Gobsmacked

I woke up on this gray and leftover-wintry day, only to find that the kind folks at Poetry Daily had posted not one but three of the poems from Cradle Song!

I was gobsmacked. Not only because it was Poetry Daily, which thrills me like a schoolgirl whose crush smiled back at her, but also because of the individual poems they chose. The first one I'm down with and might have seen coming, but the other two are sections that never really see the light of day with me. It's not that I don't like them. They do their job in the poem of building pillars and holding up ideas and furthering the overall missive of the collection, but they aren't counted among my pretties, or favorites, and so I don't ever really think about them much.

Until today. Now, I'm thinking about them a lot. And I'm thinking about subjectivity and why it is that we like what we like. I've taught literature for a number of years now, and always, some student asks me, "Who decides which poems/poets/stories/writers are 'good enough' to be canonized, anthologized, reproduced, and referenced?" This leads to a larger discussion of the included and the excluded, how we know what we know, and why we as individuals are drawn to certain texts more than others.

A text is important to me when it does one of two things: it either 1) tells me something I didn't already know, schools me, as it were or 2) articulates something I know or recognize to be true but hadn't ever articulated or wrapped my head around, and it does so in a profound or resonant way that makes me say, "Exactly! I totally know what you're talking about!"

I don't know what kinds of reactions my poems created in the editors at Poetry Daily, or in anyone who might have read the book. But the machinations behind such things intrigue me. They keep me guessing--and keep me writing. And I'm thrilled to be up there on that website today, thrilled that these previously closeted sections are getting their moment in the sun. I'm happy to be forced to reconsider them. And who knows? Maybe I'll even air them out in the next reading that I give.

Westward, Ho

I'm going to be taking a little trip soon, a little poetry trip. I say it's a poetry trip only because I plan to claim it on my next year's taxes. It's actually a trip back to Oregon, back to the green and verdant landscape that I miss so much. Back to the people I love and the little ones who have, no doubt, grown as much as mine has. Back to Market of Choice and Bambini and The Laughing Planet and the very best little Mexican cafe in the world--Fond Rosa in Portland.

But there will be poetry. I'll be reading at The Press Club in Portland on Monday the 16th at 7 pm. Apparently, it's the bee's knees. It has crepes and booze and magazines and, at least this one night, me, reading poems. The next day, St. Paddy's, I'll be reading at the Eugene Library at 7 pm as part of the Windfall Reading Series with Miriam Gershow. If you're in the area, come by and see me. Meet the little one. Buy me a crepe. And I'll sing you song, and I'll try not to sing out of key.

Live Nude Girl in the Devil's Territory Sings a Cradle Song

I didn't post an AWP recap because it was a really disjointed experience for me. I guess I'm old school now because I'm still clinging to those AWPs of yore, when there was only one bookfair, and I actually could count on running into the folks I wait all year to see. This year, I didn't make it to a single panel, not even the ones on Saturday that I really, really wanted to see. But I did have a wonderful book release party at The Woman Made Gallery (an excellent space in Chicago for women artists), featuring my fellow C&R Press ladies Michelle Bitting and Allison Funk.





The company--and the cupcakes--rocked. And I got to meet my excellent editors, including the fabulous Chad Prevost



and sold some books and met some folks, so overall, it was a success. If you didn't get a copy of the book, please email me, and I'll send it to you--autographed and eveything.

Meanwhile, I'm gearing up for more readings (see sidebar for a full list). I'll be heading out to Oregon to read in the middle of March, and I'll be down in Carbondale at the end of it. But before I hit the road for my little tour, THE road tour is coming to me, and I'm thrilled to be part of it:



If you're in the area, roll on by. It promises to be an amazing night.

Up, Up, and Away

It's crazy to me that it's that time of year again. Even though we didn't make it there last year, it always feels like it's impossibly soon for AWP to be happening. (Maybe that's because it's an impossibly cold time of year to have it in an impossible cold, wintry, and windy city.)

Regardless, today is the last day of running around maniacally ahead of flying out. Luggage? Check. Extra copies of the book to give away, sell, and trade? Husband? Check. Preschooler? Check. Mother flying in to meet us there to take care of said preschooler? Check.

I'll be giving a reading on Friday night and a book-signing on Saturday morning. If you're free from the maddening crush on Friday from, say, 6 to 8 pm, shoot me an email, and I'll fill you in. And if you're still there on Saturday, please stop by the C&R Press table (Table 663, Lower Level, Southwest Hall) sometime between 10 and 11 am to say hello and chit chat. I promise to hide you from the person you hooked up with the night before when he or she comes looking for you.

