tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932881188742828155.post1852600500971713744..comments2023-07-28T08:59:55.424+01:00Comments on Fuselit: Cut Out and Keep: Poetry Whinge-BastardsKirsten Irvinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17896354048122979962noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932881188742828155.post-24834175757693228872010-09-24T15:07:37.828+01:002010-09-24T15:07:37.828+01:00An excellent follow-on piece from Bill Herbert'...An excellent follow-on piece from Bill Herbert's article, except for the separate issue you've raised about funding. Bloodaxe may continue to support the poets who make up its regular "stable" of poets, but it's never the same list each year, with many different poets from America and poetry in translation being added along with critical editions of important poets and anthologies like TEN covering particular areas of poetry, all of which are invaluable to readers. In some years we may only publish one or two new British poets (2010) but in others there will be more (six planned for 2011). The first collections come out when the poets and the books are ready. And once we have published our new poets, we want to support them with their subsequent collections. They join the stable.<br /><br />The funding supports the whole operation (with the necessities: office, small staff, sales network etc), but because we are able to publish such a wide range of poets, we actually pay out more in royalties on each year's sales to 200 to 300 writers than we receive in Arts Council funding. So a grant of £100K to Bloodaxe will support the publication of 30 to 35 new titles in one year plus the promotion of new poets and all the other books sold in that year, the result of which is that a further £100K gets paid out by Bloodaxe to the poets. So our grant supports both the publishing and the writers.<br /><br />If presses like Bloodaxe and Carcanet didn't get this level of funding, the whole poetry community would suffer. Our new poets are supported and promoted as part of a diverse and integrated publishing operation which means we can work far more effectively on their behalf than smaller presses. But the work of the smaller presses is essential to the lifeblood of poetry publishing in Britain, especially now that so many more poetry books are sold at readings and via the internet. The issue surely isn't that the big presses get too much but that the rest gets too little - and now everyone is going to suffer swingeing cuts across the board.Neil Astleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932881188742828155.post-510487682437456262010-09-24T15:02:46.422+01:002010-09-24T15:02:46.422+01:00This is an excellent follow-on piece from Bill Her...This is an excellent follow-on piece from Bill Herbert's article, except for the separate issue you've raised: "It's not right, for instance, that the three main UK poetry publishers are handed huge amounts of money each year to publish the same lists while publishers that regularly take on new poets - poets that need much heavier promotion for their books to break even - seemingly have to fight for the scraps."<br /><br />So if I may add my own whinge here: Bloodaxe may continue to support the poets who make up its regular "stable" of poets, but it's never the same list each year, with many different poets from America and poetry in translation being introduced every year along with critical editions of important poets and anthologies like TEN covering particular areas of poetry, all of which are invaluable to readers. In some years we may only publish one or two new British poets (2010) but in others there will be more (six planned for 2011). The first collections come out when the poets and the books are ready - unlike some imprints who seem to regard publishing as many new poets as possible the be-all and end-all of their operations. And once we have published our new poets, we want to support them with their subsequent collections. They join the stable.<br /><br />The funding supports the whole operation (with the necessities: office, small staff, sales network etc), but because we are able to publish such a wide range of poets, we actually pay out more in royalties on each year's sales to 200 to 300 writers than we receive in Arts Council funding. So a grant of £100K to Bloodaxe will support the publication of 30 to 35 new titles in one year plus the promotion of new poets and all the other books sold in that year, the result of which is that a further £100K gets paid out by Bloodaxe to the poets. So our grant supports both the publishing and the writers.<br /><br />If presses like Bloodaxe and Carcanet didn't get this level of funding, the whole poetry community would suffer. Our new poets are supported and promoted as part of a diverse and integrated publishing operation which means we can work far more effectively on their behalf than smaller presses. But the work of the smaller presses is essential to the lifeblood of poetry publishing in Britain, especially now that so many more poetry books are sold at readings and via the internet.<br /><br />The issue surely isn't that the big presses get too much but that the rest gets too little - and now everyone is going to suffer swingeing cuts across the board. And you are so right, Jon, in what you say about in the rest of your piece about the public perception of poetry. The attitudes represented in those responses to Jeremy Hunt's comments show the dangers: the misinformed general public goes along with what the Tories have been saying about cutting funding to the Arts, all of which is rather convenient for them.Neil Astleyhttp://www.bloodaxebooks.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8932881188742828155.post-58137199901655213852010-09-24T09:41:44.860+01:002010-09-24T09:41:44.860+01:00Amen. You say it so well and wittily I have nothin...Amen. You say it so well and wittily I have nothing left to add. You and Kirsty do great stuff for poetry and this is just one example. Just keep doing what you do.Jacqueline Saphrahttp://www.jacqueline.saphra.netnoreply@blogger.com