David, I didn't exactly agree with you about Salt, but merely said 'You may have a point...' I would have to be a lot better informed about it to set myself up in judgement, and wouldn't anyway want to do that. Still, it might be an interesting case to study the micro-economics of poetry publishing. I think you're wrong about Chris not valuing the poetry he published. What you may have been referring to was an exasperated comment he made (on another forum) as the ship was sinking about certain poets not being willing to lift a finger to help the sale of the books. I don't know Chris so have no interest at all in speculating about his motives. (Full disclosure: he once publicly expressed the view that I was a right wing poet, and though flattered to have been linked with Geoffrey Hill, I asked him to give some evidence, which he seemed unable to do.) What I have seen is that Salt's books were well produced and he published a great number of poets who would otherwise have had less or no exposure. Whether I like all of their work or not is another matter. My own impression, though, and this is the small area of possible agreement, is that he might have done better with a more select and compact list.
   Whatever 'human nature' is, I tend to assume trust is an important aspect of human relations, and only become suspicious when I have grounds to believe that trust has been broken. To explain with reference to my own experience, I have worked with 7 publishers of poetry and prose, have always had an advance, and have always had (except in one case where I have no reason to worry) six monthly detailed statements of sales for royalties. The idea that these would be falsified, the stupid work that would entail, has never crossed my mind. Besides they correspond very exactly to the curve of increasing indifference that I'd foresee, punctuated by tiny spikes of sales which correspond to moments of unexpected attention. As I said earlier my experience in translation with a major publisher has been very dismaying financially, but it was perfectly in accord with a contract I foolishly signed, so it might not represent a model of fair dealing but it's not an example of the publisher's dishonesty. 
  On the other side of the line, I am about to have a pamphlet published for which there will be no advance and no royalties. This is not desperation and I can't really see it has anything to do with vanity or self-importance (though all these personal details I've been giving might seem so). I like the outfit and the look of the pamphlets and am glad the editor seems to like the poems. If he can make a profit or break even I'd be happy with that as well.
Jamie

Sent from my iPad

> On 22 Oct 2017, at 15:57, David Lace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> 
> I’m glad you agree that Salt expanded too quickly—that was my main point. I don’t think Chris was desperate, as you say, I think he was just trying to impress people. That’s ok, and I suppose many publishers do that. But let’s be honest about human nature. Why wouldn’t he want to impress people? What’s wrong with that—if it doesn’t cause the business to run out of cash, which his did. 
> 
> Desperation in general can be a good motivator, as can vanity and feelings of self-importance. But if it causes bad decisions, like signing with a publisher who refuses to pay royalties, then how can that be a good thing?
> 
> We can argue about whether royalties are the usual thing or not. I’m only talking about publishers who don’t pay royalties, and many don’t, as Tony has said. Thankfully he does pay royalties, so he’s one of the good guys.
> 
> I’d be interested to hear from any publishers on this list who refuse to pay royalties, and their reasons for not doing so. I know the “pleading poverty” defence, but like I said, what prove does a poet have that his or her book didn’t sell enough for the royalty payment to begin? That question need to be answered. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> —————-Original Message——————
> 
> Jamie McKendrick wrote:
> 
> Not sure this will get any further. You see desperation right across the poetry scene. Of the poets "it's their desperation to get published at any cost that I'm criticising." And the publisher has been "so desperate to overload his list." You may have a point that Salt expanded too far and too quickly, but I doubt that makes him "desperate". It's a mistake to presume you know all these people's motives. You don't.
>   Tony explained the situation clearly from a publisher's perspective. I tried to do so from a writer's perspective. My impression is that royalties are a usual thing for poetry book publication, so I don't know why you're stuck on this single issue.  It's not something I've heard much discussed or complained about by poets, probably because very few of them receive any or much because of the sales, and many poetry books are published at a loss for the press.  You're more likely to hear complaints about a publisher not making any efforts to distribute the book, or not sending it out for review, or making a mess of the cover. If this sounds like vanity to you, and if you insist on believing poets are vain creatures without any sense, you wouldn't be alone in that belief, but there's not much else to say.
> Jamie