The Hermit Poet

Evidently Amazon and a number of other sites have listed my book, but haven’t updated their entries to indicate that the book is indeed available for purchase (a friend of mine actually ordered and received a copy before Nov 1).

Here’s where and how you can purchase my book:

1. Anhinga Press – Order Page (their online ordering form is being updated, but you can order via email) – http://www.anhinga.org/orderform.cfm
2. SPD Books (Small Press Distribution) – Regular online shopping cart system – http://spdbooks.org/details.asp?BookID=9781934695067
3. Amazon – Lists it as pre-order, but actually will send you a copy – http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Country-Sight-Neil-Aitken/dp/1934695068
4. Barnes & Noble – evidently is confused and thinks the book won’t be out until January 2009
5. Local bookstores – if they don’t have it on the shelf, ask them to order in copies from Anhinga Press.
6. Readings – if I’m in your area, I’d be happy to sell you a copy.  If I’m not giving a reading in your area, but you know someone who is looking for poets to read, please pass my name along.

It would also be helpful if you could mention the book to your local librarian.  If it might help, you could even mention that the poet is the son of a librarian.

• Tue Nov 18, 2008 – 4:30 pm
  Reading with Susan McCabe
  Ide Common Room, 4th Floor, Taper Hall, English Department, USC
  Los Angeles, CA
• Fri Nov 21, 2008 – 7:00 pm
  Philip Levine Prize Reading
  CSU Fresno
  5241 N. Maple Avenue, Fresno, CA
• Mon Jan 12, 2009 – 7:30 pm
  Reading with Nancy Shriffin
  Village Books
  1049 Swarthmore, Pacific Palisades, CA
• Sun Jan 18, 2009 – 2:00 pm
  Reading with Michelle Bitting
  DA Center of the Arts
  252-D South Main Street, Pomona CA
• Fri Feb 13, 2009 – 12:00 pm – 1:15 pm
  Reading Panel: Kundiman Kindles the Flame: New Asian American Poetry
  AWP Conference – Hilton Chicago
  Chicago, IL
• Fri Feb 13, 2009 – 2:00 pm
  Book Signing @ Anhinga Press Table (Book fair)
  AWP Conference – Hilton Chicago
  Chicago, IL
• Tue Mar 31, 2009
  Florida State University
  Talahassee, FL
• Spring 2009 (date & time tba)
  Recently Published MFA Graduates
  Creative Writing Department, UC Riverside
  Riverside, CA
• Sat May 16, 2009 – 8:00pm
  Book Reading (Arcadia Series)
  The Carnegie Museum
  424 South C Street, Oxnard, CA

I’ve done a lot of reading and thinking over the past week, studying various sides, talking to my lawyer friends, and looking at the historical, theological, and political aspects of this question.  I’m not an expert, nor do I pretend to be, but I do feel that I should offer something to my friends and readers in light of the events of this past week.

Where I stand as an individual in relation to this discussion.

