Tom, sorry, but get real here. Of course any poem in anyone's slim volume, provided it isn't a vanity press publication, has some monetary value (though in most cases I wouldn't to attempt to measure it without a scanning electron microscope), and once in an ultramarine moon you’ll come across a contender for the Top 50 in the nation's poetry charts, though even in those rare cases I suspect the returns would be miniscule compared to, say, those on a modestly-selling novel. The majority of poets with books out by 'big' poetry publishers like Faber, and numerous poems in mags, journals etc. would be dwarfed financially by floor-workers in MacDonald's IF they depended on poetry publishing for a living. But they don't of course. While there is next-to-zero money in poetry, it is possible to make a not-unreasonable living through related activities like lecturing, workshop facilitation, occasional residencies etc. And the ultra popular (the lucky ****ers who have agents) can charge heart-lifting fees, plus expenses, for winging around the world to well-attended, half-hour readings. As Auden wrote: "God bless the USA, so large, / So friendly and so rich." Still, even those blessed few are probably not quite in the league of the novelist with decent returns, Larkin's "shit in his shuttered château".



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited November 11, 2005).]

Tom, I absolutely mean it. What percentage of poets gets paid to read? Or gets paid anything more than a couple of copies of the journal for a poem publication? Or gets royalties on a book? Or wins a significant cash prize for a poem? Less than .0001, I'd venture. There are millions of poets or would-be poets. Now consider the cost of the submissions and postage and envelopes and subscriptions and conferences and printer paper and chapbooks and latte shelled out by the poets who actively hope to see their names in print. Poets are in it first and foremost for the ego, to put it bluntly, even those who don't show their work to anyone else. Those who work in a related field, teaching or critiquing, may have to publish or perish, but presumably they'd be working for a living in any case. And of course we do all love to write, but doesn't that have ego written all over it? If it were simply a love of words that motivated us, we could read the many wonderful poems already out there. Poetry doesn't pay; it costs.

As Clayton Delaney said about the guitar, "Ain't no money in it. It'll lead you to an early grave."

Carol

Hey! OOOOOOOOOOOOOO! What a bunch of negative statements! I thought I was the negative one around here with my terrible narrow-minded crits!

There are a number of poets making good money right now, some worthy and some not so worthy.

Poetry is really big right now, and has huge potential.

Years ago, I think in the first year I was on ablemuse, 2001, I said I write for the money. Somebody said I was joking. No I wasn't. I'm leaving it there for now.

Of course .00001 make any money at all. That's the fun of it, the challenge.

I say money is the language of humans, not words.

Royalties, book readings, are only two of many ways to do well with poetry. Prose/novels make much more money because they usually have something to say or tell a story--99.99999% of poetry today is all navel-gazing, self-centered junk, and that is one reason it doesn't sell well--a lot of it offers nothing.

Teaching is another way, but I think teaching is one of the three things a poet should never do.

TJ

[This message has been edited by Tom Jardine (edited November 11, 2005).]

For what?

If that's true then I am both dumb and illiterate (and another species, perhaps a variety of sloth). But I'm in good company: Blake, Patrick Kavanagh, Joyce... etc. etc.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited November 11, 2005).]

I guess to an incurable romantic my statements may seem negative, but I am a realist, living proof that left-brained poets exist. If my words don't burst your bubble, something else will get it sooner or later. But that can be considered a negative statement only if you believe in the intransience of bubbles. If you accept them for what they are you can blow as many as you want to and enjoy them without needing or expecting them to last forever. I write poetry for the personal (read ego) satisfaction that's in it, and won't consider myself a failure if I never clear a dime from it.

Carol

I would wager that most poetry-AS-poetry is not going to be a windfall for the poet. But, I am familiar with a few poems that have been tunificated and put on albums of popular music(none of the ones I am personally aware of are of the hit variety). But I would think all the songs, on an album, would get equal royalties.

There might be some money in that - at least that's why I keep "Intercourse Pajamas" in the safe inside a safe.

---------
Bugsy

Tom and that explains a lot. And now we never have to take serious any of your "terrible narrow-minded crits" ever again, because you've just said it: you don't trust in words. You think writing is for a secondary purpose.

And the other two are: murder, blackmail, major fraud, assault...?

What a flipping facile post that was: the whole thing. Who gives a flying fuck about money, if you want money get a job. If you want to "publish novels and get rich" you have to be crass, like Stephen King or any other person whose books have gold lettering on the front. If you're crass you'll write crass poetry and that won't interest the people who like poetry. However, it might interest the people who like to buy cookbooks in supermarkets, so you might get rich.

KEB


[This message has been edited by Katy Evans-Bush (edited November 11, 2005).]

Carol, does the following seem to you like the language of a romantic?

"There are a number of poets making good money right now..."

"Poetry is really big right now, and has huge potential."

"Years ago... I said I write for the money. Somebody said I was joking. No I wasn't."

"I say money is the language of humans, not words."

"...99.99999% of poetry today is all navel-gazing, self-centered junk, and that is one reason it doesn't sell well--a lot of it offers nothing."

Sounds to me far more like a sales pitch for a business scheme, or the intro to a book titled 'How To Make Your First Million And Influence People'.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited November 11, 2005).]

Katy, I'm thinking it isn't the fact of making money on writing that ruins the writing so much as the sell-out that follows; writing suffers when the sale becomes more important than the craft, always a risk when you have a publishing contract to fulfill or a reputation to live up to. But if somebody wants to pay me for doing what I was going to do anyway, hey, I'll take it.

Carol

"Money is a kind of poetry." (Wallace Stevens )

Not the reverse, unfortunately.