Also, Ben Spivey's new journal Spilt Milk is now accepting submissions. Please check it out and send him the goods...
Article in Writers' Bloc
My article, "The Bermuda Triangle, My Broken Compass," is up today at Writers' Bloc (Thank you, Vaughan). It's basically some thoughts on writing. Also check out works by other dope writers like Ethel Rohan, Jimmy Chen, Crispin Best, Mel Bosworth, Vaughan Simons, Chris East, Howie Good, and an interview between Shane Jones and Ben Brooks, among others.
Capitalism Vs. Natural Selection
I’m more of a Socialist than anything, though that economic model doesn’t work either, as it falls short of keeping citizens motivated. I stress here, Economic Model. The Right Wing purposely confuses Socialism with or presents it as a government model to scare people, reminding them that Russia and Germany and China were/are all communist dictatorships, that as an economic model it's easily exploitable in terms of the state instigating social control, failing to acknowledge Capitalism's faults in that very same arena. And the Left Wing doesn't seem to know anything about it, either, because it always submits to Right-Wing opposition rather than following its conscience. It could simply be the Right and the Left are completely ignorant of what they say, and only parrot the talking points of their respective pundits and party leaders.
Communism is, according to Marx and Engels, the end result of Socialism, a stateless society in which all government is abolished in favor of the masses. This should sound familiar, because it's what the Right Wing advocates: Less government. The only reason we’re taught to fear any breed of Socialism is because those in power, the upper 1% of people in this country who own approximately 40-50% of the wealth, will lose money as it becomes redistributed back into the economic engine: The Workers: Us. Without us, they wouldn’t exist. Without a large population to exploit, they’d have no power.
Socialism is more democratic. And because it's more democratic it's also more Christian, as it doesn't leave any of 'God's children' behind. This is where Church and State should combine forces (not that I at all advocate either). The Right Wing should be all in favor, though, but, of course, its power would diminish if wealth was redistributed and the population as a whole weren't purposely disregarded or completely omitted from the political decision-making process. (Where would religion be without people to oppress and suppress?) Still, Socialism is an economic model, and its main flaw is that it's not an incentive-based model, and, since people are generally lazy and greedy by nature, if there’s no reason to do anything, no means of profiting from the work you do or goods you produce, then why work or produce anything? For the mere enjoyment of it? People want the most reward for the least amount of effort contributed—this is known in sociological terms as the 'Mini-Max' principle.
Upward mobility, in our current capitalist incarnation (the logical result of Adam Smith’s theories, as well as Benjamin Franklin’s insistence that Americans be industrious), is pretty much an illusion for a huge portion of American population who are self-reliant but still can’t achieve a higher social or economic status because Capitalism is designed to keep them glued to the lower rungs of its ladder. The financial collapse last year showed us just how illusory our system is, based as it is on pretend numbers, theoretical values of goods and even the theoretical value of money itself.
Wall Street has nothing to do with us, yet involves us directly. Wall Street traders playing games with money they aren’t earning, money we’re earning for them, those of us lucky enough to have jobs. And by not working to abolish these companies or Wall Street itself, by failing to realise the problem is systemic, we’re complicit in our own exploitation. As rational, self-interested people we should be concerned about this. We have yet to break the rational/irrational barrier, as the Right Wing has been working toward for years now. Basing their campaigns on emotional issues, they’ve mobilized large groups of irrational people unwilling to listen to reason or attempt any compromise regarding issues which actually do effect/affect us as a society.
Marx—for as wrong as he was about his prediction of the inevitability of the workers’ revolution due to poor working conditions in factories during the Industrial Revolution— was spot on regarding the essential contradictions inherent in the Capitalist economic model. The three main aspects of Capitalism are, as Marx put it: 1) Private Ownership 2) Competition and 3) Profit. Marx felt private ownership would automatically not favor the masses, but he also noticed the following contradiction: How can you make profit if you have competition? A brief explanation:
Competition drives the economy, keeps it healthy. (It’s how evolution happens, how natural selection weeds out species which no longer support the eco[nomic]-system as a whole.) Competition ensures environmental conditions, wages and benefits for workers will improve, if companies are competing for workers, trying to lure them to their company for employment—this means more money spent to ensure workers’ standard of living. With competition, those workers would then have to produce better quality goods—this means more money spent on higher quality materials and more technologically advanced factories and machinery to aid in production. Competition would also ensure lower costs for consumers looking to purchase higher-quality goods for the least amount of money possible (echoing the 'Mini-Max' principle). The company would also seek innovation to stay ahead of the competition—this means research and development, which means more money spent on technological advances and quality.
