The Jury Deliberates:

Alex Good: The past two years we've had unanimous jury picks, not only for the best but also for the worst books on the list. I'm sure that's not going to happen this year. So let's put our cards on the table.

I have to say first of all that I thought this was a strong short list. Not from top-to-bottom, but close. I liked all of the Killer B's: Babstock, Bachinsky, and Brand. If I had to pick between them (and I guess I do) I put Babstock's Airstream Land Yacht at the top of the list. There are some really terrific poems in that book. And while I know it's a throwaway critical comment, I think it's probably the only one of these books we'll still be reading ten years from now. I would rank Inventory second. It's a surprisingly coherent and challenging statement. I liked Home of Sudden Service a lot, but I just didn't think it had the same weight. I wasn't getting as much out of it the second time through. 

I liked Stumbling in the Bloom more than either of you - but obviously that isn't saying much. I thought it was inconsistent at best. There seemed to be a lot there that either still needed work or had been worked on too much already. I'm not sure it makes a difference in the end.

The Good Bacteria was really weak in every department.

So that's how I'd rank them.

Alex Boyd: In terms of picking a winner, I'd have been happy to see either the Bachinsky or the Brand win. I felt a strength in the Bachinsky poems I thought was maybe a little raw, but very sincere, and I liked the Brand for having strong, relevant moments, and of course her body of work should be recognized as well. But both of these books felt relevant to me, and the Brand is clearly handing the ball to the reader, in terms of doing something about this teetering world: "I have nothing soothing to tell you, / that's not my job."

I think Babstock is a talented guy, but I appreciated his earlier work more, his latest wasn't my cup of tea. It feels disconnected from the average reader a little, as though Babstock is just floating around out there somewhere. And maybe it could be argued poetry doesn't have an average or typical reader anymore, but I think that's something it should fight against. The Thesen book has moments, but like the Babstock I think it could have been shorter, stronger, and more relevant. And Pass, well, I'm forced to maintain it's a very poor book of poems.

Katherine: While Brand's book is the one that really has set me spinning, and I would have been happy had she won, I wanted the award to go to Babstock. While I'm personally not on board with the content, it's a heck of a swell ride, and I
really felt like it was Babstock's turn. Brand has had a lot of recognition, and one GG to her name already.

Let the market reward books written for the average reader, if such a creature exists.

Babstock is, for all intents and purposes, a working-class poet. He didn't pursue his studies in the halls of academe. He just read a lot, and pushed his burning questions as far as he could take them. Anyone with access to google & wikipedia can look up any of the references in his works, as I did. Or find reviews and interviews with him where he discusses the philosophical background to the book. Heck, anyone who's seen The Matrix has to be familiar with questions about the nature of the conscious mind, and just how much reality there is outside of it.

Why should we punish poets for elevating the discussion? For engaging with leading ideas of the time?  I may be approaching the issues from a very different place than Babstock, but I wholly support his engagement of them. What's irrelevant about the nature of consciousness? I mean, we all have one, right? And these questions are only going to become more relevant as time goes on, and intelligent machines give us a run for our money.

Bachinksy's book is lovely. But Brand and Babstock's projects were both more ambitious, and as I said earlier, I think their reaches met their grasps. And there's no doubt in my mind that Bachinsky's name is going to be on jurors' lips in years to come.

Alex Boyd: I think the market doesn't often reward any kind of poetry book. That's the problem, and that's what makes it a little too easy, at times, for poetry to pick up all its toys and go play in the corner, alone and unnoticed.

The nature of consciousness is a worthwhile idea, and I believe you're right that intelligent machines will start giving us a run for our money. But first we have to get past rampant capitalism, huge injustices, ongoing pools of resentment, terrorism, and a climate crisis that could conceivably end everything. In a world like that I think it becomes hard to justify John Pass poems about sleepy bees. Babstock is forcing more complex philosophical questions into the shape of a poem, and I don't question his talent, but I found the poems over-written and lacking urgency so that they just sort of washed over me on first reading it. Some will want to pore over it to dig for more rewards, some won't. Some will love the language, and others will expect a different kind of content. I can't help but feel that the amazing thing about poetry is its ability to put these remarkable stabs of empathy out there, that they communicate something important, and that this is increasingly critical in our current world.  Of course, I'm not trying to suggest only one kind of poetry should be written, I'm just explaining my reaction, and it's hard to avoid dragging my own beliefs into it. I acknowledge it's hard for me to be objective about this one, and that's why I say the book wasn't my cup of tea rather than insisting it isn't for anyone.