1. I’m an active, faithful, and believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  I served a mission in Taiwan, have held various responsibilities in my local congregation, including at times leadership and teaching duties.  I’ve lived in Utah (went to BYU for 5 years), but have spent most of my life around the world in communities where the Church was small, sometimes even invisible (Saudi Arabia).
2. I am the son of converts to this Church (my father joined in a small town in British Columbia, my mother joined in Taiwan, the first of her family).  My parents have always encouraged me to think and decide for myself.  My father was a librarian and taught me never to rely on what others say, but go to primary sources, conduct detailed and expansive research, and keep an open mind.  I’ve found this to be good advice in almost every aspect of my life, in both secular and spiritual circumstances.
3. For me, being Mormon is not about the state where I live, the buildings I go to, the clothes I wear, or even the things I do or do not do — it is not about outward behaviors or group conformity.  For me, being an active Mormon has everything to do with my personal relationship with God and how I treat my fellow human beings, who I see as my spiritual brothers and sisters regardless of who they are, what they believe, or what race, nationality, gender, or sexual orientation they may be.  It has everything to do with a particular spiritual vision of life here and beyond, of the eternal nature of families, of the incredible importance of both knowledge and love.  We are nothing without compassion.  We are also nothing without the existence of eternal standards.  One of the central themes in Mormon doctrine is the necessity of free agency — the ability for each of us to choose for ourselves which way we will go and what we will do at any given point in time.  Coercion was never part of the plan.
4. I’m a writer, a poet, a published author (which I’m still getting accustomed to calling myself), and the editor of 2+ year old literary journal.  I have many many friends in the GLBT community, some of whom serve with me on Boxcar , many of whom I’ve published, and still others who am proud of and champion their work whenever I can.  At the end of the day, I don’t care what orientation, gender, or race someone is — I only see them as my friend, a part of my extended spiritual family, a mentor or peer, an example to look to when I consider what I can do as a writer and an artist in my community and in the larger world.  I see people as human beings — not as labels, groups, affiliations, faiths, or professions.
5. I am 34, straight, single, and never-married.  Which, as a practicing Mormon, means that I have chosen to stay celibate until I get married.  Trust me, that’s not an easy lifestyle choice here in Los Angeles, nor is it made entirely in ignorance.  I am not bound by traditions or familial expectations (though important to me), but have freely chosen to remain so because of my own personal beliefs and a commitment to covenants I hold as sacred.  I do not expect others to follow or even to understand why I have made this decision, but I do hope they will respect my choice to do so to the same degree that I respect their choices with regards to their own personal relationships and lifestyles.  I want my friends to be happy and to enjoy whatever level of happiness they are able to obtain with whoever they wish to be with.  Do I believe that the potential for the greatest degree of happiness exists in a marriage between a man and a woman made sacred in the temple where they can be sealed together as a family for the eternities?  Yes.  Does this prevent me from celebrating the unions and marriages of my friends who do not share this belief?  Not in any way.  We all need a partner, a companion who will help us shoulder the weight of this life, and with whom we can share the greatest joys and beauties.  I do not begrudge anyone that right.  After all, I hope one day to obtain that same blessing for myself.
6. I am a Canadian.  I have had no voice or vote in this election.  I rejoiced at the election of Barack Obama — for me this spoke volumes about America and this nation’s desire for hope, not fear in the midst of crises.  I lean a bit more left than some of my Mormon friends — but there are a lot of Mormons like me, perhaps many more than you might expect.  I want unity not division.  I want coalition and not partisanship.  I want honest communication and not incendiary and divisive rhetoric.  I feel at the core of our problems as a country and as a community in California has been an unwillingness to sit down together and discuss what needs to change.  Assuming we know who the “other” side is and why they have chosen to take the stands they have, does nothing to promote change.  Haven’t we already watched one campaign fail because it concentrated its approach on hate, division, fear, and scandal?  Haven’t we already seen how this fixation with “othering” our opponents leads to social disorder, to extreme acts of hate-filled speech, public defacement, and violence?  A house divided cannot stand, but must fall.  If both “sides” want to arrive at a peaceful solution, we need to agree on what the issues are and why they are issues.  We need to address the source of the problems and not obsess over remedying the symptoms.  I really pains me as a human being to watch our “discussion” turn into a call for battle and unrest.  Haven’t we had have enough of war?  My lawyer and good friend of mine told me that the Mormons deserve this level of response, having brought this upon themselves — that in America, we don’t talk, we get even.  Isn’t this part of the problem?  Fear+Loss+Anger = Retaliation.    What’s at the heart of this?  A failure to hear what the other side is saying and to address what each is concerned about losing.

