I'm reading your posts, popsicledeath, but they come down to no more than a series of rationalizations for an individual not to honor his or her own word or agreements. As I said above, it all goes to what kind of person you want to be.
Well, at least you're paying my words eye-service before, as we know happens in issues where people decide to take a moral stance, you dismiss them. That's all we can ask. Just so you know, I've also been reading your posts, but am pretty unswayed by the evidence of 'it's immoral, but hey, if you want to be a bad person' and would prefer some actual discussion of the situations that lead to this behavior, as that's where the real problem is: what causes behavior, not what behavior was caused. But, again, it's usually easier to cast judgement on people who've reacted to a situation in a way one doesn't agree than to try to understand the situation and seeing if there isn't anything that can be changed or improved with that very situation, you know, to prevent the immoral behavior instead of just seeming to relish in the opportunity to cast judgement.
Whether you are swayed or not doesn't really matter. I think it is self-evident that it comes down to the kind of person you choose to be. It is, after all, a choice you are making, one and one choice is indicative of a certain kind of person, and another choice is indicative of another. Everyone makes these decisions for themselves, as do I, and we also decide which other people we will do business with. If I know someone is dishonest, or would just agree to something to get their way, I won't do business with them. I've had clients who have suggested actions that were dishonest, and I tell them they need to get other counsel. I won't do it. Criticizing that seems to me to be foolish.
I see it like this: I'm a furniture maker, and I've built a really nice chair. I put the chair in my store, offering it for sale to anybody who comes in. Steerpike comes in, takes the chair away, and says he'll decide whether he wants to buy it in six months or a year or so. If he doesn't want to buy it, he'll bring it back. And he thinks that if I object, that I'M the one being immoral? That I have to examine MY conscience? What right does he have to require me to wait while he dilly-dallies around wondering if he's going to buy my chair or not? What if another customer comes in and says "Hey, you had a really nice chair here last week and I'd like to buy it. Where is it?" Do I have to say "Steerpike took it and is going to waste the better part of my year deciding whether he wants to pay for it. If he doesn't want it, then you can have it." It doesn't make sense to not allow simultaneous submissions. A publication has no right to demand that of writers. And they sure as heck don't have the right to say that people who submit simultaneously to several markets at once are somehow immoral, or are bad people. They're just writers trying to sell their work.
LOL. You can't think that's a serious comparison. The difference that is immediately obvious is that an editor or publisher is not coming into your home and taking your manuscript without permission and say they'll get back to you in six months. You are deciding whether or not to provide it to them in the first place. /facepalm
It IS a serious comparison. I didn't say that the editor is coming into my home, but my store. Which means I'm offering the item for sale. You are saying that I only have the right to offer it to YOU, and to no one else, until you decide you don't want it. Submitting a manuscript should not involve having to be handcuffed. The story is mine. It is not yours until you pay for it. You have no right to restrict me from trying to sell it elsewhere. If you want to do that, pay for the story. Or pay for the right to keep it off the market for a while or whatever. But until you pay for a story, it belongs to the writer, and the writer has the right to sell it to anyone willing to buy it.
No, I'm not. I'm saying you can offer it to me or not offer it to me, and here are my terms. All of the decision-making rests solely with you. If you don't agree to my terms no one is forcing you to offer the work to me whatsoever. You seem to want to pretend that you are somehow forced by the editor into letting them consider your work. That is not the case. You can submit only to markets that allow simultaneous submissions if that is what you want to do.
This is patently untrue. I don't know about you, but I make money selling writing. And once I enter into an Agreement with a publisher or someone else purchasing my writing, I no longer have the right to market that work elsewhere. Even when the payment isn't going to come until later (and many markets pay on publications, not on acceptance). It's called a contract.
