Between Margins: Who Decides Where Poetry Lives
Money, Might, and the Making of Poetry Legacies
Last week, The Atlantic released what it's calling the 25 most significant books of poetry from our century. It's a fine list. A damn fine list. Each book is undoubtedly one that has made its mark within the poetry world, and some of them have truly escaped containment to affect the wider reading and cultural worlds.
(FWIW, my personal go-to on the list is Solmaz Sharif’s Look. I think she’s the most important poet of my generation, bar none. But every single book and author on there should be read, now and returned to again.)
But I noticed something striking beyond the individual books selected that I wanted to think through a bit more. Namely, the publishers. Here's the list:
Copper Canyon (5)
Graywolf (7)
New Directions (1)
Macmillan (1)
Univ of Pittsburgh (1)
Milkweed (1)
Yale Younger Poets (2)
Knopf (2)
Wave (1)
Ecco (2)
FSG (1)
Penguin (1)
Note that I had to fix some apparent mistakes in their publisher attribution. If I was mistaken and/or missed one of their apparent errors, please let me know so I can correct the above.
Concentration of Power
The above list doesn't even fully indicate the concentration. Once we account for imprints under the same umbrella, we get this list:
Copper Canyon (5)
Graywolf (7)
New Directions (1)
Macmillan (2)
Univ of Pittsburgh (1)
Milkweed (1)
Yale Younger Poets (2)
Penguin Random House (3)
Wave (1)
HarperCollins (2)
The list above doesn't indicate this, but there is a robust and diverse poetry publishing industry (though I think they'd largely prefer the term "community"). Even if one were to exclude micro-presses and presses that by choice limit distribution, the number would be much larger than the list suggests.
Poets & Writers lists about 300 poetry publishers in its database, and anyone who walks the bookfair floor at AWP is overwhelmed by its hundreds of exhibitors.
So why does The Atlantic list only have 10 publishers? And why do 2 publishers contribute half of the list, making it appear more like a "best of this publisher's" list?
The Economics of Visibility
The answer, I think obviously, is: it's all about the money. Some select publishers have the economic weight to support PR and distribution to "break through" and the majority of other publishers don't.
The Atlantic's list was created by surveying hundreds of people. This isn't in and of itself a bad way of going about this. But given that most poetry publishers only have the capacity to get books in the hands of a few hundred of the hundreds of thousands of poetry readers, this kind of survey inherently is going to privilege books with the widest distribution.
Again, I want to emphasize: the list of books is great. Each of those books and authors IS deserving and has had this kind of impact.
What I'm considering here is why these books have been able to have those impacts. Yes, it's the quality of the writing. And it's also the economic might of those publishers.
It's interesting to see that list of publishers and to think that some of the "big" publishers from a poet's perspective are still very far from the size and power. Publishers like Omnidawn and Nightboat have been career-makers for many poets, and they've both published some of the most remarkable and memorable works of poetry this century. I'd love to see the "long list" to see how far down you have to go before you start seeing the true diversity of poetry publishers.
The Precarious Poetry Economy
While I've been mulling this over, Toby Altman started a really interesting thread thinking through the economics of poetry publishing over at Bluesky. I encourage you to read the full thread. His basic gist is that in the larger economic meltdown and attacks on the academy, there's likely to be a collapse of the current poetry publishing economy.
The poetry publishing economy wasn't exactly on steady footing before, and it's really always been a fool's errand. Publishing in general isn't really the best business to get into if you, well, want to be in business. And poetry has largely existed in the margins and shadows of that larger business, sustained through lots of volunteer and unpaid labor.
Here’s the two specific posts in the thread I want to explore further:
Historical Context Matters
The first thing I think it's important to note is that the current standard conception of the poetry economy is unique and not a long-standing economy. The explosion of MFA and creative writing academic positions alongside an explosion of university publishing houses and university-affiliated publishers is something that started in the mid 20th century. This is unique to a moment in time, momentum coming out of post-WW2 and Cold War investment in higher education, with poetry and literature in general a somewhat accidental beneficiary.
That said, everything has been reordered around that reality. And so a swift collapse or change to that system is going to lead to major disruption and potentially lasting negative effects.
How will writers have the time and energy to write and publish? How will readers find their books? Where will publishers find the basic costs necessary to start up operations, print books, distribute, and market them?
Potential Paths Forward
Altman's suggestions are compelling, and I think they address at least some of the issues. The Poetry Foundation, according to its most recent financial report, is sitting on $300 million. In that same year, it distributed just under $4 million in grants and awards and about $9.4 million for poetry programs. That means approximately 1.3% of assets were used for grantmaking and paying out their prizes, and about 3% for other programs. Or a combined ~4.5% of that total capital.
This might be a little bit unfair, but compare that to the $21 million the Poetry Foundation spent for their current building. Comparing those two numbers makes it pretty clear that the Poetry Foundation's first responsibility is to itself. Which is perhaps frustrating, but also makes sense. It's the fiscal responsibility of the organization's leaders to ensure the ongoing sustainability of the organization itself. To do otherwise would be irresponsible at best and grounds for malfeasance.
And I think that's to some degree what Altman (and many others) chafe against, and why he and others seek out community, cooperative, and collaborative spaces that are NOT organized around a principle of selfishness. Instead, they want to build more models like Punctum Books that focus on distribution through open access.
The Distribution Dilemma
The challenge and downside of absolving oneself of the capitalistic economic system, though, is that your world gets inherently smaller. Distribution gets more limited. Discovery gets harder. Finding and cultivating new readers and audiences is harder. If you aren't already plugged into a book or publisher or author, it's hard to know that it exists.
When I was managing editor at Les Figues, there was a lot of discussion about whether poetry publishers should pull their books from Amazon. And, yes, Amazon is predatory and problematic. So the argument for "should" is there and it’s compelling and objectively a good ethical decision. But by doing that, you also remove your books from what was at the time the only widely accessible distribution network.
Again, what ends up happening, is that it requires somebody to already know that a publisher or book or author exists, with discovery becoming so hard and limited. The unintended consequence is that it creates a form of elitism where you have to be in the know or be plugged into things in a certain way or be friends with certain people.
That means that true discovery ends up being limited to a few select channels. AWP, for the publishers and authors and readers who again have the economic ability to go. Whisper/word-of-mouth networks and social networks, which privilege certain kinds of engagement and skills.
And, finally, that ends up putting a lot on the largely unpaid labor of the people doing the design, editing, proofreading, and operational work underpinning and making those publications possible.
Building a Sustainable Future
To try and bring this meandering post to a conclusion, here's where I ultimately fall. I think there needs to be more of what Altman advocates for—but I don't think it's the solution by itself. There needs to be a mechanism that infuses money into the system AND ensures distribution of at least the power that money can buy if not the money itself.
Here's some thoughts, which I'll potentially explore further in future posts:
Identify and build mutually-accessible core operational "nodes" that all publishers can utilize, such as website support, design, copyediting/proofreading, marketing, and distribution services or platforms
Archival support that ensures the ongoing access and distribution of books and writing
Career services that support training and development for writers to build a sustainable life outside of writing that also allows them to continue writing
Rethink and perhaps build a new core organization that's designed around direct support for the poetry community as it currently is and as it will develop, rather than organizations designed around the academia system that's quickly becoming outdated
Are there any other avenues that spring to mind? Drop ideas below in the comments, what else should I be thinking and talking about?