The contradiction is that all of this money spent to out-do the competition reduces profit—the more money spent working toward keeping the company afloat the less money there is to live off the company, in a sense. Competition favors the people who work to produce and purchase a company’s goods and services, whereas profit favors the company’s owners and shareholders. Somewhere along the line, competition is inevitably wiped out—along with regulation such as anti-trust laws ensuring a monopoly is not allowed to form—in favor of more profit, favoring the company's owners and shareholders. The people working to produce and purchase the company’s goods and services are then irrelevant and expendable.
There is of course a parabolic expansion period, but it can only go so far before there are no markets left to liquidate. That’s when, to save profit, the company must eliminate sectors of its own workforce, cut benefits, reduce quality of goods and services, move overseas for cheaper labor, resulting in innovative and technological stagnation, etc. The question then becomes: If no one in this country is working to produce the goods and services the company’s trying to sell in this country, who’s going to purchase the goods and services? Perhaps this species of economy needs to go extinct, replaced by a more amiable species which doesn't hunt its prey to satiate itself but works for and protects the welfare of the entire population.
Communism is, according to Marx and Engels, the end result of Socialism, a stateless society in which all government is abolished in favor of the masses. This should sound familiar, because it's what the Right Wing advocates: Less government. The only reason we’re taught to fear any breed of Socialism is because those in power, the upper 1% of people in this country who own approximately 40-50% of the wealth, will lose money as it becomes redistributed back into the economic engine: The Workers: Us. Without us, they wouldn’t exist. Without a large population to exploit, they’d have no power.
Socialism is more democratic. And because it's more democratic it's also more Christian, as it doesn't leave any of 'God's children' behind. This is where Church and State should combine forces (not that I at all advocate either). The Right Wing should be all in favor, though, but, of course, its power would diminish if wealth was redistributed and the population as a whole weren't purposely disregarded or completely omitted from the political decision-making process. (Where would religion be without people to oppress and suppress?) Still, Socialism is an economic model, and its main flaw is that it's not an incentive-based model, and, since people are generally lazy and greedy by nature, if there’s no reason to do anything, no means of profiting from the work you do or goods you produce, then why work or produce anything? For the mere enjoyment of it? People want the most reward for the least amount of effort contributed—this is known in sociological terms as the 'Mini-Max' principle.
Upward mobility, in our current capitalist incarnation (the logical result of Adam Smith’s theories, as well as Benjamin Franklin’s insistence that Americans be industrious), is pretty much an illusion for a huge portion of American population who are self-reliant but still can’t achieve a higher social or economic status because Capitalism is designed to keep them glued to the lower rungs of its ladder. The financial collapse last year showed us just how illusory our system is, based as it is on pretend numbers, theoretical values of goods and even the theoretical value of money itself.
Wall Street has nothing to do with us, yet involves us directly. Wall Street traders playing games with money they aren’t earning, money we’re earning for them, those of us lucky enough to have jobs. And by not working to abolish these companies or Wall Street itself, by failing to realise the problem is systemic, we’re complicit in our own exploitation. As rational, self-interested people we should be concerned about this. We have yet to break the rational/irrational barrier, as the Right Wing has been working toward for years now. Basing their campaigns on emotional issues, they’ve mobilized large groups of irrational people unwilling to listen to reason or attempt any compromise regarding issues which actually do effect/affect us as a society.
Marx—for as wrong as he was about his prediction of the inevitability of the workers’ revolution due to poor working conditions in factories during the Industrial Revolution— was spot on regarding the essential contradictions inherent in the Capitalist economic model. The three main aspects of Capitalism are, as Marx put it: 1) Private Ownership 2) Competition and 3) Profit. Marx felt private ownership would automatically not favor the masses, but he also noticed the following contradiction: How can you make profit if you have competition? A brief explanation:
Competition drives the economy, keeps it healthy. (It’s how evolution happens, how natural selection weeds out species which no longer support the eco[nomic]-system as a whole.) Competition ensures environmental conditions, wages and benefits for workers will improve, if companies are competing for workers, trying to lure them to their company for employment—this means more money spent to ensure workers’ standard of living. With competition, those workers would then have to produce better quality goods—this means more money spent on higher quality materials and more technologically advanced factories and machinery to aid in production. Competition would also ensure lower costs for consumers looking to purchase higher-quality goods for the least amount of money possible (echoing the 'Mini-Max' principle). The company would also seek innovation to stay ahead of the competition—this means research and development, which means more money spent on technological advances and quality.
