New Pages has compiled a list of literary contests, American and Canadian with deadline and details. It’s pretty comprehensive. [via JimK]
A contest is, by nature, an artificial way to create hundreds who lose and one who wins. (Or less charitably, hundreds of losers and one winner.)
On the other hand, it’s a gamble, a game, and the rule of gambling (and stock market and egos) is to never invest what you can’t afford to lose. It’s all for the pleasure of playing a game not the winning or losing.
Join the Conversation
Leave a comment
”
an artificial way to create hundreds who lose and one who wins..
”
….much like the “best of” collections, or
the literary awards?
One big difference is that your name, thus
your connections, your history, your groups
and peeps are missing from a blind contest.
Not so much a lottery as a personal match
to one or a few readers.
Anthologies are sort of lotteries as well. But my point is that by the nature of the focus on a few, hundreds are excluded from the framework. One can frame that as a system for creating more failure than success by definition or set aside the idea of competition and see it as a field where everyone is playing and generating ideas.
If the focus is on the process and ideas and dialogue moving forward cooperatively of hunting and gathering useful dribbles to advance human mind and heart, that’s oriented towards outcomes for all.
If one is focused on making the distinctions of good poem as an art form, as fitting skill of device, as being best of, it becomes a different sort of filter, one that is exclusive rather than inclusive, bottom-up rather than top-down.
But so far as neutrality and freedom from connections –It’s such a small pond of writers that your subjects and styles can be recognized without your name in blind judging. There are only so many mid-field and top-field people rotating thru as judges. To create a sort of canon of exemplar poems isn’t entirely objective but may rely on the stream of aesthetics. I’m not saying neutrality is not possible but it is not straight forward either.
Can one be a judge of different sports? Is it transferable to rate figure skating or ski jumping? Haiku or lyrical free verse or visual poetry? Are the same itches being scratched?
You see what I mean?
I don’t think it’s ‘such a small pond’. Actually,
you thought it was ‘more than you can shake
a stick at’ yesterday. Now I am confused.
Tens of thousands isn’t so small.
Some people have a variety of styles…
..they often place well. A lot like musicians,
the ‘fresh look’, the ‘unexpected’. It’s not so
easy to recognize personal style among the
surprises that break the crust of jading.
I do know of one contest that’s intensely
entrained. The rest seem to be concerned
with newness and relevance: they are trying
to be noticed as well.
“Can one be a judge of different sports?”
—No: they have different contests.
for Haiku, for prose-based jls, for metric,
for the visceral/vehement. They choose
judges accordingly.
Po-Av seems very low on blind contests.
If that’s seen as a problem, the solution
must be hatched from within.
When you speak of a ‘canon of exemplars’,
this is the same animal in different clothes.
Some are ‘chosen’..one cannot have it
both ways. The annointing of canon is
a far less democratic process that the
hundreds of contests or thousands
of journals…it is a system of pontifs
and railing.
–One thing a contest does is sharpen aim.
That is, actually considering the reader
as part of the thing, having a relationship.
Half is usually missing, and a lot of soul
is masked, consequently. I’d say 90% can
actually write well. The hard part is
‘giving it up’ for someone else, leaving a
mark that won’t wash off. Even the
surreal has aim, a path or a scheme.
The best takes you over. You, the reader.
Perfection is not what does it…it’s reaching
in and shaking the wiring.
———————
But…….if a your major point is getting the
lost hundreds noticed, and the reason is
to add to the art, some special means
is needing. A ‘small pond’ of roughly
100,000 is more than my head can handle.
How do we deal with it? My problem isn’t
that there’s “a lot of bad poetry”, like many
say. I think there is a lot of really good,
actually excellent, poetry. Most slides by
from shear cognitive insufficiency. How many
excellent debuts have I seen, and then the
poet gets more arcane and frantic as the
existential crisis approaches. The semi-raw
is often the best, and the poet’s own drive
for volume tramples it like fodder, under
more clever but less original quirks.
