Saul Williams performing "Amethyst Rock" in the movie Slam
Lamont Carey performing "I Can't Read" on HBO Def Jam Poetry (You Tube Link)
Taylor Mali performing "Like, You Know" on Def Jam.
Sonia Sanchez performing "Our Vision is Our Voice" (You Tube Link)
Amiri Baraka performing "Why is We Americans?"
Please also PRINT OUT the handout on Blackboard--read these selections and bring the print out to class.
In class we were asked if slam poetry could be considered poetry. If it was literature. We were also asked about the canon. If it was legitimate. And it is. It all is. On one condition. If it inspires, if it touches, if it makes a thrill run up and down a spine. If it reaches out a skeletal hand that grabs your brain and sits you down and points "Write! Create! Live!" Or, if that skeletal hand is a fleshy hand that forces you out the door pointing to the sky, the ground, the tiny wisps of web tangled in the air and whispers "Beauty, Creation, Life." Then, it is literature. Then, it matters- because, that is all that we are really asking. It is a quest for validity. Maybe, some pieces of literature, some writers, some works are more universal than others. Some have a gift for the general public. Others are specific, can only touch a life or two. But, does that make them any less valid? I say, only to the lives that a certain work does not touch. Only to the life that a poem does not inspire does that poem not count. Literature cannot be an over-arching, generally agreed upon spectrum because it is ever changing and incredibly subjective. It is personal. That's the way it needs to be. So, yes there is a canon- made up of works and writers that had a gift to speak to many- and what is included is important. But, just as important is the material not included (depending on who you are and what you need.)And as the world around us is always changing, so will the way we express ourselves. The slam poems I listened to all address different aspects of the modern culture, from how we, like, can't like, you know, make up our minds. To the tumultuous waterfall of influential lives tumbling from the lips of Saul Williams. Each poem addresses a need, a thought, an idea that is unique to that individual and to that time and is expressed in a movement just as unique.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all...I am converted. I love listening and watching these performances. A sight reading of Lamont Carey's "I Can't Read" completely loses the distinct and infectious voice patterns Carey uses throughout the poem, as well as the rhythm of his vocal pauses. The ideas behind the poem alone make the it worth reading, but the real meaning lies in the excess and overflow of passion that only Carey's live performance can capture.
ReplyDeleteAnd Saul Williams certainly appears to be a master. There is a lot to be said about him...one side note: His breathless list of past literary greats was one of the coolest things I've ever heard.
I was also a big fan of Taylor Mail's "Like, You Know." It certainly illustrates how too large a portion of our population vastly underrates the importance of language.
Slam poetry evokes emotion. The drama allows us to feel the poet. I think it is more important to hear this work than read it. In my opinion Slam poetry was written to preform. The intensity of the poets voice brings life to the poem. If read on our own without enthusiasm the meaning of the poem could be overlooked. As I have said before I enjoy literature that sparks emotion in me. Slam poetry is a perfect example of emotional contact with the reader, in this case listener.
ReplyDeleteI thoroughly enjoy writing poetry as a way to vent complicated feelings. This type of poetry furthers my interest in this kind of literature.
Whether these poems are part of the cannon seems a question to be answered by the course of time. In my limited knowledge of literary history, it seems that great, canonical works are often “discovered” long after publication—and greatness recognized only through hindsight. Melville is the first to come to mind—dying in frustrated obscurity only to have his work acclaimed as genius decades later. As for these slam poets, I have a hard time telling whether they should be categorized as popular or profound—if not both. Reading them brings up more questions than answers. Do they possess the complexity, subtlety, and nuance to articulate reality, or dreams, or emotions as precisely as we see in a Robert Frost poem? Do these poems paint a compelling picture which functions on deeper levels of allegory, like Frost’s birch scene? Saul Williams’ “Amethyst Rocks” certainly qualifies. But do canonical poems even need to possess such complexity? These poems are certainly witty, incisive of social conditions, and portrayed through vivid language—even if they lack complexity (see “What I said to the Man Installing the Hot Tub”). So after reading these poems, I don’t feel qualified to determine their canonical status. They may fit a category like a Dan Brown book: vivid, entertaining, witty, educated and popular, but lacking the elements of timeless greatness. Or they may one day be viewed as great as a William Carlos Williams poem, which some surely dismissed as over simplistic.
ReplyDeleteI was glad to hear, in the short, prefatory snippet read by Lisa today, that Billy Collins made mention of McLuhan's media theory. My reading has had an uncanny synchronicity with other stuff going on in my life right now. One of McLuhan's main points is that the electric grid -- as an extension of man's nervous system -- returns us to a primarily participatory and oral culture away from the literary and individualist culture that gave birth to electric technology during the expansion of the "Gutenberg Galaxy". So, per usual, I am more interested in the mutations in our perceptual experience (McLuhan has a whole theory of "sense ratios" which tries to explain how our sensory and cognitive experience gets scrambled and re-set by the introduction of new media technologies within given cultures) caused by objective patterns of societal organization rather than -- or, in addition to -- the "texts" themselves.