The contradiction is that all of this money spent to out-do the competition reduces profit—the more money spent working toward keeping the company afloat the less money there is to live off the company, in a sense. Competition favors the people who work to produce and purchase a company’s goods and services, whereas profit favors the company’s owners and shareholders. Somewhere along the line, competition is inevitably wiped out—along with regulation such as anti-trust laws ensuring a monopoly is not allowed to form—in favor of more profit, favoring the company's owners and shareholders. The people working to produce and purchase the company’s goods and services are then irrelevant and expendable.
There is of course a parabolic expansion period, but it can only go so far before there are no markets left to liquidate. That’s when, to save profit, the company must eliminate sectors of its own workforce, cut benefits, reduce quality of goods and services, move overseas for cheaper labor, resulting in innovative and technological stagnation, etc. The question then becomes: If no one in this country is working to produce the goods and services the company’s trying to sell in this country, who’s going to purchase the goods and services? Perhaps this species of economy needs to go extinct, replaced by a more amiable species which doesn't hunt its prey to satiate itself but works for and protects the welfare of the entire population.
An 'Immortal' in The Northville Review
I have a chapter from The Immortals Act Their Age up in The Northville Review today (Thank you, Erin...) called "A Face to Hide His Mask Behind." Give it a peek, and read about some other immortals off in the distance over there.... Thank you.
Also, check out Andrew Borgstrom's story "Rotations." It's really funny, reminded me a bit of Gibson's Riggs in Lethal Weapon ramming his dislocated shoulder into walls to pop it back into place. Not really, I guess. I'm big digging the name 'Wilton,' too. Well done, Andrew...
Unscroll #3 is Live
Unscroll #3 is alive and breathing, featuring work from Andrew Borgstrom, Michael Bernstein, a dope experimental piece by Jeff Crouch, Alex Stolis, a disturbingly comfortable poem by David Peak, Eric Burke, Jeanette Marie Sayers, a wonderful excerpt from Flowing in the Gossamer Fold, a novel by Ben Spivey, and a prose poem by the one and only Audri Sousa. We're also honored to have an excerpt from A Death by the Sea, a novel by elimae editor Cooper Renner. Peep it. There's a lot of great work in this issue, and Jared and I thank all of those who submitted...
Also, please check out a new e-book of poultry (chicken-shit scribblings), Gargling Cinderblocks. What the hey. I used to self-publish lots of things in printed chapbook form, and just hand them out at readings, even if I wasn’t reading. This collection is a couple years old. As with my other poultry, these are mostly socio-political in nature, but also deal with religion. Sounds fun. The titles are all portmanteaus.
Telepathy, Despite Our Best Efforts
I never seem to be around when it’s “go time.” I feel this is a good thing. I’ve never “hit the ground running,” thankfully, because that sounds very painful, something you’d have to do jumping out of a moving bus. I’ve never been in a position where I felt either of those phrases would affect me to anywhere near the point of action. People think saying things like this will potentially help them accomplish things in their lives, that these phrases maybe have the power to change a person’s attitude, give them a swift kick in the pants. Maybe they do.
Lots of people, though, seem to get the same ideas around the same time, sometimes independent of each other, and not just about slogans, even. And it looks like someone’s copying someone else, like there’s some seedy underworld of rampant plagiarism into which a federal inquiry should delve. And not just like, “They have the bomb? Get me the bomb. I need the bomb.”
It could be that ideas actually float around, and people are kind of like antennas awaiting signals from unknown sources, and, when those signals float past, people just pick up on them, shocking the brain into action. Mark Twain believed in telepathy, but he called it “mental telegraphy.” He believed in thought-transference, that “inventions, ideas, phrases, paragraphs, chapters, and even entire books” could unconsciously transfer “from mind to mind.”
