Alec, I agree with you. An open submissions policy, though at times lots of work, is the more democratic way. I have suspected for some time that Salt had a more “Masonic” approach to finding people to publish, but had never had it confirmed until reading the comments for the Guardian article on Salt. I suppose this is true of most poetry publishers, though Salt at least have been honest enough to admit it.
It’s a bit like those job vacancy adverts one often comes across that have only been placed because of legal requirements, whilst someone the employer knows will really get the job.
I hope, Alec, that you are not eventually led down this path. I know this will be difficult, given the incestuous nature of the UK avant-garde.
Original Message:
I know I'm a small fish in the publishing world, and that my views are probably insignificant, but I think an open submissions policy is wonderful. Since opening my doors to submissions I've discovered at least four entirely different literary scenes that I knew nothing about. These were all fresh and exciting, and the books have sold in large numbers. Also, by discovering various new poetic aesthetics, I feel I have developed as both a reader and a writer of poetry. The best thing, though, is meeting people entirely unrelated to the scene I'm involved in and going to spectacular events that I would otherwise be unaware of.
If I were to have a closed submission policy I wouldn't be exposed to all this astounding, new avant-garde stuff that's going on, because few people know about it to recommend it. In fact, I firmly believe that I would be stewing in the juices of my own poetic aesthetics, without any incentive to progress.
Regards,
Alec Newman
|