Marketing the art

A provocative post by Chris Hamilton-Emery over on Poets on Fire Forum. I should really post my reply there, but I'm too shy.

1. How many poets should be published?

As many as you can sell. And there are others who won't make any money for anyone, but occasionally some mad, altruistic publisher who believes in the work will attempt delay its oblivion. And they will be read long after they're dead, and no mark on their living face will have foretold who they are.

2. What do people think makes them choose one new volume of poetry over another? If there are, let's say, 20,000 new volumes of poetry in English a year

That many? I will probably know about only a few dozen English and a smattering of US. One or two others. They are already well-sifted by the time I get to hear of them.

I'm influenced by people I respect. For example, I got the New Collected WS Graham because Matthew Francis edited it. I've found Graham difficult in the past and would have ignored the book if it weren't for his imprimatur.

Like most people, I buy a lot of books because they've been recommended, or because I'm interested in the writer. Or because I've heard them read and been impressed. I also borrow and lend a lot of books.

But standing in Borders faced with umpteen unfamiliar collections, and assuming I hadn't heard of any of the poets on the shelves, I'd be influenced by trivial things like titles and jacket design. I might read the list of contents and see if it looked interesting. Poems called 'Revenant' or 'Ward Round' would put me off. I'm shallow like that. Then I'd flip through. I'd probably read the first poem, and not read any further if there was a cliché or a tired trick of the trade like a clever-clever line-break. I'd read the last poem (how did they get there from page 1?), and a random poem. I'd read them quickly, and it's not a fair test of a decent poem, but it's a test it has to pass in a bookshop. Oh, and if Fiona Sampson really does read the 60,000 submissions to Poetry Review, that's 200 a day - or more like 250 if it's a normal working week with 4 weeks' holiday p.a.

And yes, I buy a load from second hand shops, the second chance saloon.

3. Are writers condemned to be middleclass? Or is it just poets that are piss poor?

43% of the population identify themselves as middle class. I'm not sure I understand this question. Does it mean that the act of writing ipso facto condemns one to be middle class (Tony Harrison) - not something the founders of WEA would have subscribed to - or that poets were middle class before they even picked up a pen? (John Burnside, Paul Farley, Kathleen Jamie, John Clare...) Does it mean that middle class people should shut up? Political allegiances are also interesting. Or is it simply that the conditions of the middle class are more conducive to writing?

It's certainly true that no-one's going to get rich from writing poems.

4. Can one write in isolation?

Yes. Dickinson. Hopkins. Sally Purcell. It's not a lot of fun.

5. Is "who you know" still more important in the world of writers than "what you know". More writers are chosen from introductions and recommendations than the K2 sized slush pile. Am I right? Are you going to the right parties?

Yes. Yes. No. Which is a bummer, if you hate parties. See 4 above.

But as an editor of a little magazine, I can tell you that nothing would cheer me more than to find a stunning poem from someone I've never heard of. Being published in a mag helps get you known.

6. ...whether three or four workshops in London are more effective than all the MAs in Creative Writing in the UK at putting poets into lists.

MAs are networks too. But sad if that's all they are. With luck and a fair wind, they might even help people to read and write more thoughtfully. Focus. Or get jobs, of course. I don't think MAs are marketed as about getting into lists, are they?

7. Are sales driven less by writing competence and excellence and more by celebrity and marketing?

I haven't a clue. Although I loathe those lifestyle articles that write about a poet without quoting a line (eg The Independent's infamous puff about John Stammers a few years back), I'm susceptible to some sorts of hype - if Cape or Picador are telling me this is the next big thing, I'll take a look. They have good editors. So the chances are that what they're hyping is well written. (Sometimes that trumps the Borders test in 2 above. Who buys Fabers on the cover design?) But I deeply resent the books that clog my shelves - books I bought because I was told I should like them, and didn't. Perhaps I will learn to like them. Perhaps I should get rid.

Consider how definition of 'writing competence' itself is subjective, and can be formed by marketing and hype.

8. Who are the ten most important people in the world of UK poetry?

Hmmm. Promoters, teachers and gatekeepers spring to mind: Don Paterson, Robin Robertson, Neil Astley, Michael Schmidt, Naomi Jaffa, Anne-Marie Fyfe, Fiona Sampson, Paul Beasley, and whoever gets to write the GCSE syllabus.

9. Can poetry survive by ignoring what people want?

Poetry must survive by educating the demand. Poetry makes its own rules. It deserves to die if it goes down the route of If you liked Seamus Heaney you will love Turnip Snedding on Steroids. Hell, I love Heaney! (OK, tmi.) There's bound to be a gap between what the public wants and what the artist is trying to sell them. A creative bridge. Another question is how poetry keeps on convincing the Arts Council that it's worth supporting... Or how the Arts Council keeps on convincing the government that any arts are worth supporting...

10. Given production exceeds demand, should we stop teaching and developing poets now until a balance is restored?

Only if poetry teachers have a private income. And, er, why should anyone worry about balance? Who is disadvantaged by imbalance? And who is 'we'?