideal world all would be published equally, funded by a central body? If not, it's always going to be divisive (in the sense of dividing the worthy from the un-worthy) surely? And again, my main point would be - who are the readers? We owe it to them to try to say 'this is worth reading, this less so' surely?

Ros

[Firebird]

Hi Seth,

I am not entirely convinced. Surely anyone who enters a comp accepts that many will not win...but hopefully not them. So they can hardly object to a promoted level of division that they accepted when they paid their fee? And those who dinnae enter single poem comps, like me, can probably live with not having entered. They had the option, but opted to spend their money more wisely (or less). So who, really, has a legitimate complaint?

If a poet enters a competition they are not also entering into some type of contract where they are prohibited from criticising competitions in general. There may be an element of weakness or even hypocrisy on the part of the poet here, but it certainly doesn't invalidate their criticism. Entering a competition and criticising the culture of competitions are not mutually exclusive.


If I have detected the main thrust of your polemic it is that some end up being unduly exalted, others unduly crushed.

Yes, to some extent, but also that the culture of competitions is divisive. I don't think that poets should be divided into winners and loser. Surely, we can do better than this. You might well ask why do so many poets enter competition then.

I think two reasons play a part here:

Firstly, there's so little else on offer to the majority of poets in terms of validation for what they do (I do recognise here that sites like Graves and writing free writing groups fill this gap to a certain extent). Competitions are like a quick fix. It's a bit like playing the lottery, we know the odds are terrible but we still do it. As you say the prizes aren't great in these competitions either but poets still want to compete. This is what capitalism does, it makes the poorest in society compete amongst themselves for scraps, when they are worth more. It's divisive as I said. Surely, as poets we need to do better than this.

Secondly, we live I a society where winning is seen as the as best way to show that something is good or a success. There are other ways.

This culture of competitions is also fuelled by the fact that there are more poets now than ever before, because of a large ageing population, more free time and most jobs offering little in the way of a creative outlet.


And, really, is anybody all that crushed just because Lavinia Throstlethrush won 400 pound at the Little Chigley Poetry Comp and got to share the stage with somebody or other who won it 15 years ago? I hope you will forgive my slightly comic tone on this. But surely this sort of stuff is far more comic than evil?

Rather than 'evil' I prefer the term 'insidious' for the culture of competition. As I said before it makes the poorest in society compete against one another for scraps. It's divisive. Of course there is some comedy in the situation. What situation can't be seen in a comic way.


Hi Ros,

I may be missing your main point, Tristan. Are you suggesting that in an ideal world all would be published equally, funded by a central body? If not, it's always going to be divisive (in the sense of dividing the worthy from the un-worthy) surely? And again, my main point would be - who are the readers? We owe it to them to try to say 'this is worth reading, this less so' surely?

It's the degree to which the poetry 'world' is competitive! I've not said everyone should be published or that all poetry is equal in quality, just that the culture of competition is divisive and creates a few winners who are vastly over praised to sell next years competition, and many loser. My point is that this culture is worse than it has ever been and it needs reigning in in some way. Not encouraging, as many do.

Thank you both for engaging.

Best,

Tristan

[Ros]

We're perhaps reaching the 'agreeing to disagree' stage with most of this, but I would add that I think people are inherently competitive, not made so by capitalism - rather the other way around. You may argue that it isn't very relevant for poetry, though! What would you suggest as an alternative? I'd still claim there has to be some method of ranking 'reading-worth', or we'd all be wading through piles of tosh...

Ros

[Firebird]

We're perhaps reaching the 'agreeing to disagree' stage with most of this, but I would add that I think people are inherently competitive, not made so by capitalism - rather the other way around. You may argue that it isn't very relevant for poetry, though! What would you suggest as an alternative? I'd still claim there has to be some method of ranking 'reading-worth', or we'd all be wading through piles of tosh...

Ros

Hi Ros,

I would agree that a part of our nature is to be competitive; but the environment of capitalism brings this part of our nature out far too much and often makes it counterproductive. That's the problem with unfettered capitalism, which we are moving towards in this country. Like any ideology, when taken in its entirety it becomes counterproductive and dangerous . In my opinion, we to need move toward social democracy, following Scotland's lead.

As I said, it's the degree of competition in poetry that's problematic, not that competition exists in the poetry world. I agree that an element of competition is inevitable. But it should be kept to a minimum in my opinion, or it become counterproductive. I'll have a think about how this could be achieved, and get back later.

Cheers,

Tristan

[David]

Sooner or later, someone's going to say "And all shall have prizes." Or even "And all shall have prizes?" So it might as well be me.

Interestingly, on checking it seems that the correct quotation is "Everybody has won and all must have prizes." Which seems even more appropriate.

