NEW POETRY MISSION: pendulum frozen (push!)
Sam Sax, Nic Alea and Andrew Paul Nelson organized New Poetry Mission a few months ago. What they had in mind was a reading series that would exclusively feature “new shit.” They talked about reading material with the ink still wet. They also wanted to raise the critical standard in responding to the work. They had concluded that too much unconditional acceptance was hurting the scene. They meant to take a stand.
The result has been a mixed bag. Certainly, the series has attracted poets with talent, energy and something to say. On every occasion, the room is crowded with enthusiastic performers and audience. There is always some excellent work. Indeed, about six weeks ago, I wrote a very enthusiastic review.
But, sadly, the recent resignation of the diligent Andrew Paul Nelson has been a disappointment. The notably talented APN, who is known for neither inclusivity nor gentility (he spat on the stage on one memorable occasion), nevertheless promoted a strict adherence to high standards and an emphasis on craft and attentive listening. Assuming his duties is Jen G., an extremely talented writer and performer who is very similar in tone and attitude to her colleagues Sam and Nic.
In Andrew’s absence, the gravitational pull of the slam culture that has nurtured all of the current curators makes it difficult to find anything truly “new” here.
Although it certainly cannot be denied that slam culture has revitalized American poetry and continues to produce some excellent work, it does have certain tendencies that can detract from excellence, including:
- a formulaic approach in theme, structure, rhythm and style of performance
- a performance culture that conflates content with persona
- an emphasis on and encouragement of raucous audience participation
- a rebellious adolescent psychology
None of the above qualities are necessarily bad. In fact, each of them has contributed to the success of the slam scene and its positive influence on our poetry. But too much of a good thing is too much. The pendulum needs to swing.
Recently, Litseen attended a poetry reading at the San Francisco Zen Center, which would surely be the antithesis of a slam. Tea and cookies were served. The room was quiet, candlelit, respectful. Voices were soft. Attitudes were contemplative. The poetry could be savored, considered, reflected upon and gently imbibed. Nice, I thought.
But I can recognize the legitimacy of a critique that would find that atmosphere stifling, appealing to only certain classes of people, elitist and fuddy-duddy. Tea drinking, quiet voices and a meditative mood do not necessarily signify poetry.
But neither, necessarily, does boastful drunkenness, loud bursts of energy, excess profanity and an in-your-face attitude.
In both instances, the danger is that attitude will be confused with content, style with substance.
And that brings me to my uneasiness with New Poetry Mission. After an hour of performance, I am too often left with a memory of an attitude and a style of presentation rather than with the actual words spoken. And this phenomena is encouraged by the constant, aggressive, almost bullying tirades to the audience to shout out their feelings—good and bad—make noise, stamp feet, etc. It’s fun, no question. But is it producing art?
Such an atmosphere makes it difficult to respond to the content and, in my opinion, devalues it.
So my point is that the “new shit show” is working at cross-purposes: On the one hand, the creators sincerely want to focus on language, new material, and a critical ear. On the other hand, they are stuck in a culture that does not encourage these purposes. There has to be some give, one way or the other. I believe.
Still, talent tells and there were certainly some outstanding performances at the last edition. The entire show can be seen here.
I have selected three standout performances to call to your attention. First, there is a new poem by the always exceptional Sam Sax. In this instance, he responds to the recent hung jury in the infamous trial of teenager Brandon McInerney who shot and killed his 8th grade classmate, Larry King, because Larry was flirting with him. I very much admire how Sam does not generalize about injustice or limit himself to his own experience, but writes with great specificity about public events.
My second selection is Jasmine Wilkerson Sufi. This is a persona poem in which the poet takes on a most unexpected character: that of a loving but homophobic mother, a devout fundamentalist Christian sincerely worried about the welfare of her lesbian daughter.
Lastly, I share with you the closing selection of the evening’s feature poet, James Cagney. Cagney’s entire half hour performance is well worth looking at. He is a poet who is a superb storyteller and one who writes with exceptional clarity and ease. Always accessible, he is never less than thought provoking. Here he also presents a persona poem in an unusual character: that of a drunk chicken.
charles?.
“i.m not saying my poem too quick, you need
to listen faster” – jcm
we run an open mic meant to challenge people
to produce new work on a consistent and regular
basis… i can think of nothing more valuable in
a scene where folks read the same shit year after
year.
in attempting to create a space where folks feel
comfortable honing their craft and sharing their
raw unpolished work, we encourage our audience
to respond to what they think is dope.
tell me it didn.t feel good to hear vocal affirmation
the few times you.ve read at our show.
i think this week [where you didn.t read] if you felt alienated
by the experience of being in a room of people encouraged
to respond vocally to what resonates with them, you should
either question the root of that discomfort or stick to
museums and other warehouses of dead art.
also I think you.d fair well with a more nuisanced
understanding of the poetry slam. poetry slam is a
game where points are assigned to poems… our show
is not a slam, we draw writers from countless different
literary and identity based communities.
and though slam surely has it.s problems i.d like to say
that through various performance poetry events i.ve met
more engaging and brave writers than
most mfa program candidates
so I think if our show was too drunk, proud, and loud for you,
you should wear earplugs and have a beer homie
Sam: it sounds like he does have a “nuisanced understanding of the poetry slam”, but you would prefer a more nuanced understanding. There’s some Freudian slippage in the language.
