Something I'm sure has been discussed before, but what are people's views on submitting to places that don't pay for publication, but are perhaps quite prestigious?
The first thing I ever got published was in a literary magazine that didn't pay (although they did invite me to a party and send me a badge - and no, I wasn't 12 at the time). However, now I feel a bit like I shouldn't be giving away stuff that is part of something I'm trying to make a living from eventually.
I'm asking this because I have a story that I think would be good for a quite prestigious publication (won't name names) that doesn't pay, but does publish stuff by quite big names (there was no mention of badges or parties).

It's difficult, isn't it.

On one hand, there's the feeling, as you say, that you shouldn't give stuff away. On the other hand...

But, actually, we all go on giving away stuff all the time, whether it's interviews (that fill the pages of a mag/website that someone makes money from, but not us) or hard-won experience we hand on as advice

I think there's some kind of equation which goes on:

What do I get? versus What does it cost me?

What you get could be:

-money
-publicity
-good thing on CV
-visibility
-creative satisfaction of doing it
-creative satisfaction of having your writing heard
-enjoyment: will you enjoy writing it? will you enjoy seeing in in Pretigious Mag? That can be worth a lot
-encouragement, that someone wants to publish it

What it costs you could be:

-time (is it already written?)
-cash (research, paper, paid work you could have been doing instead)
-work (including the time spent getting into and pulling yourself back out of that place where the writing happens)
-if you do give something away that feels as if you should charge, you could argue that it costs you some self-esteem.

And the last bit of the algorithm is what you'd do with the story if you don't give it away.

But, to be frank, I think that when you're trying to make your way, it's probably better to err on the side of giving stuff away, than not. The universe will provide more stuff, for you to sell, in due course.

Emma

I am all for giving it away, on the 'casting your bread upon the waters' theory.
I have given away many short stories over the years to small press magazines, especially when I started out, which began to build into an impressive CV after a while. Then I began being paid to write ...
someone pointed me in the direction of Static Movement, who do not pay, being too small for that. I have been bombarding them with stories, all of which have found homes with them, and as a reward, I have ended up editing 16 anthologies for them (for which there will be royalties, eventually.) It also makes a very impressive author page on Amazon Author Central. Meantime I am continuing to write the (hopefully) money earning books with my publisher.
I look for publicity for my name, good feeling of being accepted, (means I am on the right track storywise) building that author page and finally, feeling as if I am contributing something to a company that is likely to grow in the future and be a Big Player in the horror field. Then all the commitment will have paid off.

Thanks guys
I think you're right, sometimes the urge to just get it out there is more important - and also just to get your name known and get credits on the CV.

what you'd do with the story if you don't give it away

Also a very good point - after all, would I rather have something sitting on my laptop for years unread because I didn't want to give it away...

Great advice above. I'd think in terms of putting it in good hands. I didn't get paid for my short story collection but don't feel miffed about that. Because I have been given in exchange a beautifully typeset, beautifully designed book which has been distributed absolutely everywhere including all major supermarket online stores, Smiths, Waterstones Piccadilly etc and submitted for every prestigious prize the eds could imagine it might be eligible for. All without me paying a penny. Think too what you are being given: your work in print in a prestigious magazine or collection is worth c=something in financial terms too, if you care to see it that way, as well as in all the other ways EmmaD has listed. It costs the presses a lot to produce our work, and having your work in a well thought of magazine is great free publicity for you as a writer. It works both ways.

I am also on the side of giving it away when necessary - because you are getting something in exchange: credits on a writing CV. Without those credits you are just someone who says they are a writer; with them, you are someone whom other people acknowledge as a writer.

We have discussed this before. As Emma says, it's a difficult one. I'd say it all depends on what you want from your writing. If it's just to see your name in print/e-ink, then obviously you're happy being published by a no-to-low paying magazine. If on the other hand you want to produce work that's at the top level, you're probably going to be more selective. I can speak for SF/Fantasy as the main genre I write in; there, it's a general rule that the magazines which carry the most kudos are the ones which pay the most. However, many 'semi-pro' magazines are also highly respected and produce award-winning stories. Also, there are one or two low paying mags which are recognised as good venues.

So, if your aim is to become an established 'pro' author in SF/Fantasy you'd send your stories to the top magazines first, then on to the best semi-pro ones and draw a bottom line below which you won't go. This approach has two-fold benefits: 1) it means you gradually build a good reputation based on results, 2) you have the incentive to aim for better in your writing all the time.