It's actually a decent analogy, but could be better. Imagine it's a consignment shop. The shop only exists and makes money based on people coming in and letting the shop peddle their goods. Say there's only two consignment shops in town, so you pick one, bring in your goods, and the shop says it'll hold your goods as part of their inventory indifinetly, perhaps putting your goods out, perhaps not, they'll let you know what they decide as soon as possible. Well, 3 months later you go to the shop and ask to talk to the manager since you don't see your goods on the showroom floor. Oh, yeah, we just love your goods, we're just looking for a place it fits into our current stock, but we're really excited about it, we'll let you know soon. So, two months later, you go into the shop. They still haven't put your goods out, at which point you mention you're thinking perhaps the other consignment shop might be a better fit, since they obviously aren't interested in putting out your goods. Well, the manager tells you, it's highly encouraged that people don't talk to any other shop while they're deciding if they want to handle your goods, and like they said, they're getting around to it, sheesh, so impatient! And, btw, I know the other consignment shop owner, and if you take your goods there, you'll never sell another item in this town again!!!! Wait. You didn't sign an exclusivity contract. You didn't even offer a handshake swearing you'd let them sit on your goods for 6 months before they've even told you if they're interested in selling them. Sure, it was encourage (by them, of course, as it only benefits the shop) that you not talk to anyone else until they've decided what they want to do with your goods. Ack, but you don't want to be RUINED!!! What to do?! Well, most likely you go talk to the other shop owner, who admits the first shop you went to are basically controlling a-holes and you're not going to be ruined anytime soon, they'll look at your stuff and get back to you within 30 days, and at any time you should feel free to decide you don't want your items in the shop, just let them know, no big deal, just a part of business. What is the first shop afraid of? Well, most people are naive and terrified (though not nearly wiling to be doormats as often as writers are), and they bully people because they can, and it lets them not only take their sweet time deciding what to do with your goods, but deprives the OTHER shop from your goods as well. And, in this scenario, nobody in their right mind would say someone is dishonest and immoral if a shop was sitting on their goods for so long seemingly having no interest in dealing them, or at least not in a reasonable time frame. It's business, and in such a situation nobody would consider the first shop a good business partner, and nobody would consider someone immoral for deciding the first shop wasn't serious about doing business (and perhaps instead being deceitful and conniving to control markets). Yet, when it comes to writing, if you don't bend over backwards to appease the publishers, that basically act very similarly to consignment shops, then you're an immoral person, bad bad bad! Umm, yeah, because it's the publishers spreading that perception, and writers are so desperate for any scrap of validation they not only accept such treatment gladly, but perpetuate it. Enter into the analogy internet sales. Suddenly the person potentially supplying goods to shops has a direct outlet that is cheap and accessible (not like opening your own shop used to be; self publishing, which used to be expensive). Shop 1 ramps up the fear tactics, because the only way they see to compete is business as usual, bottom-line status-quo, make people think they don't have any options BUT their shop, and make them afraid of anything else. Shop 2 welcomes the changes, opens their own internet sales via the store site, can show how much foot/web traffic one's goods are guaranteed to be exposed to, and all the while tries to combat the changes by offer BETTER service, a BETTER experience, a BETTER chance at legitimacy.... all the while shop 1, unable to adapt to anything since they're so used to peddling goods of those they've basically exploited and duped into submission, can't compete. And we're seeing this happen every day in publishing. The archaic monsters are slow to change, not wanting to give up their stranglehold, and the only tactic they have is to grip harder (strangling even faster, ironically). The sad thing is their main weapon is pitting writers against writers with doom and gloom scenarios that are largely bullcrap, but easy to believe, because for so long writers have been the ones with no power, at the mercy of a publisher, because what else are they going to do, self publish?! HAHAHAHA Oh, wait, crap, alternate options are becoming increasingly, whether it's self-publishing or internet pubs or just smarter business models that in many ways are made possible by new technology. Damn, now the writers actually have options, start