Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="HarryC13" data-source="post: 105038" data-attributes="member: 1477">And I don't believe that I said anything about my writing or how anyone here feels about it.&nbsp; A few of the good people here have bought my stuff and I appreciate that.&nbsp; I think that the thorn in my paw is because of the general attitude toward publishing that I encounter here.&nbsp; I appreciate that what Bill and some of the other limited-release publishers do has its purpose. But tell me:&nbsp; For a poet wanting to get exposure, what does an edition of 26 copies do for anyone but (a) the publisher, who can keep some copies and sell them as collector's items for inflated prices later; (b) collectors of limited editions who have dreams of the same; (c) nobody.&nbsp; Billy Collins and W.S. Merwin and Jim Daniels are widely published in mass-market paperbacks, and they actually get their work seen by the masses and, after all, isn't that why we write? Not to get published and seen by 17 people, but to get the work out there to as many people as possible?Could be just irreconcilable differences here. I do respect your opinions, I just don't share them. I definitely appreciate the quality of the work. I also know that if I get my stuff printed in a run of 600 copies I might be able to sell more of them than if I get 25 copies printed, and capitalistic son of a bitch that I might be, the money doesn't matter but the exposure does.Would be nice if somebody answered the questions I pose in the first paragraph of this post about the point of limited-release publishing.&nbsp; I certainly don't have all the answers but I know how it looks to me. Please, responses welcome.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="HarryC13, post: 105038, member: 1477"] And I don't believe that I said anything about my writing or how anyone here feels about it. A few of the good people here have bought my stuff and I appreciate that. I think that the thorn in my paw is because of the general attitude toward publishing that I encounter here. I appreciate that what Bill and some of the other limited-release publishers do has its purpose. But tell me: For a poet wanting to get exposure, what does an edition of 26 copies do for anyone but (a) the publisher, who can keep some copies and sell them as collector's items for inflated prices later; (b) collectors of limited editions who have dreams of the same; (c) nobody. Billy Collins and W.S. Merwin and Jim Daniels are widely published in mass-market paperbacks, and they actually get their work seen by the masses and, after all, isn't that why we write? Not to get published and seen by 17 people, but to get the work out there to as many people as possible? Could be just irreconcilable differences here. I do respect your opinions, I just don't share them. I definitely appreciate the quality of the work. I also know that if I get my stuff printed in a run of 600 copies I might be able to sell more of them than if I get 25 copies printed, and capitalistic son of a bitch that I might be, the money doesn't matter but the exposure does. Would be nice if somebody answered the questions I pose in the first paragraph of this post about the point of limited-release publishing. I certainly don't have all the answers but I know how it looks to me. Please, responses welcome. [/QUOTE]

Verification

Where would you stereotypically expect to find Chinaski?