Look at my book quiz!

Susan will be so jealous!

You're The Mists of Avalon!

by Marion Zimmer Bradley

You're obsessed with Camelot in all its forms, from Arthurian legend
to the Kennedy administration. Your favorite movie from childhood was "The Sword in
the Stone". But more than tales of wizardry and Cuban missiles, you've focused on
women. You know that they truly hold all the power. You always wished you could meet
Jackie Kennedy.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

That's actually a little true....

Another shockingly Irish revelation...thanks to The Book Quiz

You're Ulysses!

by James Joyce

Most people are convinced that you don't make any sense, but compared
to what else you could say, what you're saying now makes tons of sense. What people do
understand about you is your vulgarity, which has convinced people that you are at once
brilliant and repugnant. Meanwhile you are content to wander around aimlessly, taking in
the sights and sounds of the city. What you see is vast, almost limitless, and brings you
additional fame. When no one is looking, you dream of being a Greek folk hero.


Take the Book Quiz
at the Blue Pyramid.

I would very much like to be a Greek folk hero(ine); however, I dislike the thought of being considered vulgar and repugnant!

On the other hand, I'm afraid I can't think of Ulysses without giggling at that whole "and yes. yes" business because it always makes me think of the movie Back to School, when Sally Kellerman is reading Joyce, and Rodney Dangerfield get all *excited* if you get my drift...

Popular Culture has poisoned my brain.

I'd have never thought my personality was Joycean...but I am very, very Irish in terms of family background...so perhaps there's a bit of truth to the Book Quiz after all.

"We all go a little mad sometimes..."

Gotta love Norman Bates, especially how creepy Anthony Perkins looks in that old-lady wig and dress.




I'm getting in a Halloween kind of mood--hence the photo--so I've been watching MonsterFest on AMC this weekend. Psycho was on yesterday afternoon. Good Stuff.

I've got to say that overall, I'm a bit disappointed with the lineup of horror movies, though. Yes, I realize that different folks have the rights to show different movies and all that, but it irks me a bit when AMC shows a bunch of sequels while ignoring the (often vastly superior) originals.

Why repeatedly show Scream 3 (admittedly, not a bad movie or anything) without showing 1 & 2 ?

Why show Alien Resurrection but not Alien or Aliens ?

They also appear to be showing only sequels for Friday the 13th and Poltergeist as well...

The whole thing just feels vaguely uneven, and a tad disappointing.

Am I the only one going a little mad over this sequel mania?

A few more scary movies...

Some of my favorite Halloween Movies (aside from those on Melissa's list) include:

Sleepy Hollow: A rock-on Tim Burton movie...so you know it's visually stunning. With Johnny Depp and Christina Ricci. Awesome!

The Lost Boys: A very 80's vampire movie. Yeah, it has the two Coreys in it. And it's still one of my favorites. Quirky.

Ginger Snaps: Lycanthropy as a metaphor for menses? Yep. And it works, really. (Okay, maybe it's a little heavy-handed, but I think they pull it off!) Mimi Rogers as the hair-scrunchie-and-crafty-applique-sweatshirt-wearing mom is hilarious.

Scream I, II, III: All fantastic. I love the combination of humor and horror.

Saw I, II , III : Yeah, the first one is the best. Without a doubt.

Frailty: Very creepy.

My favorite Halloweenish movies ever!

If there's one thing that I love about this time of year, it's the quantity of scary movies on TV. It is, of course, important that in all of this hoopla quality isn't overlooked. Though really, there's something to be said about the horror genre - no matter how "bad" the film may be, even if it's completely ridiculous, it's still entertaining.

Anyway, in the spirit of things, here is my list (in no particular order) of my most memorable and my favorite horror films - scary, gory, hilarious, and everything in between!:

Spider Baby - This is, in my opinion, one of the classics. There's nothing better than a B-movie starring Lon Chaney Jr., one of the all-time greats of course, and a story about a creepy family and regression into madness! And, what's better, AMC is showing this movie FOR FREE on its website (at least for a limited time)!

Cabin Fever - Eli Roth does not disappoint in this AMAZING hilarious gorefest. You probably know Roth best for his torture and exploitation flick, the insanely popular Hostel, but truthfully Cabin Fever surpasses the Hostel films in humor, wit, smarts, and complexity. And come on, who doesn't love a flesh-eating disease and a weird hillbilly kid who does a flying jump-kick off of a porch while growling "PANCAKE!"? Amazing.

