I was delighted to be asked to be a part of Poetry Out Loud this year, first as prompter for the Springfield-area regional, which did not include a high school in Springfield (danged if I know why not; I respect the organizers’ approach) and as one of four judges at the state-wide compettion March 6.
All poems selected by finalists were assembled into a loose-leaf binder and delivered to me Tuesday evening. My assignment was to read the 37 poems and to rate each one’s relative complexity/simplicity for memorization and recital. Criteria to guide the rating were provided in the delivered materials; no need to describe them here. The advantage for me as a judge, receiving and rating the poems early, was that my attention would be focused only on the students during the competition. This was a MAJOR improvement in the process this year. In reading the poems and rating them during a focused Wednesday evening, I was surprised that five recited by regional winners would be recited by two students, and one would be recited by three competitors from other regions. Given the profusion of poems offered to students via the published anthology and the web site, I expected to see not duplication; not that there’s anything wrong with that. Perhaps it reflects a common ethos among high school students, and credit to Poetry Out Loud that their selection of titles is in harmony with that ethos.
A personal note (HECK these are ALL personal notes!) I awoke about 4:40 on competition Thursday, and rather than waste time listening to the radio in bed. . . . . falling asleep and snoring past time when I HAD to rise to the new day, I simply started the coffee early and worked on my aviation history book production before getting ready for the big event and heading downtown. It was time well spent. I could resume comatose pronely after the party was over. And I did.
Judges and regional student advisors (grownups who accompanied the students to Springfield) met with organizers about an hour before the start of the reciting. We were told who would be reciting what poems in what order and in what rounds. This had been determined at an earlier meeting of organizers with the participating students. Judges were given individual scoring sheets for each poem recited. It was all very well organized.
Penny Wollan-Kriel, under whose astute guidance Poetry Out Loud Illinois has grown rapidly in only three years, made early introductions. Though ably assisted by a healthy retinue of Springfield Area Arts Council staff and volunteers, her efforts probably cannot be over-estimated. BRAVO, Penny! Students were introduced by equally able Master of Ceremonies David Farell, group pictures were taken and judges were introduced. We raised our hands when our names were called, much like basketball players called on fouls during a game, not that there’s any known connection. And the reciting began.
There were nine young ladies and five gentlemen from the seven regionals participating. Each student would recite one poem in each of two reliminary rounds. Five finalists would compete in a third round. After each recital, judges would mark their score sheets and Christy Steelman, the new Executive Director of SAAC would collect them; turn them over to score tally people. Also participating was an accuracy judge and a prompter. The four performance judges were from all over Illinois: one from Champaign, one from the Chicago area, your obedient blogmeister from Springfield and one from Texas. (That’s a fascinating story, but there isn’t space to share it here.)
Talented pianist Mark Vincent played popular tunes as judges scored their sheets and collections made. His ability to play tunes loosely connected to poems just recited was obvious to the accuracy judge and me several times. So when you need a talented pianist, call Mark Vincent.
Overall quality of recitals was truly a cut above typical, as one expects in a state event following regional eliminations. The best reciters, students who made the final round were, to my memory, better than the final round mix from previous years. I was impressed by the overall quality as well. NONE required prompting. I know because I asked the prompter. WOW! That “speaks” volumes about the quality of focus and preparation of the students. In short, no one “phned it in.”
That said, the range of reciting quality was wide. One, after stating name and high school, said “The first poem I want to read today is. . . . .” My guess: simple stage jitters. The quality of the recital which followed was exemplary.
There seemed to be a TRIchotomy of instruction infused into the students by their teachers/advisors. Some held their arms draped, unmoving at their sides. Others folded their hands into each other in front of htem. There is precedent for this style: the soloist, soprano singing in classic pose, the reciting poet emulating that stance. One poet seemed to be wringing hands more actively than voicing name, school and poem.
Most poets — beneficiaries of focused instruction by their teachers, I’m guessing — understood the value of gesturing with arms, hands and carriage of head, as well as positioning of the legs and feet. They would prove to be the cream of the state competition crop.
A third element, the over-dramatization of a poem by excessively labored elocution, inappropriate infusion of pathos to a phrase or gesture was manifest in only one competitor. There was no criterion for “overdoing it” in the judges’ guidlines. I simply did not rate the performance as highly as I would have, had the delivery been more attuned to “earth” and not directed to galazies beyond our own. She was a fine reciter, by the way, and she did make the final round.
Some participants dressed as though they had just come from class; others as though the competition was a special event. Neither was inappropriate, but the attention to that aspect of stage presence seemed to be reflected in a corrolary of competence in oral delivery of selected poems. The best dressed reciter won the state competition, but he did not win because of his sport coat and tie. In fact, he almost didn’t win.
Half way through first round, a particularly tall poet grasped the microphone stand and raised the microphone to his “level.” Those who followed him for the rest of the first round through the entire second round and into the final round, did not reposition the height of the extended stand. Instead, they bent the microphone down and mostly without obvious effort, spoke up and into the down-tilted device. Two students into the final round, the stand was finally readjusted to shorter height.
The poet who had knocked us over in the first two rounds, almost lost it in the final, not because of a lapse of competence, but because the poem was, quite appropriately, not as dramatic in focus or passion as poems recited earlier. Some poems allow reciters to sparkle. Other poems . . . . not even Richard Burton or Langston Hughes could breathe PERFORMANCE LIFE into them. I had a hard time with that final example. I wanted to score it higher than it merited, based on the earlier two rounds. But I didn’t. I scored the recital for what it was worth and hoped high scores from previous rounds, or the scores of other judges would result in a win for the fellow.
And they did. Mark Schmidt won state. Heidy A. Alvarado is runner up. If Mark is unable to compete at the national event in Washington, DC later this year, Heidy will attend.
It was a terrific event. I was privileged to be part of it. Those students have inspired me to commit myself to return to my own poetry following my aviation history project. When students imspire a world beyond them, as so many did at Poetry Out Loud State, that is an extraordinary accomplishment. Kudos, congratulations and thanks to every one of them!
Live long . . . . . . . . and proper.