Where the problems seem to lie in the current Prop 8 debate

1. “Marriage” has legal, social, and religious significance for different people and to varying degrees.  For religious people “marriage” is seen as a sacred rite and generally seen as a divinely appointed ordinance/covenant for binding together a man and woman with God (some denominations perform  same sex unions, but these still represent a minority position) .  Religious people are typically afraid for two different reasons, but not all religious people ascribe to both.  First, some are simply anti-homosexual, believing that since homosexuality is against their beliefs, they are exercising their free speech and democratic right to vote according to their beliefs.  Second, others are afraid that changing the definition of “marriage” will create a legal opening through which churches’ right to restrict marriage to being between a man and a woman will be challenged, and by extension, their rights to restrict access to married student housing on private religious schools and universities, and their rights to worship and teach their concept of marriage without government intervention.  Most Mormons who voted Yes that I know (and not every Mormon I know voted Yes), fall in the second camp.  They may not have known the true level of threat actually involved in such a change, but they voted based on the level of knowledge that they were able to obtain and their level of concern with regards to defending what they honestly perceived as a serious challenge to the temple marriage.  If the No on 8 people had spent more time addressing these concerns, ensuring that the legal questions were wholly addressed (and not just dismissed as thinly-veiled bigotry), and presenting strong assurances that there wasn’t some secret agenda or conspiracy at play, they most likely would have drawn a considerably larger portion of the second camp over to the No side.  The key here (as is the case with anything that revolves around fear and the threat of the unknown) is providing ample information in an unbiased (or at least, respectful) fashion.  When the approach turns to the language of belittlement, misinformation, slander, and ad-hominem attack, the other side closes down, discussion ends, and the sides become more polarized.  Both sides were guilty of overplaying the fear card.
2. In contemporary secular society, the religious aspect of “marriage” has faded or morphed, becoming instead a legal term to describe a particular type of civil union which has historically been preferred because it was seen as have a positive stabilizing effect on society as a whole (it created family units and an identifiable set of obligations and duties between parents and children which encouraged people to stay put, earn more, and care about education and community-building).  Why did Yes on 8 succeed with this group?  Because the campaign focused on the existing commonalities between civil unions and marriages, presented images of happy traditional families, structured their message on a narrative of community building and not on entitlement (I’m not saying that the GLBT community is not entitled to these rights, just pointing out that fixation on the entitlement language finger points to the larger society and says – “you guys are wrong and guilty of discrimination” — while often true, it’s the wrong tone for establishing common ground and persuading others who are not in that minority community that there is something they need to be concerned about too).  Another miss on the GLBT side — while Prop 8 might be offensive for a variety of reasons, the real problems with regard to denied rights and protections actually lie in the Federal and State DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) which explicitly exclude same sex couples from those rights. Like Obama, I’m all for repealing this legislation — those rights and protections should be available for all, as long as they do not interfere with the churches’ rights to freedom of religion.
3. Within the gay-rights community (and as this election has demonstrated, in a growing portion of the rest of the California population) the term “marriage” has become a civil right which has been used to identify those who have state sanctioned and legally protectable unions with attendant federal rights and protections, from those who do not.  As has been noted in other blogs and articles, the No on 8 community made a fatal assumption that everyone else agreed with them that sexual orientation was innate and a protectable civil right (let’s leave out the reality that the State laws already make it a civil right, and just deal with common perceptions in the larger community).  But a considerable number of Californians (not just the religiously active), as it turns out, still consider orientation a chosen behavior or lifestyle and not protected attribute.  Furthermore, in the responses and articles I’ve read, it’s clear that some blacks and Asian Americans resented what was viewed as an appropriation of their own civil rights narrative for the sake of a minority which has often been represented in the media as white, agnostic, wealthy, and privileged (blame Hollywood and cable TV for that – I know that’s not really the case).  Where the Yes campaign reached out to the black, Asian American, and Latino communities, and built multi-faith coalitions which coordinated efforts, encouraged a broad grassroots support system (the success of which we saw in Obama’s campaign), and utilized multi-lingual phonebanks (English, Spanish, Korean, etc) — the No campaign does not seem to have coordinated to the same degree, and perhaps relied too much on larger organizations and celebrities, and thus in the end failed to create a narrative that felt compelling and common to the other communities and traditional families.  Because not enough effort was made to bridge cultural and religious differences, the No on 8 campaign missed a chance to do more.  In the late and post-Prop 8 environment, the protests and vitriol, especially the backlash against Prop 8 supporters through recent ads and property damage, has been so heated and vengeful, that instead of mending relations with those communities, has further divided the gay community from those who may have sat on the fence this time.
4. We are having this debate because “marriage” is a ubiquitous term in and federal and state legislation.  If we eliminated all mention of marriage and replaced it with “domestic partnership” as Canada has done, we would leave individual churches and religions to decide how “marriage” is defined and ensure that every couple’s rights regardless of orientation were protected under law.  Everyone would apply for the same civil union process (no preferred marriage status) and everyone would be dealt with exactly the same.  As for lingering concerns about children’s education — just ensure that different types of “families” are discussed (if at all) and that the definition of “marriage” is left at  home.  In all things we should work toward compassion and equality for basic human rights.  This includes the right to dress differently, speak differently, and yes, heaven forbid, believe differently from one another.