Twain had written “Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven” and “The Late Rev. Sam Jones’ Reception in Heaven,” two stories sharing similar incidents with a story by George Bernard Shaw. Twain and Shaw knew each other, even had dinner several times. They supposedly never spoke about the plots of any of those stories, yet they had the same ideas about what would happen in those stories, independent of one another. When Twain came up with the idea of “mental telegraphy,” maybe a bomb went off in his head, and he thought, “Did I just think that?”
* * *
It’s happened to me so many times I’ve lost count. I’ll have an idea, a really great idea and I start thinking about what to do with it, how I can use it in a piece of writing, and after a while, months, sometimes years, I’ll read or hear someone else say something similar, and it’s even happened that the exact things I thought up, word for word, someone else has already done.
Like: A long time ago I came up with a really good rhetorical oxymoron: What’s Another Word for Thesaurus? I had big plans to use it as the title of a book of poetry, or something, and I even wrote a poem called “What’s Another Word for Thesaurus?” A while later, I started getting into Steven Wright, reading quotes of his on the internet, and watching videos of him on YouTube, and, I’m not sure where but, I came across a one-liner of his that went a little something like this: “What’s another word for thesaurus?”
I got so upset, having to scrap what I perceived to be a great idea I thought I’d originated, or whatever. And I started thinking about why certain people gravitate toward certain artists’ work, or why certain people become friends with certain other people, and in general avoid getting to know people who don’t share common values or interests or sentiments or philosophies or worldviews, or whatever. The more people think the same way, the more likely it is they’ll be friends.
* * *
I started a hip hop group. I wrote the music, programmed the beats on a drum machine and all, and recorded all of it on a shitty little digital 4-track in the attic of my daughter’s mom’s house, where I was living at the time. The hip hop group was with my friends S. and N., both of whom I went to high school with. N. and I used to live together, drinking and doing drugs. S. and I worked together musically on and off since 1996-97 (I was a sophomore, he a senior), also drinking and doing drugs (S. is blind, and I’m half-deaf in one ear—it was perfect).
S. and I started a heavy emo band back in high school—I wrote the music, played guitar and sang, and S. helped arrange the music, played drums—and we won a lot of battles because, well, we were good, and that was back when I was only 15 or 16, and S. was 17 or 18, and we were beating these adult-sized bands with all kinds of electronic gizmos and superfluous equipment who should’ve been better than us. Then we broke up, but we’d still been doing work on and off since then.
So, I’d record hip hop music and beats on this shitty little digital 4-track, then take that over to S.’s and we’d record the music from my 4-track into his computer. He’d come up with these great ideas about things to add in, like a sample of Barney Gumble burping or dialing a telephone and hanging up, and add really great effects to certain parts of the songs, like making the music sound like water. I wrote a lot of verses, and N. wrote some verses, and S. recorded our vocals over the music, rapping, as we drank and did drugs and laughed a lot. S. was very patient.
Anyway, our hip hop group didn’t have a DJ so, when we did the few shows we got, we just rapped over instrumental versions of the songs playing through a Discman hooked up to the PA system. This one show, I pressed play on the Discman and put it on a chair almost offstage. The bass came through the PA speakers so powerfully the vibrations caused the CD to skip. I felt like a man having sex with a woman for the first time, or at least a woman he’s never had sex with before—I felt like I couldn’t get it up. I got all nervous, and all I could think to say to the audience was, “I’m really sorry, this never happens…”
* * *
S. and I were hanging out, working on music, and we decided to order some food after a long day. We called in a pick-up, chicken fingers for Harold or Vance or Oswald or whatever name I gave the person who took our order, thinking I was funny or clever. We got in the car and drove to pick up the food, and talked about funny phrases like “It’s go time” and “Hit the ground running,” and how silly they were. We went in, got our food and left. Like a couple of brilliant idiots, one blind and the other half-deaf in one ear, we walked out to the parking lot, me with my eyes and S. with his cane on my deaf side, his hand on my elbow, me guiding him.
As we got to my car, we had to veer left to get around to the passenger side. For some reason on the way around I said “Right,” and for some reason he went left anyway before I could correct myself. Somehow he knew what I meant, like there was this unconscious level of sarcasm he picked up on, detecting it just in time to be ironic when it seemed like we both wanted completely to avoid any form of calculated communication. Regardless of the fact neither of us apparently had any conscious clue where we were going, we still got to the car. When we got to the passenger side, I opened the door for S. and said, “You sure you don’t want to drive?”
