LAWRENCE WROTE
>
>I don't think Alaric would act as informant for anyone.

Whoa! too right I wouldn't.

>I think he has a point about talking about people when they can't reply.

I am afraid as usual I have walked into this with two left feet. I had not
been aware of the attitudes of listers to dissemination, people putting on
readings, small press publishers. Poets think they are doing us a favour by
letting us publish them? Some mistake surely. Certainly for those that are
non-profit this seems to have distorted the purposes of the exercise. We
are here together to spread our excitement in the work, aren't we? Isn't
this what makes most small presses different from commercial ones?

RIC WROTE

>Whatever, I think it's usually a
>mistake to alter one's "product" to fit an imagined "market" -
>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.

Exactly.
I think there are too many strands strangling each other here.
I'm not sure to whom the remarks are directed.
I have never suggested altering the 'product'. I am seeking a way of
offering stuff to people that won't alter it, but will let them see it at
all.
I have not been writing about NJ.
I want to find ways to find new audiences for the work that excites me
(following cris's post). Because they might like it. Because we might like
it together.

NICK WROTE

>It might be interesting however to examine whether this perception exists,
>whether others do see us (who are we anyway?!!) as navel-contemplators in
>our small corner, which might go a certain way towards explaining the
>non-attendance/lack of participation. This might lead to .

Ah! if I say >more effective ways of informing people about this
poetry/these poetries< in future will I be excused for having used the >ir<
term marketing?

RIC WROTE

>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.

Stein goes on to say vitality. Is that not better? Is that not clearer? Is
that shouting?
You would not agree that >nobody listens and nobody knows what you mean no
matter what you mean, nor how clearly you mean what you mean<.?

KESTON WROTE

>To shout about something IS to alter it, just as it
>is to whisper; poetry need not stitch up its own version of the market
>garb, merely to deny the nakedness of writers' identity crises.  Though I
>take your point, wish I had access to more, knew more, heard more, was
>told more.  But what is known is when told, new (at the very least).

dont shout dont whisper?

if i dont shout about Carlyle Reedy's book (as I have been told I ought to
be doing louder by various poets), you wouldn't know it exists. you
wouldn't have access. poetry DOES need to stitch up ITS OWN VERSION of
publicity - some way to get to the people who wish they had access to more,
knew more, heard more, were told more.

The point I switch is in response to Rupert's

>Marketing is a means to an endŠ a game with
>obvious rules, formats and ways of processing information.

I want to find a >ir<marketing>/ir< that does not play that game, does not
fit with funding criteria, does not pretend that I run a commercial
enterprise, does not demand bank loans, projected income and all those
things that the conventional marketing outlets and funding bodies try to
force you into before they will give you the ad space or the dosh.

finally in caps for emphasis
I (by that I mean me).... I HAVE NOT BEEN WRITING ABOUT NJ

P.S.

having lost my stone under which to hide, it is very interesting seeing the
ways in which interacting in this medium promotes position taking,
distortion, anger, frustration, and misunderstanding. now i appear to be in
the deep end, i understand why you all looked so strange to me when i was
viewing you from under my stone.

It is not clarity that is desirable but force. Clarity is of no importance
because nobody listens and nobody knows what you mean no matter what you
mean, nor how clearly you mean what you mean. But if you have vitality
enough of knowing enough of what you mean, somebody and sometime and
sometimes a great many will have to realize that you know what you mean and
so they will agree that you mean what you know, what you know you mean,
which is as near as anybody can come to understanding anyone.
GERTRUDE STEIN, >Four in America< Books for Libraries Press 1947




%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%