Some poets think the way they talk, others don’t. What’s important to me is not whether a poet can translate his/her thoughts into plain speech, but whether his/her thoughts are interesting in the first place. [...] Another question is whether plainspokenness necessarily entails accessibility, and vice versa. Are there irrational or nonsensical poems, or poems with broken/complex syntax, that are nonetheless considered easily accessible? (Nursery rhymes come to mind.) Are there superficially plainspoken poems that are actually difficult or intimidating?
* Do you interpret your placement in a print journal as an indication of how good they thought your poem or story was, relative to the others? Simplistic as this is, I always do. Last is also a solid placement, since some people read shit backwards (I often do). I finally got the new PANK, and I think it's the first time I've ever been first (sharing the spot with Kathy in this case). Booyah!
* Dang, I wish Martin would blog more often. Or at least post shit this long in installments. This is pop journalism at its best. Rolling Stone should be half this interesting. (I haven't even heard the song he's talking about.)
* I have no feelings whatsoever about St. Patrick's Day. I actually worked from home yesterday so no one would try to pressure me to get beer-drunk on a Wednesday. The Faux Irish could care less about gluten intolerance. (I know the expression should be "couldn't care less," but it doesn't sound as good, logic aside.)
* This pre-Vernal equinox spring weather is the bomb. It's giving me March Madness! Is that a good thing? Or is it like a rash? I don't watch sports.