Bout One National Poetry Slam Details

What a night last night. We were up against the heaviest competition we will face this year in prelims and we managed to come out in second place in our bout. Lots of hard work, lots of strategy and reworking. The judges were a little "nuts." See: There's this long history of judges being absolutely "wow'd" by "group pieces." That's where multiple members of a team perform a poem together--often very well choreographed and well executed. They have a history of scoring extremely well for the Vancouver, Canada team, and they are encouraged by PSI proponents. Last night? The judges in our venue were simply not eating it up at all--they were content oriented ONLY, and that worked to our advantage.

Scott up in first round: Jesse. The judges were tilting their heads a little like puppies... "what was that... a POEM? Wow!" He got the highest individual score of his round, by 2.3 points.

Ed up in round 2: Progress. Betters Scotts score by .3. We were excited at his scores, but he was not. He knew Reeves (sp.?) from Hollywood was still to come and would likely take the individual lead.

For the record, we had the lowest scoring bout in the first nights prelims. The judges were totally "wack." One guy was consistently handing out 4.7, 4.5 and another generally nothing above a 7.0. Those are all historically VERY LOW scores for a nationals level event. We almost began to wonder whether someone had planted them there, in a preliminary bout full (except for us) of past finals stage teams. Team Hollywood beat us by 1.9 points, taking a ranking of "one" home for the night, while we took a "two". But get this:

Because of the judges' obviously conservative reactions to the poetry, Team Hollywood is the lowest ranked "number one" team. In other words, if you line all last nights winners up in a list, their score is at the bottom. Does that tell you how hard we ALL had to work? We had the most obstinate judges I'd EVER seen in ANY event. But that's what happens when you participate in an event where the outcomes are determined by purely arbitrary ratings, where the objective is supported by that arbitrary system.

We tried to analyze what was going on, and as noted before, it's quite simple: The judges were looking for POETRY. Not style and glitz, not fast moving words and cute subjects. They wanted POETRY. No holds barred. And they'd never seen a slam before, so they didn't know the point range that was customary, so their scores were flat-out honest and conservative. One woman came up to me after the bout and specifically requested my chapbook. Said she could tell that was a poem that works on the page, one that she would enjoy as much by reading my work. What joy! Someone in the crowd who knows the difference, hears the difference! Pity we couldn't clone her as multiple judges .

Reeves (Hollywood) was frustrated because Ed's performance pushed the judges' scores up and made him pull out one of his heavy hitters: An amazing poem called Deaf Poetry Jam, about his hearing impaired students' poetry slams. He performs it both with voice and sign language. Truly amazing poem, and I was glad to hear it (and see it) again. Coming up in last slot for our team for the night, the guys were voting for Lithia Park, but these judges were not going for "cute," even on serious subjects; so I proposed "Crumb" or "A Good Wine". They opted for Crumb because it has a widely proven track record.

I got to the mic: Opened my mouth to speak the first line and found my voice was gone--so much for me cheering for other teams again this week. The word "Grandmother" cracked so badly I could hardly tell what I had said, so I had to push through that hoarseness. I didn't recognize my voice, but I'm told it was deeper, raspy and bold. Midwest folks who know me said it gave it more power--go figure. You gotta nearly lose it to use it?

Well... long story short, "the German judge, Mr. 4.7" gave it a 7.0 (woo-hoo! I was told to be very proud of that), next judge a 7.5 and the scores went normal from there. Only a 24.3 after a .5 point time penalty (pushing the voice out takes time), but the second highest individual score of the night for our bout.

My favorite thing of the night: Danny Solis, the Albuquerque event organizer, came up to hug me after my poem and said, "Thank you so much. Hearing that made all the hard work, all the frustration and stress, WORTH it. Thank you SO much." That, my friends, along with the individual audience reactions to the poem after the bout, make all the stress worthwhile. I will treasure that--knowing that there is room for message and literary quality in any poetry environment.

Life is good. Life is tough. We'll try to make semis (tonight should be easier), but who knows what lurks in the minds of "the Querquians." Scott keeps voting down Pressure Switch, says its too inaccessible; so I guess my next most powerful piece might be A Good Wine. I really am not in the mood to do Lithia Park out here, but the team loves that poem. I think I will retire Crumb and Lithia Park after this year.

Thought about retiring from the NPS circuit after this year, but then you get here and the energy is extremely addicting. I normally don't have a competitive bone in my body, but there's something about believing your MESSAGE has as much validity as the next guy's--or more. Trusting your message. Giving it the best life it can have to one roomful of avid listeners at a time--THAT is truly addicting. I think maybe I'd do it for years to come, given the right circumstances. We'll see... We'll see. There are lots of gray haired people out here giving their hearts voice. I've got a long time to go yet.

Love and great peace... and keep writing.