***

In non-AWP-related news, I'm the featured poet over at Anti-.

***

Here's hoping our paths cross in Chicago. Safe travels, everyone.

Hail to the Chief

A Cottage Industry

I'm leaving in a few hours to head to Atlanta for my first reading from the book as a book. It feels very fitting that this debut is happening in Atlanta, my hometown and the locus of most of the narrative in these poems. If you're nearby, swing over to Wordsmiths Books in Decatur on Saturday at 2 and check out the Poetry Atlanta reading I'll be doing with Karen Head and Chad Prevost, hosted by the fabulous Collin Kelley.

Also, I've gotten a lot of requests about how to order signed copies of the book (thank you, kind people). The easiest thing to do is to send me a check, and I'll send you the signed book. Shoot me an email, and we'll work out the details: stacebro@gmail.com. And it's also now available on Amazon as well as the C&R Press website.

See you in Atlanta!

Blossom on the Tree, You Know How I Feel

My box of books arrived this weekend, and while I've been waiting and waiting for this moment for what seemed like a lifetime, I didn't dive right into them. Instead, I went to Disney on Ice with my daughter. I had lunch. I did some work. I waited until the champagne was chilled and night had fallen. And then we opened them.



And they were beautiful.



Thanks, C&R Press!!

Cradle Song

It's here! At long last, Cradle Song is available for order.

For all of you who sent your empathy, your sympathy, and your support during that whole fiasco this summer, thank you. It was well worth it to find the book's true home at C&R Press, and I couldn't be more pleased.

(And if you want a signed copy, back channel me.)

2008: A Recap

With one day officially left in 2008, I've been looking back on this year. It's been a momentous one on many, many fronts: the highest highs and some of the most devastating lows. Here are some of the highlights:

January: Celebrated my third anniversary.
February: Found out that Cradle Song had won its prize.
March: Father, suffering.
April-June: Editing book, working on layout, getting it ready for press.
July: Lost book award. Fallout. Tailspin. Amazing support in the blogsphere.
August: Book picked up by the wonderful C&R Press. Fabulous husband wins National Poetry Series.
September: My little one and I start (co-op)preschool.
October: Little one turns 3.
November: Final edits for Cradle Song. OBAMA!!!!
December: Cradle Song gets sent to press. I win the Caption Contest, get nominated for a Pushcart Prize, and accept a tenure-track job as a poet at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville.

All in all, an amazing year. I'm anxiously awaiting my box of books, which should be arriving on my doorstep soon. For all of you out there who were so supportive throughout the fiasco with the Apple Dumpling Gang and all the way through to the book finding its true home with C&R, thank you. Find me at AWP, and I'll buy you a drink.

Meanwhile, here's hoping you all have a safe and happy new year.

And tell me: What's your New Year's resolution for '09?

The Second Most Important Vote of 2008

A vote for my captions is a vote for change. And for Obama--again. And for bringing the troops home.

Stacey Lynn Brown: Captions you can believe in.

Give Me Moe

One thing I've figured out about myself is that I'm a sparse blogger. An intermittent one. A random, "Sure, I read other people's blogs every day, and oh, yeah, I have one, too. Wow. I should actually post something new on it sometime soon" kind of gal.

Happily, I've been busy doing book-related things, the most recent of which happened this morning, when I had the pleasure of reading for the Moe Green Poetry Hour. For those of you who aren't familiar with it, Moe Green is a Blog Talk Radio show created and hosted by Rafael F.J. Alvarado. He's had a slew of excellent writers on the show, and I was very excited to be part of it.

Radio, as a format, is an unknown for me, and I was a little unsure of what to expect. On some level, I thought it would be like giving a poetry reading behind one-way glass, where I would just be sending poems blindly out into the ether, but Rafael was an engaged and charming host, and it turned into a true dialogue about the poems and the forthcoming book. I really enjoyed the whole experience.

Here's the link for the show. I read first, and my part lasts about half an hour. And the very talented Margaret Randall shines in the second half.

Enjoy! And thanks again to Rafael for asking me to join him.

Fear of a Gay Planet

Now that we've made epic, historical strides toward equality on the racial front by electing an African-American President, a lot of people feel complacent and sated. As if racism has been eradicated. As if magically America has become the true land of (equal) opportunity. As if civil rights and human rights and equal rights weren't dealt a devastating blow and trounced on the same night that we all felt so overjoyed by how far we've come.

