[Catherine Chandler]

Dear Janet,

I think others in the past (sonnet and other bake-offs) have made honorable mentions. I recall that when Mike Stocks made his choices he mentioned a few, including mine, and I was pleased, since I was in such good company.

It would never cross my mind to "degrade" (as you put it) anyone by anything I would ever do or say.

Let's see what Mr. Cassity has to say in April, and little old me will stand at the sidelines and cheer everyone on.

Cathy

[Janet Kenny]

Cathy,
I know that would never be your intention and I would hate to seem to be implying any such thing.

I simply expressed my opinion that when one of our group selects submitted poems to pass on for further scrutiny by another poet that is the agreed deal. Basta. It all becomes a bit too omnipotent if it goes beyond that point. Imagine if editors did that in poetry journals? It makes me uncomfortable.
Janet

[Rose Kelleher]

Jeez, Janet, lighten up.

Editors do do that, sort of, when they send you a rejection notice that says, "Your poem 'Decapitated Roses' came very close, we hope you'll try again." It's not a consolation prize, it's an indication of their individual taste that may be useful when you submit again.

In this case, it would tell us a little bit more about Cathy's taste in sonnets. What's wrong with that? Why shouldn't she opine? None of us would participate in workshops if we weren't fond of opining.

And it eases the pressure, slightly, on the host (who is doing a difficult task on her own time, not to mention publicly sticking her neck out). So I vote with Farley Granger in favor of honorable mentions.

[Tim Murphy]

Mike actually posted ten or so on a separate thread and offered his observations. Cathy, I'd be delighted to see you do the same. Based on the twelve, anything that missed by a hair must be pretty damn good. Cathy, perhaps you should contact the five and see if they'd like to see their poems posted? We ended up having a really spirited discussion two years ago, and that's what the board is for.

[Janet Kenny]

Editors do do that, sort of, when they send you a rejection notice that says, "Your poem 'Decapitated Roses' came very close, we hope you'll try again." It's not a consolation prize, it's an indication of their individual taste that may be useful when you submit again.

In private!

My mistake. We know each other's taste pretty well already since we display it on a daily basis. That is no reflection on Cathy or Mike although if that pattern were to be repeated the poems would be those almost chosen by the final judge, not by the selector.
Once an also ran poem has been kicked about here it's finished for submission elsewhere. Not because it's unworthy but because it's over-exhibited.

So my proud beauties, I beg to differ. Bring on the toreadors but count me out of the game.

Janet

[Stuart Farley]

About not posting the runner-up poems here lest they become invalid for publication: surely those who entered the Bake-Off were willingly running this risk anyway.

Of course, posting these poems - if it ever does happen - would only ever be an after thought, merely to satisfy curiosities, and would have to be done in such a way so as to not steal any attention away from the winning poems.

Stuart

[Janet Kenny]

Stuart,
I have had a winning Bake-off poem published.

Conventional glory does no harm.

It's acceptable for a judge to add to the discussion if that's what the judge wants.

It's not OK for a selector to take the place of the judge. I'm sure Cathy didn't realise what it implied when she suggested it.

If there were a separate contest judged by Cathy it would be entirely a different matter. Those would be the terms of admittance.

Janet

[Laura Heidy-Halberstein]

Originally Posted by Janet Kenny

I
It's acceptable for a judge to add to the discussion if that's what the judge wants.

It's not OK for a selector to take the place of the judge. I'm sure Cathy didn't realise what it implied when she suggested it.

If there were a separate contest judged by Cathy it would be entirely a different matter. Those would be the terms of admittance.

Janet

Of course, it's acceptable for the judge to add to the discussion - that's why people entered their poems, wasn't it? To hear what a well-known or well-respected person thought of their offering.

As for the "selector" taking the place of the judge, isn't the "selector" the very first judge the poem must get past? If he/she doesn't judge it one of the best it ain't gonna go no further.

"Terms of admittance?" Now we have "terms of admittance?"

The terms are pretty straightforward, Janet, send the "selector" (otherwise recognized as the "first judge") your poem and take your chances. Either the poem gets picked or it doesn't. Either people agree with the selection or they don't. Either the person who entered the poem is happy or he isn't.

What the hell is wrong with posting a few others? I believe Rose did the same thing last year when she posted poems she truly liked but did not feel comfortable sending them on the the "Second Judge" (otherwise known as the "Important One.") We all commented on them and congratulated the authors when it was over.

Some of us even liked those better than the ones ultimately judged by the "Important One."

What on earth is the big deal????

It's a wonder anyone at all ever agrees to screen poems here. It's like cutting a birthday cake for 10 starving 5 year olds. "I want the bigger peice." "No, I want the bigger piece." "Why does she get to say who gets the bigger piece? " "Because it's her party." "I don't care whose party it is, I want the bigger piece."

It's nice to be invited at all. One should be grateful for the opportunity.

One should say so.

Thanks, Catherine, for doing a thankless job.

I'm outa town for a few weeks -and outa puter-range, as well.

Ya'all have a good time.

Lo

[Janet Kenny]

That's your way of looking at it Lo. I think I am out of place here.

Janet

[Quincy Lehr]

Originally Posted by Janet Kenny

That's your way of looking at it Lo. I think I am out of place here.

Janet

Janet--

Does this describe you?

THE VILLAGE GREEN PRESERVATION SOCIETY

by Ray Davies

We are the village green preservation society
God save Donald Duck, vaudeville and variety
We are the Desperate Dan appreciation society
God save strawberry jam and all the different varieties
Preserving the old ways from being abused
Protecting the new ways for me and for you
What more can we do
We are the draught beer preservation society
God save Mrs. Mopp and good old Mother Riley
We are the custard pie appreciation consortium
God save the George Cross and all those who were awarded them
We are the Sherlock Holmes English-speaking vernacular
Help save Fu Manchu, Moriarty, and Dracula
We are the office block persecution affinity
God save little shops, china cups and virginity
We are the skyscraper condemnation affiliate
God save Tudor houses, antique tables and billiards
Preserving the old ways from being abused
Protecting the new ways for me and for you
What more can we do
God save the village green.

If not, I suspect you're out of place here. But you knew that.