A Tale of Two Sisters - This Korean horror-drama is probably one of my favorites of all time. It has it all: fairy tale elements, a Gothic setting, one creepy ghost, and an ending that is as shocking as it is heartbreaking.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? - I'm not sure that this necessarily falls under the "Halloween movies" category, but this movie still creeps me out no matter how many times I see it. Sibling rivalry doesn't even begin to describe Baby Jane and Blanche. Bette Davis and Joan Crawford are pitch-perfect in a way rarely (if ever) seen anymore.

The Exorcist - This is probably the scariest film of all time and it holds a special place in my heart. What scarier horror film villain can you have but the Devil himself? There are many disturbing, memorable scenes in this film, including the creepiest crabwalk you'll ever see, the worst way to use a crucifix, and of course some 360-degree head-spins and pea-soup puke. The most disturbing part of the film for me at least is the large chunk where Regan undergoes some pretty painful medical testing; I am pretty squeamish, though. Regardless, this film is an absolute classic.

Shaun of the Dead - If you want a little less scare and a hell of a lot more laughs, this is the film for you. Shaun has fun playing with horror film conventions, and for anyone familiar with zombie flicks this is a must-see. Favorite character: Ed, Shaun's slacker best friend, who spends the majority of the movie in a shirt that reads "I GOT WOOD". Favorite scene: a pair of zombies shows up in Ed and Shaun's backyard; add some old fashioned impaling and a disposable camera, and it's impossible not to laugh!

The Descent - A group of kickass chicks, spelunking, claustrophobia, and some weirdo crawly surprises underground. This film does a great job of making the viewer feel as trapped as the women as they descend further and further into the earth, trying to find their way out of an unexplored Appalachian cave. Things get even worse for the women when main character Sarah, a grieving woman with severe flashbacks and hallucinations, begins to suspect that she and her friends are not alone underground. And this film confirms that I will never, ever spelunk (though I do love the word...).

The Ring - Though I typically cringe at Amerianized remakes of kickass Asian originals, I have to admit that I enjoyed this more than Ringu. There's just something about a scary, angry ghostchild that keeps me awake at night. Aside from being completely terrifying, this is a great mystery film. As Rachel, played by Naomi Watts, begins to put together the pieces, we learn more about the evil origins of the infamous videotape. The twist at the end of the film, and you know what scene I'm talking about, made me cry and scream I was so panicked.

Alien, Aliens, Alien 3 - Sci-Fi isn't usually my favorite film genre, but these three are so amazing that I can't choose just one. Ripley is kickass, the desolate outerspace environment is isolated and frightening, and come on - that alien is one scary pissed off mama!

Audition - This film has what is hands-down the best twist in the history of movies. I can't even hint at what that twist is! Audition starts off innocently enough: a lonely man holds an audition - hence the title - to find a new love. The film becomes weirder and weirder, until finally......WHOA! If you like to be shocked, if you don't mind a little bit of violence, some elements of gialli, then check this film out!

Rosemary's Baby - If you're a woman, this is a scary, scary movie. Mia Farrow is so wonderful in this film as Rosemary Woodhouse, who's pregnancy takes a scary turn when she realizes she might be carrying the antichrist. Ruth Gordon, from Harold & Maude, is spot-on as the obnoxious and creepy Minnie.

These are only a few of my long list of favorites. Others that I love are Halloween , Ju-on, Psycho, The Eye, and of course The Shining. Those creepy twins always scare the hell out of me!

Happy watching! Let me know which ones I missed!

Reminder!

The inaugural issue of blossombones is developing nicely, but there's still room for your work! The submission deadline for the first issue of our BRAND SPANKING NEW journal is November 1st - and that's right around the corner! If you have any poetry, hybrid pieces, fiction, or creative non-fiction that you'd like to send us, get a move on it! Check the site for submission guidelines and specifics. We look forward to reading your work!

Some Comic Relief!

After all of the blossombones blog seriousness, I think we need a laugh. And I think that this is really, really funny! Enjoy Feminist Bookstore!

Sunday Comics

A couple of Sunday Funnies to lighten your day:

Married to the Sea

Spamusement

...Enjoy...

For Melissa, who loves a good mystery...

Haircut or fish? The etymology of the word "mullet" has an air of mystery about it...