ReplyDeleteThe crises of the cannon is best thought of as a symptom of this large-scale shift from a primarily solitary, print-based culture to a primarily oral and participatory culture -- think of the telephone, radios, television, the death of newspapers and the rise of 24 hr news channels, etc. The literary cannon is really the fossil record of significant written texts, therefore, a category problem takes place when trying to include poetry that is meant, first and foremost, to be heard. There is no easy answer. Personally, while I enjoy -- sometimes immensely -- hearing slam poetry and its variants, I've yet to read (notice, this is a definite user-error or categorical mistake since slam is meant to be heard -- its like having a music collection composed of sheet music instead of CDs and MP3s) any that I thought was 'good' enough, as text, to be included in a Norton Anthology. I believe oral poetry needs its own "cannon." And, anyway, slam is generally less concerned with the print culture's rather pathetic dream of textual imperishability -- O to live forever between the covers of a Norton. This can be seen in the often highly topical and political nature of the work itself; or in its basic desire for communication at a human and understandable level. This is why so much of it is about announcing identity. Every poetry slam I've ever been to has included at least one reader/performer -- usually several -- who flourish their homosexuality or attack racism or etc.
The fact that much of this starts with Jazz and the culture of Black America also seems to validate McLuhan's observations about media. The black community has always been more immediately animate and orally based -- think of the great black commedians and musicians, or, if you happen to live in the projects, just open your window and listen to those low-income black guys out on the corner...
Anyway, the hybridizing of the oral and print-based cultures has led to some great stuff and has definitely been responsible for interesting literature -- but not literature as we know it, because, again, Standard Canonical Literature is the product and Greatest Hits catalog of a print-based culture. But slam can certainly live as long as any written literature (Not very long either way if Cormac is right) in our own time of high-quality audio-storing technologies. Slam and its variants already attract a far larger, more youthful, audience than print poetry so it shouldn't have many validation/resentment issues toward the obsolescent guardians of the dead and dying print-culture.
I just looked back over the other comments and realized that my own was nothing more than a ponderous re-statement of anpoo2.
ReplyDeleteI believe Amiri Baraka's poem "Why is We Americans?" is perfect. His ideas are exactly what my roommate and I have discussed for years. And I am 100% ready to be part of the revolution when it comes, just as his last lines suggest. I will be bold: If you have listened to that poem more than 3 times and you do not agree with him, then you are part of population to whom he is referring when he warns to "be prepared to forfeit your own [life]." I fear that only 2-3% of people will take Baraka seriously, and that is the "we" to whom he refers in the poem.
ReplyDeleteNote: if you have listened to this poem 3 times and you think it is all wrong, please e-mail me and argue with me.
Okay so upon reading my last post, I realize it seems a little intense. So, sorry about that. I'm not saying this is definitely the Right thing (note capital R); I am aware that is my opinion. But I give high priority to this specific topic, so I want to at least voice my opinion. I simply am offering a challenge to those that oppose.
ReplyDeleteI really believe in self-determination and striving for higher self-consciousness, and I think these things are being suffocated. I worry too many people are either ignoring or are unaware that we have a big problem developing in human relations. No one is really on the same team anymore---in America or worldwide---because everyone lives for nothing. By nothing I mean anything that vanishes and is forgotten in conditions such as those in McCarthy's The Road (money, beliefs, objects). All the things that do actually count for something in The Road (carrying the fire, human tenderness) are trampled on in today's world. As Rachel suggested about the Road--Isn't there a form of cannibalism going on right in front us now? Human consumption of another human does not exist only in physical form.
This isn't like anything I've ever read or heard in any formal english literature class. Perhaps it's because of its relative novelty. And I can appreciate its performance and evocation of emotion from the audience--it is a very powerful art form--but the only poetry from this selection of readings that I felt was in the same league as the other great literary authors we have studied was that by Amiri Baraka (and maybe that was a biased statement after hearing about all of his publications and literary projects). Saul Williams is a performer, no doubt, but what separates his rhymes and words from those by some politically conscious rap artists--music? Even while reading along with William's performance I wasn't able to overcome the sense that it isn't anything more than a rap.
ReplyDeleteAnd Taylor Mali, that just seemed like a speech. Not very poetic in my eyes.
At times I was moved emotionally, eyes glued to the screen and all my attention on their dynamic voice, but all it was to me was a message, lacking layers of meaning and structure. Sorry for being old fashioned, but my appreciation for the slam poetry hasn't exceeded that of an Immortal Technique rap song.
I think Williams may have achieved one of his goals if he convinced you his performance was nothing more than a rap.
ReplyDeleteAnd since this is our last class today...I would like to post one video that is interesting to think about:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXj4Po86gT0
I really enjoyed hearing Regie Gibson's "it's a teenage thang." When i first read it, i was admittedly confused and ambivalent as to whether or not i liked it. After i heard it read, i felt the full impact of the poem. I liked how the rebelliousness of its subject matter was reflected in the total disregard for structure and correct grammar. i think that the powerful and fleeting moment that the poem describes is reminiscent of the power of slam poetry. Its the complete opposite of literature. Whereas literature is something that can be contained and monitored, spoken poetry is something that is free and can be experienced on a different level. One of the main things that i like about literature is that it you can control its influence on you. You can stop, skip, re-read, all at your own pace. With slam poetry, you are at the mercy of the poet. He/she slams you with his/her ideas and words. In this way, you may be forced to hear what you don't want to. I love how slam poetry forces you to hear people out; this is something that can't always come with the selectivity of reading. Regie Gibson's poem says "this moment contains a forever." While a slam poem is a fleeting expirience, its impact can last a life-time.
ReplyDelete