[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Wintaka

If there is any hint that judges will choose based on style rather than merit, get better judges.

We must be using "style" differently, Wintaka. I don't see how a poem can have any merit that doesn't largely derive from the poet's style.

I'm drawn to Wallace Stevens's poems because of his style. To Larkin's because of his. Given their collected works and a bunch of other stuff I like less, and with two prizes to award, I'd choose two poems by the same poet. (Which one is irrelevant here.) That result would please me, but no more than the result of having to choose poems by more than one--and the second result, I think, would better reflect the merits of the batch from which I could choose.

[Max Goodman]

Second thought: On the other hand, I would not like to choose poems by two poets if I were given only Stevens's poems and a bunch of stuff I hated. To use the one-prize-to-a-poet rule, a contest has to assume it will get worthy entries from at least as many poets as it has prizes.

[Gail White]

I remember once being the judge of some small and unimportant contest, and when I sat down to read the entries it became apparent to me that all the best poems were by the same person (whom I did not know, but the style made it clear. Also the type! Remember that your type face can give you away!) Anyway, it somehow felt wrong to give the obviously best poet a clean sweep, so I gave him/her 2 prizes and gave the remainder to middling good poets. I suppose the ethics of this can be debated.

I have often wondered why the same person never shows up twice in the list of Nemerov finalists, but I suspect this is deliberate, and probably wise, where there are so many good entries and everyone is watching the results like a hawk.

[Wintaka]

Max Goodman divined:

"We must be using 'style' differently, Wintaka."

It may be a question of dimensions. Imagine someone, deliberately or subconsciously, writing in the style of Wallace Stevens or Philip Larkin. I'd expect most parodists, students and fans could create reasonable facsimiles, just as I'd expect the difference in quality to be obvious to any competent judge.

Max Goodman observed:

"...a contest has to assume it will get worthy entries from at least as many poets as it has prizes."

Exactly. For what it's worth, I've seen many contests, including one of the largest in North America, where none of the submissions were...retina-friendly...such that if the average Eratospherean did not sweep the podium I'd want the judges drug tested. That this doesn't happen more often causes me to wonder how many events have an unstated rule against multiple wins by one entrant. IMHO, that would be, at best, an oversight.

Best regards,

Colin

[Jayne Osborn]

Ah, Gail, you've touched on the topic I alluded to at the end of post #9, and which I intended to come back to... that of being able to recognise not just the style of a poet but the actual presentation of the work, ie font, layout etc.

I know from judging several competitions that most people send multiple entries in one go and, though the poems may be very different in content, page after page looks almost identical! Same font and size, same justification, maybe with titles underlined or all in capitals, or whatever... often there's no mistaking that these x number of poems were submitted at the same time by the same person! It's easy-peasy for the judge if the "rule" that we're discussing is in force: just pick the best one and reject the rest.

Whenever I submit three poems to a competition in one envelope I fold one piece of paper in half, leave one unfolded and fold the other into three; use maybe Times New Roman for one, Ariel for another... you get my drift. My three poems look as if they are from three different people. Now, whether this has ever helped or not I don't know but I do it anyway! **

There is one elderly lady of my acquaintance and I swear I could identify one of her poems out of thousands, simply for the distinctive way they appear on the page. It's quite hard to be impartial when you know very well whose work you're looking at.

Bill mentioned a judge who disqualified his entry on the grounds that he recognised Bill's poems; it's one thing to have actually seen the poems before (most comps are for previously unpublished ones anyway), but another to simply recognise a poet by the look of the entry. I don't think a judge can fairly disqualify an entrant on those grounds.

** If my different-looking poems did happen to fool the judge and more than one was chosen to win, but he or she was later told they were by the same entrant and I was subsequently deprived of one of the prizes, how would I ever know, anyway? There's probably no point at all in resorting to this subterfuge, come to think of it!

Jayne

[Ann Drysdale]

As more and more competitions encourage online entry, the fontiness becomes less of a fingerprint.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Wintaka

I've seen many contests, including one of the largest in North America, where none of the submissions were...retina-friendly

Are the rules of such a contest worth discussing? Winning or losing can't mean much. (Or can it? That might make an interesting topic for another thread.)

Best regards,
Max

[Brian Allgar]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

Winning or losing can't mean much. Or can it?

WHAT? I'll have you know that when Bazza or Chris or Bill (or one of the others) wins and I don't, I have chronic indigestion for weeks. When one of them wins the top prize and I only get an ordinary win, I have chronic indigestion for days. And when one of my entries wins the top prize, but another gets only an HM, I have chronic indigestion for hours. I tell you, the pharmaceutical manufacturers are making far more out of my competitiion entries than I ever do.

[Michael Cantor]

Originally Posted by Ann Drysdale

As more and more competitions encourage online entry, the fontiness becomes less of a fingerprint.

"Fontiness" is cute, but I think "fontness" is more elegant.

But my real reason for posting is to point out that most competitions will still accept entries by mail as well, so there's no reason for Jayne to change her practices. I assume, Jayne, that each submission is also on very different but widely available stock, that you purchase them separately and far from home so that nothing can be traced to you, and that you wear gloves during the entire creative (the mailing, that is) process.

I use a somewhat different approach. All my entries look the same, but I sign them all A.E. Stallings. Hasn't worked yet, but I have hopes for the future. (I wonder if Sam Gwynn would have a broader appeal?)

[Jayne Osborn]

I do all of those things, Michael, but I've hit on a much better ruse...

I've set a private investigator onto the judge to report back any dropping of litter, traffic violations, acts of vandalism or adultery, etc., and will use the evidence to blackmail him if I don't win.

Watch for news of my big prize(s)