Although I feel very exhausted after our last “live show”, we have another one scheduled for 9 May – on the subject of the disaster at the Chernobyl nuclear power station of the night of 25/26 April, 1986.
We do already have a script, but, as usual, are keen to update and improve it.
Hence – this competition, to “audition” for poems. I realize that this is a VERY specialized subject, and that many members of Allpoetry will be too young to remember the accident - but I feel sure that at least some of the older generation will have relevant poems somewhere in their files.
The competition will close on - and be judged on - 5 May. Poets whose work is short-listed will then receive further details about submitting it for final consideration for the show.
PLEASE READ THESE RULES CAREFULLY
1) Poems should focus closely on Chernobyl, the accident and its aftermath. Please do not use this as an excuse for whingeing about your own personal problems – unless they ARE in fact Chernobyl-related.
2) Poems must be “publication-ready”. Any entry that carries the message that the author plans to revise it have to be disqualified. Conversely, there will be bonus points for relevant “previously written” entries.
3) Poems should be suitable for use in a live show, so please avoid "poesie concrete", acrostics and other pieces that depend for their effect on "eye-impact".
4) Optimal length 10 -50 lines; though micropoems of less than 10 lines are still acceptable, if of spectacular quality.
5) You may enter as many poems as you wish - provided they are relevant.
6) Please submit poems in black typing on a PLAIN white (or at the worst pale pastel) background. Fancy backgrounds and bizarre colour-schemes cannot turn a weak poem into a strong one - they merely make it harder to read. And - a fortiori - PLEASE no flashing, glittering or "dancing" backgrounds as they can trigger migraine - and I cannot therefore risk reading them.
.
7) As usual with my competitions, entrants are requested NOT to comment on each others' work until the competition has been judged and the results announced. There will be the usual bonus points for entrants who wait to make such comments until the competition is over.
If you are not prepared to leave your work available for comment for, say, two weeks after the competition closes, then it would be better not to enter.
I am at present putting in only the minimum 400 points for first place. If, as I hope, sufficient poems of merit are entered, there will be additional points for runners up.
We do already have a script, but, as usual, are keen to update and improve it.
Hence – this competition, to “audition” for poems. I realize that this is a VERY specialized subject, and that many members of Allpoetry will be too young to remember the accident - but I feel sure that at least some of the older generation will have relevant poems somewhere in their files.
The competition will close on - and be judged on - 5 May. Poets whose work is short-listed will then receive further details about submitting it for final consideration for the show.
PLEASE READ THESE RULES CAREFULLY
1) Poems should focus closely on Chernobyl, the accident and its aftermath. Please do not use this as an excuse for whingeing about your own personal problems – unless they ARE in fact Chernobyl-related.
2) Poems must be “publication-ready”. Any entry that carries the message that the author plans to revise it have to be disqualified. Conversely, there will be bonus points for relevant “previously written” entries.
3) Poems should be suitable for use in a live show, so please avoid "poesie concrete", acrostics and other pieces that depend for their effect on "eye-impact".
4) Optimal length 10 -50 lines; though micropoems of less than 10 lines are still acceptable, if of spectacular quality.
5) You may enter as many poems as you wish - provided they are relevant.
6) Please submit poems in black typing on a PLAIN white (or at the worst pale pastel) background. Fancy backgrounds and bizarre colour-schemes cannot turn a weak poem into a strong one - they merely make it harder to read. And - a fortiori - PLEASE no flashing, glittering or "dancing" backgrounds as they can trigger migraine - and I cannot therefore risk reading them.
.
7) As usual with my competitions, entrants are requested NOT to comment on each others' work until the competition has been judged and the results announced. There will be the usual bonus points for entrants who wait to make such comments until the competition is over.
If you are not prepared to leave your work available for comment for, say, two weeks after the competition closes, then it would be better not to enter.
I am at present putting in only the minimum 400 points for first place. If, as I hope, sufficient poems of merit are entered, there will be additional points for runners up.
Contest is Over
- Contest was judged on May 5
- Rewards: Gold: 1000, Silver: 500
- Final notes: Only three entries for this competition - but WHAT entries. Right to the point, and superbly written.
I have no hesitation in increasing the points to 1000 for 1st place and 500 for second.
Nothing, alas for 3rd place, since the poet had (technically) disqualified himself by appending a request for critiques since he intented to revise it. (Remember: the whole purpose of this competition was to assemble poems for a live show to be given this coming Saturday - so obviously there will be no time for revision - and, as stated in the rules, poems had to be submitted as "publication-ready").
In second place, "Chernobyl" is a strong and splendidly written piece. However, it does fail a little on its physics. For the RBMK reactor, and indeed, all nuclear reactors to date, are powered by nuclear fission - i.e. the radioactive "decay" of the nuclei of certain "heavy" elements. But the sun's power comes from nuclear fusion - the combination of nuclei of the lightest element - hydrogen - to form heavier ones. At present the possibility of producing a reactor run on nuclear fusion - the power of the sun in the strictest sense- is only a scientists' dream!
(I apologize to the "nuclear cognoscenti" for this VERY simplified explanation).
Less than perfect, or even erroneouss, science does not, of course, detract from literary merit (else who would read Dante nowadays?) Even so... for a live show, where stopping for explanations would break the artistic tension, we do need poems that are free from factual ambiguities.
In first place, a poem that focuses directly on the errors and omissions surriunding the accident. Here, the formal pattern and repetition not only gives it structural strength, but also sounds as it were, a recurring warning bell as the story unfolds. The step-by-step errors and over-rides - all individually logical-seeming - of those hours of count-down - were, one might say, the result of deliberate decisions (for oh so justifiable reasons) to ignore such a bell...
Really brilliant writing - backed by sound research and and an understanding that pierces to the heart of these events - and their aftermath...
In fact, I have only one minor point of criticism... I prefer, for reasons that should be obvious, the Ukrainian spelling of "Prypiat",,with a short "i" sound ("y" in standard transliteration) in the first syllable!
Apart from that... really splendid...
Thank you!
Contest Winners
-
When safety tests were signed but not performed
The foolishness could hardly be deniedby cricketjeff 15 lines, 7 comments, on Apr 26 11:21 AM. In Thoughts, Chernobyl, disaster, echo sonnet
Gold trophy winner
• Viewed by judge. [remove]
Silver trophy winner
Entries [4]
-
In the flames they saw greed,
They saw desire,by Blueskywonder 19 lines, 1 comment, on Apr 26 5:10 PM. In Thoughts• Not viewed by judge. -
On a scale of one to ten
The complexity of juggling two balls• Viewed by judge.
Add a comment
Comments
-
It sounds good. I enjoy the subject and lecture on it. But, if I did not return comments to others I feel it would be rude. I wish you the very best with your contest and look forward to reading the entries.
Mike -
Thank-you for your kind comments
I have changed the spelling of Prypiat in the title
I had hoped to complete a rather more serious poem for you but I got a little bogged down in detail and was in danger of producing a seven volume report in rhyme ...
Jeff -
Thanks for the silver trophy. Apologies for my lack of nuclear knowledge - science was never my strong point. I did, however, have a copy of Tom Atom and his Magic Domes as a child, which probably accounts for my ignorance. I wish I'd kept it -might be worth a bit on e-bay by now.
http://www.anewlookatoldbooks.com/articles.php?ID=16 -
Apologies
Thanks very much for a thought provoking and challenging exercise.
I am really sorry that I erred in my submission. The suggestion that I would revise the piece was, unfortunately, an artefact generated by the system as a result of asking for a critical review . I have found in the past that if one does not ask for criticism one does not learn much.
with best regards,
vic
Adding your comment:
