Don't want to sound like a petty critic of local arts, but I have to be honest here. Nothing that Mr Koh wrote struck a resonant chord with me.

It really look like he just wrote paragraphs about some observation and then broke it into lines.

OK, I concede. It is not his fault. It is just the uncultured boorish philistine of a Singaporean that I am. I guess I cannot tell real poetry when it kicks me in the posterior.
Maybe I should try reading the poem eleven times while listening to baroque music. Maybe I should have the poetry for dummies book to tell me exactly what kind of nuances and word play I should look out for.

Here's my gripe. I doubt if the crowds thronging the Globe when the Bard was performing went in there armed with Cliff's notes.

Should I even dare to presume that I might be the little boy who pointed out that the Emperor was indeed naked?

More like sour grapes to me. :)

Nah. Sour grapes is if I actually think that what he wrote was great stuff and am envious that I couldn't do the same meself and made disparaging remarks that belied my real respect for his abilities.

What I was trying to say, and I have to stress that it is pretty much my own opinion, is that for the life of me, I cannot figure out what's so great about his poetry. As opposed to say Byron or Pope or Tennyson.

Only stoogies will gush at every award winner without reflecting objectively or subjectively (as in this case) whether it was deserved. And it hardly seems reasonable to label every case of a dissenting opinion as being 'sour grapes'

Having said all that, I do agree that the first reading of my opinion on Mr Gilbert Koh would likely provoke this used-to-death phrase. :)

Presumably the people who awarded his work -do- know what good poetry is. It's not an assumption that may be fair or even objective, but I'm willing to wager they'd be able to justify their choice beyond what I can objectively do - which goes a little beyond "I like it" or "I don't like it".

Certainly I don't feel qualified to comment on his poetry. I'm just happy Gilbert got recognised for his poetry as a - dare I say it - friend (at the very least, casual acquaintance). Likewise, I hardly consider it fair to say that every man who congragulates Gilbert is a worthless sycophant - surely a person must be entitled to give his congragulations without necessarily making judgement on the merits of the occassion?

If you have a critique, I'd like to hear it. I'm fairly sure Gilbert would like to hear it too - I doubt he's shy about criticism.

Hi Anthony, firstly, I do think of you as a friend too, although we have never actually met in real life. :)

As for Dobermani, well, you're fully entitled to your opinion (and I mean that sincerely), but I just want to make some observations:

When you mention Byron, Tennyson, Shakespeare etc as your role models of poetry, I get a sense of where your poetic sensibilities and preferences lie. And if my sense is correct, then I admit freely that you will most likely find it very difficult, perhaps impossible, to enjoy my poetry.

To compare a contemporary poet like myself to Byron, Tennyson etc is like comparing a contemporary singer e.g Clay Aiken/Bruce Springsteen, to long-dead musicians such as Beethoven/Mozart. In my view, these are not meaningful comparisons.

If the idea is to gauge Aiken/Springsteen as musicians, surely it would be more meaningful to compare them to other contemporary performers. For example, you could say:

"I have a poor opinion of Clay Aiken's singing. This year's new American Idol is much better."; or

"Springsteen sucks, compared to Eric Clapton on the electric guitar."

And those would be more sensible comparisons than saying:

"Clay is no good, he just doesn't sound like Mozart"; or

"Bruce's latest rock album lacks the grandeur of Beethoven's 5th symphony."

Times change, music evolves, the whole world moves on ..... So does language, and so does poetry. Thus I find it odd that you seek to gauge my poetry by comparing it to Tennyson or Byron. If you had compared me to other contemporary poets and said something like:

"I can't see what's so great about Gilbert Koh's poetry. As opposed to, say, Alfian Saat or Derek Walcott or Seamus Heaney."

... now, that sounds a lot more sensible to me.

Of course it may be the case that you simply do not like contemporary poetry (and this means that my works will never appeal to you, and neither will Alfian Saat's nor Derek Walcott's or Seamus Heaney's). That's okay. It's just a question of taste. There are many people, I'm sure, who love classical music but are clueless about contemporary pop/rock. And vice versa.

Derek Walcott and Seamus Heaney, by the way, are Nobel Prize-winning poets; and earlier this year, one of my poems was published in an American anthology alongside with their works. This I consider to be an honour as great as winning the Golden Point Award itself.

Pardon the namedropping. It's just my way to hopefully encourage you to take a second look at my works, and maybe, just maybe, who knows, you might see something worthwhile. I really don't think I'm the naked emperor. My poems have been accepted for publication by so many poetry editors in different countries that if my poems are really worthless, then I must be the con artist masquerading as a master tailor, rather than the emperor himself. :)

sGilbert, thank you for considering my comments worthy of a reply.

Good twist on the naked emperor analogy. I don't get enough of such repartee's in my daily communications.

I agree that where taste is concerned, I did grow up loving the classics and find myself having little patience with contemporary works. (Perhaps in another hundred years?) Conversely, I find it difficult to understand Basho but love the modern day bastards that this literary form has spawned.

Methinks that that comparing genres as opposed to within genres is a legit way of accessing poetry or music for that matter. Eg, I really cannot stand Rave, although ravers might ask me to reconsider their music in the light of the likes of Paul Van Dyk.

I guess I still chaff at the privileging of high art over popular art. Nobel Winning it might be, but methinks that the cabal of judges selecting the winners grew up in a different kampung from this philistine of a heartlander.

Dober-huh-mani :)

I understand what you mean about the judges - your assessment about their backgrounds probably has some truth - however, I think that the judges are a lot more open to different styles of writing than you might assume.

When Alfian Saat won this award in 2001, his star work was a very long poem entitled "Eight Ways of Looking At A Banana". Using bananas as his central image, he wrote about erectile dysfunction; oral sex; constipation; a transsexual who wanted to have a penis; and a few other topics like that. The subject-matter was very un-"high art", (you would think), but the judges awarded him the first prize anyway.

Hey Gilbert

Thanks! Now I gotta look at that banana poem.

I just wanted to add that in my view, it does take quite a bit of luck to win the Golden Point Award.

Out of 200 entries, it is not that difficult to identify the 185 entries which clearly should not be the winner. Out of the 15 remaining entries, it is a lot harder to narrow down to the last 6 or 7 candidates.

When you look at the last 6 or 7 candidates, it becomes like an advanced stage of American Idol. Everybody can sing, everyone looks cool on stage, everyone can perform. It becomes quite a subjective question as to who deserves the top spot. And this is where the luck element comes in.

I got lucky. :)

Well then to paraphrase Napolean, congrats on striking 4D then!