[New-Poetry] Bob Grumman, do you have . . .

[Bob Grumman]

Judy Prince wrote:
> a copy of your WEPD checklist?  Or, rather, each of the revisions plus 
> the original?
>
> I told WOMPOs that you had a WEPD checklist for evaluating poetry, and 
> one of the WOMPOs asked if I had a copy but I cannot find it.
>
> It was lovely fun and horrible agony while it lasted, that ole WEPD.  
>
> Best,
>
> Judy
Sorry I took so long to reply, Judy--got side-tracked.  Anyway, here is 
the final form.  I keep meaning to do an essay on it, but haven't gotten 
to it.  Dunno how much I go along with it, but I still think it as valid 
as any like list I'm familiar with.  Note: "For a Consensus of Informed 
Opinion" can be substituted for what's in the second set of parentheses, 
and the first text in parentheses deleted.

*A Poem Is Excellent (F/or an Engagent of It/)/ /Regardless of How Long 
Halfwits Have Praised or Dismissed It If (For That Engagent) It:
*
(1) results in an experience of something importantly beautiful;

(2) is clear, but not easily clear, nor ever finally fully clear:

(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 or other matter;

(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 predictable language, imagery, sentiment, 
ideation,
technique and structural methodology.

--Bob Grumman

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://wiz.cath.vt.edu/pipermail/new-poetry/attachments/20090601/47468c5b/attachment.html