酷我-北美枫

[anna]

http://pigsquash.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/canadas-poetry-gg-afterthoughts-of-a-juror/

by Kim Goldberg
_________________
---------------------

Anna Yin

《爱的灯塔-星子安娜双语诗选》
<Nightlights> <Seven Nights with the Chinese Zodiac> ...

http://annapoetry.com

[[星子安娜]]

http://pigsquash.wordpress.com/2012/06/06/canadas-poetry-gg-afterthoughts-of-a-juror/

by Kim Goldberg
_________________
---------------------

Anna Yin

《爱的灯塔-星子安娜双语诗选》
<Nightlights> <Seven Nights with the Chinese Zodiac> ...

http://annapoetry.com

[anna]

Email from Dennis



Hi Kim

Thanks so much for this well thought out answer on the GG jurying process. More time is obviously needed, one day in Ottawa doesn't work if you live elsewhere (and is not enough to satisfactoraly deal with all books), changes of jurors late in the game doesn't work, five books rather than three and publishing the list is also a good idea.

I did the CAA one three years ago. Again a massive amount of reading in three months - 103 books (171 must have been a slog). Two jurors, unknown to each other until after the award. A set deadline for short list.

We were to put a list of 10 books together. My process was to give a book 25 minutes and then a rating of yes, no, maybe. After doing this for all books, I then went back and read all 103 again for another 25 minutes at another point in each book, and, yes, some of my assessments changed - a different poetry mood on different days. This process resulted from the unduly tough, short time frame I was given.

Then I read the yes and maybe books, perhaps 40, completely. Then agonized for a long time over my top 10 list and had it in on the appointed day. Here's the interesting thing: each of our top 10 list included, if you can believe it, 6 of the same books. One had to be dropped for a rules thing, leaving 5.

We were to rank each in numerical order by a specified day. Again, hard to believe, we ranked the books completely oppositely, meaning no winner, and more jurying. Each of us brought one other book back in for discussion. As neither of us would budge on our 1 to 5, horse trading began and one of the two books was picked. It was a worthy winner. All would have been - but there are no ties in awards.

Please note that while we were under much pressure - the volume of books - to complete our duties on specified-in-advance dates, that was the only pressure. We could choose as we wanted.

After the award, I contacted all 11 people on my top 10 list, writing a review of each of their books, and telling them how much I enjoyed reading their work. I put each review on my dcreid.ca and also on Amazon.ca. Ten of the 11 were overjoyed that I would reach out and do this. I also wrote reviews on many other unique books and sent them to the publishers, who were very happy.

After the award, I learned who my fellow juror was. Here is the interesting thing: it does not matter which stream of poetry you work in, it is possible to see excellence in all streams. The other juror is mainstream narrative, lyrical. I am associative, but not sure I would say experimental/avante garde, perhaps only that I exist beside the mainstream.

Of the six that were the same, all of them were formalist poetry. That gives an indication of how strong that newish stream, The New Canon and all that, was in Canadian poetry. I had never had any interest in formalism, it was just that these books had the most juice. They were obviously the best.

Sorry to go on so long.

D
_________________
---------------------

Anna Yin

《爱的灯塔-星子安娜双语诗选》
<Nightlights> <Seven Nights with the Chinese Zodiac> ...

http://annapoetry.com

[[星子安娜]]

Email from Dennis



Hi Kim

Thanks so much for this well thought out answer on the GG jurying process. More time is obviously needed, one day in Ottawa doesn't work if you live elsewhere (and is not enough to satisfactoraly deal with all books), changes of jurors late in the game doesn't work, five books rather than three and publishing the list is also a good idea.

I did the CAA one three years ago. Again a massive amount of reading in three months - 103 books (171 must have been a slog). Two jurors, unknown to each other until after the award. A set deadline for short list.

We were to put a list of 10 books together. My process was to give a book 25 minutes and then a rating of yes, no, maybe. After doing this for all books, I then went back and read all 103 again for another 25 minutes at another point in each book, and, yes, some of my assessments changed - a different poetry mood on different days. This process resulted from the unduly tough, short time frame I was given.

Then I read the yes and maybe books, perhaps 40, completely. Then agonized for a long time over my top 10 list and had it in on the appointed day. Here's the interesting thing: each of our top 10 list included, if you can believe it, 6 of the same books. One had to be dropped for a rules thing, leaving 5.

We were to rank each in numerical order by a specified day. Again, hard to believe, we ranked the books completely oppositely, meaning no winner, and more jurying. Each of us brought one other book back in for discussion. As neither of us would budge on our 1 to 5, horse trading began and one of the two books was picked. It was a worthy winner. All would have been - but there are no ties in awards.

Please note that while we were under much pressure - the volume of books - to complete our duties on specified-in-advance dates, that was the only pressure. We could choose as we wanted.

After the award, I contacted all 11 people on my top 10 list, writing a review of each of their books, and telling them how much I enjoyed reading their work. I put each review on my dcreid.ca and also on Amazon.ca. Ten of the 11 were overjoyed that I would reach out and do this. I also wrote reviews on many other unique books and sent them to the publishers, who were very happy.

After the award, I learned who my fellow juror was. Here is the interesting thing: it does not matter which stream of poetry you work in, it is possible to see excellence in all streams. The other juror is mainstream narrative, lyrical. I am associative, but not sure I would say experimental/avante garde, perhaps only that I exist beside the mainstream.

Of the six that were the same, all of them were formalist poetry. That gives an indication of how strong that newish stream, The New Canon and all that, was in Canadian poetry. I had never had any interest in formalism, it was just that these books had the most juice. They were obviously the best.

Sorry to go on so long.

D
_________________
---------------------

Anna Yin

《爱的灯塔-星子安娜双语诗选》
<Nightlights> <Seven Nights with the Chinese Zodiac> ...

http://annapoetry.com