I have decidedly mixed feelings about slam poetry. On the plus side, it presents poetry in the context I've always thought it ought to be presented in- which is to say, being recited out loud to drunk people. On the negative side, the use of judges from the audience to rate the poems has a very pronounced effect of dumbing down both the poetry and the presentation. Why? Because the need to quickly impress the judges encourages two equally bad tendencies.

One is to avoid any topic that can't be digested instantly, which in practice means avoiding anything with more depth to it than a series of clever one-liners, so that slam poetry events are sometimes indistinguishable from open-mike stand-up comedy nights. The other is to ham it up, through a variety of cheesy and over the top styles of presentation, ranging from the Shrieking Tortured Beatnik Artist to the Loud Angry Hip Hop Guy.

The very best slam poets are talented people who do good and serious work. But the far majority seem like failed comedians mixed with very bad actors, presenting something that isn't poetry of any kind to an audience that just wants them to do something ridiculous for its entertainment. This might be more popular than the standard poetry reading, but I'm not sure it's really a poetry event in the first place.

On the other hand, that's just Sturgeon's Law in action- if 90% of slam poetry is really awful, 90% of regular poetry is really awful too. Good slam poetry is really rare, but good poetry of any kind is really rare. Good slam poetry, in the end, is just good poetry- and that makes it just as valid as any other kind.