First of all, why are you posting to me? Which part of "don't post to me" did you not understand?
second, I was published in a chapbook approximately 11 years ago. I also did the front and back cover art. I don't care to divulge the name of the publication, nor do I give a rat's ass what you might think of my poetry.
I also did the cover art for a recording of a collaboration piece between local L.A. poets and musicians.
My payment for all of that was six copies of the chapbook (three for the poem and three for the art) and three copies of the cassette recording (they couldn't easily burn CDs back then).
As for your snotty innuendo about which literary magazine I was published in and then subsequent assumption that I wasn't published because I didn't respond to you in a manner that you consider timely, all I can say is GFYB. I didn't say it was a literary magazine and your attempt to glorify yourself because you were published in a rag that is only read by other so-called poets who dream of someday being published in the same magazine, is totally lost on me. I was on the review committee of a poetry publication and had to read literally thousands of submissions of useless drivel, so I know how meaningless it is.
Here's the simple truth about why poetry shouldn't have government funding, in 99.999% of all poetry (yes, I made that number up), the fact is, the only people who would pay to read it are other poets or the family of the person getting published. That same 99.999% of poetry should simply never be published for public consumption. It is useless drivel to everybody but the poet and a few other people who only have black turtleneck sweaters in their wardrobe. The other 0.001% doesn't need gov't funding because it is good enough that normal people will pay money for it. The people who would receive the gov't funding don't need it either, they need to get a real job and spare normal people from their whiney odes to the lint in their pockets.
And as a reminder, DO NOT POST TO ME |