I think you're conflating capitalism and poetry competitions in a confusing way, Tristan. Well it's confusing me. And I do think that, ultimately, you're baying at the moon. But i admire your ideal of a gentler kinder world. I would move there if I could.

Cheers

David

[Antcliff]

Rather than 'evil' I prefer the term 'insidious' for the culture of competition. As I said before it makes the poorest in society compete against one another for scraps. It's divisive. Of course there is some comedy in the situation. What situation can't be seen in a comic way.

Let us not conflate a culture of relentless competition in all parts of life with the existence of some poetry competitions. The latter does not imply or require the (evil) former and does not automatically inherit any critique that can be levelled against the former. In a socialist republic there could still be poetry competitions. But with the focus narrowed to poetry competitions, I find it hard to accept "insidious". That would imply a serious level of harm or at least a very high risk of it, but I am not actually aware of anyone who has been harmed by the existence/degree of poetry comps as such. Of course some may be offended, but, to invoke Mill rather than Marx, that does not yet imply harm. When I suggested that the comps as such....rather than a culture of relentless competition in all things...was more comic than evil, I was in fact being serious. Show me the harm, Tristan...and do not step back and cite the evils of capitalist competition generally. I think it is closer to the culture of rosettes for the cakes at the agricultural fair. Some people get heated, as does some pastry, but nobody is really harmed? It is not enough to say that they are "divisive"...cake comps at the fair are that; someone gets the rosette, others get to be grumpy?

Interesting the think about. Glad you mentioned the subject, Tristan. (Seth, still going on...)

[Firebird]

Hi Seth,

Let us not conflate a culture of relentless competition in all parts of life with the existence of some poetry competitions. The latter does not imply or require the (evil) former and does not automatically inherit any critique that can be levelled against the former.

You say 'the existence of some poetry competitions'. I would argue that there are more poetry competitions now than ever before. Do you honestly believe it is little more than a coincidence that this has happened in one of the most extreme capitalist economic and political cultures in recent history? The poetry 'world' does not exist in a vacuum and is just as prone as anything else to be affected by the prevailing economic and political culture of the day.

Can you think of any other reason/s for it happening besides the economic imperatives of survival and the ones I have already stated about the motives of individual poets for entering these competitions? As Ros said, many smaller magazines run competitions to survive.

In a socialist republic there could still be poetry competitions.

I agree with this. And as I have said I am not against competition completely in poetry. It is the degree to which it is present. In a socialist republic I do not believe there would be the same appetite for so many poetry competitions.


But with the focus narrowed to poetry competitions, I find it hard to accept "insidious".

I use the word 'insidious' because the harm competitions do is subtle.


That would imply a serious level of harm or at least a very high risk of it, but I am not actually aware of anyone who has been harmed by the existence/degree of poetry comps as such. Of course some may be offended, but, to invoke Mill rather than Marx, that does not yet imply harm. When I suggested that the comps as such....rather than a culture of relentless competition in all things...was more comic than evil, I was in fact being serious. Show me the harm, Tristan...and do not step back and cite the evils of capitalist competition generally. I think it is closer to the culture of rosettes for the cakes at the agricultural fair. Some people get heated, as does some pastry, but nobody is really harmed? It is not enough to say that they are "divisive"...cake comps at the fair are that; someone gets the rosette, others get to be grumpy?

I too have always liked Mill's harm principle.

There are two subtle ways that competitions harms poets and poetry:

1) The way poetry competitions attribute worth. The poems that win competitions are seen as worthwhile and celebrated as such, whereas those that loose have little worth attributed to them. There is a huge amount of worth in many of the poems that don't win poetry competitions. I believe this culture is harmful because it reduces what is thought to be worthwhile and of value, and simply isn't appropriate in the world of poetry. Yes, this is subtle. It's about an attitude or a mentally about worth.

2) In big poetry competitions there are many technically excellent poems submitted that do not win. The reason for this is because ultimately what wins is based on the subjective preferences of the judges. This is just another reason why big competitions are absurd in the poetry 'world'. The big poetry competitions that have many excellent entries are really just lotteries and as such a tax on hope for those looking for validation. They are a con, that trade on the idea that the best poems wins which isn't necessarily true. Cons, in my opinion, are harmful.

3) Competitions are bunt tools as they imply that only those who win them are successful poets. Again, this is a mentality/attitude that harms the ways we see/view poets. This point is really part of my first one.

What I'm really saying is that when competitions are ubiquitous in the world of poetry they harm/damage the cultural landscape of poetry. Competitions polarise the cultural landscape of poetry into good and bad poets, successful and unsuccessful poets. Such over simplistic dichotomies just aren't helpful or useful in the world of poetry and produce an insidious mentally.

Hope this makes my position a little clearer.

Cheers,

Tristan