I don't think there's anything wrong with a poet feeling that they have some
authority over their work? I got a bit lost here, Erminia.

I don't really see why business is bad either. I mean some of it is
corrupting, but poetry publishing and the lives of poets . . . it's hardly
on a par with money laundering and selling fake pensions. Though quite what
that's got to do in this context I can't really see? I'm a businessman and
quite happy with my life, and my poetic life sits nicely in the centre of
things.

There's an undertone that publishers are all nasty beasts that prevent us
all from photocopying what we want, but I imagine it's a little more complex
than this. Most of the publishers I know are bloody hard-working, rather
selfless creatures, who believe in their writers and work very hard to
"bring them into the world." It's not about money, but it is a commercial
activity (if in a number of cases non-profit making); there's surely nothing
wrong in this? I mean seeking to finance a business to develop more poets.
We wouldn't have much to read if there weren't publishers. It's not so much
a question of access, I mean if you just want access to all poetry a quick
surf of the internet will give you a life's content of poems written by a
huge range of people. Mostly, we are interested in a more specialised aspect
of poetry writing, and usually we distinguish it by some form of imprimatur,
either the brand of a web journal, or some form of print. Names matter.
Brand names are the first indication of a commodity value.

The idea of poets doing anything to pay the rent has always struck me as a
rather decadent capitalist idea, as if to purge the soul we need poets to
suffer for their art; writing that down almost induces narcolepsy, it's such
a tired old adage. It's as if we wouldn't really trust the words of a pet
who rolled up in her Bentley Arnage, and chucked a few fivers at the doorman
on the way in to the Dorchester for a spritzer and some wild thyme and feta
stuffed focaccia. It just isn't about one's biography, or one's pedigree. If
I write in the gutter it doesn't make my writing more valid. Poets are just
people, there's no magical possession, no gods and goddesses descending, no
muses paralysing us. It's just ordinary people scribbling a few words down,
grafting, between going to the supermarket, watching the telly, taking a
piss. Poets aren't special. Though admittedly it's a rather odd thing to
commit oneself to. And most writers do indeed have full time jobs. I don't
really see what's wrong with this either. Keeps us all in touch with the
world.

As for being paid to exist, well that's called social security in Britain,
and it's there to save people from poverty. So I don't quite see what's
wrong with that either. Though most people want to earn their money in some
way, and I don't feel particularly disposed to knock them for that. I'm not
implying by that that you were in any way either.

I suspect your concern is really about commodification. And I always remind
myself that poetry was *not* historically for the people (a rather sweeping
comment that I know) but for an elite. A true commodity, really: a measure
of leisure for the learned classes.

Similarly, the plastic arts were very much a feature of wealth and
patronage. I've grown increasingly suspicious of the idea of art for all, it
seems too incongruous to consider. I can't possibly address the nation, god
forbid, never mind the earth. So I suspect we really address a coterie. I
suspect we have lost our patronage. We now spend our time arguing
(Pharisaically) over who's really practising the art and who is muddying the
waters with mainstream rubbish. Nothing wrong in this either, but it is a
feature of having lost an overriding purpose. (I'd argue that poetry is now
without purpose.)

As for the physical aspect of money, money only signifies exchange value, it
isn't a thing in itself, it represents something in terms of desire, and in
earning it for some folk their sense of personal value. This is clearly a
rather fatuous aspect of what money is. Nevertheless, poetry is tied to
money in its relationship to notions of leisure, and perhaps it's attitude
to commerce. Poetry is (at least) entertainment. As soon as folk don the
priest's robes and talk of ART, I reach for the bucket.

I do think that poetry changes things as well. I am personally constantly
changed by reading poetry. I wouldn't care to read it if not.

Thanks for those impassioned words. It's led me to consider my "vocation",
and that's always a good thing. But I still want to feed my kids and shop at
Tesco's.

best

C





%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%