to have power, what is there to do? Change? Adapt? Admit the gravy train is coming to an end? Hell no, trim the fat by cutting any writer that isn't a best-seller and use scare tactics to convince all the other writers they better not get any swell ideas or they'll be ruined and never work in this town again!!! And why is it still possible to perpetuate such a business model? Because right now I could probably dupe 7-10 writers on these forums, or from the average mid-level publication into selling their soul for even a chance to sign blindly on a contract they haven't read if I even just promise them a 1% chance of success. The hilarious(ly sad) thing is people will scream up and down that it's a huge red flag if an agent insists you only query with them, and no other agent, and starts making claims about how if you don't wait forever for their response you'll be blackballed... yet, then when it comes to submission guidelines for a publication, woah, suddenly it's immoral? Writers are a mixed up lot, desperate from generations of being doormats in the chance someone will promise to give them a shot at success. Now, a revolution is seriously on our hands when it comes to the publishing industry, and like all revolutions the best weapon against change is fostering in-fighting between the underdogs who are demanding change and to be treated fairly. It's nothing new, and is all very typical and expected, but is no less embarrassing and disappointing to see so many writers either ignorant of the reality of the contemporary publishing industry, or so desperate for any recognition they'll effective side with the Monarch as a method of survival. But yes, it's a personal choice... but in my opinion one's personal choice begins and ends with themselves, and the moral judgements on others isn't conducive to fair, honest treatment of writers as a whole. Especially when most of the moral arguments against it can't engage in the facts or realities of the industry, and instead just echo what they've been told by those who are dolling out talking points knowing they'll be echoed with fear and reverence by a lot usually too scared to do anything but be thankful for scraps when they don't realize right next door is a banquette open to all. But seriously, someone is morally tainted if they don't follow the GUIDELINES of someone they're TRYING to do business with who doesn't seem willing or capable of being honest and fair in those dealings?
All this talk of agreements. You aren't usually signing an agreement when you submit work. In fact, you're submitting work with the sole purpose of a publisher, agent or editor using that work to decide if they DO want to enter into an actual business agreement. Submission guidelines aren't anywhere close to a contract or agreement! If a publisher/editor/agent does want to atually make a contract out of it, they can. Some do as part of submitting a work, and in those cases breaching that contract isn't at all condonable. Why? Because then an actual contract or agreement has been reach by both parties and agreed upon. But until then, it's little more than scare tactics and attempts to control writers in a way that is advantageous for the publisher for the very fact there ISN'T any contract or agreement at that point. Why don't publishers (or the like) want to make a contract or actual agreement out of submissions? Well, because when that happens, there are then ACTUAL deadlines and expectations they have to abide by, instead of just expecting the writer to. It becomes a reinforceable two-way street... and why wouldn't publishers simply keep on the one-way street they've gotten away with for so long? Submission guidelines aren't terms unless a contract is being reached, which isn't happening most situations. They're simply guidelines used, or the most part, to streamline their selection process. In the worst cases, though, they're used to intimidate and bully authors. AHAH! WE HAD GUIDELINES! Yeah, well, I have no problem agreeing to TERMS if you want to make a contract out of it... wait, what? Where are you going? You don't like having absolute power?! Until there's a contract in place, or an actual agreement (though a writer is a fool to consider anything but a tangible contract a business agreement of any kind), the control should be entirely in the hands of the writer, which hasn't traditionally been the case (oh lord, imagine back in the days when you'd perhaps only be able to manage a few copies of your manuscript and having editors literally having your only shoppable copy on their desk, oops, it's lost, we'll get back to you!). But yeah, trying to equate submission guidelines to somehow entering into a contract, or even a legitimate agreement, is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
@popsicledeath Everything you've posted glosses over the crucial fact that you and only you decide whether or not to submit to a publisher. If you don't like how they do thing, you do not have to submit a single written word to them. Ever.
I don't think anyone is disputing this fact. Though the 'if you don't like it, go somewhere else' is a pretty weak argument used to defend just about every injustice in the history of the world. And yeah, the site isn't doing well today. The page info says it was last updated in 1970, so that might explain a thing or too, as the internet wasn't quite as fast back then! lol Oh, and I'm not personally on either side of the debate. When I bother submitting work, I don't personally submit it to publications that don't accept simultaneous submissions as I've found and heard a lot of their general philosophies are ass backwards and a bit too conservative for my tastes. But my personal preferences don't matter, imo, as there's a broader, more important debate to be had. Answer me this: If this whole simultaneous submission thing is so wrong and bad, and a publication wants to insist a writer follow it, why don't they make the submission process into a contract. Many publications do it, these days, giving them exclusive rights to consider a work for a set amount of time, after which they lose those rights? It would put some credence behind the insistence that not allowing simultaneous submissions are so wrong. But why instead of doing that, do so many publications just leave it as a guideline and let the notion a writer will simply be ruined if they don't follow those guidelines do the work for them? If it's so important, why wouldn't they cement that importance with an actual contract?
I don't generally submit to markets that don't take simultaneous submissions either, and if I had the power to make the decision for a market I'd take them. I just don't like to do business with people who are dishonest and can't be counted on to honor their word, that's all. As for the idea of putting it in a submission contract, I think that's a good idea. I suppose then you'd have stronger legal recourse if someone didn't abide by it. Arguably, you have recourse anyway, but the damages are so miniscule that I can't imagine anyone pursuing it in either case. But I think the contract idea is a good one. Even without a contract, people should be honest enough to do what they say, whether they say it explicitly or impliedly by submitting a work. If you are going to submit elsewhere despite the policy, that fact should be mentioned to the editor.
Still missing how submission guidelines are even a 'word' agreement. They're guidelines, preferences. They're not even called requirements by most markets. No, there's really not any legal recourse anyway... unless you're saying a publication spreading gossip about a writer a legal recourse. If there were a contract, the legal recourse is still pretty minimal. The best a publication can usually do is contact the other place the writer submitted to or got accepted by and inform them the story is under contract. At which point the other publication will most likely pull it. The only real advantage is it prevents similar situations without a contract turning into a tug of war between two publications both insisting they're the ones that get to publish a piece. Basically, what I usually see in this area are amateur writers defending and championing the honor of publishers who don't really even care that much anyway. If they did care, they'd simply stop hassling with unsolicited submissions or add a contract into the submission process. Sure, they love the advantage if gives them when writers do follow it, and use it as a bargaining chip if a situation does come up, but do you really think they're passing around a blacklist or seriously considering their options when it comes to legal recourse? No, they usually just think it sucks, will think twice about dealing with that author in the future (unless the work is really good, hah), and work it out as adults who know simultaneous submissions, whether against guidelines or thought to be immoral by some writers, are just a part of doing business at this point. Which is why the few holdouts are quickly falling behind the times, and I guarantee it's because of business in most cases, not because of any notions of writerly morality. And again, I'm waiting for someone to address why this one guideline is seen in such dire terms as to label people immoral, and not the others? Or if someone submits a story that's in the wrong font are they also an immoral, dishonest writer you'll refuse to do business with? Also, the last thing you want to do is submit to multiple markets that don't accept simultaneous submissions and then mention it to the editor. Sorry, but if you're going to break guidelines, it's pretty dumb to then openly advertise it. And I'd argue that's a bigger faux paus, as then the editor can be sure you're not only perhaps a bit shifty, but a freakin' moron. The way to handle it, imo, is like a don't ask don't tell policy. If your work gets accepted two places, pick your place and kindly apologize and say you've had second thoughts. Then, later, IF they notice the piece in another publication (big if as is) or word gets back to them, sure, the cat will be out of the bag, but there's that saying about it being easier to ask for forgiveness than permission. And they'll at least realize you're serious about writing and doing what it takes to get published where you want, and not some idiot who, along with a submission, mentions you're openly not only disregarding guidelines, but flaunting it in their faces. The other, perhaps more gracious option is to mention to the publication you don't choose that you submitted the story elsewhere based on a chance in hell dream publication, and got really lucky and it's too good to pass up and you're just as surprised, etc. This only works if the other