The answer is an emphatic Yes. We all know it.
"A Trip to the Moon"—for instance—was a good story, but shall we keep reprinting it to-day, when recent revolutionary theories of space-time scream to modern authors for Science-Fiction treatment? In the last ten years the whole aspect, the whole future of science has broadened; we have sensed an infinity beyond infinity; and who would be so un-modern as to cling to the oft-told stories of the older science and neglect the thrilling reaches of the new!
The Saturday Evening Post—again, for instance—has been publishing good stories for years, but who would have them reprint the old ones instead of keep giving us good new ones?
Would it be fair to 99% of our Readers to force on them reprint novels they have already read, or had a chance to read, to favor the 1% who have missed them? Of course it wouldn't, and all of our Readers in that 1% will gladly admit it.
And how about our authors? Contrary to the old-fashioned opinion, authors must eat—and how will they eat, and lead respectable lives, and keep out of jail, if we keep reprinting their old stories and turning down their new ones? After all, eating is very important; those who wouldn't simply refrain from eating would have to get jobs as messengers, and errand boys, etc.—with the result that much of our fascinating modern Science Fiction would never be written!
It would be much cheaper for us to buy once-used material. It would greatly reduce our task of carefully reading every story that comes to our office, in hopes to finding a fine, new story, or a potentially good author. But it would be very unwise, and very unfair, as you have seen.
Many more reasons could be given, but these few are the more important ones back of our policy of avoiding reprints. Enough said!—The Editor.
Wants Reprints
Dear Editor:
In you April issue, in answer to a correspondent, you stated that you were avoiding reprints. Now, that's too bad. Some of the best Science-Fiction tales are reprints. Witness: