What exactly is a costume?

[Shannon]

Hello Rules Committe and those interested in figuring out what exactly is a costume!

What exactly is a costume?  What proccesses/questions does the rules committee ask themselves when evaluating if something is a costume or if its just the writer writing about their appearance?

I would love the rules committee to think about 'costume' from a gender based perspective.  A gender based analysis is essentially a tool to examine the differences in men and women's lives and to take these differences into account when planning a new policy so that the policy reflects these differences. 

Here are my thoughts on gender differences and costumes:

Some women write about their outward appearances such as their bodies, their hair, how they are perceived and their clothes.   Men do this too, but women do this a lot, which is awesome for the writing/art but I am scared they might be penalized one day for it.

I am concerned that the no costume rule may not allow women to write about their clothes/physicality and might unfairly disadvantage them if they chose to 'dress up' for the stage (extravagant dresses, wearing their party/bar clothes, etc) or perform poems about their appearance.   It is not the intention of the rule to alter what is written about, nor is it the intention of the rule to alter what is worn on stage.  However, it is a sticky grey area when someone writes about their appearance/clothes/physicality/stuggles with image, etc and wants to wear what they always wear on stage.   For some it might seem like a costume (something worn to enhance performance) but really it is just someone being themselves wearing what they always do.  Women are more likely to have many different costumes/wardrobes/styles etc and shouldn't be limited in what they wear on stage even if the outfit is congruent with the topic matter.  Make sense?  Some women don't know if they can wear something sexy when performing a sexy poem even though its their usual look.  They should be able to.  They also should be able to wear any aspect of their usual wardrobe even if its congruent with the theme presented in their poetry, as essentially they are just writing about themselves.

How do we make these choices of what to wear/not wear on stage if we DON'T want a penalty. 

And how does the rule committee keep these gendered differences in mind when decided who is violating the no costume rule?

I'd be happy to electorate if anyone wants to talk about this.  Thanks

[Duncan Shields]

Well, I've always understood it to be like this:

If it's something you wear normally, it's all good.  I think 'normally' means everyday clothes and not the prom dress you wore once or the suit you wear to funerals and weddings.   

I've heard of people referring *specifically* to the clothes that they are wearing and then touching them and then getting penalized for a prop violation, not a costume violation.

I'm not sure how it would go if you right a ode to your favourite green shirt and then wore that favourite green shirt when you slammed the poem.  I think that as long as you didn't actually touch it, you'd be alright.  But I'm open to hearing more on the matter.

[ms_spelt]

I've thought about costume from a gendered perspective for ten years.in fact my entry to slam hinged on it.
I have been part of this discussion for a decade at the highest levels.
it's simple really-if it's worn offstage regularly in a non performance capacity and it is not referenced in any way in  your poem it's fine.
me in a dress reading a poem about hockey is fine.
you in a tutu reading a poem about dance is a costume.
quite simple.
further...
props-and costumes are basically props you wear-are fine if they are available to all.
standing on a table or chair-even if you are talking about tables and chairs is fine-it's there for everyone to use. But if i bring my hockey stick from home when i do my hockey poem?-prop.
if i wear my hockey jersey while doing my hockey poem-even though i wear it regualrly off stage in a non performance capacity...it's a costume.
I'm not gonna redefine what a costume or prop is-this is well travelled and examined terrority.
I'm bout managing the playoffs and rest assurred i will rule accordingly on this.

[ms_spelt]

further clarification here as well...
your body is fair.
scruff can a poem about being black-and chris can do one about being white.
their skin is not a prop-even though they have different colour skin they still each have skin.
you doing your poem where you reference the running of fingers through hair is fine-we all have hair.
some of us have less hair from all the time we've spent ajudicating tournaments but we all,in theory have hair.
the rules allow for trans folk to slam so women aren't gonna wind up unduly penalized.
in point of fact a woman argued that taking off ones shirt shouldn't be allowed because it was unfair to women. I felt we all have bodies we can reference and all have shirts we can remove so where's the harm?
she felt that a man taking off his shirt could do so more easily,given social mores etc, and rejected the argument that a woman removing her shirt doing a poem about breasts and going topless might outscore the male poet ripping his shirt off.she won that debate and that rule exists to this day in PSI.
as does the honour code which i advocated for shortly therafter, to ensure that no matter what the grey area that those who exploit it are held to account.
costume is one of those things-due to the nature of gender-that will be impossible to narrowly define-and in fact it's more likely that a narrow definition of costume will wind up doing what you fear.the rules as currently interpretted and written allow for the necessary grey area and the honour code ensures the grey area is never misused.
I encourage all involved in playoffs to approach me and discuss the rules if they are at all unsure about any rules and their poems.
I'd rather have a clarifying chat beforehand than a protest afterwards.
but I can't state enough that the best and brightest in slam from it's founders forward have looked at this question thoroughly and there is nothing to gain by reopening it.
focus on practicing your poems and if you have any questions about how I as bout manger might rule on something ask for clarity.

[Susan]

Many kudos to the slam founders and current slam overseers for examining such a simple question so thoroughly. If I recall correctly, our own Ms Spelt was at the centre of such discussion when he appeared at Nationals in his wedding dress, provoking much chin-rubbing and debate.

