The question of poetry and commerce seems unnecessarily fraught. The last time I made a stray remark about the question (on Jacket) Rob Stanton in a summing-up article oddly chose almost the very words I had used in clarification in a severe reprimand:
Myself: "the sales of poetry books have no significance to me as a marker of aesthetic value."
Stanton: "When has market share ever necessarily equated to any art's aesthetic value?"
I don't mean to reawaken that Heaney 'debate' of baleful memory but just to indicate how easily misconstrued any statement on the matter can be.
Perhaps I'm doing the same but Tim, surely your remark "unless it's just about money... Yea, well...... " is at odds with your earlier sense that Salt could have pursued a more effective course by not expanding its list, and thereby losing its avant-garde profile. What I took you to be saying is that there was a better commercial strategy the editor could have pursued rather than that he should have remained aloof to such considerations altogether. In other words it might not be "just about money" while also being about money...?
At least Salt hasn't dropped most of the poets they began publishing, as far as I know (which isn't very far). The question made me think of what happened at OUP where the whole list was felled at once, ostensibly for reasons of financial loss. As I understand it, the list was paying for itself quite well. Ironically, several of the poets, such as Alice Oswald, who went elsewhere, within a few years would be earning considerable royalties for other publishing houses. But even if that had not been the case, there should still have been a serious argument about its continuance.
( Incidentally the description of Carcanet I read on Wikipedia is misleading: Wikipedia: "Oxford Poets is an imprint of the British poetry publisher Carcanet Press.The imprint was established in March 1999 when the founder and editor of Carcanet Press, Michael Schmidt, acquired the Oxford University Press poetry list." On Michael Schmidt's website - perhaps the source- it is described thus:
"In 1999-2000 Carcanet took over the Oxford University Press poetry list." "Took over" is probably better than "acquired", given that a large majority of the poets went elsewhere.)
I may be missing a great deal of the context but I don't see why an editor talking about flagging poetry sales should be seen as "shitting" on a sector of the art, or as "ranting". I suppose what I'm asking is why the matter should be so sensitive - the matter of finance not of the direction of Salt, as I can see why the latter could cause bitterness.
It goes along with the easy assumption in some quarters that the bigger publishers of poetry are merely commercial, and therefore have no commitment to the art.
Best,
Jamie
----- Original Message -----
From: Tim Allen
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Sunday, July 03, 2011 5:42 PM
Subject: Re: Quote of the day by Chris Hamilton-Emery
Exactly, lots of people still think of Salt as being the prime place to send avant material. OK, those people haven't kept up with things, but it's the strength of that reputation. Salt never took advantage of that reputation, for whatever reason. If it's because Chris Emery didn't think it was a reputation that had any legs in it then that might be down to his own lack of enthusiasm for the material (and going by what he's said this is probably the case). A poetry publisher has to have that desire to see that what he is enthusiastic about gets out there - if not then it becomes a pointless exercise - unless it's just about money... Yea, well......
Tim A.
On 3 Jul 2011, at 14:36, Alec Newman wrote:
It is a kick in the teeth though, when the most publicized editor of avant-garde poetry comes out and says that avant-garde poetry has no market value. He may not be a publisher of the avant-garde anymore, but he still has the reputation of one.
