It's never, of course, an "either / or" situation: all the old
dissemination methods are still valid, and many of the new ones too, and
perhaps even some as yet unimagined... but the validity is not defined
purely by gross "market returns" (bums on pews / units sold), but, one
hopes, by actual response. The "units" I'm talking about aren't just for
passive consumption, one does hope for - and indeed get, surely - some
feedback, some sense of ongoing process. Whatever, I think it's usually a
mistake to alter one's "product" to fit an imagined "market" - "Fail, fail
if you must" sd Gilbert Sorrentino "but in terms you are helpless within".
Exactly.
You just keep using what machinery you think is appropriate, and watch out
for distortion. If a "marketing strategy" distorts perception of its
"product" (as I think many o-so-cute blurbs tend to) it does disservice
to everyone in the chain: poet, audience and publisher/organiser - the
only satisfied individual will be the arts administrator, who may get a
short term return out of it.
The substitution of force for clarity is too simplistic a formula: we
don't have to buy into it uncritically. I dread a world where we all have
to shout louder than everyone else to be heard.
Finally, I do feel that the list shouldn't be used for personal
tale-telling. However, I'd point out that the list is not closed, and
that Nick or anyone else who feels "got at" is welcome to join up and
respond. It'll all look very negative and little-islandish in the archive
in a couple of months.
Back to the word-pit.
___________________________________________________________
Richard Caddel
Durham University Library, Stockton Rd., Durham DH1 3LY, UK
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
Phone: +44 (0)191 374 3044 Fax: +44 (0)191 374 7481
WWW: http://www.dur.ac.uk/~dul0ric
"Words! Pens are too light. Take a chisel to write."
- Basil Bunting
___________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|