On 15 Oct 1998 I wrote to the little magazine ‘First Offence’
asking them to insert a correction to an especially exceptionable
claim in an article by Andrew Duncan. I have had no written
response, and so am putting this up to alert poets to the
situation. If they agree with me that the assertion in
question is inaccurate, then they will presumably also see
my point that such misinformation should not go unchallenged.
I refer to the statement ‘The truth is that it was
the collapse of the sales of ‘Poetry Review’, under
Eric Mottram’s editorship, which provoked the crisis
at the Poetry Society; sales allegedly fell from 1500 to 300.’
To consider just the wording for a moment, it may seem that
the contrast between terms like ‘truth’ and ‘allegedly’
might serve as a warning; similarly the lack of source and detail
attaching to the supposed statistic is something of a teaser.
In fact, it is my firm belief that the whole statement on
sales is nonsense, and I even hear that Andrew Duncan has
to some extent disavowed the article since - a point his
publisher might do well to note.
To slip in a bit of definition at this point: I take
information to be common, everyday statement.
Fact is something more: presumably information that can be
checked and verified. But Truth is a higher and
different sort of concept - a fusion of all fact? a state of
absolute knowledge? some added moral dimension to the status
of information?
I mention this as I wish to make it clear that I am trying to deal
with fact, not rumour or prophecy. As regards sales figures,
I can certainly bring forward my own testimony, as a
member of The Poetry Society's General Council during the mid
70s, as well as a proof-reader of ‘Poetry Review’ for several years,
and the printer of one (not very elegant) edition of it.
The print-run was consistently over 2000 copies during Mottram’s
editorship, to my observation. This comprised 1200 copies approx
for members as part of an annual membership fee, and the rest as
copies for sale, either to libraries or to private enquirers or via
bookshops. Neither the number 1500 nor that of 300 fits obviously
into this equation.
However fact is not individual assertion. So I also checked with
others concerned with the Publications Committee of The Poetry
Society at the time and was provided with the following significant
figures by the then Hon.Treasurer:
sales of ‘Poetry Review’ in 1967 - three hundred and ninety seven pounds sterling
ditto in 1971 - four hundred and eleven pounds sterling
ditto in 1975 - one thousand and fifty pounds sterling
ditto in 1976 - one thousand one hudred and fifty-one pounds sterling
ditto in 1977 - ont thousand four hundred and nine pounds sterling
Quite contrary to the figure produced in the article, sales can be
seen to have consistently risen during Mottram’s editorship
(1971-1977), and there is absolutely no question of any ‘collapse’
that I can detect, certainly not while the duly elected officers were
able to retain their posts or prior to the Arts Council intervention.
The point is one that needs to be made, however simple and antique it
may seem, because the incorrect statistic is pivotal to the weird
argument developed by Andrew Duncan that the Arts Council were only
following ‘broad taste’ in quashing the Mottram-guided ‘Poetry
Review’ in 1977, and that the coup was not a political act but
presumably a just judgement on all those (and the list would be a
formidable one indeed) who cared to associate themselves with Mottram
and his editorship.
I do not find this view commensurate with the facts. It has more to
do, I feel, with a hypersensitivity to ultramarine cultural influence
and a rather dangerous yearning for a fantasy purity of insular
culture. To meet such dubious ends, would it be surprising if facts
had had to be invented?
Bill Griffiths
----------------------
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|