As near as I can judge, many critics/judges look at poems through the same ancient 'window' of: Is it a creation, a work complete in itself, an entity? Or does it have a universal point to make, societal reverberations; (remembering that potential personal improvement used to be a decisive factor.)

How would you 'judge' an entry in a competition, or even a submission to a given publication? What would you look for, to set one poem apart from another?

Well Cynthia, this is the sort of question that will inevitably cause or reveal a difference of opinion from a broad range of literary practitioners. How indeed would you judge 1st, 2nd and 3rd place from a competition and is this approach to poetry valid and meaningful? I mean should we also have a set time for the piece to be written down-that would certainly be exciting! Generally, my view is that poetry is not in any sense a competitive sport and for that reason I do not enter competitions but should I be in a position to judge or indeed seperate the wheat from the chaff I should at least have some basic remit (subject matter, theme or idea) from which to base my choice. Because that would be an essential determinant-does it fulfill the brief. Failing that one is left floundering in a sea of personal bias, where poets as a whole are not specifically the best judges either of their own work or the work of others-being in my view partial to one particular view or another. Some would ask with regard to content, style, form and some would wish to be entertained, amused or tickled by what the poem had to convey. Clearly, at some time poetry judges were themselves poets and gain their insights and understanding from having written poetry themselves?

This might be interesting in the context of this thread, Cynthia; comments made by competition judge Esther Morgan at the Ledbury poetry festival at the weekend:

POEMS that have “a spark of something”. That’s what Ledbury poetry competition judge Esther Morgan was looking for when she first started sorting through the boxes of entries for last year’s festival competition, she said at the festival on Sunday. It’s always interesting to hear poetry competition judges explain their selection process. Morgan went on: “The boxes have arrived, and they’re sat in my study. First, I set aside those poems that had a spark of something, a chance of a second read-through. At the end of that process I had about 70 poems that I wanted to revisit. That’s when the hard work begins. You have to probe at the poems a bit more, be more critical. There were poems that I really liked, but they suffered from a flat ending, lacked an urgency, felt that they didn’t actually need to be written.” She added: “I am not a fan of the too highly polished, the too ostentatiously clever, the too neat. There were some poems that felt overworked. There is a frisson of strangeness when you read a really successful poem. I’d rather be puzzled and unnerved by a poem, than be too admiring of it. All these [winning and shortlisted] poems had a gleam of fresh perception about them.”

Hi Cynthia,
this a timely topic, I have just had a judge's report posted on SLQ for a quarterly competition. Process laid out there, link below, but in the end it came down to 3 things for me, allowing my critical eye has been sharpened over the years: Was it readable, Was it poetic, Did I like it? Keats': "poetry should strike you as a remembrance of your highest thoughts" always has bearing, though interpreted for my own understanding and, any poem should speak to us on some level, after all, we are all connected by the same 3 million year old man - or androgynous ape - in the back of the mind, watching over consciousness: however, in the final analysis, as the philosopher said, we discover only ourselves.

SLQ May 2014 Poetry Competition adjudication report: http://sentinelquarterly.com/

Bearing in mind Jeremy Paxman`s remarks about
poets addressing each other and the need for poetry to get back to the people, and also the furore about Adlestrop and his remarks about academics this is an interesting thread.

I agree with Dominic`s remark about the need for a poem to speak to `us` (the `connected` us).

Regading Esther Morgan`s `frisson`: I am often struck when, in the middle of a boring poetry
night, someone reads a poem and you can actually almost feel the `frisson` in the room (and how often that poem has some sort of `universal` appeal)

About `overworked` poems: I would say that most poems are `underworked` and need more of that attention to content, style and form that leonidas talks about.

About Cynthia`s` `is` and `does`: I think that it is the depth of a poem`s `is` that makes us feel the universality of the `societal reverberations` of what the poem is about.

I can't help thinking it all comes down to personal taste, which might seem like an obvious thing to say. But once all the supposedly objective and technical criteria have been taken in to account, by any human judge, all that remains is the undeniably decisive question; do I like it?

I like to think i can tell bad poetry from good; but the number of times i've been left cold by garlanded work, published in and by respectable magazines and presses, makes me wonder.

I think Leonidas' point ''that poetry is not in any sense a competitive sport and for that reason [he does] not enter competitions'' is entirely apt. I admit i currently have some poems up for consideration, but i only want the prize money beacause i'm skint.

I have never entered a poetry competition willingly or voluntarily in order to promote myself, I may have attended a poetry event in which competition has been the main thrust but not conjoined in the same competitive spirit myself.
I am extremely suspicious of today’s stand-up performers, partly because it involves a certain intolerable narcissism that I find uncomfortable and because it is a psychological high-wire act rather than a literary endeavour.
As a visual artist I have only exhibited my work or “myself” on three different occasions-and thereafter ceased to attend the opening nights.
However, with respect to the discussion-in many respects it is often easy to illustrate how poetry works analytically but often difficult to ascertain in which way and on whom or when it would work without direct reference to the particular and the universal ideas and images it conjures up as well as the thoughts or feelings it evokes in the listener. I can therefore understand the abstract criteria a judge would employ when choosing a “winner”, eg: sparks.

'...a poem is not its words or its images, any more than a symphony is its notes or a river its drops of water. Poetry depends on the moving relations within itself. It is an art that lives in time, expressing and evoking the moving relation between the individual consciousness and the world. The work that the poem does is a transfer of human energy, and I think human energy may be defined as consciousness, the capacity to make changes in existing conditions'.

-- Muriel Rukeyser 1913-1980

I don't tend to enter poetry competitions so am probably not best qualified to judge one. Howevet, I would probably go with the 'frisdon" thing. Something that tells me something I already know in a way I'm too familiar with is unlikelyto get my vote. s for 'finish', I think an awful lot of poems are overpolished because thete's nothing but that external skill to hold you to the poem. It is thus boring and all the polish in the world won't make it any more or less interesting. The time to stop digging is when the thing is burief.

Competition and "contest" (with protagonist and antagonist viz: winners and losers) are really dramatic vehicles and thus involve "playing" not necessarilly "acting" or characterisation. I find that if I am attempting to write poetry that I am already competing with myself, this is far more challenging than seeing myself in competition with someone else. Glories attained or trophies acquired generally are short-lived at least in the eyes of the public. The public as far as I am concerned are my greatest enemy and as society is geared do not generally endorse my capacities as a poet or "performer". So, who should poets turn to recieve accolades at the end of the day? The layman or the so-called experts?

Perhaps another way of doing it is to allow the reading of other people's poetry out in a random draw or selection without reference to their actual identity and then see what the outcome is in terms of appreciation?

The real problem here is the competition, not the poetry.
As soon as the element of competition is added to artistic work (poetry, art, sculpture,writing etc) the outcome can only be a matter of someone's personal taste.
The Mona Lisa didn't win any art competitions to my knowledge but is one of the most viewed works in the world.
What if it had been up against one of the other Old Masters (chronology permitting) and had come a short second. It would forever be known thus.
What poetry needs is fewer competitions and more adventurous poetry book editors who scour the land (and the Internet) for fine work.
Competitions have helped to classify poetry in a poorer way. The same goes for poetry slams for which I have no love.
Performance poetry is all well and good for those with the confidence and personality to want to be in the spotlight, but slams (the clue is in the title) to my mind achieve little.
As to too refined poetry, the spellchecker would be a good start for many.

I have to agree that poetry is not a competitive sport. Like others have said it comes down to personal taste and it's very difficult to judge two pieces against each other.