Lots of people, though, seem to get the same ideas around the same time, sometimes independent of each other, and not just about slogans, even. And it looks like someone’s copying someone else, like there’s some seedy underworld of rampant plagiarism into which a federal inquiry should delve. And not just like, “They have the bomb? Get me the bomb. I need the bomb.”
It could be that ideas actually float around, and people are kind of like antennas awaiting signals from unknown sources, and, when those signals float past, people just pick up on them, shocking the brain into action. Mark Twain believed in telepathy, but he called it “mental telegraphy.” He believed in thought-transference, that “inventions, ideas, phrases, paragraphs, chapters, and even entire books” could unconsciously transfer “from mind to mind.”
Twain had written “Captain Stormfield’s Visit to Heaven” and “The Late Rev. Sam Jones’ Reception in Heaven,” two stories sharing similar incidents with a story by George Bernard Shaw. Twain and Shaw knew each other, even had dinner several times. They supposedly never spoke about the plots of any of those stories, yet they had the same ideas about what would happen in those stories, independent of one another. When Twain came up with the idea of “mental telegraphy,” maybe a bomb went off in his head, and he thought, “Did I just think that?”
* * *
It’s happened to me so many times I’ve lost count. I’ll have an idea, a really great idea and I start thinking about what to do with it, how I can use it in a piece of writing, and after a while, months, sometimes years, I’ll read or hear someone else say something similar, and it’s even happened that the exact things I thought up, word for word, someone else has already done.
Like: A long time ago I came up with a really good rhetorical oxymoron: What’s Another Word for Thesaurus? I had big plans to use it as the title of a book of poetry, or something, and I even wrote a poem called “What’s Another Word for Thesaurus?” A while later, I started getting into Steven Wright, reading quotes of his on the internet, and watching videos of him on YouTube, and, I’m not sure where but, I came across a one-liner of his that went a little something like this: “What’s another word for thesaurus?”
I got so upset, having to scrap what I perceived to be a great idea I thought I’d originated, or whatever. And I started thinking about why certain people gravitate toward certain artists’ work, or why certain people become friends with certain other people, and in general avoid getting to know people who don’t share common values or interests or sentiments or philosophies or worldviews, or whatever. The more people think the same way, the more likely it is they’ll be friends.
* * *
I started a hip hop group. I wrote the music, programmed the beats on a drum machine and all, and recorded all of it on a shitty little digital 4-track in the attic of my daughter’s mom’s house, where I was living at the time. The hip hop group was with my friends S. and N., both of whom I went to high school with. N. and I used to live together, drinking and doing drugs. S. and I worked together musically on and off since 1996-97 (I was a sophomore, he a senior), also drinking and doing drugs (S. is blind, and I’m half-deaf in one ear—it was perfect).
S. and I started a heavy emo band back in high school—I wrote the music, played guitar and sang, and S. helped arrange the music, played drums—and we won a lot of battles because, well, we were good, and that was back when I was only 15 or 16, and S. was 17 or 18, and we were beating these adult-sized bands with all kinds of electronic gizmos and superfluous equipment who should’ve been better than us. Then we broke up, but we’d still been doing work on and off since then.
So, I’d record hip hop music and beats on this shitty little digital 4-track, then take that over to S.’s and we’d record the music from my 4-track into his computer. He’d come up with these great ideas about things to add in, like a sample of Barney Gumble burping or dialing a telephone and hanging up, and add really great effects to certain parts of the songs, like making the music sound like water. I wrote a lot of verses, and N. wrote some verses, and S. recorded our vocals over the music, rapping, as we drank and did drugs and laughed a lot. S. was very patient.
Anyway, our hip hop group didn’t have a DJ so, when we did the few shows we got, we just rapped over instrumental versions of the songs playing through a Discman hooked up to the PA system. This one show, I pressed play on the Discman and put it on a chair almost offstage. The bass came through the PA speakers so powerfully the vibrations caused the CD to skip. I felt like a man having sex with a woman for the first time, or at least a woman he’s never had sex with before—I felt like I couldn’t get it up. I got all nervous, and all I could think to say to the audience was, “I’m really sorry, this never happens…”
* * *
S. and I were hanging out, working on music, and we decided to order some food after a long day. We called in a pick-up, chicken fingers for Harold or Vance or Oswald or whatever name I gave the person who took our order, thinking I was funny or clever. We got in the car and drove to pick up the food, and talked about funny phrases like “It’s go time” and “Hit the ground running,” and how silly they were. We went in, got our food and left. Like a couple of brilliant idiots, one blind and the other half-deaf in one ear, we walked out to the parking lot, me with my eyes and S. with his cane on my deaf side, his hand on my elbow, me guiding him.
