[New-Poetry] Excellence in Poetry: a New Check-List

[Bob Grumman]

A poem is excellent if judged at any time ten years after its 
publication to be so by a
hundred or more poetry experts using the following check-list--if no 
more than ninety-nine
such experts can be found to disagree with that judgement within ten 
years of that
judgement, a poetry expert being defined as someone who has seriously 
engaged the
works of ten or more poets (which means having read at least fifty poems 
by each)
including the works of at least one solitextual poet (poet whose works 
are solely textual)
and one pluraesthetic poet (poet whose works make significant use of 
more than one
expressive modality such as a visual poet) and has either composed fifty 
pages of poetry or
one hundred twenty pages of poetry criticism or who has been accepted as 
a poetry expert
by twenty or more poetry experts.

An Excellent Poem:

(1) expresses something importantly true or represents of something 
centrally beautiful--
assuming it doesn't do both;

(2) is at least somewhat complicated by Thematic Misdirection, or 
something that makes
its ultimate meaning or effect difficult quickly to ascertain, but 
eventually achieves Clarity;

(3) has a Unifying Principal, or some meaning or image or the like which 
pulls its elements
reasonably close together; 

(4) contains few or no superfluous words;

(5) boasts some constituent of substance that few or no other poems have 
such as
uncommon diction, grammar, expressive modality (e.g., mathematics, visual
art), and imagery;

(6) avoids excessive use of inappropriate Cliches of diction, imagery or 
thought; too overt
Sentimentality and hackneyed use of some technique or form;

Comments: I added the panel of Poetry Experts after thinking over 
Michael's assertion
that "we know that Emily's little poem is excellent because a 
significant number of people
are still willing to give their time to reading it and thinking and 
writing about it."  I agreed
at first with this, but then decided that popularity is no real evidence 
of quality.  Look at
the religious sects still incredibly popular, for instance.  And there 
are poems that have
stood :the test of time" that most genuine lovers of poetry don't think 
much of, like some
of Poe's.  I think Poe is badly under-rated, myself, but I can't believe 
that all the poems still
in anthologies and greatly enjoyed by many people are excellent. 

Note that I have proclaimed that any poem that is approved as excellent 
by my hundred or
more experts keeps its rating forever, however later generations look on 
it.  My reasoning
is that it possible, even probable, that contemporaries will find a poem 
to be excellent for
something about it later generations are no longer sensitive to, just as 
the reverse so
frequently happens.  But I do require ten years to pass for a poem to 
become eligible for
evaluation to prevent fashion or prestige from being too quickly 
influential.

Note, too, that I have ordained that a mere hundred experts can 
pronounce a poem
excellent.  That means that even if ten thousand pronounce it crap, the 
hundred win.

My six desiderata seem objective enough to me--the way laws in a 
democratic society are.
In each case something objective is examined and judged by professionals 
or the
equivalent for excellence the same way deeds are examined and judged by 
professionals or
the equivalent for lawfulness.  Some subjectivity is unavoidable, but it 
is minimized by
having specifics to judge, and expertise to counter-balance empty 
enthusiasm or unfair
antagonism. 

I added "central beauty" to number one to take care of poems that have 
no easy "truth" to
latch onto, haiku being a good example of that, and so many poems since 
1900 that I feel
the evolution of poetry has been toward greater and greater implicitness 
of meaning since
its origin and especially recently.  Side-comment: I believe poetry as a 
whole has been
improving, possibly on pace with science--because of its broadening, not 
necessarily
because of any qualitative improvement in individual poems; we have more 
words to work
with and more techniques--any more expressive modalities, so we have an 
ever-increasing
range of possible poems, which is a Good Thing.

I think I could find something importantly true in every poem I thought 
excellent, but in
many cases--"lighght," for instance--it doesn't seem worth the effort 
and representation of
central beauty is usually much easier to demonstrate (I think few could 
disagree that light
is not a central beauty of existence however little they like the poem 
celebrating it).

Number two is an addition because the constituent, suggested by Barry 
Spacks, makes
sense to me.  Number three is also an addition, because important in my 
own poetics, and
often--especially by otherstream poets--given short shrift.  Number four 
is "Compactness"
which I improved, I think, to "Conciseness," and someone else to "Economy of
Expression" or the like before I finally settled on the words here as 
doing the best job of
pinning it down.  Number 5 is the same as it was originally, I think.  
Number six is new
because I realized in the discussion so far that we were ignoring flaws 
that should keep a
poem from being excellent.

--Bob