Is there a (real) place for mythology in slam?

[Khary J aka 6 is 9]

For the longest time, I've been fascinated with mythology, fairy tales, all of the legendary archetypes we've created to express certain parts of ourselves and the world. I feel that creatively speaking, it has massive potential in today's slam world. It can be a another point of entry for the various topics that are tackled so often they can seem repetitive, which is unfair to the topic. For example, homophobia is talked about pretty often, and they can sound similar and get tuned out by an audience. But hey, we're still talking about it because it still exists. So is it the topic that's the problem, or the audience, or our creative approach? This is the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

And I feel that if you had a slam where one poet was really political and angry and direct, one was really funny and heartwarming, one was sexy and brilliant, and one that was mythological, challenging and beautiful...who'd win? I doubt the mythological person would. Maybe it isn't quite the sexy style these days. I just don't know why some poetry styles are deemed unslammable. Why aren't they? Is there a real place for mythology (well done, of course) in slam? What do you think?

[Ransacked]

I think mythology works better on the open mic or in a feature than in a slam.  I lay the blame squarely at the feet of the three-minute rule.

If I'm working within established mythology (Zeus & Hera, Jesus & Peter, or even Huckleberry & Jim) then my poem is going to live or die on whether those 5 judges have read ancient Greek, the Bible, or Mark Twain.  Some people are going to think I'm elitist and snobby: buddy, are you telling us a story or just showing off your collection of leather-bound books?

If I'm making up my own mythology, then I have to explain to you what a Freezleump is, why the city of Zionimoo is warring with the Kingdom of Yat, and why the Doctrine of Arcturius Kye is going to pressure my protagonist into self-defeating behavior.  Okay, I'm a writer, I can do that, but laying down that kind of groundwork isn't going to leave me much time to tell my story.

I think that's why we see so little sci-fi, mythology, historical fiction, etc in slam.  It's way easier to say "I'm me and this week I met a girl with freckles and this is my poem about that."  Took me less than five seconds to get all the judges on the same page.  And that's the easy way out and it's such a tempting rut to get stuck in but that's why so many of us get stuck in it.  Open mic is a different story.  Some people on the open mic come back week after week to tell an extended story.  First-timers might be a little lost, but the regulars are on board and that's a choice those writers have made.

(For what it's worth, I knew the Yat King was bad news the minute I laid eyes on him.)

[The_Klute]

If I'm working within established mythology (Zeus & Hera, Jesus & Peter, or even Huckleberry & Jim) then my poem is going to live or die on whether those 5 judges have read ancient Greek, the Bible, or Mark Twain.

I agree with this 100%.   Without understanding the mythology, the poem has no resonance. 

To geek out for a minute, watch the episode "Darmok" of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and this'll end any further discussion on this topic.

[dlhoratio]

At the same time, I believe there are some myths that can be readily adapted to slam - creation myths, in particular.  In some ways, the ever-popular "where I'm from" poem is a contemporary version of a one-man creation myth, citing source and anecdote surrounding a birth, or coming-of-age, or coming-into-being.

(Says the one who's currently writing a poem about myth, legend, and creation.)

~Dane

PS. In other news, hi Khary!

[Ransacked]

To geek out for a minute, watch the episode "Darmok" of "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and this'll end any further discussion on this topic.

I was totally going to mention that episode, but I wasn't sure how many of you folks would hang in there with me.  You know the alien captain in that episode was Paul Winfield, right?  Same actor who got his brain eaten by hypnotizing worms in the movie Star Trek 2: Wrath of Khan.

Sometimes I want so badly to go back and visit middle-school sci-fi geek me and reassure him that it'll all work out.

[Scott Woods]

What a fascinating question and series of responses so far!

I think your original question - why aren't some (topics) deemed slammable? - comes down to the reality that most slammers don't think they'll score well with work that speaks to those topics (and many others), and since no one wants to be perceived as wack, they don't go there in a slam.  It's not stopped ME from slamming - at an NPS - with a poem about Jesus, but it has stopped me from slamming - anywhere - my poem about Perseus.

