THE REJECTION OF CAINE'S POETRY
ARRANGED & ADAPTED BY JEFFREY TAYLOR
| *----- Original Message -----
From: O'Donnell, Rosie To: 'submit@libraryofcongress.org' Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:42 AM Subject: poems for the shitter <<this is not a test.doc>> Thanks for your time. * From: Library of Congress
thanks for sending these poems, but please review our submission recommendations. * From: O’Donnell Rosie
Library of Congress, I have read the submission recommendations, both before and after receiving this e-mail. Am I missing something? I could be stupid but as far as I know I have followed the recommendations. Please instruct me of my stupidity. Rosie * Hi Ms. O’Donnell, Sorry for the confusion. A certain long-windedness is expected of us, which is why the submission recommendations page states, in an unclear, roundabout, longwinded way, that we'd really prefer not to receive any poems. We do say you can send them, of course, but don't expect we'll accept them. Here's the relevant part to read for a third time: ". . . let's save the time of all those who'd like to send poetry! It's wonderful you'd like to put your poem on this online Internet-based literary website! However, if you really check out the site, you'll see only a handful of poems, and most of these are pretty odd and potty mouthed. So, if you'd really like your poetry to be here, send it, since it costs nothing, but the chances of getting it accepted are slimmer than slim, especially if the poems are 'poetic.' This doesn't mean we're constructing fences to keep the cows from roaming. We still want roaming cows. Just we'd like you to know that serious poetry is better off grazing greener pastures."I just read your poems a little more carefully and they're not quite right for The Library of Congress. First of all, they're poems. Second, they have a sort of St. Mark's aesthetic that makes me wanna inject centipedes to watch them wriggle up my arms until they spit black globs of neurotoxin all over my scalloped heart. Third, there are too many hookers. Way too many. One in each poem, although the whores in the first are pigeons. I like some of the lines -- the speedometer, the drunk and daisy -- but elsewise it's really not up my alleyway, and The Library of Congress’ alleyway is pretty much my alleyway. Please do not respond with a coy remark about shoving anything up my alleyway. Thank you. So anyway, sorry for the confusion. Thanks for sending the poems. And sorry. I'd recommend a place for them but I really don't know so much about the preferences/inclinations of good poetry sites. * From: O’Donnell, Rosie
Library of Congress, Ohh, is that all you were talking about. I read all that long winded self indulgent mess of a way to scare off those without a dick of their own. I have a dick of my own, even touched it earlier today (while peeing). So I sent my shit in. Do what you want with it, accept it, reject it, burn it, throw it out the window, put it in the jon and read, shit, wipe, read, shit, wipe. Just don't say I didn't read the submission recommendations. I've read pretty much everything on your site. With love and devotion, Rosie * From: Library of Congress
Dear Rosie, Let me get this straight, you want me to take your dick and put it in "the jon"? That's what you wrote: "the jon" . . . Do you mean Jonathan Ames? I know him somewhat but he probably wouldn't let me put your detached cock in him. Jonathan Franzen? I don't know him at all. Through connections, however, I could possibly get through to him, maybe, if a friend of mine were to talk to a friend of hers and then if that friend who's friends with Franzen convinced him to do it, but I'm not sure I'd get anywhere if I were to admit my friend that it was "all about placing some poet's cock in Jonathan Franzen." You understand this, don't you? It's a difficult thing to do. I could try, but putting your detached penis into Jonathan Franzen is not going to be easy work. Maybe Jonathan Safran Foer then? I could get to him in two simple steps, no problem. A friend knows him, sort of. Interviewed him early on. And now they're friends. He's young and might be willing. He'd put your free-range cock in him just for literary fodder, grist for the mill, that kind of thing. Jonathan Swift was a hunchback, dead for centuries: I wouldn't put your dick into the hunchbacked skeleton of Jonathan Swift, not even if I got an NEA grant to do it. No way. And Jonathan Livingston Seagull is a fictional bird of children's literature. And thinking about putting your penis into a bird that only exists in an imaginary way to please and instruct children, it makes me sick. Jon Bon Jovi? . . . I am from New Jersey, but I don't know anyone who knows him. So who is The Jon you're talking about? I'm all out of ideas here. * From: O’Donnell Rosie
Twas actually my poetry (shit) that I suggested could be put in the jon, the shitter, potty, bano, porcelain god or commonly the bathroom. I normally do most of my reading there. As far as putting my poetry not dick in any of the stated john's, if you can make it work, go for it. You have my express written permission to insert anything I send you in anybody's anything, John or not. * From: Library of Congress
Oh, the John. I get it. OK. We'll see what
we can do. We'll put your
poems in front of everybody's eyes. How's that?
For similar rejection-related content on this site, select any of the following : The
Rejection of Joshua Beavers' "Deicide"
* |
B R A V E S O U L S R E C E I V E
|