Categories
- About Harriet
- Open Door
- Craft Work
- Interviews
- Publishing
- Poetry News
- Criticism
- Obituaries
- Politics
- Best-Sellers
- From Poetry Magazine
- Foundation News
- Group Blog
Harriet
Contributors
Archive
Blogroll
I am, I said…
Kenneth said:
…innovative or experimental writing lives only in the academy.
The slam is arguably the most innovative, controversial and exhilarating poetry movement in decades. It is not only established as a force to be reckoned with, but has given the genre a cocky edge that wooed those who had long ago relegated poetry to dusty bookshelves. The slam is responsible for spoken word’s unflinching link to hip-hop, with all its energy and promise. The slam is one of the reasons poetry is where poetry is.
Granted, we can’t do without the academy. But we can’t afford to marginalize those without access to the academy, or those who never craved or required access.
I began my life in poetry as a slammer, was a slammer for almost 10 years, and the academy tried its best to blow me off the map. My work was maligned and trivialized in every arena except the one I was in. Even now, more than a decade after the last time I actually participated in a slam, it’s the persistent qualifier tacked to my name.
I could have proved you right, but I didn’t. The academy tried for years to call me something other than a poet–the words “actress” and “imposter” come immediately to mind. I could have listened. I could have believed.
You say innovative writing can’t breathe outside the academy. I’m breathing. I’m singing. Damn, I’m screaming.
You didn’t attack me personally, didn’t talk about my mama or anything; never said you did. But you questioned my legitimacy by saying that the work I’ve done–as well as the work of countless slammers, collaborators and artists–is somehow diminished because we didn’t hang out with the (alleged) cool kids. I’ve spent most of my creative life in a movement that changed the face of poetry but, according to you, I don’t exist–because the academy says I don’t.
Not in the equation? Gotta disagree with you there.
P
Posted in Group Blog, Poems on Monday, May 21st, 2007 by Patricia Smith.
Comments (5)
Yes, Patricia, I see you. And if I can see you I must be real, too. I am here, reading the PF blog [Wow, a PF blog. Wonder why they started something so nontraditional? (smile) ] and it is because of you and big bruh Kwame. It’s not that I haven’t come to the site before, but to see family, really, like this, is new. I would ask why that is, but do I really need to? Thank you both for speaking up for those of us who write because we have to not because someone said we could. Thank you for those of us who shimmy poems from sultry hips during late night writing sessions filled with music and love. Thank you for those of us who hone our craft over barbeque and shots of Jack.
And no — the POET writes with face screwed and hand on hip — ain’t nobody talked about mamas, but still…
Respect,
Manda Manda (Dirty South CC)
Report this comment
Basing this upon Mr Goldsmith’s explanation earlier this month (I can’t find the date but it had to do with conceptual writing) I truly believe innovative or experimental poetry lives only in the academy. Who wants innovative or experimental poetry, is separately judged I think.
The Hood Company
Report this comment
Experimental poetry… I know the tag ‘Slam’ gets bullied into limited corners sometimes; when I do very early research on Poetry Slams in Chicago (1986 or before), I constantly run across pictures of Marc Smith dressed in costume, I read notes of blocking and stage direction for the Poetry Ensemble, I see video on the first group pieces. And not even that far back, I can hear Cin Salach and the Loofah Method, or find the inter-connections between the Neo-Futurist Players and the Slam scene. Or the dueling swordsman. Or the Weird Sisters. The drama of the competition, Patricia Smith preaching it from memory–eyes closed, tongue holy written. I don’t think Patricia’s point is hard to understand, and I would suggest that historically it is extremely viable. And the remarkable thing: These experiments, these different-wonderfully weird–jaw-droppingly professional experiments produced an excited crowd for poetry. The academy as the place for experiment–I read that as a tenured position, allotted a couple of bucks and a course reduction to go try something new that a couple of people may or may not get into. Nothing wrong with that. But apples to oranges in the world that Patricia is speaking to.
Report this comment
Call it what you want, but the poetry slam has been a great way to get a lot of people interested in poetry. It the best gateway drug to harder and harder forms of literature seen in our lifetimes.
Something overlooked by some who only remember the overblown poetry slam poem they saw where a guy waved his arms and yelled “Revolution!” a lot. It happens. Just as some poetry magazines published by academy types seem unreadable to many.
Both facets of poetry have a heck of a lot to offer. As a published guy with an advanced degree who also runs a poetry slam, I’m glad folks like Patricia Smith are out there doing whatever the hell they want (and doing it well).
Matt in Omaha
Report this comment
Poetry most definitely exists outside the academy. It exists in the micro and indie presses, on blogs, on websites, in indie journals (both print and online), it exists at open mics, poetry festivals and many other places. Things the academy has nothing to do with at all. Poetry doesn’t belong to one organization and if your poetry “career” hinges on whether your accepted or read by those affiliated with the academy, you seriously — and I do mean seriously — need to get your ass out of the house more often.
Report this comment