As we got to my car, we had to veer left to get around to the passenger side. For some reason on the way around I said “Right,” and for some reason he went left anyway before I could correct myself. Somehow he knew what I meant, like there was this unconscious level of sarcasm he picked up on, detecting it just in time to be ironic when it seemed like we both wanted completely to avoid any form of calculated communication. Regardless of the fact neither of us apparently had any conscious clue where we were going, we still got to the car. When we got to the passenger side, I opened the door for S. and said, “You sure you don’t want to drive?”
Flickering Lightbulb
I’ve been thinking a bit recently about maybe starting a kind of online journal focusing on creation myths. All submissions would be an original creation myth (originating from the author) or a play on/spin-off of an already existing creation myth, i.e. Christian theological tradition, Native American myths, etc. As a disclaimer, I'm a devout atheist willing to suspend my disbelief—or rather, I was a devout atheist, but, in recent years, I've been leaning more toward agnosticism. I enjoy theological discourse, though I know enough to know I know nothing. Regardless of my inclination one way or the other, I'm fascinated by different cultures' interpretations of how the world, how existence and life, came to be. I'm not nearly as well-versed in the subject of existing mythologies as I want to be, but I think this is a good place to start, a place for authors to create their own world and then tell how it came to be.
I’d really like to see fantastical yet serious and compelling myths of how a particular author feels or imagines existence and life, whatever existence and life are, came to be, but I’d also really like to see the most ridiculously funny and clever accounts imaginable, based on what a sad, silly culture like ours might possibly invent and cherish as its origin if we who live within it had no other alternative, faith-based or scientifically verifiable. These could hypothetically be the myths of lost oral traditions, prehistorical, though written from our 21st century perspective, so I think I'd like to see both prose and poetry. Maybe this journal would only be one issue which would exist either forever, in the accessible quantum universe of the internet, or at least until civilization destroys itself. Maybe it would just be forever open to submissions, so new creation myths themselves could continually be created and preserved. I don't know. I'm thinking about it. This might be really silly. I'm not sure who would be interested in it. I don’t have a name for it yet. I have a snowball, and I'm hoping a pretty yellow bird hatches from it...
I’d really like to see fantastical yet serious and compelling myths of how a particular author feels or imagines existence and life, whatever existence and life are, came to be, but I’d also really like to see the most ridiculously funny and clever accounts imaginable, based on what a sad, silly culture like ours might possibly invent and cherish as its origin if we who live within it had no other alternative, faith-based or scientifically verifiable. These could hypothetically be the myths of lost oral traditions, prehistorical, though written from our 21st century perspective, so I think I'd like to see both prose and poetry. Maybe this journal would only be one issue which would exist either forever, in the accessible quantum universe of the internet, or at least until civilization destroys itself. Maybe it would just be forever open to submissions, so new creation myths themselves could continually be created and preserved. I don't know. I'm thinking about it. This might be really silly. I'm not sure who would be interested in it. I don’t have a name for it yet. I have a snowball, and I'm hoping a pretty yellow bird hatches from it...
Submissions for Unscroll #3
Submissions are open for Unscroll #3, so, if anyone's interested, please send Jared and I one poem or piece of prose for consideration as an attached RTF to 'editor at goldwakepress dot org'. Do it up, yo. We're looking forward to it...
Lepers and Mannequins
Maybe a month ago, I submitted some chapters of The Immortals Act Their Age to Pear Noir!. A week or two later, Daniel Casebeer, editor of Pear Noir!, emailed me asking if I'd submit a portion of my novel, Lepers and Mannequins, which he told me he'd read about on my blog here, as he checks out the blogs of all potential contributors. Daniel said he was "fascinated" by the idea of the novel. That made me happy. Plus, I'd never been solicited before, so that made me really happy. Plus, the chapter he'll be publishing from Lepers... will appear in Issue #3, along with Russell Edson, whom I've big been a fan of for a long time. Thank you, Daniel...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)