DeepAsleep
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2004
- Posts
- 774
I'm not trying to be contentious here, DA, but isn't the goal of slam to win the competition? And if you've got some thing you do that works, shouldn't you use it? So if this guy can win consistently, whatever you think about the quality of his poems as poems, what's wrong with that?
Finnegans Wake is never going to outsell The Da Vinci Code, however much more merit it has as Art. (Yeah, that's debatable. OK, OK. Pick some other artsy novel: War and Peace, Pride and Prejudice, Infinite Jest—the principle's the same.)
Correct me if I'm wrong—slam is performance, competition, judged by the audience. May the most popular gal or guy win.
Occasionally great art is popular (can you say "Dickens"?), but I think that's unusual.
Bless you for wanting it to be that way, though.
Well, the slam motto is, "The points are not the point. The point is poetry." If someone's winning with what are not poems in the "use of metaphor/figurative language" sense, do they deserve my respect? No. Will I speak out against bad art? Yes.
Also, performance AND content are the two stated criteria for judging a slam. The problem is an audience that often knows nothing about poetry.
Still - Yes, it's a competition - Omaha, as a scene is unusually focused on new work, for example. Everyone expects you to bring new stuff on a fairly consistent basis - three to five months being approximately the window on a solid piece, with exceptions for city championships and team finals, where it gets fairly cutthroat (though I take exception when people who haven't written new poems in years come in with the same, tired old shit, but that's a personal gripe that I mostly keep away from the scene.)
And I admit I'm biased. I haven't seriously competed since I got back, because I dislike where slam is often focused. I enjoy it, but I don't write to that form, and I have objections to a lot of things about it, as a whole. So, I perform, some, and I'm getting ready to start coaching a teen slam team.