 |
 |
On Wed, 18 Feb 1998, Pierre Joris wrote: > To turn the fee thing around: is there any poet on this list who would > turn down a 200 quid reading, arguing that 100 is quite enough for him > or her and would hand back the other 100 to the organisers so that the > latter may bring in one more poet? -- Pierre - roughly the same as Robert, who wrote: ____________________________________________________ I would give up half for another reader if I thought the reader a good addition to a series. I have read for nothing to allow organisers to put on another reading. As I'm sure many others have. But I wouldn't give a fee back, no. ___________________________________________________ To which I'd add: I've argued successfully on occasions to split my fee with another reader, and of course have read for nowt, and next to nowt, in the right circumstances. I've also accepted BIG fees (in comparison to what I normally get offered!), most notably in the dear old USofA, where a biggy has enabled me to (a) get there and (b) do a coupla lesswellpaid readings on the side. But that's a big step from seeking to argue UP my fee from what's offered, or impose an over-the-odds minimum, which I can't see myself doing... Of course, you can all remind me of this in the event of my becoming a superstar! My readings oganising experience suggests that it's seldom realistically the case that you can fit in 2-for-1 offers: the fringe expenses usually outweigh the benefits (of fee-splitting), in economic terms. So the reason for doing double readings has to be, because you like both readers and think they'd work well together. By the same token, unless you're lottery funded and have the money sloshing around, paying a poet double, for whatever reason, usually means one less reading in the series, so the reason for doing it is that you think it'd make a great event. RC %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%