In short, I never called the Babstock book irrelevant. But as one reader, I couldn't connect with it the way I could the Brand, or Bachinsky.

Alex Good: Well, I liked the Babstock but I can also see where you're coming from Alex. There are times when he seems to be trying to cast himself as the next Wallace Stevens. And I really hope he doesn't go down that road. One Stevens was (more than) enough.

I'm not sure where we stand here, other than that Pass and Thesen are out.

Katherine: Sorry, Alex you're right. You didn't say they were irrelevant. I overstated my case. But you did wish they were more relevant. And I still maintain that they are, and that questions about the human mind are urgent and political. I think this may be more of a question of approach than content. For that matter, I don't have any problems with Pass writing poems about bees and flowers (he does, as you recall, also write poems about 9/11). I have a problem with him writing bad poems about bees and flowers.

That's why Brand's positioning of a litany of the good things in the world in Inventory is so interesting to me.

Well, then. How about Brand? She's come up as first or second on all of our lists.

Alex Boyd: No worries, Katherine. I think it's fair to say it's Babstock's job to grab the reader. And he didn't grab this one, that's all I'm trying to say. It made the poems less relevant, for me. But at the same time, I'm not a particularly egocentric person so I'm interested to acknowledge that some readers will be engaged by these poems.

And I agree, the problem with Pass is that he writes poorly, not what he writes about. Even in his 9/11 poems, he doesn't seem to know how to shape a poem, moving (in "Ground Zero") from scaffolding, to cat shit, to flowers. And while the reader can make certain leaps and connections reading the Babstock, Pass just comes across like he's rambling. Or at least, it's all very heavy-handed and awkward, somehow. Babstock has grace, but Pass just shovels things into a poem.

So, if we have to reach a consensus, and no one will support my nomination of Bachinsky, I'm fine with either Brand, or, yes, Babstock. He's a poet with a lot of talent who crafts his work very carefully. I just hope I like the book a lot better, next time around.

Alex Good: Is it Brand then? I think she came second on all our lists, unless I'm misreading one of you. Which would make her a true compromise candidate, but one I have no problem with. I hate to seem this easy about it but I really liked all three of the B's. I'd be happy to see any of those books win.

So . . . the prize goes to Inventory. Along with a virtual cheque for some astronomic yet fictional amount.

Which brings us to the final part of our discussion, an evaluation of the job the "real jury" did.

I have to give them some credit for picking a pretty good short list. But, as always, they gave the prize to the wrong book: Stumbling in the Bloom. Now personally I thought Stumbling in the Bloom was a bit better than the last two GG winners, but my disappointment with the jury's selection was greater this year because they had three strong alternatives. What I guess I'm saying is that their choice struck me as even more perverse than usual. I find it odd how the same jury that could pick a decent short list could end up giving the prize to such a flawed work.

On the other hand, I'm not surprised. All kinds of other factors come into consideration when judging these things. Let's face it, there's no way Bachinsky was going to win. Too young, and it's only her second book. I had already written off Brand too. She's a previous winner. I thought Babstock, who I don't think anyone could describe as an outsider any more, had an outside chance. But going into it I figured it was going to be between Pass and Thesen.

I feel kind of cynical doing this kind of analysis, but obviously I think the jury blew the call and I'm just throwing out the most likely explanation of how it happened.

Alex Boyd: I'm not sure what to add here, except I'm disappointed the John Pass title won, it's really the only one I didn't want to see win. I don't know exactly how the system works, but it does seem boring titles are rewarded, and I don't see how this is good for poetry, given that someone who doesn't normally buy poetry might go out and pick up the GG winner.  Emily Dickinson used to say she felt knocked sideways by good poetry, or kicked in the head (actually, I'm sure she didn't say kicked in the head), but either way, I think she meant knocked out of your perspective and into another, and Pass is just too comfortable and conversational to be writing compelling poetry, there's too much of himself in his poems. But thanks for having me, Alex, it was interesting.

Katherine: I really thought it was going to be Babstock's year. Given the West Coast heavy short list and jury, I thought perhaps Brand and Babstock might get shut out, especially since the Toronto B's will be strong contenders for the Trillium and Griffin awards. I'm still left scratching my head. I've been uninspired by the winners before, but I've always understood how that happens. Consensus can drive you to the middle. But I've never seen it drive a jury off the deep-end.

It has, indeed, been a pleasure, and thank you for the invitation and work you did to put this together, Alex G, and for the opportunity to talk poetry with both of you.