As you all know by now, the hatemongering Prop 8 passed in California. The Mormon Church emptied its collection plates to fight against letting two people who love each other get married (because Mormons have such a noble approach to marriage? Because heterosexuals do such a stellar job of upholding its sanctity?), and a preliminary petition has been created to strip it of its tax-exempt status. You can find out more about helping with that cause here.

In Arizona, a measure was passed that prevents couples who aren't married from adopting or fostering children. The real losers and victims in this scenario are not just the people who are openly being discriminated against, but the ones they would take in and love: the children whose chances of getting adopted or helped or loved have now been drastically diminished. Statistically, gay couples have the highest rates of taking in children with physical and emotional disabilites, so it's a double blow to those who need love the most. Is the Mormon Church going to adopt and foster these kids? Are the people who voted for it going to? If not, then they should butt the f**k out.

I'm a straight, married parent who wants nothing more for her child than for her to inherit a world that is better off than the one I inherited. This isn't happening on so many fronts--the deficit, global warming, starvation and genocide and rape and torture and exile and hate crimes and wars have consumed our country, our reserves, our economy. There are so many things we can't change, but there are some that we can. Our right to vote is still one of the most important tools we have--that and the ways in which we choose to spend our money. The people of California let everyone down in terms of not getting out the vote, but now that we're here, we have to turn our attention to what can be done next.

Complacency is the real enemy. Yes, we can imagine a better future and believe in our leader(s) once again. But we must also believe in ourselves and our own abilities to make a difference in the lives of others and in creating a better collective story for our nation. Remember what Martin Luther King said: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

The path to change is through action, not inaction. It's through daring to hope and then working to change.

Sign a petition to overturn prop 8. Donate what you can. Do what you can. Do more than you can. Go to overturnprop8.com or noonprop8.com to find out what you can do to help.

If my daughter turns to me in 15 years and tells me she's a lesbian, I don't want to have to get out a map and direct her to a state where she can be free to love whoever she loves. I want to give her the map of the United States and say, "Pick a state. Any state. This is America. You will be respected."

Don't It Make Your Red States Blue

Editors and Publishers

As many of you know, I had a horrible experience this summer with Cider Press Review. And as you also may know by now, Kevin Larimer, the deputy editor of Poets and Writers, wrote an article about this debacle for the November/December issue.

I've debated responding to this article for a number of reasons. For one, I'm just plain tired of the whole thing. It took up most of my summer and cast a pall over my household--and over the incredibly happy prospect of my book coming out. And given the nature of this article, and the ways in which I've been painted as a poet who just "complains" about things, I felt that offering my critique would just be playing into that portrait and prolonging this whole thing. But to remain silent is to play into his "moral of the story," which is that poets should either allow editors to do whatever they want or "self-publish." So I'll make my comment anyway.

When he approached me about writing this article, I embraced it. I don't have anything to hide. I've disclosed what happened between me and the press, and since I knew that they couldn't deny what they did, I expected that they would badmouth me and blame me and try to justify their actions, which is exactly what they did.

I knew that as a reporter Mr. Larimer would have, at his disposal, the transcript of what happened between the press and me. I knew that he would inevitably make choices about what to include and how to shape the story. And while I'm glad that the story got out to a larger audience, the ways in which he shaped it, and the way he focused it, truly surprised me.

I didn't expect him to frame this as "who has the final editorial say--author or editor?" because in our case, as in most cases for poets, it was a non-issue. According to the contract they created and we all signed, they did. Period. So they weren't obligated to do a damn thing I asked. But when it came down to it, they chose to break that contract instead of honoring it, and apparently, that's okay, as long as your "feelings are hurt" by said layout disagreement.

I was also surprised by the way in which he chose to (not) present the legal aspects of this situation--and the fact that he never touched on any of the ethical ones.

He casually mentioned that if I paid them back the money they gave me (as well as money they didn't give me), I would "get my rights back," but he never mentioned the fact that they didn't actually own my rights. Once a contract has been broken, neither party is entitled to the fruits of that contract--a little legal detail that got overlooked. And the way the discussion was framed, I just hired a lawyer to avoid having to repay prize money (and their cover art expenses). In reality, the fact that they were withholding my rights meant I had to spend almost all of that prize money just to get my own book back.

