Thanks for this Billy. It is odd I guess, but I'd have said that most people
on this list are successful. I shouldn't have inferrred that this is purely
a pecuniary matter. I meant, to be clear about this, that poets are
certainly not underachievers. I fear that this is a rather dangerous parody
of the role of the poet: so many people see poets as visionary drunks and
reprobates. Most are very normal. Even downright dull. Ineptitude has little
bearing on poetry.
As to your provocatiave last sentence, most (all) successful poetry
businesses are run by poets. I have always tended to think that the scope
and success of some of the more progressive presses is bounded by their
predisposition to publish for a niche market. Though when one considers the
plethora of such businesses, there is ample room for mergers and
acquisitions, and real growth. We create our own markets. The excellent
Reality Street is a fine example. But size matters in publishing. The thing
that keeps many presses small would appear to be that they don't wish to
grow, which is fair enough. They remain extremely successful within their
milieu.
> And if we made good capitalists, maybe our publishing ventures
> would thrive rather more.
>
> Billy
>
Best
Chris
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|