What I see needs to happen

1. We need to stop resorting to rioting, violence, and namecalling. Protesting is fine, but keep things civil and respectable.  It pains me to hear that people have graffitied the walls of LDS temple in Santa Monica and LDS churches in various places in California.  That people are tracking down the names and addresses of Mormon donors to the Yes on 8 campaign (what do they intend to do with that information?).  That others will boycott businesses, bands, singers, and other celebrities simply because they are LDS, regardless of how they may have personally stood on this issue.  Does this sound familiar?  It does to me and scares me.  It also pains me to hear when members or former members of my faith have given into anger or fear and retaliated with violence in word or action.  This is unacceptable and if unchecked will lead to an escalation in hate crimes.  Let’s stop this now.
2. We need to stop using the ballot to determine civil rights applicability. This is a deep legislative issue with potentially far-reaching consequences.  Why did we let this become a referandum on the current level of public acceptance/understanding of a term?
3. We need to stop shouting and start listening.  Really.  It helps.  No more assumptions.  No more generalizations.  No more ads.  Both sides have not done their homework as well as they should have.
4. We need to realize that no one organization or group was responsible for the passing of Prop 8. The very populations which came out to support Obama were the source of many of those Yes votes.  Mormons make up 2% of California’s population.  The LDS Church only donated $2800 of its own money (plus another $2100 in kind donation), and instead encouraged its members to donate the time and money they could and to the degree they felt comfortable with (at least, that was the way it was framed in my area).   Each member made their own decision as to how and if they would support Prop 8.  Not everyone did.  Those that did, often didn’t do much other than vote.  Some donated a great deal of time and money — they felt that this was a difficult trial of their faith, but that it was a necessary part of their spiritual growth — as painful and heartbreaking as it may have been for them and for their families, they chose to do so.  Others felt that they could not in good conscience support Prop 8 and didn’t.  There was no condemnation from the pulpit.  No threat of excommunication, one way or the other.  When the letter was read, many of us in my congregation felt extremely torn, having very dear co-workers, neighbors, friends, and family members who are gay, but also wanting to protect a sacred rite central to our faith.  There were no easy answers.  Most of us did what we have always been encouraged to do, we went home, studied it out for ourselves, prayed about it and asked for inspiration on what to do next.  There was no easy answer and many people I’ve talked to about it expressed deep empathy and anguish about having to choose.  I believe this was likely the case for many many others in other congregations, in other faiths, in other communities.  Even if someone voted Yes on 8, there wasn’t a 100% Yes — it was 90% or 75%, or 51% or even 35% Yes, 31% No, and 34% Can’t Decide.  Churches didn’t vote Yes.  Individual members did.  To assume that every Yes on 8 was a hate-filled vote or the reflection of institutionalized discrimination is a very sad and depressing misrepresentation of the actual situation.  Even if there are problems, individuals always have the right to dissent and vote on their own conscience in that voting both.  Attacking the institutions won’t address the misunderstanding and lack of information which got us here.
5. We need to compromise. As mentioned before, I think the best thing is to repeal or dramatically alter the DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) and remove the language which explicitly removes rights from GLBT couples.  Again, I like Canada’s solution and am all in favor for removing “marriage” altogether from legislation and just using “domestic partnership.”  Many Mormons I know would be fine with such a move, once it was made clear to them what rights were being withheld (it’s hard to tell someone it’s time to repeal an act called the Defense of Marriage).  Equality and compassion.  Likewise, GLBT activist lobbies need to be willing to give some space to religious organizations and universities.   This should not be a competition between civil liberties and the freedom of religion.  We can and need to agree to get out of each other’s business.

Ok, so in the end, I still don’t have a good answer.  I feel empathetic to both sides, but recognize that both right now are holding on tenaciously to the word “marriage” because it represents something much larger.  Because no one wants to acknowledge that there may simply be too many fundamental differences between how each group wants to use the word, we can’t move past it.

Let’s move forward not backward.  Let’s find common ground, research our issues and concerns, and find ways of addressing them.  Let’s not engage in war — we’re moving out of the Bush era now.  Let’s find  appropriate solutions which remove fear from the equation and replace it with compassion and education.  We voted for change, didn’t we?  We can do it.

Not certain what you should be doing the night before the big election?

Come down to Village Books in Pacific Palisades (west Santa Monica) and join me in celebrating the launch of The Lost Country of Sight, my first book of poetry.