But all of this got glossed over on the way to the "real meat" of this story--the gossipy he said/she said about a back cover disagreement. The thrust of this was editorially sensationalized, with various quotes parsed so that they were taken out of context, leaving out the elements (and the facts) that made them fair and reasonable requests and leaving only the most contentious, foot-stamping stuff.

For example, Mr. Larimer chose not to include the fact that the full contest guidelines already appeared in a full-page ad for the book contest on the last page of the book. That fact made the repeated ad on the back cover redundant and unnecessary, which was the point I made to the editors at the time. Oddly, that fact never made it into the story.

If I were going to be cynical about it, I could point out his position as "Deputy Editor" at the magazine. I could focus my critique on the issue of editorialization as a whole, and on the fact that this article is a metaphor for its inevitable conclusion: poets should just be quiet and be grateful for whatever they get and however it turns out for them because in the end, the editors are the ones who get to shape and control both the text at hand as well as the ways in which this information gets presented to the larger world.

Don't get me wrong. A good editor is a blessing. The wonderful editors at my new press gave me pages of notes, comments, and suggestions within days of acquiring my manuscript, and I was incredibly grateful for their input. In the olden days of poetry, editors and poets worked closely together to create a better text. But creating those relationships now is a hard thing to do, and you're damned lucky if you find yourself matched up with people who can not only understand what you're doing but can also help you to do it more effectively.

But what about a bad editor? Or an ineffectual one? Or one who believes that because she runs a contest out of her basement, she knows more about the poet's work than the poet does (even though she never actually read my book until she was putting into layout form)? And who believes she gets to change that poet's work without her consent?

And what about the journalist who knowingly includes, in a "researched" article, a quotation that was never actually said? As noted, Mr. Larimer had the entire transcript of the four-day dispute over the back cover, and as he noted in his article, no other conversations took place.

So he knew for a fact that I NEVER wrote that going back to the blurb authors would be "horribly unprofessional." And while he covered himself by noting that Robert Wynne "claimed" that I said it, this claim was undocumented because I never did. And yet, for some reason, he included it anyway. And I wanted to know why.

I emailed Mr. Larimer the day after I read this article and asked him the following:

"If you knew there was no documentation for this quote, why did you include it? Especially when you had, at your disposal, all of the things that I did say?"

His response? "We invite you to write a letter to the editor."

I have to admit that I'm surprised because I want(ed) to believe that Poets and Writers took its job as being an advocate for writers at least halfway seriously. To me, that means don't include anything, in either direction, that isn't true. To this end, I did not mention anything in my correspondence with Mr. Larimer that I could not provide evidence for. And I tried my best to represent the tenor and tone of communications honestly without augmenting or omitting important details.

But the editorial decision in this article that really left a bad taste in my mouth was the way Mr. Larimer "outed" last year's contest winner. Not only did he broadcast her name and the title of her book, which were supposed to be kept under wraps as part of the settlement between her and Cider Press, but he also betrayed her as a "source."

When he asked for her comment on the situation, she wrote him an email explaining that she couldn't comment on it because of the gag order and the settlement they had reached. And instead of honoring that, he QUOTED from her email.

Let me do a Joe Biden here and say that again. He quoted from an email in which she said she couldn't comment on the situation. He created a comment from her "no comment."

All of these "choices" seem to shape this article in a very specific direction. Even though it was about the dynamics between authors and editors, no authors were interviewed for the piece. He didn't ask any poets or fiction writers for their take on having their work edited without their consent (which was, to me, the biggest issue--not the author photo BS). Instead, he asked a fellow editor for his opinion, and his take on it was not at all surprising.

What disappoints me most about this article is that it does little to further the conversations that should be happening--about the relationships between writers and publishers, about the ethics and the contest system as a whole, about alternatives to the current publishing paradigms. Instead, it just reifies the belief that the publishers are the kings of the kingdom, and poets are just peasants who should happily lap and snap up any crumbs that might get tossed our way--a dynamic that is faulty and dangerous to poetry.

While this article could and should have focused on preventing this kind of thing from happening to another poet, the main subtext is that the only way to prevent this scenario is for poets to just shut up and "be grateful" for whatever they get--and for however their book turns out. Even if the books are full of typos. Even if the editors change your language without your consent.

So I stand by everything that I wrote in that original blog post, and then some. My aim in all of this was to let poets know the facts about Cider Press Review. They believe it is acceptable to enter into contracts with poets and break them without legal cause. They'll do it and then try to get money out of those poets in exchange for "rights" they don't actually own. And after they do it, they'll badmouth the poet they dropped and blame her and lie about what she did and didn't say. And apparently, they'll get away with it.

