Themed Anthology Question

[silk_noir]

So when doing a themed anthology, is it better to run all new stories, or to have a few reprints?

Comments

[jennreese]

I'm no expert, but reprints serve two great purposes: they're cheaper, and they can bring some Big Name Authors to the antho for purposes of marketing, authors who are unlikely to write something new.

Almost every big antho I've seen does a mix of reprints and new stories.

[mabfan]

I agree. Getting a reprint from a Big Name is cheaper than getting a new story, and it can help sell the book to readers.

[kaolinfire]

I lean this direction, though taking marketing out of the picture, I prefer all-new (as a reader, and as a writer). Though I suppose odds of my having read something already are low, anyway (as a reader).

[tedeisenstein]

Are you asking as a writer, an anthologist, or a reader?

[amysisson]

As a reader, I don't particularly care to see reprints. Sometimes it feels as though the stories are dated and were only included to get a big name. I also own so many books that chances are I already have the story that's been reprinted.

[tim_pratt]

I did one that was all reprints, meant to be a survey of the subject, though I've read some good ones lately that were mostly reprints with a few new stories. Some of the theme anthologies that are totally original are awfully middling in quality; the advantage of an all or mostly reprint book is that you can fill it up with ringers, pack it with classics and masterpieces. Of course, people have read most of the classics and masterpieces before, so that can be a problem. As an author, I always appreciate another market for a new story! Reprint anthologies are waaaaay cheaper to produce. So: you can do either, really. It depends.