Interested? I recommend this article, which includes such gems as

"It might seem that mullethead "fool" came from mullethead "fish" (since the naming of human beings characterized by their behavior according to a metaphorical resemblance with animals is common). But mulletheaded "foolish" is recorded from 1857, seven years before mullethead "fish": "The men, for the most part sleepy, ignorant, mullet-headed looking wretches"; so it is not clear whether the fool was named for the fish, or the fish for the fool."

--yourdictionary.com

And--as promised, Melissa--I am including this:



I told you I had a girl-mullet. You didn't believe me, did you?

a letter to the editors...

In case you were wondering what all the recent discussion has been about...

Poet Stephanie Cleveland has agreed to allow us to publish her letter in its entirety here on the blog as a letter to the editors. At the bottom of this post, you'll find links to my response, as well as Melissa's.

Dear Susan and Melissa at blossombones,

I am a 28 year old feminist poet. I grew up in Winterville, Georgia, and now live in Manhattan. My poems have appeared in Boston Review, Colorado Review, Another Chicago Magazine, and jubilat, and are forthcoming in Conduit. Simone Muench encouraged me to submit work to you, as she felt you would appreciate my poetry.

I have been following your blog a little over the summer, trying to get a sense of who you are and what blossombones might be like. I hope it is alright to share some concerns with you.

I was frustrated and saddened by your recent blog post, in which Susan called for poems that were not political in their use of language. As a woman poet, the idea of a magazine focused on woman-centered writing appealed to me a great deal, but after reading those additional qualifications, I felt much more hesitant about submitting.

I do not have a lot of patience for post-modernism, at least not in the ways it is currently practiced in many US universities, poetry workshops, and women's studies courses. I think post-modernism frequently gets misused to undermine the women's movement, to prevent women from speaking about our common experiences of oppression under male dominance, and to keep us from asking for spaces free of men's words where our own ideas can be heard. I feel strongly that anyone who would accuse you of being essentialist for attempting to create a space for women's writing, would be using a rhetorical strategy against you that is sexist, elitist, and deeply anti-feminist. Many women outside academia (including myself, until recently) have never even heard of essentialism, and feel it, and other inflated, academic, post-postmodern jargon, mean absolutely nothing to us in our daily lives-- lives in which, in the real world, women are beaten, raped, and murdered by men every minute. Catherine MacKinnon has a wonderful essay about postmodernism and its effects on contemporary feminism in her collection of essays, Are Women Human?, if you are interested in further discussion on this topic.


In the world we live in, many spaces and opportunities that have historically been available to men remain closed off to women. The idea of a space for women's writing feels necessary, given that fact--it is not something you should have to justify to male or female peers. I was disappointed to learn you had considered featuring only women's writing in blossombones, but ultimately decided against that idea. I think a woman-only journal could potentially have been an important venture for women artists. Yet, as women, I think we sometimes focus more of our energy on trying not to alienate men, than on working towards our own equality. If you feel worried about excluding men, consider how a magazine featuring only women's writing would provide them with a rare opportunity to read, listen, and learn from women's poetry and ideas, published in woman-only space. That is a chance truly pro-feminist men would appreciate. As things stand, every time you accept a male author's work, it means giving him a slot a woman might have filled with her voice. To me that feels unequal, especially since men are not hurting for places to publish elsewhere.

Reading your blog entry and remarks about the guidelines, I also wondered if you might find it more useful to say that you are interested in work that speaks about the "female" experience, rather than a "feminine" one. As a woman writer, I have much to say about what it means to be female in this world. On the other hand, I do not identify with the concept of femininity at all. Feminine and masculine are, in my view, social constructs which compromise life for women, and to a lesser degree, men too. Women like myself--women who do not shave, do not enjoy wearing dresses, heels, skirts, lipstick or makeup, and don't like being seductive or sexy around men-- may feel a little alienated by the idea of writing about a "feminine" experience for blossombones.

I am all for offering you work that speaks about my experience as a woman. However, in order to talk about things relevant to women's lives, I need freedom to write about all my experiences, not just the ones men accept as relevant or worth hearing about. You write as though you believe any poem a woman might create about eating disorders or having a period will inherently be inferior. I would strongly urge you to reconsider that position. Your words sound frighteningly similar to sexist critiques men sometimes direct at me, and other women poets who write about specifically female experiences. If a male editor discouraged women from submitting poems about having periods or an eating disorder to his magazine, I hope his behavior would register with you as undeniably misogynist. I wonder sometimes if, as women, our decisions to cordon off parts of our lives as too trivial to write about, are evidence of internalized misogyny. Maybe we've learned hatred for ourselves, or for the parts of ourselves men don't care for, in a world that hates women so much to begin with. I think in some ways it feels easiest to be silent about those parts of our lives, rather than giving men the chance to ridicule us when we write about them.

