The Sake of Slam Poetry

Every Wednesday night hundreds flock to the Starry Plough Pub in South Berkeley.  The venue is crammed with artists, college students, and hipsters of all ages anxious to be part of the weekly tradition.  No, they're not seeking the coveted seats for a concert or a renowned happy hour.  They are there for a poetry slam.

Poetry?  Like snapping beatniks and bongos?  Cigarettes and black berets?  Well, not exactly.  Though traces of the 1960s beatnik style still linger in some places, poetry readings have been modernized.  The technique that is rapidly gaining popularity throughout the nation, and arguably the world, is that of the poetry slam. 

The term poetry slam represents both a style and a format.  Slammers all have their own approach to the spoken word art form, but they generally use the same fast-paced rhythm while utilizing rhyme schemes.  The most unifying trait of the craft is the topic of the poem itself has a central theme, whether political or personal, outright or hidden.  The poet is aiming not just to grab the audience's attention, but to make a thought-provoking point, within a tight, three minute time limit.

Where a poetry slam differs from a basic poetry reading is that is it competitive.  Typically judges are selected at random from the crowd and evaluate poets for their content, relevance and stage presence.  Other rules vary from venue to venue but at the end of the night, one poet goes home with the top title.

Most literary elitists shudder when they hear the term poetry slam.  Criticisms include that the poems are full of cliches and that rhyming is childish.  Poet Paul Vermeersch adamantly opposed the slam style in his blog Rant: Why I hate slam poetry, in which he stated, "The idea... is that the flailing, stylized vocals will be interesting enough on their own that no one will notice how bad the actual writing is."

The writing of top slam poem does differ dramatically from a prized page poem.  Though the quality of a slam piece may seem simple and lackluster on paper, does it conclude the art form must be thrown out altogether?

Susan B.A. Somers-Willet defends the poetry slam in her article Can slam poetry matter?

"The serious critic must cease treating the slam as a literary novelty or oddity and recognize it for what it is: a movement which combines (and at times exploits) the literary, the performative, and the social potential of verse, and which does so with the audience as its judge and guide," said Somers-Willet.

What Somers-Willet calls the "social potential of the verse" is what gives slam poetry its momentum.  Slam gives performers the opportunity to make a case for important issues and hopefully get an emotional rise out of the audience.  The experience creates a space for intellectual enlightenment while being entertaining.  It is progressive, passionate, and fills an artistic gap within our culture.

Nonetheless, critics can argue over the quality and literary merit of the slam for days on end, but the vital aspect for all lovers of literature to recognize is that people are actually paying attention to poetry again.  By altering a literary art that typically flies under the radar, slam is helping to bring poetry to the mainstream while opening many minds along the way.