I am pleased the curator sees fit to swing his pendulum in any nuanced manner he, and his current co-curators, see fit. I am also glad Sam defends his art, artists and audience in the face of a somewhat pompous and paternalistic (language, drinking!!) review. This is not the first time I’ve found my pal Charles both dismissive of artistic endeavor and judgmental of an audience’s enjoyment and energy.
This is the opinion of one individual delivered in a echo chamber and, perhaps, speaks more about the “reviewer” than the reviewed. “Not my cup of tea” may have sufficed Charles.
Woaaaah! Hold on a second.
First of all, I’m really glad you commented here, Sam. If we didn’t value what you (and Nic and Jen) are doing with New Poetry Mission we wouldn’t devote our time to covering and promoting it.
But that’s not all we do. If that were all we did, Litseen would be little more than an archive of what happened in the past. We would like to engage in the culture, and to shape it into something yet more valuable than it already is. Naturally — and I think Charles’ article is very clear here — we recognize that NPM shares this intention. Already, at its best, it’s a much-needed and invaluable forum, a nexus between the open mic format and everything else. This democratizes the work being shared and increases the power of democracy at the same time — a value you know both Charles and I support avidly.
There are different ways to participate in culture. But you and I both know that keeping your mouth shut isn’t one of them. At least not in most cases. And while some people might disagree about this article, I think you and I and Charles agree on most of its content more than this conversation suggests.
You wanted people to throw peanuts, Sam. Well this is our peanuts, bub. We’re not throwing them because we don’t like you or NPM; we’re throwing them because we like poetry.
When I spoke with Charles after the event (and before his writing of this article), he told me that you prodded him to write a brand new poem while waiting for the show to begin, that he did and was even pleased with it, but then decided not to read it because he was uncomfortable. Now, we both know (and probably anyone reading this knows) that Charles is not a shy dude. Especially when it comes to reading his work in front of people. I think he felt that his poem would not be welcome, that it would be out of place because it doesn’t placate the raucous.
First of all: it’s awesome that he wrote a poem because you told him to. I respect NPM to the point of wanting to write at least one poem every week I’d be proud to read there. No one is questioning the value of these things.
In fact, we are fighting for them. I’m actually quite excited that we’re having this discussion. It feels like Halloween for some reason, friends arguing over candy or something. Tradesies, cavity barks.
Just remember that, everything aside, it’s important you revisit your mission from time to time. The last time I went I saw at least 4 old poems, and people introduced them as old poems. At that point, I would argue, you should step in and get those people off the stage (I don’t care who they are). Keep to the mission: it’s a very good, very simple one—the best kind.
As for this being an echo-chamber… let’s consider the performance one friend made, in real-time, to say goodbye to Meg last month. She had each person in the room add one adjective to describe her and then looped all of these adjectives into one powerful homage [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-ZAT5bKoKU]. If that’s all Litseen did, it would be one hell of an echo chamber for the Bay Area literary scene.
But that’s a far cry from what we do. And I encourage you and everyone else — as I and we, I hope, always have — to speak up and voice what they would like to see more and less of here. That is our role as curators of a public forum, and one we embrace. We hope you do the same.
We also encourage people to contribute to the site in more direct ways (by writing posts, reviews, etc.). This is the equivalent of signing up at NPM, which we both intend to do as often as possible.
Come On, All You Ghosts.
“the danger is that attitude will be confused with content, style with substance……After an hour of performance, I am too often left with a memory of an attitude and a style of presentation rather than with the actual words spoken. And this phenomena is encouraged by the constant, aggressive, almost bullying tirades to the audience to shout out their feelings—good and bad—make noise, stamp feet, etc. It’s fun, no question.”
I do not know New Poetry Mission – Charles articulates my feelings on the Slam Genre very well.