But if you write off all poems about menstruation, eating disorders, or poems that involve women's emotions--saddness and anger, as well as humor and desire--you will be writing off work by poets like Alice Notley, Stephanie Brown, Louise Gluck, Jennifer Moxley, Slyvia Plath, and others whose poetry is incredibly rich and valuable. Alice Notley writes, "The purple blood on the toilet paper, with small clots is the horse's," in an untitled poem that starts out with that reference to menstrual blood and continues to rotate around descriptions of the poet's period. In Commencement Address, Stephanie Brown begins:

I have no more to say about throwing up or causing myself to get diarrhea there's nothing heroic about it though the movies on TV want us to endure quietly and cry appropriately. It's a wonderful role for any young actress to place herself in some household where the dialogue is sexual between all of them including dead grandparents who are still alive in theory and very much inside everyone's bodies,..."

Both these poems were selected by David Lehman for his anthology of American prose poetry in 2003, if male approval matters to you. I think many men however, believe bulimia, anorexia and menstruation are trivial if not disgusting topics, not worthy of getting poems from. Men themselves don't experience these things, at least not in the ways women do, so they may not feel obligated to listen. I think women, however, are completely capable of writing strange, strong, beautiful, unusual and brilliant work about these experiences, and I would ask that you not trivialize that work, or make fun of women poets who produce it. It feels difficult for me to understand why you would encourage women to write about lipstick on a beer can, but not blood on a maxi pad? Is it because most men think a lip-print is sexy and seductive, but menstrual blood dirty and nasty?

In my poetry, I'm using concrete, strange, inventive, lyric language; it's also language that is fiercely political. One of the most important claims of feminism has always been that the personal, the daily, is political. As a feminist, as a survivor of male violence, as a person who deals with sexism each day of her life, the simple fact that I write at all, that I open my mouth to speak, or type out my words on my computer, is a political action. It means I am daring to believe that my thoughts and ideas matter, that my poems about life as a woman have a right to exist. The majority of men in this world, at some point in their lives, will treat women and our words as inferior. This happens, particularly when we write about our experiences in ways men don't feel comfortable with. But each time I write a poem, I am calling men's labeling of my work as inferior, a lie. White people frequently tell lies about the work of poets of color as well, treating political poems by poets like June Jordan, Audre Lorde, Sapphire, and Eileen Tabios, as having less artistic merit because they are overtly political, but do not assume political poems written against racism and sexism by these women are worth any less than a poem by Wallace Stevens or John Ashbery. Also, do not assume all strong, well-crafted poems are apolitical. As fiction writer Dagoberto Gilb writes, "To write is a political action....Writing transcends life and death. Writing becomes overt politics when it's about war, but writing is also about transformation of your soul. Losing your soul....I will say that this is politics too, just not what is usually called that." I think if blossombones attempts to depoliticize women's poetry, particularly in the deeply sexist, racist, and imperialist age we are now living in, you run the risk of making women's words irrelevant.


Stephanie Cleveland


Response from Susan

Response from Melissa

My opinions, with respect

As an addendum to Susan’s post in response to some criticism we’ve received as of late, I felt the need to speak out to help clarify what we’re trying to do here.

I respect people who think differently about what I’m trying to say in this entry. My opinions are my own, take them or leave them.

We ask for writing that artfully focuses on the female experience. What is the “female experience” anyway? There's not one label we can wrap around it or one set of ways to describe what it means because every woman experiences being a woman differently. It could mean periods and the moon and bar fights and shopping to one woman, and comic books, hair gel, and minivans to another. My point is that our call for writing that stems from the "feminine experience" is something that should elicit a wide range of writing. The pieces that we receive should all have different definitions of the feminine/female experience.

I also think that it might be worth it to define what we mean by writing that examines the “feminine” experience. We are not necessarily asking for poems that talk about skirts and heels and lace and purses. "Feminine" also means "of or relating to women", which many things that aren't skirts or Jimmy Choos, do. The other definition of “feminine” is “having qualities or appearance traditionally associated with women”. Well, okay, traditionally we are told that to be “feminine” is to be delicate, to be gentle, etc. But when was that dictionary definition decided upon? How long ago? Wouldn’t it be more interesting to think about the things that we consider as relating to women of today? Does the traditional definition even make sense anymore without opening the word up to incorporate other aspects of what it means to be a woman? To be feminine, I think, does not mean the same thing it would’ve meant in the Victorian Era or the 1920’s in New York City or even ten years ago. The definition of what it means to be a woman is something new altogether, and that’s our whole point here. Shouldn’t we, as women or as men who value women, acknowledge that the definition of “feminine” has evolved over the years? Is it possible, as society progresses – and we have progressed, at least in the U.S., to a certain degree – that what we consider and define as “of or relating to women” should progress too?