publication is so good the journal you're dropping can't help but see your reasoning. If they're direct competitors, they'll be offended and pissed. If it's some mid-level journal and the same story also happened to get picked up for the Paris Review or something, they'll understand and really only begrudge you if they're really big aholes. (writer do sometimes still root for other writers, even if it means they lose a story). And again, they literally can be pissed all they want, but have NO control or power over your story to that point, so it's not like they're going to threaten to publish it anyway or call the other publication calling dibs or else they'll pursue legal recourse, lol. All the big bad wolf you'll-be-ruined stories are mostly hogwash, though, unless a writer is a real jerk or seems to be intentionally undermining another professional. This all reminds me of the people who swear up and down it's the worst move ever to drop your agent, as you'll never work in this town again... not realizing that most agent situations are such that either party has the right to drop the other any time (the contracts usually with manuscripts, not people), and that dropping an agent or having a second agent not only happens all the time, but is expected. Or like how people swear up and down having a lot of different careers is a kiss of death, when these days it's actually worse if you've been in one career too long, especially without aggressive promotion, as that means you're a lame duck who isn't even motivated enough to better your own situation. But sure, in all these situations people may not think what you're doing is NICE, but most professionals aren't going to begrudge other professionals for doing what's best for them and their career, as long as they do it as graciously as possible and basically, number one rule of everything ever, don't be an ahole about it.
i, too, have read your posts, pops... and i have to agree in toto with all of steerpike's posts... the act of submitting your work to a publisher is a tacit 'agreement' to the terms spelled out in their guidelines... in other words, an unwritten 'contract' just like a handshake, or a nod of the head... and no one is forced in any way whatsoever to submit their work to this or that publisher... therefore, it's ludicrous imo, to suggest/insist that any wrong is being done unto the writer simply because each publisher is exercising their right to either accept or not accept simsubs... moaning about the supposed unfairness of it all is no excuse for making the decision to deceive a publisher who states they do not accept them, by simsubbing to them and not being honest and openly admitting it... period!
That's easy to say, but I think you could put together a contract claim that would get you past summary judgment. It would be an interesting case to argue, but damages are going to be so small and speculative that no one is ever going to try it. It would come down to how you worded your submission guidelines. I could write a set of guidelines that would have a decent chance of standing up in a contract action. Also, if you submit a work to one place, then sell it to a second, and the first place then accepts the work before you've withdrawn it from them, there's a potential contract claim against you there as well, but again no damages.
I'd like to know in what capacity you've claimed to work as an editor of a journal, because honestly you don't seem to have much of a clue what you're talking about. A publication (if honest) doesn't decide to accept a manuscript and that's that. They don't get final say. They can't just publish something (unless it's in a submission CONTRACT you signed, not just guidelines) without the authors final approval. If you submit work to one place, then decide to sell it to a second, and the first place decides to accept it before you've had a chance to inform them, guess what happens? No, really, guess (as you don't seem to actually know if you think there's potential for a contract claim against anyone). What happens is you inform the place that decided to accept it that you're sorry, but decided to go elsewhere with the piece. Sure, they'll be disappointed, but submitting a manuscript isn't anywhere CLOSE to signing a contract to have that work published. So a magazine can accept a manuscript all they want, but until you sign the contract that lets them publish it (a CONTRACT, not submission guidelines), they aren't legally publishing a freakin' thing. And I know, you seem enthralled with the idea of a publishers right to sue a writer for any infraction (real or perceived), but, no, I don't think they have a shred of grounds to attempt to claim submission guidelines are actually a contract. Why? Because submission guidelines have nothing at all to do with PUBLISHING a work, simply how they'd prefer you send it for reading and consideration. Submitting a manuscript is like an audition, and unless some sort of exclusivity contract is actually part of the submission process it's absolutely embarrassing to have such misinformation out there for aspiring writers to read, thinking they could actually get SUED for not following submission guidelines. What? Was claiming they'd just be black balled or go to hell not working well enough, you've have to up the ante to the scare tactic of writers being SUED if they don't follow submission guidelines or if they sell a piece to one publication after the other has accepted it? Embarrassing, but I hope aspiring writers reading through this are smart enough to not be duped into the typical, submissive stance many writers find themselves, usually based on all the misinformation out there (that is sometimes intentionally, sadly).
