And I want to have some control over my deadlines--even if it's, "The first I can get this to you is four days from now. If you need it sooner, I can refer you to some services with a larger staff."

That's very good thinking, and allows you to control the flow.

As promised, here's my reply to Newsweek's "Poetry is Dead" essay:

Once Again, Poetry Is Dead? It must be true, because Newsweek said it

Victor, that's a kickass article! So, some ghostwriter can't name Maya Angelou? Was he alive in 1992? Because I seem to recall she wrote and read a poem at Clinton's first inaugural....

Rock ON, Victor. Great response. Did you send a copy of that to Newsweek?

Rock ON, Victor. Great response. Did you send a copy of that to Newsweek?

Thanks. No, I haven't yet--although with the combination of my propensity for pissing people off and having friends at most large periodicals (Including Newsweek), I often hear reactions pretty quick. Glad people liked.

Yay, Victor. Also, Rita Dove is a poet, who 1. Has been on TV. 2. Is alive.(And I must admit I don't keep up with poetry either, but intend to buy 100 poets against the war...to start with.)

100 Poets Against the War is awesome. Also, has a poem by my dear friend and favorite poet Tony Brown in it.

I love Rita Brown's stuff.

I love Rita Brown beyond my capacity to tell it.

Aw jeez.

Posted earlier at PF, I mentioned that I was livid at old agent buddy and her partner, for completely misreading one of the best non-grenre AU manuscripts I've ever seen in my life?

Am going back and forth with said old agent buddy in email. Snippets from the smackdown, offered for your consideration, as things to avoid when encountered on the slippery slope of agenting. The BB referenced herein is my buddy's partner:

I'd make a terrible mass market agent: I saw the lead character as a lead character in search of her calling, her talent, a cooler climate and her own soul, not in search of her tenderness and/or ovaries. She (the lead character) resists closeness, all the way through. And what on earth is with the need to make the boy into some stereotypical prince and make him central to the story?

This is why I won't read genre fantasy. Despite the entire genre being opened to women writers (and yes, for a long time women writers had to "pass", like DC Fontana and Andre Norton, to write this stuff), no one in the industry seems willing to believe that there are readers who see strong intelligent women as lead characters, instead of as "protectors of little boys who are actually missing princes who miraculously come back to reclaim their heritage so the female character can discover her Deep Inner Tenderness and the Joys of Maternity and maybe even - "

Oh, never mind. I'm far too upset to talk without oozing sarcasm over it right now. I'm not upset at you, because it would appear that it's BB who thinks the story needs a nice bombastic and TOTALLY NEEDLESS two more books to "complete". For heavens sake, how is it possible to not see this one as a self-contained story?

I'm nauseated by BB not only apparently buying into the "generic fantasy trilogy aimed at teenaged boys" shit, but for actually promulgating it. That's why I said, glad she and I didn't hook up. I'd have smothered her if she tried this on anything of mine. Because with the whole godawful generic "missing prince" storyline, you get a completely different story. I'm imagining that attitude being laid on Plainsong. "A GIRL? A girl GOD? THAT isn't going to sell to the kids - make it a boy, and then Julia can marry Max, and...."

Sorry. Retching over here. But not at you.

I am so damned pissed off....