I think it’s also worth talking about why Susan and I decided to open submissions up to both men and women when some would’ve preferred for blossombones to be a women-only outlet for creative expression about the feminine/female experience. Whether you agree with us or not, women, people of various gender configurations, and yes, even men, can still have very valid and important things to say about and in support of women. I hands-down believe that. Not all men are scum; some are, but some are just as open-minded and progressive as us women. In fact, some men are even more so. I absolutely agree that men have it better in this world and they have for ages. That’s an understatement, really. But I don’t see the point in telling a feminist male – that’s right, they do exist – that the work he produces in support of women, women-centered writing, and writing that explores the feminine/female experience is not worth considering simply because he doesn’t have a vagina. We ultimately decided to include men in our artistic discussion not because we were trying to appease men, because we need men in order to legitimize the work we choose. To suggest that is absolutely ludicrous. Rather, we as editors are affording men the opportunity to explore their idea of feminine/female-centered writing BECAUSE MEN CAN BE FEMINISTS TOO. Shouldn’t we encourage that? Or is my definition of "feminism" too broad? I don’t think there’s such a thing as the quintessential feminist; the only real requirement is that one advocates for women’s rights. Should feminism be some exclusive club you can only join if you’re a woman? And a particular “type” of woman at that? And should I as a feminist and as someone who promotes feminism deny the voices of men who want to speak out in support of feminism? To exclude men from the conversation completely is equivalent to saying that I shouldn't be allowed to speak out about rights for gays and lesbians because I'm not a lesbian myself. That's just absurd.

Ultimately, the decision for what does and does not make it into our journal is Susan’s and mine. That’s what is so cool about starting up your own journal – you can feature the work that you like to read! I highly suggest it. We have a great respect for writing, for writers, and we will only publish the best of what we receive. Susan and I both have preferences, things that we look for when we’re reading a piece. If you don’t like the same things than we do, it’s okay – that’s the beauty of it! And if you feel that a particular stone is being left unturned by the literary community, then turn that stone over by starting up a journal or a press of your own! It says a lot to take action in that way, just as it says a lot when anyone writes in the first place. Writing, as Susan talks about in her entry, is a very political act, and so is selecting what writing to publish and not to publish.

Here is my advice: we like the concrete. Show us; do not tell us. We like the sincere, the specific. We like the subtle, the strange, the vivid. We like things that break the mold with language. If you love sensory language, then we love you. If you write something that makes us smell the burnt toast, taste the cough syrup, or hear the creaking of your father’s old suede slippers as he paces in the back hallway of the taxidermist’s office, then rock on. We like the grotesque and the beautiful equally, writing that sparkles whether it’s covered in sequins or crusted in puss. We’d rather publish something that isn’t afraid to take risks than something we’ve seen before. We don’t care if you’re well-published or completely new to the scene – good writing is good writing, and we can’t wait to read yours!

Susan, this will make you laugh....

Definition of Melissophobia

Melissophobia: Fear of bees.

A phobia is an unreasonable sort of fear that can cause avoidance and panic. Phobias are a relatively common type of anxiety disorder. Phobias can be treated with cognitive behavioral therapy using exposure and fear reduction techniques. In many cases, anti-anxiety or anti-depressant medication proves helpful, especially during the early stages of therapy.

The word "melissophobia" comes from the Greek "melissa" meaning bee + phobia from the Greek "phobos" meaning fear = literally, fear of bee(s). Melissophobia is also known as apiphobia.

Is it weird that the fear of bees sounds an awful lot like the fear of Melissas?..... I think so.

writing as a political act

This week, I received a letter concerning a recent blog post, in which I described our editorial tastes by mentioning a preference for the concrete over the abstract, and for language that is inventive and lyrical rather than "political."