If you want to enter into a contract with people like that, have at it. Just remember that thanks to my $750 lawyer, they now have a "new contract," and one of the clauses mandates that the communication between the poet and the editors belongs to the press and can't be shared, which amounts to a pre-emptive gag order. So if they do to you what they did to me, you won't be able to talk about it.

Me? I'm brushing the dirt off my shoulder and moving on. Again.

The Weight of the World

Send some good thoughts to Obama and his grandmother.

Super Obama

I know you've probably seen this picture by now, but I have to post it again, along with his quotations from the Al Smith dinner in New York:

“I do love the Waldorf-Astoria. I hear from the doorstep you can see all the way to the Russian Tea Room.”

and

"I obviously never knew your grandfather, but from what Senator McCain has told me, they had a great time before Prohibition."

and

"The housing crisis has been 8 times harder on John McCain."

and

"Fox news accused me of fathering two African-American children in wedlock."

and, finally,

“Contrary to rumors you have heard, I was not born in a manger. I was born on Krypton and sent here by my father Jor-El to save the Planet Earth."




Yes, he was. And yes, he can.

The Only Palin We Want is Tina Fey

Hi, everyone.

There's a petition going around that asks Lorne Michaels NOT to give Sarah Palin any more network exposure by allowing her to appear on SNL on October 25th--just one week before the election.

The information and link are below. There is an optional donation link afterwards, but you don't have to donate in order to sign the petition. Please read it and pass it on.

From the petition:

Since joining John McCain on the Republican ticket, Governor Sarah Palin has injected the presidential campaign with a venomous tone unbecoming of the office she seeks.

In her most recent rallies, she has fueled racial hatred, riling up her angry base by questioning Barack Obama's background and suggesting he "pals around with terrorists."

Now Palin is angling to appear on Saturday Night Live alongside her alter ego Tina Fey. And rumors are circulating that she has been invited to appear on the October 25th episode of the highly rated comedy. That's just one week before the election.

We have all witnessed this year how Saturday Night Live's political sketches can affect the political conversation and sway public opinion. In particular, any candidate who has appeared on the show has experienced a post SNL bump in popularity.

Providing Sarah Palin with this televised forum to charm the American audience just one week before the election would not only be a misguided decision, it would be downright irresponsible.

So I hope you will take a moment to sign this petition urging Lorne Michaels and the other writers and producers of Saturday Night Live not to give Sarah Palin this additional network exposure. And I hope you will pass this petition along to anyone you know who might be interested in signing it.

Let's remind the producers of Saturday Night Live that the only Sarah Palin we wish to see on their show is the one played by Tina Fey.

HERE'S THE LINK: http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/nopalinsnl?e

More Goodly News

C. Dale Young has some exciting news. Drop by and help him celebrate!

Unbelievable

I don't have a link for this yet, as I can't find it online yet, but it appears that McCain was forced to defend Obama at one of his rallies today. In response to a woman who said she didn't trust Obama because he was "an Arab," McCain shook his head and corrected her, calling Obama a decent family man. Later, he said that "a President Obama" shouldn't be feared.

It's about time that he stepped up in an effort to try to curtail some of the hate-filled rhetoric that has been rising at their rallies, spurred on by his pitbull during her rallies, but the fact remains that the damage has been done. The fire has been stoked. The legions are marching, and in a show of how far out of control this has already spun, McCain was booed by his own supporters for defending Obama as a decent human being.

McCain came face to face today with the ugliness of his own creation, his Frankenstein monster, and I have to admit that I almost feel a little sorry for him. He's an obviously conflicted man--torn between trying to be someone he's not on both fronts. I think he wants to be the ethical man he purports himself to be. I know he wants to be the President. But I also think his heart isn't 100% in the ruthless, cutthroat tactics that he's been engaging in these past few desperate days. One of his biggest mistakes was in hiring an acolyte of Karl Rove to run his campaign. We watched what these very same tactics did to him in 2000, and now, he's a shell of the man he used to be--ethically and otherwise.

But the proof will be in his actions in the next couple of days--and in whether or not he puts his attack dog back on her leash. She needs to step up and disavow the violence and the epithets and the hatred, too. And if she doesn't, he needs to denounce her, too. Especially now that she's been found guilty of abusing her power (surprise, surprise).

What a day.

A Flow Chart of the VP Debate

In case you haven't seen it yet (and with a shout out to Kerry and Alex).