I didn’t mean to imply an “echo chamber” was something negative. I meant an energizes envionmet, unique to the web. I meant, “[edit]How it impacts online communities
Participants in online communities may find their own opinions constantly echoed back to them, which reinforces their individual belief systems. This can create significant barriers to critical discourse within an online medium. The echo chamber effect may also impact a lack of recognition to large demographic changes in language and culture on the Internet if individuals only create, experience and navigate those online spaces that reinforce their world view.[vague][5] Another emerging term used to describe this echoing and homogenizing effect on the Internet within social communities is cultural tribalism.[6] The Internet may also be seen as a complex system (e.g., emergent, dynamic, evolutionary), and as such, will at times eliminate the effects of positive feedback loops (i.e., the echo chamber effect) to that system, where a lack of perturbation to dimensions of the network, prohibits a sense of equilibrium to the system.[vague] Complex systems that are characterized by negative feedback loops will create more stability and balance during emergent and dynamic behavior.[vague)” when I used “echo chamber.” The good news is I’m looking forward to NPM on Thursday!
Matthew – I really appreciate your remarks about “echo chamber”! You raise an excellent point about the difficulty of critical discourse online. I am glad of your explanation because I fear I had taken the phrase more personally and felt as though you were saying I was someone who simply didn’t listen. I was very distressed when I read your original note, because of your strong language: “judgmental”, “paternal”, etc. I thought I had tried to be reasoned, balanced but assertive about my concerns. I have been trying to understand why I elicited what seemed like such an angry response.
I suspect (and do correct me if I’m wrong) that any “critical review” approach might be taken by you as inappropriate. And you may be right. This is a fine and valuable San Francisco trait. We have a community that focusses far more on acceptance than on critique. I am caught here with my pants down, so to speak, suddenly on the receiving end of my own criticism! I have long made the argument that “we are NOT New York”. Criticism and critique are great for them, but here we are about a community that is free wheeling, with the widest possible range of approaches and expertise and we allow everything to shake out on its own. I acknowledge that this often means a greater component of less expert work being presented (and I’m not thinking of anybody in particular here) but I have also argued that the “compost” (in the most positive sense) that it creates makes possible creative explosions such as the Beats or the Grateful Dead which simply would never occur in New York.
And now, here I am, playing critic, and it feels as though I’m being looked upon like a cockroach in a picnic basket. And perhaps rightly.
But my considered thought is that black/white either/or approaches are rarely correct or sufficiently nuanced. A culture of criticism can certainly help produce excellence but can also stifle true originality which needs uncritical room to grow. On the other hand a culture of “anything goes” can become mired in an unreflective stance that never encourages talented artists to challenge themselves sufficiently.
At Litseen, Evan and I have discussed at length the difficulty of striking a balance between support and what might be called “the puff piece” and challenging criticsm and analysis. We both feel that we need more of the latter. I daresay that Sam, too, would agree. The experience of the strong reactions elicited by this piece, though, reminds that HOW something is said may often be as important as WHAT is actually said. I stand by the points I tried to make. I regret that I came across to some as pompous, judgmental or paternal. In my defense, I would point out that I was not acting alone in publishing this piece. Evan, as editor of Litseen, had reviewed it carefully, specifically paying attention to appropriateness of tone (which I had requested of him). Obviously, he did not find it arrogant or offensive, but thought it was carefully considered and well written (which doesn’t necessarily mean he agrees with every point). If he hadn’t thought so, he would have insisted that it be rewritten before publishing. All of us at Litseen are interested in writing as well as we can and presenting our most careful thought.
I hope that in the future we can continue to have productive discussions and challenge one another. Perhaps we could try to focus on content rather than tone? I certainly never intended to come off as “pompous” or “paternalistic” or “dismissive” and it is damnably hard to absorb that sort of feedback from a friend. But I do stand by the content of my post: that, in my opinion, the influence of slam culture can lead to an atmosphere that confuses style with content and that this is something that ought to be addressed and carefully considered.
That said, I have always supported and continue to support the NPM! When I criticize, it is always from the mindset of “loyal opposition”.
Oh – one thing I’d like to mention. Evan said he thought I was intimidated from reading my new work last week. Nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever criticisms I might have, lack of warmth and an open and welcoming tone are not among them. I didn’t read because I had rushed through a first draft and felt it was too raw. When I reread it later, and polished it a bit, I was very pleased. Next time, I’ll remember that “raw” is what its about and perhaps not be so namby pamby.
I also look forward to attending on Thursday night – without wearing my “litseen reviewer” hat, and promise to offer new shit and stamp, hoot and holler when I hear something I like. I even plan to have fun. Who’s bringing the peanuts?
Happy to clarify my use of “echo chamber.” Upon further exploration, I realize “echo chamber” was loaded and could carry negative connotation. So glad to put my definition in the intended, non-hostile context. I did use words with weight. Words, in “our,” shared echo chamber are weighty and I too stand by my comment. I am also pleased to correct your assumption that I’m opposed to critical review. I’m not, not by any measure. I am happy to discuss this sometime, preferably with tea in the mix.
[…] new shit show, in response to last week’s criticism, returned with unanimous triumph. Poets lingered and congratulated one another on new directions. […]