If, as part of my artistic missoin, I want to break the Slam mold of readily accessible topics, a lot of my work does that regardless of topic.  If you're black and you don't do a "white people sucks" poem at NPS, you're halfway there.  So I don't always feel the need to compound that mission with a dense treatise on Perseus when a poem about, say, slow jams will do.

[Khary J aka 6 is 9]

Hmm, much to consider so far. Thanks!
There are definitely some limitations to be acknowledged with this type of genre, especially with the time limit. But I think that we could make more room for this kind of work is there's more people stepping on that ledge to do it. Not necessarily at NPS, where you're trying to win and are therefore less risky, but at local slams where the stakes aren't so high. And there is definitely room for revisionist mythology. For example, I have a revisionist erotic poem about Orpheus and Eurydice. Interestingly, I did it first round at a local erotic slam and it got a 29.9, so given the right circumstances, this kind of work can soar.  On the other hand, I have a revisionist Captain Hook/Peter Pan piece that's dark as hell, and ranks on my personal top 5 list of artistic achievements. Yet the highest score it's gotten is a 28. So yeah, it depends.  At least there's some dialogue about this.  And the funny thing is, I'm not nearly the geek that you guys seem to be. I've no clue what star strek episode you're talking about, haha.

[Ransacked]

I just don't know why some poetry styles are deemed unslammable. Why aren't they? Is there a real place for mythology (well done, of course) in slam?

I think there's room in slam for anything well done.  You need a damn-the-torpedoes approach to this stuff, though.  Don't ask the audience's permission, just get up on stage take the room in a new direction.  I like the idea of a dark twist on Peter Pan and Captain Hook.

Sometimes open mics/slams will carve out little spaces for genres or themes that don't always do well in the general pool.  Haiku Slam, "Nerd" Slam, etc.  Maybe there's a need for a "myths and legends" slam.  The jury's out on whether giving a genre its own space serves to incubate it temporarily or isolate it permanently.

[Scott Woods]

The more you break out themed slams, the more you say "this isn't the kind of poem you should slam with normally."  So no more themed slams for my money.

I agree: charge the stage with your stuff.  OIne day you might pull an Anis and win with it.

[Steve]

A cautionary tale: The only year Ann Arbor made the finals, I told my team I would do my funny, naughty piece and we could win second place. (Boston was not to be deterred in Boston.) My teammates, to their credit, asked me which poem I came to perform and I confessed it was a poem called "Oddyseus to Telemachus" about my strained relationship with my son. They convinced me to read the poem I wanted the audience to hear and we finished in third place. But I have never forgotten the wisdom nor the beneficence of my teammates in that circumstance. Some memories in slam are worth a whole lot more than a few hundred bucks. Write AND PERFORM the poem you want the audience to hear and learn from. Let the slam-mongers win. You'll be an artist.

[WonderDave]

I dunno Khary, as someone whos slams against you pretty regularly and is a big fan of your captain hook piece . I'd Say you've got room to manuever at least here in the TC, I've got poems with mythology that do well (God's Face is the one I do most often). I really love the poem Medusa's Diner by Paula Friedrech and Cynthia French's Diana poem is also one of my favorites. I also believe in giving the audience the benefit of the doubt So maybe mythology is tough for people but so is my Ed Gein poem the Audience can deal. I hate the idea that slam should be dumbed down. Ugh.

[Steve]

By the way, there was this old poet named Patricia Smith who won the Indy title with a poem about Medusa once. So, I guess it just depends.

[linzm]

I agree that there's room in slam for any topic that's done well.  I would also like to add that if you're doing your job as a performer, the audience will be with you even if they don't get your allusions.  Whether or not they've read the Odyssey or Peter Pan, you should still be able to convey the emotion, the passion that inspired you to write the piece.  Because that's what's important about your poem, right?