Slam is a community-based world -- its rules, activities, and events are all shaped by the discussion of its participants. There are rules in place now which did not exist several years ago, and many regulations have been reworked and refined many times over through discussion, debate, and outright arguing.

Like the small print of the legal world (i.e. the court-of-law), the small print of the slam world is constantly updated as new 'cases' come to light which are mulled over, decided upon, and then used as benchmarks for future situations. Laws/ruled get updated, changed, deleted, revised as the need arises, through the constant input of the relevant community.

"(T)here is nothing to gain by reopening (this question)." To gain by reopening such questions -- clarification, in one or more person's mind, regarding something that puzzles them. To lose by not reopening such questions -- the community's constant growth and evolution.

[Lisa]

Ha! Leave it to Angus to answer this question so thoroughly and accurately before I had even seen it. My response is, pointing up, "What he said."

[ms_spelt]

sue-to clarify-i am big believer in questions.and in reopening certain questions as the need arises.
but as you pointed out on the thread about whether or not to move the alt slams-if it ain't broke....
and i've been at the center of this question for over a decade-as you note-and I've seen it exhaustively examined.If i thought for a second that some new angle was being brought to the table here i'd dive into this briar patch.but briar patch it is-and there is nothing new being said here.
 gender is a grey area so rules about how we clothe ourselves onstage are gonna plunge into that grey area.
I'm bout managing playoffs-the one person in the community who has been at the center of this discussion for over a decade.I'm gonna rule fairly on this rule-and all the rules.and i'm willing to clarify the guidlines for rulings beforehand to prevent any controversy.
thanks all.

[Son of Mallin]

It's true that there are instances when it's more of a judgment call than a black-or-white rule, but when you really get down to the nitty gritty, I think it becomes clear.  You won't be penalised for wearing a regular piece of clothing, as long as you don't "present" it during the poem.  Using a prop violation I remember as an analogy, a person once came up and announced that she had to read her poem off of her iphone and that it wasn't a prop.  Beside me, Sean sagely nodded in approval.  However, in the second line of her poem, she referenced her phone and pointed and it; whereupon Sean turned to me and said, "NOW it's a prop..." 

Poetry referencing clothing is a tricky business, but it should be based on the novelty of the clothing in relation to the person, as Angus said.  I wouldn't chide Fernando for wearing socks during his Socks poem, but I would chide him for wearing the very soft orgasmic socks he was referencing, unless he wore them every day.  At Nationals I saw someone who introduced himself in a poem as "the man in the green hat", and yes, he was wearing it.  It's questionable as is, but yes, that's conditional on whether he wears it every day or whether he just makes sure to wear it when he does that particular poem. 

And I think that's the conclusive distinction: the host has the tricky judgement of whether the poet is just wearing what he/she wears, or whether he/she made a point to wear a particular piece of clothing to enhance or demonstrate a line, theme, or idea in a particular poem.  How's that sound?

Additionally, I think that can be accomplished without having to consider the gender of the poet.  While there may be a correlation between gender and tendency to dress in a particular fashion, we still make the same considerations and judgements regardless of that gender, and I strongly hope that's always the case.

[Shannon]

my gender angle was said because i feel like my needs as a woman writing about my own body and its coverings aren't currently allowed, and i want to open that up

i didn't mean to imply that men aren't doing this or want to do this, its just i know about women, and women do tend to talk more about the perception of what we look like

thanks for the discussion, i am learning alot

i think i get it, it seems to be about congruence between the outfit and the piece, i like the example of the hockey jersey

HOWEVER, Malin's point is a good one too, what about the guy talking about his hat that he does where all the time?  I think that should be cool.

What about writing an ode to my purple  boots (that I wear EVERY day).  Is that cool? 

Can I write an angry letter to love reminding it that I am the girl in the purple glasses that should be easy to spot?  If I can't, than I will reiterate that the rule does not currently allow us to write about our bodies and the coverings on it and it certainly could/should

[ms_spelt]

you're in the grey area with your glasses.
it'd be walking the line. and the moment you touched them you'd be over the line and into a prop/costume violation. We had a poet do a poem about the letter P and his Philosophy on the letter P.All the while wearing a hat with the letter P on it. And me and Sean could see him dance into the grey area willfully.but neither of us was gonna call it until he touched his hat-which he did-pointing straight at the letter P at the climax of his poem. at that point he is blatantly using it to enhance the poem.penalty.
can you do and ode to you purple boots-yes-but only in the same way that sean can do an ode to his toque-which he does.
but when he slams that poem he doesn't wear his toque onstage.he relies on his ability with his words and cheorography to not have to point to the toque.
so write a poem to your boots-just don't wear them when you slam the poem.
I'm not gonna ask anyone to wear contacts instead of glasses to avoid the costume foul-it's prescription eyewear-but i will watch it like a hawk to make sure a rule violation does not occur.
as I've said before-the rules and the way they are enforced have been the result of over a decade worth of examination and refinement.
the needs of all performers,women men and trans, have been weighed and examined to create the most level playing field possible.
the rules don't need to change here.
simply educate yourself on them and then innovate within them.
this is what is asked of everyone equally.

