Log in

No account? Create an account

Seer of ghosts & weaver of stories

(You are very much not forgotten)

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
My Rhysling-Eligible Poems
The ones available online are hotlinked to the source:

"Journeying," Mythic Delirium, Issue 20 [Reprinted on Other Voices International Poetry Project, hence why it's available online].

"Cradle Song," Jabberwocky, Issue 4.

"Moving Shakespeare's Bones," Snakeskin, Issue 157.

"Cry Wolf," Cabinet des Fées, Issue 8.

"Queen of May," Not One of Us, Issue 42.

"Eye for an Eye" and "Bluff," The Houston Literary Review, October 2009 [Click on "Poetry Issue" for the PDF].

"Interment," Fear and Trembling, November 2009.

"Blue Stars," The Dead Mule School of Southern Literature, November 2009.

"Fireflies Gone," Straying from the Path anthology. Drollerie Press, November 2009 [I'm willing to send a PDF of the anthology to anyone who wants to see this].

"Five Secret Selves" and "The Monsters of Notre-Dame," Midnight Echo, Issue 3 [In PDF format, the magazine is quite inexpensive].

"Changeling" and "Grave Goods," Poetic Diversity, December 2009.

"Lunar Divination in Three Simple Steps" - This poem won 2nd place in dichroic's Lunar Maria poetry competition; it may or may not be eligible. We are waiting for official word!

(I've left out a few, given they're either not easily accessible, non-genre, or both. Once again, best of luck to everybody; your posts have been a great help in finalizing my own decisions!)

ETA: I've just realized that there are a handful of pieces in my chapbook, Devil's Road Down, that definitely count as speculative or slipstream. However, these are not available online, and I can't afford to give out any more free copies! However, it costs only $5.00 from the press, as linked. The chapbook was published in September 2009.

  • 1
thank you for the links! I had my best friend over here today, and made her read Devil's Road Down at my kitchen table. We are agreed on the matter of your awesomeness.

'Moving Shakespeare's Bones' is stunning, incidentally.

Funny, but MSB was rejected at least three or four times before it found a home. I was kind of convinced it was weak...

You are darlings *hugs*

It was? Hmm. I'll admit that what got me was "we who honour dead men's words are wary" - perhaps the editors of modern poetic publications are too busy sifting through live people's words, and thus do not quite get the lit-historian's weird lust for dead men's words?

I mean, I'll admit there are points that the piece skates a bit too near to antiquated language even for my liking (James can't understand why high-flown, pseudo-Victorian vocabulary and phrasing or badly imitated Shakespeare bothers me when I find it in modern poetry; he says, you know, for a writer, you're not very fond of eloquence - to which I say, no, eloquence is not what's at stake here; it's improper usage). But it called for a measure of formality.

no, eloquence is not what's at stake here; it's improper usage


... that sounds like it belongs in a poem of its own, you know.

It annoys me when people assume that antiquated language automatically equals eloquence. There is such a thing as bad antiquated language. It's the difference between Tennyson's more or less natural usage and Pound's forced/pretentious/dull usage - that's the example I gave James when he said that.

  • 1