Have read with interest Anthony Frazer's contribution
to the 'Poetry Review' tangle.
I find it curious that he or anyone should feel compelled
to insist that there was a 'decline' in sales of 'Poetry
Review' 1971-1977, without offering a single fact in proof.
Instead we have to make do with his personal conviction:
'I'm sure (he says) it would nonetheless be a 'decline'.'
Rather that is, than a 'collapse' as previously reported!
This conviction seems based on the idea of an 'inflation-adjusted
cover price' for 'Poetry Review'. In fact no such rise in
price took place. Had Anthony Frazer looked at the covers
of the issues of 'Poetry Review' concerned - where the price
is always clearly marked - he would have found it stable at
40p a single issue, 80p a double issue.
Now this is the kernel of my complaint in a way. That people
are chucking out information - sometimes with the apparent
intention of damaging people's reputations past and present -
without bothering to check first whether they are handling
reliable facts, that is, information that can be checked
and verified. I am not saying it always easy to check,
but one should at least make an effort -surely - to do so,
before making an assertion that many people are going to
accept as fact?
Now I have a left a space there for you all to do your arithmetic.
It means that with approx 4 issues of 'Poetry Review' a year,
40p. a copy - and a discount would only be applicable to shops not
to library or personal purchases - would indeed give us figures
in the £1000 per year range.
The rise in income would thus seem to be at least a modest indicator
of a rise in circulation. Those who wish to assert the opposite
should come up with proper evidence please.
bill
----------------------
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|