[Bro.Said]

For the longest time, I've been fascinated with mythology, fairy tales, all of the legendary archetypes we've created to express certain parts of ourselves and the world. I feel that creatively speaking, it has massive potential in today's slam world. It can be a another point of entry for the various topics that are tackled so often they can seem repetitive, which is unfair to the topic. For example, homophobia is talked about pretty often, and they can sound similar and get tuned out by an audience. But hey, we're still talking about it because it still exists. So is it the topic that's the problem, or the audience, or our creative approach? This is the kind of thing I'm thinking about.

And I feel that if you had a slam where one poet was really political and angry and direct, one was really funny and heartwarming, one was sexy and brilliant, and one that was mythological, challenging and beautiful...who'd win? I doubt the mythological person would. Maybe it isn't quite the sexy style these days. I just don't know why some poetry styles are deemed unslammable. Why aren't they? Is there a real place for mythology (well done, of course) in slam? What do you think?

I'm a theoretical slam strategist firmly entrenched in the "competitive" part of the official definition of poetry slam as the art form of competitive performance poetry. If the poem is a performance poem, mythological allusions notwithstanding, it could "win" depending not simply on the style of poem being unslammable - but based on the all important principle for any game strategist: what I call positional truth.

Certain poems seem unslammable because many poets ignore that slam is a game and are unconcerned about game princilples like strategy. The only time a poem is unslammable is if it doesn't work in ANY given position in a slam. Then it is truly unslammable. The only way to get beyond that theory is to slam a poem in every position. That's difficult. So I'll stick with the theory.

These are the two main principles of positional truth. First: every poet except the first poet has positional advantage over the preceding poet. Second: the judges are influenced to give higher scores by the climactic order in which YOU place your poem in a slam.

The second principle is based on understanding climactic order as the dramatic principle of increasing emotional intensity. It's why if we're watching a movie, play, or soap opera we expect the second act to be more intense than the first, and the third act to be more intense than the first two acts. It's why the last Matrix movie was a failure. It's why the score creeps up in a poetry slam - and the score should creep up if each poet is placing his poems climatically.

So if you have positional advantage, and your poem about domestic violence using the murderous rampage of Hercules as an ongoing metaphor should theoretically "win" if it follows poems of less consequence. Yes, the poem must be well written, but what ultimately determines if the poem is slammable is the position you place it in.

[charlesellik]

Folks are mixing up context and content, topic and medium.

Mythology absolutely has a place in slam.  Hasn't anyone else noticed that the fastest shortcut to slam victory is to stereotype yourself?

One does not need to read Greek Mythology to recognize a King, a Queen, a Trickster, a Hero, a Maiden, a Monster, or an innocent Child.

I base most of my coaching and strategy on archetypes.  Who is the King vulnerable to?  When are Jokers wild?

It is very powerful to choose an archetype from which to craft a stage persona and deliver your poem.  By understanding mythology, you also gain insight to how an audience will react to your persona.

As slam poets, we do not have time to present a complex character AND a challenging topical poem.  Rather than falling into a confining stereotype, it is liberating to choose a recognizable aspect of oneself and use THAT as a starting point.  I believe audiences will seek to 'pigeonhole' you before you even open your mouth, anyway, so why not CHOOSE who it is they will recognize?  Would you rather have Marylin Monroe or Katheryn Hepburn deliver your poem about womens' rights?

It is important to recognize who you are perceived as on stage by the audience.  Presenting an incompatible character on stage lessons the impact of the poem.  In other words, if I'm doing a worker-rights anthem, it might not be ideal do dress in a silk suit and speak in formal aristocratic diction.

Choosing a SPECIFIC myth as the TOPIC of your poem risks alienating those who aren't familiar with said myth.  Same is true of picking an obscure character from an exotic myth.  Not all archetypes are universal.  Ignoring one's audience doesn't make one an artist or a slam champion.

I wrote an essay on this subject, if anyone is interested.