[Son of Mallin]

I too am overjoyed to debate a topic like this.  When I really get into the nitty-gritty some people think I'm getting emotional, but it's rarely the case: I just really like hashing a topic out.  Here I go again:

Of course writing about your body is allowed; performing about your body is also allowed; the genders really do have the same privileges in terms of the rules.  We can touch our body parts (like a man grabbing himself to make him look masculine, or a woman grabbing her chest to talk about how men treat them - I've seen both), but we can't indicate items of clothing.  There is no difference in rules between the genders; and if your claim that some people talk more about their clothes is true, it's still a misnomer: they're fine as long as they're not clearly dressing the part, and they're not making a visual display of those clothes with their body gestures. 

When you so-happen to be wearing the clothes you've written about, I understand that sometimes that's just a coincidence and that's not your fault.  But something I've learned is that the difference between an intentional and an unintentional but perceived violation is invisible to those calling the violations.  Just like I make sure not to scorekeep when Lisa's performing, a poet makes sure not to wear the clothes he's slamming about, just in case someone decides it's a deliberate adjunct to the poem.  I won't blame a woman for talking about dresses or knee-high boots, but women AND men: try not to wear the exact article you're describing, and try not to touch it, display it, sashay it, or swoosh it.  Again, sometimes this is unintentional on the part of the poet, but it must be a rule not to do it, so that the deliberate violators don't have excuses.  Last night there were a couple of instances: one person took off his hat and threw it off-stage half-way through his poem.  That's a no-no.  Another added humour to his discomfort at forgetting his line, by declaring, "Where's my beer?!", finding it, picking it up, gulping some down, displaying an increased level of ease thereafter, and continuing.  That's no good either. 

So as poets we be careful not to slip up, so that the bad ones don't have excuses.  Graham Oldes once approached me after a poem with a warning: I came on stage back in 2002, got in front of the microphone, and took off my hipster sunglasses while saying, "Glasses come off..."  The audience chuckled.  Graham informed me that was a no-no. 

Vancouver's more lax about these rules than other cities, actually.  I've heard that in Toronto, one rarely even makes a visual display of himself, but rather just recites.  If we begin to become more lax about some things, there will be some culture shock and some disqualification issues when we send people to tournaments. 

[Shannon]

Interesting, yes, maybe that was what I was originally thinking about, swooshing skirts, clicking heels, and stomping boots.  This feels grey area to me.  This also feels like something that one might want to do and I would hate to see a point deduction for it.

And yes I agree we should all read up on the rules, and understand them. 

However this poses two potential difficulties: the day Angus takes a vacation some of us will not have an expert to consult about the grey area (that's a complement Angus)  and secondly doesn't the term 'grey area' imply that different people will have different interpretations?  Which would mean that right now I can talk to Angus (which is awesome) for clarification and I can get clarification, however, if there is a day where Angus takes off for a few months the grey area (such as my purple glasses) might be interpreted differently by someone else or more importantly in a different city. 

Grey areas make me nervous.   

Yup, great discussion!

[Shannon]

"Of course writing about your body is allowed; performing about your body is also allowed; the genders really do have the same privileges in terms of the rules"

I do agree by the way!  I do, however, think women do tend to write about their bodies/appearance more, which just puts them at greater risk for being in the grey area.  Grey areas make me nervous.   It was my hope to start this conversation to decrease this risk.

At one point, the discussion DID come up about whether I could touch my lovely hair while talking about my hair in a poem.  There was disagreement about whether I'd get points taken away or not.    Doesn't this means that its not clear to all, even those of you well versed in this stuff?  (I think I am remembering that scenerio correctly).

[Son of Mallin]

Alright, let's see... the official rules on props is that you can use something everyone has access to.  For instance, you can use the floor as a prop (like listening for a sound, something I can see R.C. doing), you can use the mic (pointing at it or even, as I saw at the last Nationals, pretending the cord of the mic is a noose), or touching your body, which everyone has access to.  In this matter, playing with your hair should be fine, even though there are bald people out there.  Just don't comb it... that would be bad.  But touching yourself is fine. 

Maybe "gray area" means "you're pushing it, watch it..." more than "is that illegal? I can't tell".  It's about how strict the bout manager is being that day.  Graham gave me a warning that day with the glasses, but he was in his rights to deduct points. 

Swooshing is a gray area, but swooshing your dress while talking about how awesome your dress is goes too far.  Stomping boots should be fine, I mean you're just making a rhythm... but don't do it while talking about your new boots that go stompy-stomp.  Is it starting to make sense? 

[ms_spelt]

as the bout manager at the bout you mention-and someone with a decade of experience at  the highest levels i have to say that I saw no fouls.
none.
hats were never mentioned in any poems and as such -no violation.
the where's my beer? was a clearly spontaneous outburst-as unplanned as the forgetting of lines that preceded it.it wasn't a poem about beer-no prop violation-besides which every poet in the room had ample and equal access to glasses of beer everywhere.
i called a clean bout and i called it fairly.
your comments seem to imply that i did not.
i stand by the bout i called .it was clean.