An unusual experience but I find myself pretty much on Jeffrey's side here.
Not a moral imperative but ethically desirable so as to allow poets without
connections to established writers (via workshops or writing courses etc.)
to have a chance of being considered.
Though I can see (and have experienced) the misery of what's unpleasantly
called the slush pile, at least it's impersonal.
But the postings by asgill are overloaded with irrelevant detail - why,
for instance, the beef with the Eric Gregory awards - they are open to any
submission from British citizens under the age of 30. The judging panel is
large, changes, and is quite prone to disagreement.
Why the obsession with UEA and Oxbridge?
His remark about Faber is also misleading:
"I hope it isn't Faber's approach, using scouts to go around their own
stomping grounds to find other near-identically educated and tutored poets
to promote."
I've no idea if Faber used "scouts" for its pamphlet series, it's possible I
suppose, but as far as I know its poetry list remains open to submissions.
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeffrey Side" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2010 7:50 PM
Subject: Re: Ten years of publishing worth its Salt - Guardian article
I don’t think it is a moral imperative, Tony, but it seems artistically
limiting not to do so. If a publisher only publishes poets they know or who
they’ve heard of, or who they think will sell well, then the sorts of poetry
published will be more of the same.
Original Message:
Does anyone here really think that any publisher has a moral imperative to
retain an open-door policy to submissions? I do here at Shearsman, but I
assure you that I can see very good reasons for not doing so.
|