Junction Press, my imprint, receives no government funding. This is 
not a matter of pride--the funding for the few US presses that 
receive funding at all and that produce the low volume of work 
Junction does is too small to justify the time spent on applications. 
Junction doesn't expect to pay for my labor, but it does expect to 
pay its other costs so that I can continue to publish the books I 
wish to publish.

The situation in other countries is very different than in the UK or 
US. In all of Latin America publishing is highly subsidized and 
sometimes government-owned. This has led to inefficiencies in 
distribution by publishers who are government employees or by the 
multitude of independent publishers who don't need to cover their 
costs through sales, although this is by no means universal. On the 
other hand, enormous amounts of poetry are published and sold at 
prices that anyone who isn't sleeping on the street can afford. 
Dependence on subsidies has made censorship easy for governments 
interested in censorship. An extreme example is Cuba, where there's a 
lot of censorship (there would be regardless of who was footing the 
bill) and editions that sell on the international market for $40 or 
$50 sell in the peso stores for pennies. In Mexico, on the other 
hand, by far the largest Spanish-language market, books are cheap and 
there's no censorship that I'm aware of. And books come from the 
strangest places. A selected poems of Luis Cortes Bargallo was 
published in an edition of 15,000 by the dept of hygiene and given 
out gratis at clinics. Luis' poetry isn't particularly hygienic, and 
it's not "easy." Presumably some bureaucrat had spare cash left in 
the budget. The book hasn't made its way into the used book market 
(dammit. I'd love to find a copy), which means probably that some 
copies wound up in the trash and some are treasured.

A closer look at Mexico. At the federal level Fondo de Cultura 
Economica is government-run and the largest publisher in the country. 
Its director is a political appointee, which means that what gets 
published is subject to changes of administration. For much of the 
latter part of the reign of the PRI Octavio Paz was defacto czar of 
Mexican poetry, and he ruled with a heavy hand. His disciples filled 
the editorial posts at Fondo. Not unlike the situation in the US in 
the same period, when the major US publishers were under the thumb of 
the post-Auden crowd--control by cliques doesn't require government 
enforcement. The situation has begun to change under PAN rule, though 
thus far not noticeably for the better. But aside from the multitude 
of independent, subsidized presses, each branch of each of the state 
universities has its own press, and various state and municipal arts 
organizations have presses as well. So, in Baja California, the area 
I know best, the state arts council has a press, and the state-run 
cultural centers in each of the major cities also have presses. The 
city arts councils have presses, as do the city-run arts education 
programs. They are each responsive to different constituencies, which 
means that very little slips through the net.

Behind all of this are a committment to Culture (capital C) as 
something that's good for people and a felt need for the validation 
of the nation as an entity.

I have mixed feelings about all of this. On balance I think it's been 
a good thing. Latin America has seen an enormous efflorescence of 
poetry of all stripes which would not have been possible otherwise. 
And books get into the hands of a lot of folks who couldn't otherwise 
afford them (most fulltime university teachers in Mexico make about 
$165 a week).

Re: POD. I think we're using the term in different ways. In the US 
it's still unusual for a copy of a book to be produced at the demand 
of an individual customer. The demand is by the publisher. The 
advantage for same is that we can limit the number of copies we 
warehouse at any given time. Junction's latest book, for instance, 
was printed digitally in a run of 300 copies. When the supply ran low 
I ordered another 200, which I had in hand in 4 days. This book will 
probably be adopted for a lot of courses, and academics are 
notoriously late in ordering, but because of POD I can get the books 
to them in time. The financial penalty for printing such small 
batches at a time in offset would have been severe, and delivery 
would have taken at least a month. What loss there is in reduced 
economies of scale is more than offset by the virtual disappearance 
of storage costs. So, lower costs, less risk, which means I can 
publish more titles.

My authors tell me that at this point I should mention Junction's new 
website, junctionpress.com, where all the books are available.

Mark


At 03:13 AM 5/9/2007, Chris Hamilton-Emery wrote:
>I think that's a passionate and sensible argument for government funding,
>Alison. I'm sure many of us would echo those sentiments. Personally, I'm not
>convinced, and I'm a beneficiary. I'd keep my comments specifically to
>literature and not theatre. Nor would I extend my sentiments into other
>areas of tax funded services, like road infrastructure or health care. I'm
>only talking about books.
>
>I think a culture funded at the point of use has a greater connection with
>the people. Salt wasn't funded until 2005, and I think we proved to
>ourselves that there was demand for avant-garde literature. We survived
>without funding and grew the business publishing some of the most radical
>literature produced in the UK. We did this on the basis of sales, and as we
>capitalised the business through those sales the business improved and
>developed. Before we did this, many people around us believed that the only
>literature which was financially viable was centre ground, highly accessible
>writing and anthologies. It's been a slow business, and I wouldn't want
>anyone to think we're not grateful to the Arts Council for investment in our
>business. The terms, however, are that we will cease being funded in 2009.
>As long as people want to buy what we publish we'll keep publishing it. In
>essence we're following the money. In Salt's experience that's led to a
>diverse and pluralistic output. Business stability comes from diversity.
>
>I don't believe in funding anyone to produce something people don't want,
>and which is never consumed. However, I also don't believe that successful
>businesses should be continuously funded. They should stand on their own two
>feet. I think the key thing here is to unwrap the beliefs around how people
>buy. Most funded literature actually doesn't reach people, so they don't
>benefit. As funding has concentrated on pushing product it's actually driven
>  the argument away from giving readers what they want, to telling them what
>they need. And we've seen people develop strong beliefs that people really
>want rubbish. This simply isn't true. Readers want product of all types at
>all levels and they're happy to buy it at the point of use.
>
>I'd say that most of the literary art that has really affected me is the art
>I've bought myself from non-funded presses which have struggled to find a
>model to put their products into my hands. Thanks heavens they did that.
>
>Bestest
>C