I suspect strongly (well, I know so in one or two cases) that an editor of a top magazine is not going to be impressed by a cover letter quoting dozens of credits in no-to-low paying magazines. She'd be much more impressed with just one credit in Clarkesworld or Asimov's; or a good semi-pro mag like Ideomancer. In this respect, I don't agree that a lot of hits in no-to-low pay mags means you're on the right track. You could just as easily be building into your approach bad writing habits and a lack of that magical quality that comes when an author pushes herself to always be writing better.

Of course, it's far harder to get published in a pro mag. In SF/Fantasy, the top mags receive anywhere between 200-700 stories for everyone they publish. So, some compromise is inevitable. But I don't think it should ever be a compromise on quality. My suspicion is, however, that quality compromise is inevitable if you're always aiming low. When I look at stories in no-to-low pay mags I usually see a lot of bad or careless writing that a good editor would have dealt with. Which raises the question of why you would want your stuff to appear in public if it's not as good as it could be. Similarly, aiming for the top markets means you'll learn more about how you can improve. But, again, it all comes down to what you want.

Terry

Catcrag, if you were going to put a story in for The Guardian short story comp, I'd say go for it, money or none.

Thanks guys
Terry - I think you're right about needing to draw a line below which you wouldn't drop. You get a good idea from a quick look at the mag/ site how high the quality of their stuff is, and whether you'd want your name associated with it.
Jem - it wasn't the Guardian comp I was thinking of, but you're definitely right. That's about as prestigious as it gets, payment or none.

I didn't get paid for my short story collection but don't feel miffed about that.

Cherys, presumably you do/will get royalites, though?

I agree but I understand the temptation to aim low. To get a first pro or even semi-pro sale is incredibly difficult. Apart from the sheer statistical odds, there are other factors blocking new writers. One is the simple fact you don't have a name. Most editors are always going to take a not-great story by a big name before a great story by a newcomer. Which means you have to produce work that is a whole lot better than established names. But I still think it's the better route, because the very act of aiming for what's nearly impossible means you're going to improve. And if you're able to take a reasonable long-term view, it's actually achievable. If you gave yourself say ten years, aiming to produce 30 stories a year, while at the same time working on your craft by finding good workshops, critiquing groups, mentors, etc, there's a pretty good chance of success (although nothing's guaranteed in this game, of course). I suspect, in fact, this is close to what most authors have done anyway. But if you need some kind of instant success; well, that's a different route altogether, but one that I think will tend to take you away from improving quality.

Terry

All very true.

Worth mentioning, though, that there's no law that says you have to put or keep not-grand pub credits on your CV: you are allowed to walk away from them...

Emma

Worth mentioning, though, that there's no law that says you have to put or keep not-grand pub credits on your CV: you are allowed to walk away from them...

Unless it's part of your submission, and the agent is liable to google you and find it online.
An awful lot of new writers are putting their first novels out on Smashwords, and similar, after it's been rejected by agents, so even if you rewrite it before submitting, the old draft is still out there and it's best to 'fess up in the cover letter.

I hadn't come across Smashwords Naomi, and looked it up. Oh dear,I thought, reading the children's stories. There are a few ideas there, although some a bit moralistic, but that's pretty much what they are, ideas,with the craft still to be learnt... if I get to 80 and still not published, maybe then I'd join.

It's the company you keep you'll be known by.

So I totally concur that the quality of the publication is paramount. I've given loads of work away for all sorts of reasons: supporting a charity, to get something published, to help out somewhere, and as said to get something on the CV which is otherwise rather thin, but would have to have a very good reason indeed to allow publication where the standard was rather poor.

An awful lot of new writers are putting their first novels out on Smashwords, and similar, after it's been rejected by agents, so even if you rewrite it before submitting, the old draft is still out there and it's best to 'fess up in the cover letter.

This is very true. However, there are many reasons why these days it can be a good idea for a more established writer to do the same. If you know you've produced a well-written book that's properly edited, it can be a good way of both earning some income and creating a readership. If it does well, you might find yourself having to decide whether to carry on making money direct or sell it to a publisher; not a bad dilemma to have. And even if it doesn't do brilliantly straight away, it won't do you any harm being out there. Time is on your side, after all. And if you've got some published short stories too, they can help draw attention to the novel. Some writers are working this connection to the max by writing short stories set in the same world as the novel.

Terry