Skip to main content

Montreal Poetry Prize a bit of a dud

Well, the ho-hum news is in.  After apparently scouring the globe for the 50 best poems of the year, and with a super star list of judges, here is the shortlist.  There are not really many well-known or established Irish or British poets here, and, frankly, few if any major Canadian or American poets either.  Comparing this list to the Best American, Canadian or British anthologies, the level of quality and relevance is startling.  The Montreal Poetry Prize needs to do a lot better in encouraging established, talented poets from across the English-speaking world to submit - and they probably need a better system of feeding poems to their main judge.  It is a good idea, and hopefully, in time, will amount to something noteworthy.

Comments

A majority of poems have been recorded by the poets and the mp3's are linked to on the site. This is a positive innovation; no?

I don't understand your complaint about there not being enough 'established' poets, particularly if you haven't read the poems in question. You seem to be dismissing these people not on the strength of their poems but because they are not as famous as people like us.

I personally welcome an anthology that is more interested in the poetry than the personality. Wanting to foreground the poem rather than elevating mediocre poets with more talent for social networking than writing quality gear.
Poetry Pleases! said…
Dear Todd

Congratulations on receiving your PhD. At this rate, you'll soon be joining 'Sir Motion' in the House of Lords!

Best wishes from Simon & Rusty
Mike O'Brien said…
I disagree. The whole point of the prize, as I understand it, is to leave reputation at the door and get new voices in. The prize is judged blind, and with good reason: because they didn't want things like established names to be taken into account. Also, I believe the point of the prize is to widen Anglophone poetry beyond British, American and Canadian. The winner was Australian, but they got submissions from 59 countries, which actually seems pretty impressive for a prize that's just started up and which hasn't really received much media attention.
Remember the competition, like many poetry comps, is judged blind. You might get well-known poets (if they entered) being short-listed or you might get newcomers.

Also, remember that last year's National Poetry Competition winner, Paul Adrian, was an unknown. Not every well-known poet wins competitions. That's the beauty of them. Anyone can enter and possibly win.
i like the blind judging as it is fair for all !!

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".