[RCrawford]

A little introduction, or why I was allowed near these sonnets: I've had two books of poetry published, Too Much Explanation Can Ruin a Man (2005) and The Empty Chair (2011, Winner of the Richard Wilbur Award). I've won the Howard Nemerov Sonnet Award twice and won the 2010 New England Shakespeare Festival Sonnet Award. Currently I am working on my third book (aren't poets always working on the next book?) and I am the director of The 2015 Frost Farm Poetry Conference (www.frostfarmpoetry.org).

I wrote the following for the website 14by14 but it very much applies to how I went about the task of judging 138 sonnets for the Bake-off.

I’ll begin by stating the obvious: evaluating poetry is subjective. It’s me, alone, that the poet has to impress. My likes and dislikes determine how I react to a poem — with one important exception: I try very hard not to let the poet’s choice of subject matter influence my reaction (see "Valediction Against Mourning").

In evaluating sonnets I first look at the sonnet’s construction, its form. I lean towards a conservative definition of the sonnet: 14 lines of rhyming iambic pentameter organized in the tradition of Petrarch, Shakespeare, and, to a much lesser extent, Spenser. There is nothing wrong with nonce forms, but there is also nothing inherently “radical” or “refreshing” about them either. Nonce forms have to try harder to impress — and when they do they can be stunning — for the simple fact is that the tradition is the tradition because it works. Nonce forms are far too frequently used to escape the exacting demands that the sonnet places on the poet.

What do I mean by “works?” That is the second thing I look for in a sonnet: that it develop, in its narrow room, a way of looking at, or resolving, an experience, not a mere description of the experience itself (no matter how powerful, a couplet cannot turn what is essentially a narrative into a sonnet). Here are a few questions I ask myself: How does the poet use the quatrains to set up the couplet (does he or she even appear to care)? How does the poet balance the octave and the sestet so the octave is not bloated with repetition (does it look like the poet was aware of the distinction between the presentation of the octave and the resolution of the sestet)?

After development, I tend to evaluate the nuts and bolts of the sonnet: rhyme and meter. Does the poet show a mastery of these elements? For example: Is the rhyming of an accented syllable with an unaccented one, or the use of frequent substitutions (particularly anapests), an indication that the poet wants me to pay attention to something in the development of the poem, or is it just sloppiness? The consistency with which the poet establishes and disappoints expectations is an important factor here.
Last, I look for how the poet uses language (meaning and sound) to heighten or lessen the intensity of the experience. I like poets who take risks and are not overly afraid of being cliché. I much prefer language that runs along, but not over, the cliff of cliché than language that plays it safe in the smooth desert far away from the coast.

All this in the few minutes I have with each of 138 sonnets — which only demonstrates what I said above about the subjective and imperfect nature of evaluating poetry for contests.

Which brings me to my choices for 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the 2015 Bake-off. I settled on my selection before seeing the results of the popular vote and I chose these sonnets for how I felt reading them--they spoke with me personally in a voice that I understood, that seemed close by, and one that moved me.

1st: "Something About Apples" by Athar C. Pavis

2nd: " 'Apache Freezing Drizzle' " by Ed Granger

3rd: "Lines" by Gregory Palmerino

I will resist the temptation to justify my choices because I do not want to take away from the popular admiration for others. I read all of the sonnets and chose the finalists so, obviously, there was much that I admired in all of them.

I want to thank Alex for choosing me to be the Distinguished Guest for this Bake-off. I want to thank all the participants for the way they handled the comments and the voting. And congratulations to the winners of the popular vote!

Before I go I would like to ask a favor of Manny Blacksher to please give us a hint, in plain English, what his poem was really about

[Jennifer Gordon]

Dear Sir,
I am but little acquainted with this site, yet enjoyed this particular year's sonnet bake-off and appreciated both your finalist choices, as well as your brief commentary introducing each. Your explanation above on how you evaluated each entry is also instructive. I fear saying too much. Therefore, thank you, indeed, very much for your work in this year's contest and for explaining further your perspective on our line of interest.
Tata,
Miss Jennifer Gordon

[Manny Blacksher]

Robert, I thank you for considering my poem and putting it in the company of so many remarkable, well crafted sonnets.

It's the most abominable poem I've written: the interior monologue of an older man, possibly a pederast, who fears he has fatally injured the young woman or man he's had sex with. He wants to deny his agency after the fact, but he struggles because he would like to believe he has had some sort of intimate relationship. He does not say "love," and for all his vague wishing that the sexual encounter was romantic, he cannot conceive love.

I was surprised by the readers who tied it closely to Christian allegory, but I'm familiar with 17th and 18th-century antinomian traditions that rejected the patriarchal god's requiring the Messiah's pascal sacrifice for humanity's redemption. From that perspective, their readings made sense.

[Ed Shacklee]

I don't know what these sonnets have in common beyond being a pleasure to read, and each one glinting with memorable phrases. They make a lovely bouquet, I'll say that. Good choices.

Best,

Ed

[Charlie Southerland]

Mr. Crawford,

Thanks so much for choosing my sonnet as a finalist. It has been a thrill and an honor for me. I am fascinated by your explanation of the whys and hows, your thought process. Alex could not have chosen a better person for judging.

Fondly,
Charlie.

[Gregory Palmerino]

Mr. Crawford,

I, too, thank you for the honor of your selection. Your credentials make it that much more special for me.

Best,
Greg