Perhaps there are different ways. Your blog
is riddled with juicy excerpts…what of its
reach were even wider? The first problem
is…how to comb it all. Perhaps a
network of ‘gatherers’ with zones to watch.
Anyway…
I can’t see anything being optimal, but it’s
worth thinking of better ways.
I noticed a recent “Fulcrum” had big names
in it, but it was also over 500 pages, and
over 80 authors. Even the high ground
is crowded. All the existing channels are
full.
What if all the old ways to be noticed
were pilloried, but nothing new was done?
The flood waters rise. This is a time
when a little vision could go a long way:
a positive new thing.
(the gambler analogy still burns: contest
winners are not gamblers at all, they
study, work hard, and aim carefully…aim)
…anyhow,,
Jim, I’m not saying an idea is right or wrong but here are ideas to think on.
So far as the gambler analogy, one thing: everyone is putting a lifetime of skill behind their work.A writer works hard, each one doing their best and it may yield and it may not. That’s out of one’s hands. Worthy work doesn’t equal the one place of top spot.
Now, your other thought…
Yes, as you say, even the high ground is crowded.
We have a high literacy culture and what we speak of is largely just North American English. Each of these billions of humans has a voice and thousands of stories. One brain doesn’t need to parse it all.
Yes, there are thousands of writers, and hundreds of thousands. It’s not contradictory to being a small pool because you can’t be with each stream of humanity.
People do stretch their voice and style but being in a community, applying for grants, giving readings, sending out pieces to be published, you get a sense of what dozens of people in your ponds are doing. There are no strangers unless you go the next pond over or travel thru the whole watershed, but even then, it’s like any field.
Travel internationally and the same people keep cropping up as points of reference. It’s a pretty interconnected group when you are talking about publishing rather than writing. Far fewer than 6 degrees of separation.
Yes, and I hear what you’re saying about a unique spark in first work and then piffle, the person tries too hard to “do well”, gets groomed to speak and doesn’t say anything nearly so interesting in nearly so interesting of fashion. one can overwork work.
at the same time, publication isn’t proof in itself of good or bad poetry. it may be an indicator of working hard to send it out but one can get published hundreds of times to someone’s taste. that doesn’t make it well-conceived or well-implemented. there’s an audience for anything. being published just proves one is pitching particular ideas to an appropriate audience.
shrug. that’s the same as anything. keeping a job isn’t proof of being good at it. getting a job isn’t proof of being best qualified. that doesn’t mean that one only, commonly nor dominantly gets jobs thru nepotism or that having a job is proof of not being qualified.
a piece of poetry speaks to a particular person. it’s just communication that is understood or not.
True. After the work, there is chance.
A point perhaps lost is: the place is not
of ‘top spot’, it’s sitting-next-to. A deep breath,
the aim. Someone to thrill. Maybe a bunch.
I was thinking on exposing the many. Ideas:
1) ‘matchmaking’, according to characteristics
2) Broadsheet with grids of talent, samples
(magnifying glass)…’choose yours’.
…it’s personal..
That would be a useful tool to quick slice thru a chart to winnow down best markets.
Just to be clear…
I think part of what you were saying
was hiding in plain sight…that is,
contests are a poor means of making
money or income. I would heartily agree.
If we switch the model from outright
“gambling” to “match yours to the goal”,
it actually becomes even harder to
satisfy, say, 20-50 different tastes.
I became really nervous that it looked
like I was saying contests were work that
paid. Horror lies that way. They are a means
to recognition. If you support the notion
that more voices need to be recognized,
there are contests that are better than others
at that. They mention and publishing the top
10, for example..that can be a big leg up.
I’m still pondering a characterization method
that transcends the “schools” issue. At least
30 factors….enough to avoid miscasting
and feed invention.
As for the quantity issue, ponder this:
the alphabet is split up among volunteers,
and a central site fans into all the sub-blogs.
Personal bests are on a page with contact
and pub. info. A reader’s eye design..
The matchmaking database I am not up
on, though. That would be the ultimate
reader support.