Skip to main content


Too often, the discussion is about poetry readers,  What the UK needs are more poetry buyers. I run a small press that has so far produced 21 poetry titles, all designed by Edwin Smet, and printed by TJ International, in handsome, stylish, hardcover editions.  The books are edited carefully, and have no typos.

The poems range from the Cambridge School (Simon Jarvis) to the American contemporary (Don Share) to the gnomic (Elspeth Smith) to the lyrical and witty (Penny Boxall) to the savagely original (SJ Fowler). A few have been highly commended, listed for prizes, got great reviews, etc, and all have been launched in famous bookshops, and are sold at Amazon, and also in many fine shops across the UK.  Sales, despite this (one was an Observer Book of the Year 2013) are low.  Not very low - just slow low.  Several have sold around 450 copies (good for press less than three years old), a few 250, and a few about 150.  None has sold less than 100, and none more than 500 (yet) at time of writing.

The idea that somehow poets, and publishers, are failing the public at this time, in not delivering the goods, is a pernicious error that some poets (those especially who neither understand or engage in, business, much) are trying to spread, because it relieves them of having to face the wider horror of an abysmal culture barely poetry literate.

Instead, small presses like my own have gone out of our way to make books beautiful to hold, read, and share - by excellent poets - accessible and/or innovative - writing on subjects of great current interest - the economy, ecology, desire, love, sex, politics, humour, time, life, faith, science - that could hardly be of a wider range.  The books are priced the same or less as novels of the same standard, and can be found in local shops and online, easily.  They get reviews so people can hear about them and there are also plenty of readings, tweets, posts and status updates, to get the news out and about.  There is no stone or bulletin left unturned.  It is hard to imagine a serious poetry lover or reader in the UK who has not by now seen or heard of, our books.

So - why do (our) poetry books sell on average 250 copies or so - the same amount that Keats and Pound sold for their early debuts, 200 and 100 years ago, more or less?

Is there a law of the universe that most poetry sells a few hundred copies?

Well, we know that famous poets, poets on radio and TV, and poets who win or are listed for prizes may sell 500, or 1,500, or even 5,000 copies, but that's rare.  I dare poets to come forward with their sales figures.  I know over a thousand poets, personally and well enough to consider them colleagues, and maybe 1% sells over 2,000 copies of any one of their collections.

Am I wrong?

If so, tell me how to sell more poetry books.

Meanwhile, let me remind you, the reader, of one thing: every time you don't make a poetry purchase, that poetry press lacks a sale.  And, sooner, or later, without funding or patronage, presses that don't sell a lot of books have to close.

Simple as that.  Salt cut its brilliant poetry list to the bone, not because the publisher hates poetry (he loves it) but because it ceased to make business sense.

Poets tend to forget that most small press publishers risk savings, and marriages or partnerships, to work for years on end, often unpaid, for very little in return.  The least they should expect is that people who read, and enjoy, and appreciate poetry, should stump up and keep buying their books.

Not buying poetry books - and there are a million good reasons, but only give them to me if you are unemployed and never buy alcohol, tobacco, or food in restaurants - is like saying you love the environment, but never recycle.  It's like wanting a democracy, and not voting.

Poetry book non-buying is the great shame and taboo of British poetry - most poets I know don't buy books, often.  Sure, they may be underpaid and struggling, but they likely make as much or more than small press publishers.  My salary is currently zero, and I work 30 hours a week and more on my press.

There is a kind of NOMS - Not On My Shelves - idea - that it's a nice idea that other people buy books, just not me.  Of course it will always mean a sacrifice, and one can't buy all the poetry books, but - and only if - if one actually wants a small press to survive, wishes won't be enough.  You need to support them, by buying books.

Salt is often derided for its ill-fated "Just One Book" campaign - but why?  As a press, it has the ugly job - embarrassing to many poets - of actually trying to sell the damn stuff.

100s of poets send me submissions each month.  Do they realise their book will cost thousands of pounds to edit, design, proofread, print, and launch?  Poets and poetry readers forget that poetry books are labour intensive, time consuming things to get right.  You can't just conjure them.  At some stage, people are going to have to spend hundreds of hours on each book.

I want to keep Eyewear going.  I think we are now publishing poetry books as good or better than anyone else's in the world - as stylish, as well-written, and, usually, as well distributed (in the UK at least).  But I can't keep Eyewear going forever, unless we sell out the books we publish.  You wouldn't expect a news agent to stay open every day on the off chance you might pop in once a year for a lottery ticket, would you?  You'd understand they needed sales every day.

If you love Eyewear books, share the idea of them with as many friends as possible, and, yes, please, try and buy at least one of our books each year - better still, join our book club.  Otherwise, don't blame me when the small presses close.
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog


According to the latest CBS, ABC, etc, polls, Clinton is still likely to beat Trump - by percentile odds of 66% to 33% and change. But the current popular vote is much closer, probably tied with the error of margin, around 44% each. Trump has to win more key battleground states to win, and may not - but he is ahead in Florida...

We will all know, in a week, whether we live in a world gone madder, or just relatively mad.

While it seems likely calmer heads will prevail, the recent Brexit win shows that polls can mislead, especially when one of the options is considered a bit embarrassing, rude or even racist - and Trump qualifies for these, at least.

If 42-45% of Americans admit they would vote for Trump, what does that say about the ones not so vocal? For surely, they must be there, as well. Some of the undecided will slide, and more likely they will slide to the wilder and more exciting fringe candidate. As may the libertarians.

Eyewear predicts that Trump will just about manage to win th…


Like a crazed killer clown, whether we are thrilled, horrified, shocked, or angered (or all of these) by Donald Trump, we cannot claim to be rid of him just yet. He bestrides the world stage like a silverback gorilla (according to one British thug), or a bad analogy, but he is there, a figure, no longer of fun, but grave concern.

There has long been a history of misogynistic behaviour in American gangster culture - one thinks of the grapefruit in the face in The Public Enemy, or Sinatra throwing a woman out of his hotel room and later commenting he didn't realise there was a pool below to break her fall, or the polluted womb in Pacino'sScarface... and of course, some gangsta rap is also sexist.  American culture has a difficult way with handling the combined aspects of male power, and male privilege, that, especially in heteronormative capitalist enclaves, where money/pussy both become grabbable, reified objects and objectives (The Wolf of Wall Street for instance), an ugly fus…


The Oscars - Academy Awards officially - were once huge cultural events - in 1975, Frank Sinatra, Sammy Davis Jr, Shirley MacLaineandBob Hope co-hosted, for example - and Best Picture noms included The Conversation and Chinatown. Godfather Part 2 won. Last two years, movies titled Birdman and Spotlight won, and the hosts and those films are retrospectively minor, trifling. This year, some important, resonant films are up for consideration - including Hidden Figures and Moonlight, two favourites of this blog. Viola Davis and Denzel Washington will hopefully win for their sterling performances in Fences. However, La La Land - the most superficial and empty Best Picture contender since Gigi in 1959 (which beat Vertigo) - could smite all comers, and render this year's awards historically trivial, even idiotic.

The Oscars often opt for safe, optimistic films, or safe, pessimistic films, that are usually about white men (less often, white women) finding their path to doing the right thin…