Okay, that’s it.
I have tried to be civil and engage the argument on rational premises. Did not bat an eyelash when it was implied I have three books because I’m a woman, basically, and it’s harder for men to get published. Did not pounce on the condescending & personal little digs against myself, Brandi, or Danielle. Did not point out, that while he seems to enjoy playing the victim here---that no one allows him to disagree, that he had to know he would bring down some serious shit when he started bashing niche presses when two of the people who regularly read his blog happen to run them. Did not say that really, from someone who regularly bemoans his lack of success in the publishing arena ad nauseum, it does seem a bit like sour grapes to attack the presses that won’t publish you and the people who HAVE had the success you so desperately crave. I tried to play nice.
afternoon addendum, a summary:
I realize now that sounds a little harsh and overly personal, but really, his points are shaky, not backed with fact, and the tone behind them whiny and self-entitled. I think this is the central argument: CA seem to think niche presses are exclusive of people who do not fit into the group, not only as writers, but as readers and audience. I do not agree, given my experience as a publisher and as a reader myself, who reads all sort of books by presses that would not publish my work for whatever reason--aesthetic divides, race, location ,etc. I tend to seek things out because I like the poet or have seen their work somewhere, not because of who published them. For all of his arguments on why niche presses are detrimental to poetry, I can give you a reason why they are actually better for poetry, or if not better, then certainly not harmful to it, whatever their particular leaning. I can give you a list of the people who buy our books, 1/3 of whom are (gasp!) men. I have no idea whether they are feminist males only that they apparently read & enjoy poetry by women in the same way I read and enjoy poetry by people of other genders, races, sexual orientations, than my own.
And now, really, that I think about it, at least in regard to feminist presses (which he was not solely referring to, though he admits that's what spawned the initial post), even if, say, his theory was correct (and it so obviously isn't) that our books will only appeal to a narrow demographic of women writers. 50% can hardly be called a niche. Now that I think about, to even make the gesture of calling poetry written by women a niche is putting in place a male paradigm where anything that falls outside of that, or excludes it, is therefore an "other" or a specialized niche. And that sort of thinking, I'm afraid, is why we need feminist presses.
