He writes: ‘Literature is grossly underfunded, yet many books that have gone on to do well, books such as a Fortunate Life, were published with the assistance of the Literary Arts Board. It seems ironic that such a book, which has grossed in excess of $2 million, should have been published with the assistance of the Literary Arts Board’.

Not so. Who in 1981 would have foretold Bert Facey’s folksy autobiography about hardship in the West with a nod to Gallipoli was about to become a best seller? It was published by Fremantle Arts Centre Press, a small regional publisher. Its initial print run was modest. The decision to licence publication to Penguin as soon as sales soared because of enthusiastic reviews was a businesslike post-hoc marketing decision. The initial risk was all with FACP.

To cite that title – a non-fiction book of popular intent – immediately before going on to imply that the Board supports ‘too narrow afield of writing’ was unfortunate. Mark Rubbo goes on, ‘The definition of literature needs to be extended in the hope that diversity in publishing will be encouraged’. For the record I would like to point out that the Board has traditionally given priority in publishing subsidies to books that are of literary and cultural value and which represent a high risk for publishers. 34% of titles have been for poetry (notoriously non commercial – yet as recently as August 1987Australian poets were the ‘feature’ segment of the famous Struga poetry festival; they read to audiences in their thousands); 27% of subsidies have gone to novels; 8% to collections of short stories; 16% to nonfiction titles; 11% to drama and 4% to children’s books (which, after all, are one of the most profitable publishing lines). In the old C.L.F. days poetry received over 50% of all subsidies.

It is true that the Board has increased its support for fiction; when it began in 1973 there had only been 18 novels of any sort published in Australia the previous year. The perceived burgeoning of Australian fiction in the 1980s is directly a result of Board fellowships and publishing subsidies. In recent years, however, support has been primarily (in fiction) for first novels or collections of stories. Most of the ‘big name’ fiction writers no longer need direct publishing subsidy; the market has grown.

In non-fiction subsidies the Board has supported well over 200 titles, including works such as Patsy Adam Smith’s The Anzacs, Richard Haese’s Rebels & Precursors, Eric Roll’s A Million Wild Acres, Wendy Lowenstein’s Weevils in the Flour, Don Charlwood’s The Long Farewell and many biographies and autobiographies.

‘The disadvantages small publishers face are not really addressed’, suggests Mark Rubbo. I would point out that the Board has (to 30.6.86) subsidies the following number of titles:

University of Queensland Press 150
Angus & Robertson 118
Currency Press 58
Penguin Australia Ltd 52
Hale & Iremonger 47
Macmillan Australia Ltd 47
Nelson Australia Ltd 43
Fremantle Arts Centre Press 36
Makar Press 32
Yackandandah Playscripts 31
Outback Press 29
Wild & Woolley 27
Rigby 26

Australian, rather than ‘international’ publishers have been by far the most intensively assisted.

The Literary Arts Board has, over the years, made substantial modifi­cations to its programs of publishing assistance, beginning with the replacement of the ‘Guarantee against loss’ scheme by a ‘per page production subsidy’. Its current program review involves a further major reassessment.

Mark Rubbo’s piece, despite my quibbles, is a useful contribution to the debate.

Sincerely,
Tom Shapcott
Director
Literary Arts Board