Fiction - No previously published work accepted. Why?

There are markets for reprints. I've got my fingers crossed right now that an anthology who accepts reprints will take one of mine. You just have to find them.

Okay, had to check to be sure...duotrope.com has a search function for markets that accept reprints.

Doc said:

I have a question. Why can I submit and sell previously published non fiction over and over again providing I own the rights, but short story publishers warn NO PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED WORK? Anybody know the answer? If this is the wrong forum for this question, I apologize, but the matter troubles me. Write a short story, sell it, and then its usefulness is over. What a fate. Doc

Click to expand...

You can sell a short story over and over and over and over, if it's good enough, and has wide appeal. Top of the line magazines, however, seldom want reprints. They shouldn't. People who buy high end magazines do not want to read a story they've already seen somewhere else.

The primary markets for reprints are: 1. Anthologies. 2. Single author collections. 3. Foreign magazines. 4. Smaller magazines that don't pay enough to buy first rights from top writers.

You can sell it to different markets, such as the UK market, the Australian Market, electronic rights, North American rights, etc, so a story can be sold many times over.

Oh, thank you...

jvc. I'm usually the lone voice who says Get real and get looking. There's a whole huge world out there beyond the US of A and it's full of markets. Many of the editors living there don't care if your story was published in the US. As long as it wasn't published online they'll buy it if it's good enough and what they like.

Some magazines don't do reprints. Why buy something that's already been published when you can get something new to fill the same space. There's plenty of magazines that do. Some pay less, some pay nothing, but not every mag is opposed to reprints. I know my mag is a small one, so I have no hangups about accepting them if they're good enough.

Harlan Ellison makes a nice chunk of change selling a handful of his stories over & over again, to anthologies & to small struggling magazines. This may seem to make little sense, when these could likely buy first-time stories from other writers for less cash... except that it allows them to paste Ellison's name on the jacket, promo copy, & catalog.

It's not simple to compare fiction with non. If I have an article on avocado farms in America, it's easy for me to tweak it for the intended home, add or delete stuff, go back to my research file, update things that've changed, &c. -- fiction is rarely changed for reprint.

Most of my online sales included the language "exclusive electronic rights for a period of 30 days, after which non-exclusive electronic rights for one year in archives..." (paraphrasing here), so look at whatever the contract says or, barring a contract, the market should have their rights grab in the guidelines.

You should already know what that means, right? I just don't submit to anyone who wants all rights (except Highlights, but so far no sales to them), or doesn't have a right-reversion clause. Live and learn, and good luck with selling reprints! (and write new stuff, too, ya know?)

All anthologies should accept previously published work. It makes them look better. And, any non-paying market (magazine) that won't accept previously published work is up on some kind of academic high-horse where they are legends in their own minds. They are not paying you, therefore they are not taking any rights from you. Writers, listen: do as you please with your work. It's time for writers to own their hard work again. Editors work hard, but writers work harder. In regards to collections of your stories, few publishers will even offer a contract to you unless your work has been previously published.

Scathe said:

They are not paying you, therefore they are not taking any rights from you.

Click to expand...

Not true.

Publication is, in itself, a type of payment - especially in highly regarded academic publications. You're paid in prestige, but even if you weren't, even if you were to simply hand over your work for no payment at all, it's still published and the first right of publication is gone, never to return.

Editors work hard, but writers work harder.

Click to expand...

A belief that lasts through draft one, but dies, in edit, of draft two. You - literally - could not pay me enough to copy edit someone's work. It's more than I could stand.

Anthony Ravenscroft said:

This may seem to make little sense, when these could likely buy first-time stories from other writers for less cash... except that it allows them to paste Ellison's name on the jacket, promo copy, & catalog.

.

Click to expand...

Readers do not read the same stories over and over, even with Ellison's name on them. Every market has an audience all it's own, and most readers would miss these stories, were it not for reprints. This is also why we have anthologies filled with reprints.

Nor could they pay less money to other writers for new stories. It does not work this way. They usually pay other writer more money for new stories. That's a standard rate for new stories, and a standard rate for reprints. The rate for reprints, whoever they're from, is lower.

Most markets buy reprints because doing so is the only way they can afford great stories by top writers.

Scathe said:

All anthologies should accept previously published work. It makes them look better. And, any non-paying market (magazine) that won't accept previously published work is up on some kind of academic high-horse where they are legends in their own minds. They are not paying you, therefore they are not taking any rights from you. Writers, listen: do as you please with your work. It's time for writers to own their hard work again. Editors work hard, but writers work harder. In regards to collections of your stories, few publishers will even offer a contract to you unless your work has been previously published.

Click to expand...

That is absolutely nuts on every score. Accepting reprints does not make an anthology look better. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Seriously, what the heck are you even talking about? It sounds like you know absolutely nothing at all about writing or publishing, and definitely nothing at all about the history of publishing. Nothing in your post makes any sense at all.

Academic high horse because they don't accept previously published stories. Guess that makes ninety percent of the genre magazines out there the same way, huh? There have always been original anthologies, and previously published work anthologies, and than God for both kind. Both are wonderful for writers.

And writers work harder than editors? I have a strong suspicion you're neither writer nor editor. You certainly know nothing at all about writers, editors, or publishers.

This thread is eight years old. We should leave it to its rest!

Yeah, I'm with Buffysquirrel. Closing the thread.