I don't think one can imagine poetry without a readership, Peter. There are
hundreds (and hundreds) of thousands of (buying) poetry readers in the UK.
But I think I'd want to qualify what I'm saying, we're not talking about
scale here, and certainly not scale of readership in some way equalling
value. A first time collection by Cape, Picador or Faber would expect to
sell around 1,800 copies through the trade (i.e. in bookstores), most of
that in year one.
To give a concrete example, Daljit Nagra, published on 1 Feb, has currently
sold 2,650 copies. Some books do better, most do worse. Salt currently aims
for 600 units over three years, Hill did that in a few weeks, Hedge Coke in
a few days; James did it in four years. The sales, i.e. readers, are
certainly out there, though the scale of readership for each poet will vary,
enormously. But one has to understand those economics and the expectations
we have which reinforce our positions. Most poetry doesn't sell because no
one is selling it. It's that simple.
I think it's a complete and total myth that there are no readers. I just
think one has to want to find them, and when one does, a publisher (and to
some extent a writer) has to want to sell to them. Another myth is that this
is only true for the mainstream. It's not.
Salt's sales are up 26%. UK trade sales tripled in 2006-2007. The market is
there for all kinds of poetry. I'm not saying it isn't tough, because it is.
But it's there to be had if one works at it hard enough.
And yes, I do feel, quite strongly I suppose, that literature is created by
readers. If we imagine the contrary we would be at sea in what Faber's CEO
aptly called the "effluent of abundance".
|