Marc Kelly Smith, who started the poetry slam (in Chicago, of course!), envisioned it as "a subversive, thumb-your-nose-at-authority movement, and he wants to ensure it stays true to those origins," according to an article in the NY Times .

quote:

“At the beginning, this was really a grass-roots thing about people who were writing poetry for years and years and years and had no audience,” Mr. Smith said recently, just before his weekly Sunday night slam at the Green Mill. “Now there’s an audience, and people just want to write what the last guy wrote so they can get their face on TV. Well, O.K., but that’s not what people in this country, from Marc’s point of view, need. We’ve got too much of that. This show wasn’t started to crank out that kind of thing.”

Not many would complain that their idea is "snowballing out of control," but Smith is.

Of course, not all agree (especially academics) that poetry slams are positive for poetry. However, it is clear they are here to stay. Even Obama had a slam of sorts at the White House, though they called it a "poetry jam" to avoid the boisterous atmosphere associated with the slams.

Have you been to a poetry slam? Thoughts about them?

At the moment there is a series of programs on TV here promoting poetry. One of the ones I saw had a short segment of Gryf Rhys Jones attending a poetry slam. I didn't care for it very much. The predominant style of poetry in the, admittedly short, clip was political rap. I don't know if this was typical or if it was simply that one, but it seemed to me that someone trying to recite a quiet thoughtful poem which hand no political point to make, wouldn't have had a very good time there.

The problem to me seemed to be the very competitive nature of it. The event was more gladiatorial than literary.

I do read sometimes at a group where in an evening five people will read selections from their poetry or prose and it's terrific. I used to do mainly travel related prose but the last couple of times switched to poetry. It's usually gone down very well but I wouldn't want to do it if I felt I was competing against the others. It's only fun because there is no sense of trying to beat anyone else.

I wish when you were here, Bob, that we would have gone to Kelly's Green Mill Cocktail Lounge to observe a slam. It would have been fun, I am sure.

I think the slams served a purpose, and in some cases continue to serve a purpose. I think the purpose is to attract non-traditional poets to the genre, and to give them some exposure to the public eye, albiet not the entire public. I have seem slams at the library attract teen men who normally wouldn't come to library programs. It is often competitive because the young people who participate like competition, and frankly, seem to know no other way to perform.

I don't like slams much for many of the same reasons you bring up, Bob. I don't think that poetry (same with storytelling, music, etc) should be competitive because appreciation of such things is subjective. The content of the poems can influence your judgment of the poem and poet, as well.

While I think it is possible to "judge" or "grade" such works of art against some set of pre-determined technical criteria, many such works are not simply a sum of their technical parts. With all of the emotion and personality infused into them, you can often find works that are technically poor which speak to vast numbers of people, thus making them worthy of reward, IMHO.

So - in answer to the original question - I do think that some "slams" have gone soft in order to get a wider audience, but I can tell you that, down in the 'hood of Columbus, the original-type slams are still alive and kickin'.