|
10 November 2004. Yesterday's entry, an attack on publishers who run poetry contests they charge poets to enter, has gotten one response so far. It was anonymous: "ha, why make me laugh more." I think the writer was on my side, but I'm not positive. The issue isn't simple. I have nothing against publishers who are in the business for money and therefore don't publish poetry, or only publish celebrity poetry or certified dead poets' poetry for college students. I have nothing against vanity publishers, either, so long as they honestly inform their customers about how little in the way of marketing they can do for them. And I have all kinds of sympathy for anyone who wants to help under-appreciated poets he admires by publishing them in untacky editions of more than a handful of copies, but doesn't have enough money to do so. All I can say to such a person is, "Save, save, save"--and look for a patron, although I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to get one, myself. Or organize a co:operative. Or do it the way I've been doing it for almost twenty years: down and dirty. No poet has gone on from the Runaway Spoon Press to BigWorld publication, but I think getting their work published in [i]some[/i] form has helped the morale of more than a few. Certainly, it has not hurt it the way taking a poet's money and using it to publish work he looks down on would.
Running contests you charge poets to enter seems to me a reprehensible way to get money, though. Charging poets to submit is no better--unless you give those you reject worthwhile feedback. Sure, those who send you money will be doing it voluntarily, and for that reason deserve to be taken. I still think not publishing poetry until you can afford it better than publishing it on the proceeds from a large group of poets you don't publish. If you're out to advance the cause of poetry.
Needless to say, I've classified publishers. Their are four kinds in my little taxonomy: (1) meta-publishers, (2) peddlishers, (3) ortho-publishers and (4) printers. The first are publishers who are beyond commerce, the second publishers interested only in the bottom line (i.e., most mainstream publishers). "Ortho-publishers," for whom I want a better name but haven't yet come up with one, are publishers who want to publish work they consider good without losing money. Knopf might be one such. Printers are . . . printers--people who print books but nothing else--no marketing, distribution, editing, etc.
|
|