Jun 26th, 2009 | By Stephanie Campisi | Category: Journal
So, hunting through Duotrope, it occurred to me that an inordinate amount of non-paying or very low-paying markets don’t take reprints. In my opinion, this is very silly.
Also, in case you were wondering, I managed to eat all of my 27 persimmons last week. And today I have had six bok choi(s?). Because, clearly, I like to do things in moderation.
Also, breaking news from the UK: I before E rule no longer to be taught in schools.
Totally agree, I mean that’s where you could stick a couple of great reprints in an anthology containing new stuff too.
Not forward thinking at all, there is so much quality fiction out there that’s not got the attention it deserves and then so much sub-standard being churned out…
Exactly–it’s a great way for the small press to get really strong pieces and/or pieces by well-known or upcoming authors, and I’m sort of surprised that people aren’t exploiting it as much as they could. (I must say I raised an eyebrow at a certain well-known UK horror writer in the Dead Souls ToC–very impressive!)
If you’re not going to pay, then I think you need to show your appreciation for contributors in other ways, such as through great design and good production values, or author-friendly submission and editorial processes, or by taking their dog for a walk or something.
ASIM pays low, and isn’t much for reprints. Their thinking is pretty simple: they see themselves as primarily a market for emerging writers. They know they can’t afford to pay pro rates, and they’d far rather have an original, unpublished (strong) story from somebody new than a reprint from somebody well known.
I’ve had a chat with them about the use of name-author reprints (particularly reprints of stories which have appeared only in markets outside Australia) as a draw-card, but currently they’re happy with the system they’ve got.
I’m undecided about it, myself. In principle, I can certainly see the value of sticking with the unpublished, working with emerging writers, etc. But then, I can’t help but think that raising their profile might make that work easier, and more meaningful.
Strangely enough, when I read about the UK no longer teaching the I before E rule I discovered that I was only ever taught half the rule - I don’t remember there being anything about vowel quality, which would explain why I’ve always been confused by the rule. Geoff Pulham has been chatting about it all on Language log:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1525#more-1525
Lauren: I heard the vowel quality bit in primary school, but only to the extent of ‘except when the word has an ay sound’, which doesn’t really help with words like protein and height and weird and so on. Have never really had much difficulty with these words, though.
But one word that I don’t get: ‘wryly’. Why, why aren’t you spelt ‘wrily’, oh little word?
You haven’t analysed it fully - it’s just ‘wry’ with a derivational suffix -ly to transform it from an adjective to a verb. You wouldn’t spell coyly as coily - that’s a whole different word.
Also, I think there’s something nice about the ‘yly’ when you write it.
But dry can be either ‘drily’ or ‘dryly’! It’s just weird having two Ys in such close proximity.