Thanks, Andrew,
It depends a bit on the manuscript, poetry
in translation would most often attract a reader's
report through a clear need for expert opinion. The full
formal reader's report is possibly popular in Australia
because to gain Australia Council funding for a book
you are intending to publish, you must send something
of similar nature to the Literature Fund for each title
where you seek a subsidy (and in practice, cutting
and pasting from existing reader's reports saves time).
That's actually a good analogy too, who would
want in-council comments made by grant assessors about
their supporting material to be published?
It's a complex issue, I've been talking to the ASA
about it and may look to write something for Australian
Author exploring the implications of the issue. I'm
concerned that if there's no adverse comment, others
will publish reader's reports thinking it de rigeur.
I've very much appreciated your opinion, Alison's
and others expressed at poetryetc.
cheers
Hugh Tolhurst
PS People should also note that I'm not particularly
anti Les Murray, as previous threads have shown.
My issue here is largely with biographer Peter Alexander.
----- Original Message -----
From: Andrew Jackson <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: That "unfortunate lunatic" Mr Blake
> Hi Hugh,
>
> My guess is that it would depend very much on the size of the
> publisher, and poetry publishers being relatively small outfits
> as a rule, I don't think they employ readers as such.
>
> I can only give Bloodaxe as an example from my own past
> experience -- as far as I know it was only Neil Astley and one
> other assistant editor who read MSS. I submitted one myself
> back in 1994, which was read by one of the assistant (joint?)
> editors (Andrew somebody . . . ) and returned with a 2-page
> crit, picking out the few he genuinely liked, with general comments
> on the rest (you're still young, the poems tend too much
> towards the abstract, etc).
>
> >From my recent correspondence with Neil, here's a couple of
> quotes which may be relevent --
>
> >I receive around 100 submissions a week, virtually all of which I have to
> return without comment, <
>
> >I would say that 95% of the submissions I receive are unsuitable for book
> publication <
>
>
> Faber . . . my guess is that it would be a two-person job at the
> very least, with perhaps readers sifting out a small number of
> MSS which are then passed onto the editor. Whether they're
> in the habit of making written reports on these possible MSS
> . . . dunno! I think you may be right about the informal avenues . . .
> second or third opinions.
>
> I've always associated readers' reports with the big fiction
> publishers, for some reason . . . . not so much with poetry.
> I'm behind on this particular thread though . . . .
>
>
> Andy
>
>
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|