John,

too often do i feel as if exiting the germ of potential (a useful error)

I'm wanting to ask questions about your provocative analysis
os the birt-po small presses and their anti-hegemonic, non-hierarchical
poses being compromised by dint of non-articulated 'policy'.

Can we tease this open a little? What policies do those presses who
might have 'front' person here articulate and how do they do so.

I'm going to be specific about our 'policies' (articulated through the
products), not out a defensiveness or puffing up but in the hope that
others here will do something similar and a full discussion ensue.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Sound & Language (Sianed and i call ourselves co-directors, for funding
purposes  -  although it's hard to identify a lower order, we're equal at
the top and there's only a top, mostly from financial necessity we'll cross
that bridge and so on) publishes books, CDs and curates occasional events.
Our intention is to encourage as many people as possible, by whatever means
necessary to engage with the work put forward by those channels. That is we
try to sell (time and energy permitting) through specific outlets that will
present to a range of audiences (Books etc, Dillons, Waterstones yes but
only CERTAIN of their shops; the ICA bookshop, Cornershop, Serpentine
Bookshop) at conferences, at readings and performances. What we are trying
to encourage more and more is DIRECT MAIL ordering.

Books and CDs are designed (within budgetary constraints) to be as
'attractive' as possible. To turn readers on. Ok  -  we can quibble till
the till goes blue about design issues, that's not the point i'm making.
The point here concerns intention.

The marketing is integral to the production. The attempt is to integrate
appropriateness throughout.

John, this all seems like policy and policy articulated to us, but i sense
you're after something else. I.E. a community policy of openly (perhaps
specifically) negotiated values and an positionable critical readerships.
So, that by your suggestion of the 'publication of the list' such
post-structuralist mechnisms as you suggest might be furthered more
'consistently'.

My concerns then turn to the actual workings of your scheme and these
questions will doubtless reveal much. Because whilst i acknowledge that
this list contains (just) broad allignments it also conceals a multitude of
awkwardnesses, differneces of definition and criteria, differing
objectives, conflicting aesthetics and so on. You are correct in
identifying the point at which the 'policy' implicit in the work is
compromised in its entry into 'marketplaces' as a tranch of 'sore points'.

1) simply by dint of typographical detail most of what i am currently
'writing' would not be possible to post up on the list. It could agreed be
posted on an equivalent of the 'wr-eye-tings' scratchpad site. Hence I tend
to agree with your suggestion of a linked site that feeds into this list
with an openly declared policy and an open invitation to become part of the
reader pool. But then we are presuming (and we are) a level field of
technological adeption. I would happily post pieces for consideration under
such a scheme and would happily be 'arbitrarily' chosen as a 'reader'.

2) your proposal involves a form of 'collective responsibility' for what is
posted as 'a publication of the list'. Arbitrariness of reader selection
will help in the formulation of acceptance as such. Turf wars will from
time to time well out i suspect.

3) how can we know, we should certainly try it, that what results will not
simply be yet another (british) version of diplomatic consent, that will
reveal little of pith and little of 'articulated policy'?

4) crucially as you raise it, the issues of this medium as a force for
carrying the work forward  -  its materialities, its potentials for
advocacy

other thoughts
love and love
cris









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