I'd like to add a bit of clarification for anyone who might be interested. I believe that all writing is--by nature--political, in the sense that speaking and writing are political acts. What I meant (and probably could have explained a bit more clearly) is that as editors, Melissa and I have a preference for a certain style of poetry (and prose). As a general rule, we are a bit turned off by work that is highly abstract, preachy or didactic. We like work that shows us something, rather than tells us. We adore subtlety. We are not offended by overtly political poems and prose; however, these kinds of works tend to use broad abstractions that are simply less interesting to us than work that appeals to the senses.

That is not to say that there is not a place for this kind of work; we're merely explaining that it's not our style.

We love writing that is unexpected. We are not necessarily stating certain topics are "off-limits" so much as asking that writers consider work that describes women's experiences without limiting themselves to topics that seem inherently (or perhaps stereotypically) "female."

In response to another question raised in this letter, I also want to mention that I don't have a problem with topics relating to the female body per se (in fact, I am very interested in work about the body); however, I don't want writers to limit themselves to work about anorexia or menstruation only because we get a number of submissions about this kind of thing, and we like variety.

Overall, we are very open-minded in terms of both style and subject matter. If you have a knockout piece about any topic you think relates to women's lives and experiences, by all means, send it!

Over these last few months, we have received a good deal of quality poetry and prose. As a literary journal, our primary aim is to promote the work of some wonderful contemporary writers and poets. To all those who read, write and submit their work for publication, thank you!

Check this out!

[GROWLING SOFTLY], a compilation of poetry put out by Blood Pudding Press, is out now! Everyone should go pick up a copy (and not just because I'm in it)!!!!!

about blossombones...

Hello all!

When submitting to a new literary journal, it's often difficult to get a sense of what the editors are looking for. While we've tried (briefly) to describe our aesthetic on the blossombones website, I think a little additional commentary might be useful!

In response to some questions about what kind of work we are looking for (and what we mean when we ask for "woman-centered" writing), I thought I'd post a little blog about my editorial tastes.

Anyway, I'd like to start out by mentioning that while Melissa and I considered publishing only work by women writers, we decided that we''d like to be open to all, but that we love (and prefer) work that speaks to us--thematically--as women writers.

It's not easy to describe what I mean by woman-centered, because I consider this a pretty broad category. While I suppose we are running the risk of being accused of essentialism (by means of defining our tastes in this way), I think I can live with that. Bear in mind we're not looking for work that is stereotypically "feminine" but rather, work that in some way describes things relevant to women's lives.

While topics of gender and sexuality are fair game, we do ask that writers use language that is concrete, unusual, and lyrical, rather than political. I'd rather not receive a manuscript of poems about eating disorders. Nor am I interested in an ode to menstruation. Basically, what I'm trying to say by asking for work that is "woman-centered," is that I hope to see poems (and other texts) that explore the world that we (both men and women) experience in terms of what I might describe as "dailyness." I ask that you make the mundane interesting. Don't tell me what you think is wrong with the economy. Don't send me poems about broad abstractions like freedom or justice (Ack! My personal pet peeve.) Do explore the possibilities inherent in daily life: lipstick on a beer can, fairy tales, your father's pancake recipe, carnivorous plants, renaissance art, comic books, cinema verite. Be strange. Be inventive. Offer a strange juxtaposition of images that startle. Surprise me.

Well, it's another hot October day (lingering somewhere around 90 degrees here in Chicago...) spent primarily indoors, because the aggressive bees around here freak me out. (I almost abandoned some 100+ dollars worth of groceries yesterday, when they swarmed my cart. Horrible.)

A cancelled meeting left me with a good deal of extra time on my hands today (see also: silver lining) so I worked on Head First HTML with CSS & XHTML this morning, and so far, I think I'm getting it. It's a little strange to be writing tags by hand in a plain text editor instead of using Dreamweaver...but it's all about getting to the CSS stuff! Anyway, I'm hoping to be downright skilled with both HTML and CSS by Xmas...We'll see! (Yep. That's REALLY what I do with my free time.)

I'm also hard at work on a new poetry project. More on that later.

Tomorrow, I'm off to the Goodman Theater to see Passion Play: A Cycle by Sarah Ruhl. I'm looking forward to that, and will post my (amateur) review of the play later this weekend...

coming soon!

poetry and prose by

Judith Arcana

Juliet Cook

Sarah Den Boer

Erika Mikkalo

Buzz Pounds

Mike Puican

Lina ramona Vitkauskas


***

As you can see, we have a pretty exciting lineup of contributors for the first issue of blossombones! We are still reading and considering submissions until November 1st for our Fall/Winter issue.

If you're thinking about sending us something, submit!

We look forward to reading your work.