Book Launch Party & Reading (with food)
Monday Nov 3, 7:30 PM
Village Books
1049 Swarthmore, Pacific Palisades, CA

Or at least, today’s what would have been my father’s 61st birthday.  In the past, when we were all under one roof, we’d probably have gone out to eat at my uncle’s restaurant in Regina.  In recent years, it was a phone call and perhaps a book sent through the mail for him.  In his last year, we had a birthday party at their place in Penticton with his close friends from church.  I have a short tape of that night — something prompted me to dig out the hand-held tape recorder and let it just record the conversations, some of the last real discussion my father was able to participate in fully.  I think it was less than a month later when his speech became increasingly slurred, and soon he could only speak haltingly, slower and slower, till only his lips moved, then only his eyes.  But on that night, on that recording, my father is laughing and joking with his church friends from childhood.  It’s enough for me to know that the recording exists.  Somewhere the laughter is preserved.  That moment of delight and warmth continues and I can start the tape any time I want.  There’s his voice again.  Happy birthday Dad.

I’m pleased to announce that Boxcar Poetry Review Issue 15 is now
up and available online.  Lots of wonderful work in this issue —
please do check it out!

Read it at www.boxcarpoetry.com

In this issue:

Poetry

• Sumita Chakraborty: “Cabinet of Natural Curiosities”
• Mark DeCarteret: “Beddy-Bye”
• John W. Evans: “Apocalypto”
• Matthew Gavin Frank: “The First Word I Whisper”
• Rebecca Givens: “Hospital Room: View One”
• Aya Ibrahim: “Said the Sea”
• Clyde Kessler: “Roanoke Island”
• William Reichard: “First Morning”
• Michael Schmeltzer: “Cholera, Drowning, and the Firstborn You Wished For”
• Lafayette Wattles: “I Couldn’t Tell Which Were The Thoughts And Which Were The Trees”

Photography

• Brian Price (two untitled images)

Reviews

• Review of Anne Shaw’s “Undertow” ~ Cindy Cunningham
• Review of Anna Leahy’s “Constituents of Matter” ~ Lori D’Angelo

I’ll probably go into more detail once I’ve finished working on my own (which is turning out to be more complicated and involved a process than I expected).  For now though, here are some of the things I’m learning as I study other writers’ statements and my own earlier written comments on this book and my writing in general.

From Heidi Lynn Staples (author of Dog Girl – Ahsahta Press):

What I enjoy most in an artistic statement are an account of the writer’s process and descriptive comments illuminating the work. What I dislike most are divisive assertions of aesthetic allegiance and grand proclamations.

I think this is good counsel.  Statements which move into the grandiose or partisan tend to divide and alienate.  People don’t care about your allegiances (at least they shouldn’t), they should be brought into the world of the author and the making of the book — and feel some connection there.  An author’s statement reveals the human side of the author and sheds light on how the book came to be or the concerns which guided it into existence.

Ethan Paquin in his author’s statement for The Violence (also from Ahsahta Press) begins by noting his own dislike of discussing his own work, but follows up with this passage:

All my poetry owes to bigger and better things than poetry: the natural world, painting and sculpture and architecture, spirituality. All my poetry is informed by things deeper than poetry: love, loss of love, ruinous relationships, redeemed relationships, the bond between a landscape and a man, between a man and his children, between a man and art.

This is illuminating for me.  From this brief passage, I already know to expect these elements and themes in Ethan’s work.  And, where not apparent, to know that the poems on some level are engaging these ideas and may require further contemplation.

What is an author’s statement?  It’s what accompanies the book when it’s sent out for reviews as part of the press kit.  It’s your chance to say why and how the book was written, how it’s changed you, and perhaps where you and it may go from here.

It need not be long or complicated, but the process of coming to a good statement can be difficult.  It’s humbling.  Perhaps it means saying those things you haven’t even admitted to yourself yet.  Certainly it requires you to have some perspective, to be able to stand outside of the text you’ve dedicated so much time to and spent so long inside.

More to come.

(Also long overdue — here’s my post on blurbs)

If you’re like me, when you’re working on your manuscript, book blurbs and author statements are usually the furthest things from your mind. Your attention is on the poems and rightly so.

Once the book has been accepted, suddenly there is a mad scramble to line up your blurbs — which can often be something of a crap shoot — you just don’t know how people are going to respond, what they’ll write, and when they’ll turn it in.

