I think that's an excellent riposte Roddy, and one well worth provoking.
Thank you. Please don't for a moment think any of this is personal
criticism. And I'm very sorry if I misrepresented your post. I'm sure you
wouldn't exclude (beyond the very sensible confines of your own taste, just
like everyone). Incidentally, I read and collect everyone on your list.
Though personally I don't find Copus, Gallagher or Rollinson particularly
fruitful reads anymore. I'm a fan of Anne Rouse, Glyn Maxwell, Bill Herbert,
and especially the underrated Hartley Williams.

I'd question one thing in your post: the size of the publishing house. If
your cheese is distributed by Sainsbury's is it better that the local
farm's? And the size of one's readership is hardly an indicator of value. I
hope I'm not misreading you here? Your assertion seems almost Yeatsian, "a
poet is defined by his audience." Although you seem to be replacing audience
with distributor. Which I would agree with in part, but I don't feel
uncomfortable with having one reader, or no readers. I don't write with an
audience in mind. I'm sure you don't think that if you have more readers
your poetry is better than those with less?

The real issue is not the size of your print run or your publisher. It's
about your intention as a poet. It's a matter of conscience. I don't mind if
you or anyone wishes to be published by one of the huge conglomerates,
though I'm sure neither of us would believe that made such writers a
success.

Take a look at the output of some other publishers like: Grosseteste
Reality Street Editions, Pig Press, REM Press, equofinality, Spanner
Editions, Grolier . . . well that list could go on too. I might add Salt!
You'll find accessible writers. All I wonder about is who writes about them
in the mainstream. If you like any centre party has a responsibility to
represent it's context, and what we have in Britain is an absence of
context.

What I would challenge is the notion that the audience is deciding on it's
choice of poets. They simply aren't aware of having any other choice, and
this is real power.

I read Randolph's post in the terms of what we are permitted to read. About
access. Some people write into a space and others don't. Some spaces expand
to encompass new revenue streams, like Bloodaxe, we can hardly situate
Prynne with Copus so what is happening there? It's about diversity I guess.
Nothing wrong with that.

Now some people, not you, don't want us to know about the "others", perhaps
because they can't make money out of them, perhaps because they can't write
about them in a way that will give them an income, perhaps because such
writers won't help them gain tenure next year, perhaps because of
aesthetics. Who knows! But your points are well made about this. Like you
I'll let others enter the debate now.

But I'm not all that left-field, honestly. I don't see it as a mainstream
versus loonies thing, though this can be an awful lot of fun. As a
publisher, I produce works from all quarters. I don't have an agenda, though
I do want to profit so that I can reinvest in more work, work that is
characterised by the highest quality of writing. It's not a question of
polarities, though, is it? That's the real issue, the character of the
debate is wrong, we would both agree with that. Put simply, the world of
British poetry is more diverse than most people realise and the question is
how is this diversity represented.

So I'm happy to add everyone on your list. And I'm certain that Randolph
would have no problem adding folk too. Incidentally, Miles doesn't publish
with Carcanet now, which is a reflection on neither party. And like you I
don't wish to sit in any camp. Least of all a British one.

All best
Chris






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