by Sonya Feher

Slam poetry has revitalized an oral tradition. Many argue that the work performed in poetry slams is not really poetry and doesn't meet page poetry's standards. The reverse argument, that poems published in journals don't deliver on stage, is almost never made. Comparisons regarding the success of page vs. stage poems shouldn't exist. It's a misguided attempt to judge the written and oral experience of poetry by the same criteria.

The slam format is a competitive performance where a person performs an original poem, without props, costumes or musical accompaniment, in three minutes and ten seconds or less. Judges score the poem on a scale of 0.0 to 10.0 based half on content and half on performance. On the page, one can observe a poet's choices regarding line breaks, end rhyme, internal rhyme, punctuation, capitalization and other technical elements. In the slam the judges must assess the poem based strictly on what they hear. Because of this, the merits of a performance poem should be evaluated differently. Performance poets guide the audience on a visceral level.

This guidance may be accomplished through different means -- including how fast one reads, where one takes a breath, or what syllable or word in a sentence one emphasizes. The performance poet has much more control over how the poem is experienced by an audience than the page poet does. This doesn't reflect on the quality of the poem, but on the variety of readers' approaches and audience perception. If I perform a poem for fifty people, the poem might resonate in those people differently, one relating to an experience expressed, another is particularly attracted to a turn of phrase. But all fifty of those people have heard the same presentation of the poem.

In page poems, if the refrain of a poem is repeated five times -- even if the line breaks are different and intend to have the reader emphasize the sound of a word or a specific syllable -- it is nearly impossible to convey to the reader how the author intends for the word to be said past what the text tells the reader. The context of a phrase might lead a reader to assume that, "Wasn't it enough?" read in a sad passage should be perceived differently than the same phrase in an angry paragraph. A poem on the page may be translated by a particular reader in one tone, and take on a different mood if read by a different reader.

When a written poem is read aloud, one can't always hear where the line break is, especially considering that authors choose to break a line based on widely varying criteria in free verse. Through these choices poets try to convey the way they want the poem to be heard. Break choices might focus on the pace, or they might be geared toward conveying multiple meanings. On the page if one reads: "Maybe, in fifty years,/I won't think/it's February." The reader might stop after "think" and read, "Maybe in fifty years, I won't think." When they go on to the next line, they become aware that the line fully reads, "I won't think it's February." In performance, a poet might pause after "I won't think" before going on to finish the line; the performer makes the decision concerning how the audience hears those lines. An audience member cannot make the choice to stop and consider the line break, pause or not pause, or read the work on different levels because the performer is reading the poem with her intended inflection, tone, pace, etc.

Devices on the page all serve to lead the reader towards a specific way of reading the poem, but these methods can be insufficient for slam poetry. Eulogy of Jimi Christ by Reggie Gibson, the 1998 National Individuals Champion, is a perfect example. In the print version published in Poetry Slam: The Competitive Art of Performance Poetry, Gibson's utilization of page devices, with the intent to lead the reader towards a reading of the poem similar to Gibson's stage presentation of the work, is only partially successful. For example, his word combining produces a loping cadence on the page as exemplified in the following section:

"to die young to die
high to die
stoned to
die free to die young to die high
to die stoned to die
freeeeeeeeeee"

While this does create a pacing similar to how he performs the poem himself, it's pale in comparison to Gibson's embodiment of the work. It doesn't convey Gibson personifying the sound of a sustained shrill guitar tone. Gibson's rendering of a Jimi Hendrix solo cannot be accurately translated to the page. Whether performed aloud or printed, poetry is both limited and enhanced by the medium in which it is experienced. On the page, "Eulogy" does not incite readers to leap to their feet, forget to breathe, or anxiously anticipate what's coming next. On the page, "Eulogy" does not justify Gibson's superstar status in the slam world, but on the stage Gibson's work is highly respected. This could fuel traditionalists' argument that slam poetry doesn't hold up on the page, but comparison regarding which is better or worse is a moot one. The work uses disparate apparati to reach its audience.

One requirement of a successful poem, whether written for the page or the stage, is how the language in the poem translates into sound. One may read the poem aloud to see if the sound, rhythm and flow of the poem translate off the page, out of one's mouth, and into the ears of a listener. But whether the poem can be conveyed so that a listener is able to glean the meaning of the text and be present with the text as it is read is another matter. There are certain conventions that magnify the presence of a poem and allow it to be heard in such a way that the audience can see the poem without having it on the page in front of them. Performance poetry, and the slam in particular, utilize these conventions to benefit the audience and to influence the interpretation of their work. Performance poetry incorporates dramatic elements, timing, facial expressions, gestures, and pronunciation/ inflection which is very difficult, if not impossible, to replicate on the page. Some might say that performance poets are cheating because they can augment their poems with these devices. That would be similar to saying that a page poet should not break a line to influence the reader's interpretation of the poem. Performance and page poets simply have different tools at their disposal.

Poems that might require reading and rereading in order for their meaning to be gleaned are likely to be unsuccessful in the slam. Performance poets must keep in mind that an audience member may be hearing the poem for his first and only time. One of the fundamental differences between page and stage poetry is that the performance of a poem is one moment in time, whereas a poem on a page can be revisited and explored at the reader's leisure. The writing is essential as a basis for what is performed, though in the slam, the writing is only part of the evaluative process. The performance can only enhance what is written, not replace it.

Certainly, there are a few basic elements which poems for the page and the stage share. Are the images evocative? Is the language fresh and expressive? Is the work transformative in some way? Does reading or hearing one line make you want to continue exploring the poem? All writing, however it may be experienced by an audience, should have these elements. But there are a number of elements that are specific to the page or the stage and can't be compared. The problem is there are people who believe there is one definition of poetry and all poetry should conform to this elusive and limited definition. Different styles of poetry should be judged on their own merits and their own criterion. Poetry is not a static art. It evolves in the same way language does. Just as people are resistant to new words or new definitions, so are people railing against the definition of poetry, and all that poetry embodies, being expanded. Just as no one would require a ghazal to meet the same criteria as a haiku, naysayers should not expect slam and page poetry to conform to the same standards.