Some things you should consider in advance:

1. Blurbs from people you know – In general, this is the route that is taken. Most blurbs come from former or current professors, close personal writer friends, or long-time professional acquaintances. The good thing about doing this is that generally these people know what you stand for, what your project was about, and are willing to devote time and energy to write something compelling. However, sometimes these blurbs can seem less than genuine or suspect if a potential reader feels that the writer’s connection to these individuals is too close or tainted in some other way. It’s impossible to satisfy everyone, so if you go this route, it’s in your interest to choose people that will appear above the board and whose opinions are widely respected.
2. Blurbs from people you don’t know or who you respect, but have no personal connection with – This is a tougher way to go, but does mean you can hopefully count on a more unbiased response to your work. If you go this route, choose someone whose work has meant something to you in your development as a writer. This makes it easier to approach them — you can honestly tell them that you have admired their work for some time and that you feel that they might enjoy reading an advance copy of the book. Send a short selection of poems from the manuscript and ask if they would be willing to look at the book and if they enjoy it, possibly write something on its behalf. Do this early in the editing process. Even if you have to send a binder-clipped copy of manuscript, send it early enough that this person has time to reflect on it. After a few weeks, check in with them to see if they have received the manuscript and if they would be willing to write a blurb. The more well-known the author, the busier they are likely to busy — be prepared for them to turn down the invitation and thank them nonetheless. Have some backup plans in place. This is why you started early.
3. Let your blurbers know their deadlines and follow up. This is key. If they know when you need the blurbs, they can plan for it. If there is no fixed deadline, then they may put it aside and not get to it. Regardless what the actual deadline is with your press / editor, you should build in a buffer and set an earlier date with your blurb writers. This way you can appear generous if they ask for a little more time 🙂
4. Create a brief description or synopsis of the book (if possible, several). This can help a blurb writer (especially one unfamiliar with your work) a general sense of what your book is about and why it might interest them. You’ll need to be able to describe your book in a few sentences anyway — it’s part of the short sell that you’ll be giving whenever someone asks, “So what’s your book about anyway?”  Sometimes I tell people:  “My book moves between narrative and lyric in its exploration of loss, exile, and return as it pertains to the loss and recovery of countries, languages, and family.”  I might follow up with something more personal.  In a different audience, I might mention its strong elegiac turns or its preoccupation with travel. Or maybe its concern with memory and forgetting. Or maybe tell the story of how it became an unintended elegy of sorts for my father who was dying even as I was finishing and revising the book — and whose passing ultimately shaped the book into what it became. Or maybe how it’s a love story about loss. Depending on your audience, you should have a variety of ways to talk about your book.
5. Keep your blurbs to a maximum of 3. Really. Sometimes less is more. Try to keep them at a reasonable size as well — if the blurb is too long, a potential buyer isn’t likely to read all of it. Keep the long version on the website — along with any extra unused blurbs and reviews.
6. Consider what audiences each of your blurb writers will bring. Your blurb writers should help a reader triangulate where you and your writing fall. You are an unknown, but hopefully your blurb writers are known to your reader (or least their tastes can be surmised). If you write primarily narrative free verse poetry and have blurbs from avant garde language poets or new formalist poets, regardless of how good the blurbs are, you are creating confusion for a potential buyer. There’s a clear disconnect and the wrong audiences are being attracted — simultaneously, your best potential buyers are missing the connection. If there is a range of approaches in your book, then try to have blurbs from poets with a range of styles.

A poem for my late father, written several years ago after being inspired by a short image-rich email he sent me. Something about its brevity and omission spoke volumes about how much he missed having me at home. This Father’s Day was less about grieving and more about remembering, and perhaps even remembering to remember in new ways.

This past weekend I spent surrounded by tokens and symbols of heritage and culture, celebrated the diversity of the multi-racial experience, made many wonderful new friends and acquaintances, and in general felt very much a part of a community. Part of my ability to do so, to open up and accept, is the legacy of a father who cared enough about all our cultures and family histories to weave them into our lives in meaningful ways. He didn’t just observe, he embraced and he encouraged others to embrace what we hold in common and what sets us apart.

Thanks Dad.

Letter From Home

My father’s words
laid down
like old shoes
at a back door.

Worn out, grey,
or that distant pale
that night paints the world
just before dawn.

Not knowing
how far this road goes on
moving in slow circles
or sinking into crisp unfathomed snow.

My father sleeping
in long sighs, unaware
of the way a line disappears
at the edge of meaning.

How few words he takes
to recreate a world
in the mind of a son
longing for home.

The last remnants of trees
pulled from the earth
stay hidden for years
till the wind blows them free.

First published in Spillway

I’m reading in the afternoon today and tomorrow (readings start at 2 pm).

Location:

Japanese American National Museum
369 East First Street (Little Tokyo)
Los Angeles, CA