Skip to main content

Faber Rebooted

Stephen Page, publisher and chief Executive of Faber and Faber, has begun to see the digital light - or at least, some of its glow. While his brief article in The Guardian is hardly evangelical, it does seem to represent a conversion, for mainstream British publishing, away from a model that ignores social networking on the Internet, to one which seeks to grab hold of that platform, and haul bricks and mortar publishing, paper and all, into the 21st century. Eyewear has been arguing, in these unpapered but lettered pages, for just such a decision, for some time now, and welcomes Page's moves, to an extent.

However, if one reads closely, one will see that what is being proposed is not precisely an e-celebration. Rather, Faber is proposing to basically do what Salt Publishing already does - the "build it and they will come" approach, where a site offers cool things, around the books for sale (podcasts, and so on). This is not new; nor is the print-on-demand idea - many often smaller publishers already use this technology. Page risks appearing cynical if, as he suggests, the idea is to employ the energy and specialised interests of the web-world, in order to target more buyers. Publishing in the UK, as Eyewear has also suggested here, continues to miss the point of the literary Internet - that it thrives best when it is not simply, or even at all, about selling (though Amazon does that superbly). Wired and browsing readers with their own niche sites and interests, and the blogosphere, may resist being too-clearly targeted. However, as Faber is a business, some allowances can be made for the profit motive.

Still, as long as the editorial ethos of Faber remains relatively limited in scope, say in its poetry list, it will hardly be able to convincingly win over the younger generations who exist in cyberspace as much as anywhere. In other words: Faber's leap into Net-works should co-exist with a new leap into more innovative, democratic, and global editorial selections, for their poetry. You may have a cool new delivery system for your content, but so what, if the writing isn't, as it were, on the wall? There are dozens of very fine younger and emerging UK poets that Faber might've snapped up (let alone Indian, Canadian and American ones). Salt and Bloodaxe and Carcanet (and so on) have got there first. The "vision thing" isn't just a little machine for selling books. Page needs to get new poets on his pages.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Hi Todd - I'm caught between agreeing with you and not here re the Faber list. Faber's busiest time for new poets was the early 90s, when Chris Reid took on several first books, including those by Maurice Riordan, Lavinia Greenlaw, Harry Smart, Don Paterson, Katherine Pierpoint and Susan Wicks. By 2000 they had acquired Armitage, Shapcott, Maxwell (briefly), MacKendrick, Williams etc. It's a famous but limited list and having added a twenty or more poets in the 90s, inevitably the list was going to slow up on new recruits. In the last decade, there have been only a few new poets, replacing (indirectly) those who have moved on (Wicks, Smart, Fergus Allen, Philip Gross and others). These small commercial lists inevitably have a limit of 8-10 new books a year.

Things are a little quicker at the moment, with Daljit Nagra being followed by two new poets in the next year or two, plus a new initiative involving new writers.

Of course, no one agrees with you more that there are very good new / young poets around at the moment, but most of them do not have a fully realised manuscript yet - time will tell.

Roddy L
EYEWEAR said…
Roddy, good to have your input here - few poets in the UK do more to encourage younger poets than you, and few know more about the next next gen on the horizon. I found your analysis of the Faber canon informative. My only concern with their future digital plans, is that they may try and substitute bells and whistles for more serious (innovative) offerings. It sounds like they have plans to bring in more new blood - which is good news. I'd like to see more acceptance, in British poetry publishing and editing circles, of how the glocal nature of the Internet means the possibility, if not need, to offer more international voices and styles (ie more North American, Indian, Australian and South African poets, please). I try to bring this mix to my montly editing at Nthposition.

Popular posts from this blog

CLIVE WILMER'S THOM GUNN SELECTED POEMS IS A MUST-READ

THAT HANDSOME MAN  A PERSONAL BRIEF REVIEW BY TODD SWIFT I could lie and claim Larkin, Yeats , or Dylan Thomas most excited me as a young poet, or even Pound or FT Prince - but the truth be told, it was Thom Gunn I first and most loved when I was young. Precisely, I fell in love with his first two collections, written under a formalist, Elizabethan ( Fulke Greville mainly), Yvor Winters triad of influences - uniquely fused with an interest in homerotica, pop culture ( Brando, Elvis , motorcycles). His best poem 'On The Move' is oddly presented here without the quote that began it usually - Man, you gotta go - which I loved. Gunn was - and remains - so thrilling, to me at least, because so odd. His elegance, poise, and intelligence is all about display, about surface - but the surface of a panther, who ripples with strength beneath the skin. With Gunn, you dressed to have sex. Or so I thought.  Because I was queer (I maintain the right to lay claim to that

IQ AND THE POETS - ARE YOU SMART?

When you open your mouth to speak, are you smart?  A funny question from a great song, but also, a good one, when it comes to poets, and poetry. We tend to have a very ambiguous view of intelligence in poetry, one that I'd say is dysfunctional.  Basically, it goes like this: once you are safely dead, it no longer matters how smart you were.  For instance, Auden was smarter than Yeats , but most would still say Yeats is the finer poet; Eliot is clearly highly intelligent, but how much of Larkin 's work required a high IQ?  Meanwhile, poets while alive tend to be celebrated if they are deemed intelligent: Anne Carson, Geoffrey Hill , and Jorie Graham , are all, clearly, very intelligent people, aside from their work as poets.  But who reads Marianne Moore now, or Robert Lowell , smart poets? Or, Pound ?  How smart could Pound be with his madcap views? Less intelligent poets are often more popular.  John Betjeman was not a very smart poet, per se.  What do I mean by smart?

"I have crossed oceans of time to find you..."

In terms of great films about, and of, love, we have Vertigo, In The Mood for Love , and Casablanca , Doctor Zhivago , An Officer and a Gentleman , at the apex; as well as odder, more troubling versions, such as Sophie's Choice and  Silence of the Lambs .  I think my favourite remains Bram Stoker's Dracula , with the great immortal line "I have crossed oceans of time to find you...".