e-poets Plain Text: big money for fast poetry

in Plain Text

Current features

Past articles

main features

spoken word: Book of Voices

poetry video: Videotheque

background: about e-poets

other features

Plain Text, Library

network neighborhood

e-poets network partners

artist Heather Haley
Vancouver, BC, Canada

Cinasphere
Vallejo, California, USA

Poet in Residence
Queensland, Australia

Farrago Poetry
London, England

artist Patrick Sanchez
poet-at-large

e-poets network
Chicago, Illinois, USA

follow us on Facebook

on bigger prizes for slamming - one MC's view

an interview with Charles Ellik, MC of the Berkeley Poetry Slam, continued

There's this assumed vow of poverty for writers in America. Unless one publishes a best-seller or lands a tenured job at a school, a poet is expected -- almost obliged -- to live in penniless obscurity. Naturally, some people will be critical of you for putting such money into a slam, even though it's far from enough to support a living. How do you respond?

Losers.

There is a built-in incentive for 'outsider' elitists to be losers. Misunderstood by the uneducated, dismissed by the bourgeoisie, disdained by academia. This way they have no fear of failure. They can pat one another on the back, talk trash about American culture, congratulate one another on being unreadable hobbyists. These people lash out at pop culture and at slams and at academia simply to defend their own flawed self-worth. They have to be critical, it's how they define themselves.

Or there are the rich losers. They build relationships with elitist organizations. Their aim is to perpetuate an intellectual culture handed down from aristocrats who used it as a way to entertain themselves, give their vapid lives meaning, and demarcate their class from everyone else. You can recognize their work by the endless internal references to obscure writers, or intricate stylistic constructions that destroy any understanding or enjoyment of their poetry unless you have a college-level education in literature. Please understand, less than 10% of people in this very wealthy country complete college. Their loss is any true connection to what matters to the human spirit, to their greater community, and to the true essence of poetry: simplicity.

Don't get me wrong, there are exceptional saints, too. Brilliant poets in both groups. But the exception points to the rule. Usually these saints must align themselves with the outsiders or the rich in order to find an audience and make a living. Or die in obscurity. Such a saint wouldn't lash out at slams. Why should they? Anything that gets people away from their TV sets and sparks an interest in great art is a triumph! Even if slams are only a 'first step' toward a more profound type of poetry, it's still a first step tens of thousands of people have taken.

I'm no saint. I tried, but it's lonely work. I've been an outsider and flirted with the academics, and found both systems to be dead-ends. Both systems disdain pop culture for the same reason: they seek to isolate and protect their tribe. In slam, I found a way to make a living, steal people away from their couches, support poets, and inspire young minds. In fact, I even feature outsiders and academics! Why would anyone who actually loves poetry and loves people find fault in that?

How do you feel your competition compares with prize competitions for in-print poetry?

In a slam, the audience chooses the winners. There is something profound about the notion that the average Jane on the street can recognize great art. It is empowering. While slam does have some stylistic restraints, the time-limit, the need to perform, these are quantifiable restraints. There are no 'gate keepers' who pick and choose a specific individual for the prize. Charles Ellik can hate your guts and you can still sign up and win the Berkeley Slam. It's happened!

Our fear is that mediocre poetry created for the sole purpose of winning (meaning it takes few aesthetic risks for the sake of wide appeal) will snuff out the vitality of spoken word, or create backlash against slams. I think this is a legitimate fear.

In print contests, an editor, or small group of editors chooses the winners. Very, very few publishers make money printing poetry books. So the purpose poets serve is to lend status to the publishing house. Or emotional gratification for the publishers who print poetry because they love the art itself. Either way, you can be brilliant but you won't get published unless your work fits the preconceived ideals of the editors. And in the poetry world, it's these editors who control the $1,000, $7,000, or $25,000 prizes. Not slams. And where did that money come from? Not from sales! Not from fans! From wealthy benefactors or from contest entry fees.

Finally, since the last couple National Slams, there has been a lot of discussion about the vitality of poetry slamming overall. Much dialogue has centered on the rules of the competition with the hope of invigorating the form. But rules are not the only way to alter the competition. By framing the competition with higher stakes, how will you affect the nature of slam and the poetry that emerges from it?

There is no question that the greater poetry slam community is full of vitality. The number of slams and fans continues to grow. Those of us who have been around for a decade can see that a price is being paid, however. The popularity of Nationals forced slams across the country to tailor their rules to prepare poets for competition at Nationals. And the contacts people made at Nationals spawned a touring circuit, where the most successful competitors could tour from slam to slam and inspire the home crowd. These changes helped raise the level of play, but also diminished the distinctiveness of individual slams and regional voices. In other words, Nationals homogenized slams.

Our fear is that mediocre poetry created for the sole purpose of winning (meaning it takes few aesthetic risks for the sake of wide appeal) will snuff out the vitality of spoken word, or create backlash against slams. I think this is a legitimate fear. Some folks think the answer is to change up the format of Nationals, so the local slams will follow suit. I think that will help, but I think change must be encouraged from the ground up, not top down. That means empowering local organizers to break 'the rules' and invent innovative formats that encourage innovative poetry.

Big prizes tend to stifle innovation. It's true that a breath-taking and innovative poem is more powerful than a predictable slam cliché, but it is statistically risky. You may lose some judges who aren't prepared to be challenged. So if you fly across the country and pay to enter a contest, are you going to open with a risky poem, or open with a sure-fire crowd pleaser? It's a no-brainer.

A big-money slam is meant to be a showcase, not a workshop. Innovation and change happens at the weekly slam. My hope is that $1000 slams will become so passé that poets won't take them so seriously. When they become common, then it's easier to take the risks that will help you to stand out from your fellow competitors. Then poets (and organizers!) will innovate at the $1,000 slams and save their safe work for the $10,000 slam. I want to continue to push the envelope, for the reasons I've given already. As more money and more excitement and more fans come to slam, it will draw more talent and give that talent the support to focus on their work.

Thankyou, Charles Ellik.

article home

Charles Ellik interview: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | home

Charles Ellik is the host and MC of the Berkeley, California poetry slam officially sanctioned by Poetry Slam, Inc. Booking and further biographical info are available on Daniland.com.