The Science of Slam

I'm taking part in a poetry slam tonight for the first time in some years - Slam the Atom at the Cheltenham Festival of Science, hosted by Marcus Moore and Sara-Jane Arbury. Perversely, I'm actually quite nervous.

I say 'perversely' because I became bored and disillusioned with slam a few years ago, having been involved with it pretty much since its arrival in Britain in the early 1990s - I took part in the first slam at Glastonbury Festival. Back then, slam seemed like an egalitarian, preposterous and fun way of seeing a number of poets, be they good, bad or indifferent, and a good way of getting poetry noticed. There were many good poets involved - and still are. But on the whole, slam has become much more competitive and much less about poetry over the 15 or so years since it burst onto the British poetry scene.

Some remarkable poetry always gets through, but, more and more, slam poetry resembles stand up comedy or invective-fuelled ranting that plays to the gallery at the expense of wit and subtlety. There are too many poor clones of excellent poets like John Cooper Clarke (and less invigorating poets such as Pam Ayres) littering the slam scene, too many people who treat slam too seriously as a competition.

There are many notable exceptions to this rule, from A.F. Harrold to Lucy English, and one can often find a giddying blur of poetic styles - from rap-inflected verse  to bucolic lyricism -  sharing the stage. For those exceptions, slam should be celebrated.

So why am I taking part tonight, if I have professed myself bored with slam? There are three reasons: one, it's an invitation only slam and there will be a number of excellent poets taking part, some of whom I haven't seen in a couple of years. Two,  I sometimes miss the adrenal rush of slam, the hope that my poem will hit a nerve in a febrile atmosphere of easy-going competitiveness. The third reason is that the first poem has to be new and must be about science or heresy - the theme of this year's Science Festival - and I like to be forced to think and write about things that might not otherwsie hit my brain's register.

Actually, there's a fourth reason - Marcus and Sara-Jane are splendid hosts who rarely, if ever, let the heavy competitive edge, that can sometimes sour slams, get out of hand thanks to a voting system that judges quality of writing, quality of performance and quality of audience response. It's a far cry from clapometer-driven see-how-many-friends-you-can-bring-to-shout-you-through mayhem at one of their slams. They are both committed to excellent poetry and are keen advocates of slams in schools - and that's where the future of slam lies, I think.

Slam is a wonderful way of engaging teenagers, who are too often put off the idea of poetry by the time they leave school because they have been bored into seeing it as a dull, dry, unengaging and unremarkable art. Get them in a slam, which harnesses the competitive streak of the majority of teenagers and points it in a surprising new direction, and many more eyes and ears come alive to the possibilities of poetry. That can only be a good thing...