|
The Argotist Online |
|
Tony Frazer
(Editor, Shearsman Books)
Tony Frazer was born in England in 1951 and is
editor of Shearsman magazine and publisher of Shearsman Books. He
edited the anthology A State of Independence
(Stride, 1998) and Roy Fisher's Interviews Through Time, & Selected Prose
(Shearsman, 2000), and co-edited Chicago
Review's
New Writing in German anthology (2002). He is also active
as a translator of poetry, mainly from German, but also sometimes from Spanish. His translation of Lutz
Seiler's In the year one: Selected Poems
was published in 2005 by Giramondo Publishing, Sydney; forthcoming translations include work by Sabine Scho,
Sabina Naef,
Albert Ostermaier, Vicente Huidobro and Elsa Cross.
Q:
How has publishing changed with the advent of short-run printing and
print-on-demand possibilities? Does this negate any need to sell a specific
number of a title? Is this a freedom from traditional print expectations/values? A:
It's changed dramatically. The advent of short-run digital printing (more than
print-on-demand in fact, which is merely a development of it) means that a
publisher's cash flow is maximised, because - quite simply - it is not necessary
any longer to print 500 copies (or more) upfront and then hope that they will
sell. The breakeven point for digital vs. litho printing is about 500, litho
being notoriously uneconomic for short-runs, but this assumes that the 500
litho-printed copes can be shifted in a fairly short time - which in most cases
doesn't happen. This also means that large books (such as the Collected Poems
I've done for Lee Harwood and Gael Turnbull, each around 500 pages) become
economically viable for a small press. It
doesn't negate the need to sell a certain number of copies, but it does bring
down the point at which a book becomes financially viable. It means that a
publisher can take a risk on titles that - in other production methods - were
too difficult to justify doing. The
expectations are therefore different. I used to produce books knowing that I
would lose money on every title, and then I had to wait until the funds had
built up again before I could do another book. Now I operate in the hope that
all titles will at least break even, although, for various reasons, they don't.
The whole Shearsman list is more or less self-financing, however, with
successful titles covering the losses on unsuccessful ones. Losses, when they do
occur, are of course capped, because the advance costs are kept in check through
the digital process. Q:
Why does poetry continue to create schools and movements who feud? A:
Because, like any other area of activity, especially those that involve
creativity and inflated egos, people will fight for the pleasure of being
noticed, to gain recognition, kudos, etc, and to be admired. In the poetry
world, there isn't much money around, but if you fight hard you can get access
to some of it. If you don't fight you won't get. Surely the other arts have
similar divides? Music has adherents of post-serialism, as well as tonalism and
minimalism. I’ve seen a lot of denigration of each of these styles by devoted
adherents of one of the others. In the visual arts there's a fairly significant
split between the conceptualists and the traditionalists, and it's interesting
that the dominant force there is a kind of avant-garde in perpetual revolution.
I have my doubts that this is effective in maintaining standards, but that's
another debate entirely. Q:
With POD possibilities, including various organisations that will take on
anything without a set-up fee and simply send royalties to the author, do poetry
publishers need arts council subsidies any more? A:
Well, vanity publishers have always existed, and of course, they’ve taken
advantage of the new technology. Alas, having your book published by Xlibris,
Lulu, PublishAmerica or Upfront isn't going to get you much attention or raise
your profile. It might well give the amateur some satisfaction, but it's more or
less self-publication. Regardless
of the style of printing used, an imprint can develop a reputation, a brand
name, if you like. In 10 years Salt may well have dislodged Bloodaxe from pole
position in UK sales. I wouldn't bet against it. The reason why
"publishers" have an advantage over
"packagers" is that there is an editorial process, and that is
something that can be sold as a differentiator. A quality backlist adds to this.
A lot of poets like to be published by Faber because of the aura cast by the
shades of Eliot, Pound, Auden, Hughes, Heaney, and Plath etc. The
question of subsidies is another matter entirely. My Arts Council funding goes
mainly on the overheads (equipment, launch costs, advertising, printed
catalogues etc), and helps erode some of the gap between Shearsman and the
bigger publishers. I hope to get another 2 years' funding after the current
3-year period elapses in December 2007, and to be self-financing thereafter.
There's no doubt however that the Arts Council is throwing some money away,
funding outfits that are still using older technology and then not trying hard
enough to sell the resulting stock. I don't see why taxpayers’ money should be
converted into stock that sits under the bed. I’ve heard of situations where a
press could have done with suggestions and professional help, which it would
appear the Arts Council was unable to give. In one case I know of an operation
that would have gone under without its grant, but it could have been
self-financing with a different approach. If you would go under without a grant,
then something’s wrong somewhere, unless it's a start-up. The something
that’s wrong might be managerial incompetence of course, but the basics aren't
hard: a small publishing operation could be run by anyone who runs a household
budget, in my opinion. (Of course some people are bankrupt in their own right .
. .) Q:
If poetry presses are concerned with cultivating a wider readership,
could this not be done more effectively via the Internet
(where there are thousands of potential readers) rather than worrying
about sales of printed poetry? A:
Well, I do both, and there is a not-so-subtle difference between giving
something away for free and charging for it. You can measure readership online
up to a point (hits, visits and downloads), but the download may have trashed
within seconds, for instance. If someone’s buying the book they're making a
commitment that says more about the work. Eventually, and I don't know when,
screen-reading will take over from print, but I think it's quite a way off,
Sony's Reader machine notwithstanding, as the technology is inadequate to the
task and is not user-friendly. The Internet is very useful to me as an add-on: I
provide free e-books, and will soon have samplers for download so that buyers
know what kind of work to expect from the books on offer. I like the
multiple-channel approach, but I can see that for certain kinds of magazine
(Jacket, Fascicle) the net's the way to go.
I keep a print magazine going because a significant number of people seem
to like the print version, and it's a good marketing tool for the main list of
publications.
copyright © Tony Frazer |