Awesome, Maia, what you've taken from my posts is nothing more than that I think the wrong is in a publisher choosing to not accept simultaneous submissions (or rather, have it as a guideline), and that I'm "moaning" bout unfairness and using it as an excuse to deceive a publisher, then you really haven't read anything but what you've wanted to read into, because that's little more than what you want to hear. We get it, you're personally against it and no matter what seem content with judging the character of others, no matter if they've said they personally also adhere to submission guidelines and are simply trying to discuss the facts of the situation. What's the rhetorical device called when someone tries to discuss an issue, and others seem more intent on discussing/accusing/discrediting others personally? And one of the most absurd things I've ever heard is that submitting something somewhere is somehow a tacit agreement akin to an unwritten contract like a handshake. Seriously, this level of absurd misinformation doesn't help aspiring writers looking for information, and I honestly don't know what is motivating it. But this information is flat-out absurd and wrong, and none of the many editors, writers or agents I've ever talked to (specifically about this sort of thing) seems to think a submission is anything more than an audition. Less akin to any sort of 'agreement' or 'contract' than very literally saying 'here, read this, and if you like it enough to publish it we'll talk terms and contracts.' I implore aspiring writers to actually go to various publications and please note how submission guidelines rarely have anything to do with terms of publication, and when they do it's simply upfront knowledge in the event you ARE accepted, to let a writer know what terms (actual terms, not guidelines) they'll then have to agree to, in the form of a contract, before the piece can be published. It seems to me all this nonsense equating submission guidelines to an agreement or contract is just a last-ditch effort to win an argument. The sad thing is I'm not interested in arguments with moral dogmatists looking to cast judgements on others, but instead am trying to make sure writers know actually information and facts of this stage of being a writer. Why? Well, because there's a TON of misinformation out there that has aspiring writers living in fear or buying into when they don't need the added stress and worry of things that simply aren't currently true.
you're creating an argument where none exists, pops... note the underlined part of what i'd written... also, please follow this site's 'guidelines' that you 'tacitly agree' to abide by when you take part in discussions here and stop being so insulting to other members in your posts when you don't agree with them... courtesy is the rule and our mods do not take such rude personal attacks lightly...
I find pops' posts to be informative, and in fact, even Noah Lukeman suggests that no sim-subs is a problem for writers, for exactly the same reasons that pops is listing here. I can't link to anything because you'd have to read his books (and it would probably be deleted anyway), but I certainly don't think anyone is going to argue that he doesn't know what he's talking about, are they? And for whatever it's worth I don't read pops' post as any more of a personal attack on you, Mama, than yours was on him.
I've repeatedly tried to discuss the content of posts and the facts of this situation only to see repeated arguments based on nothing more than a personal judgement against my character. Even to the point I've clarified several times I personally follow such guidelines and am not discussing my personal preferences or practices, but the situation in general, and still get accusations I'm just moaning about things and personally trying to justify my immoral behavior, etc. I want to know why you and others can't discuss it past declarations it's immoral? Why you and others can't seem able to respond to a single point raised or answer a single question, and instead have to continually dismiss others personally, based on assumptions made about their character instead of the questions and points raised in their posts. Let me guess, you can't seem to engage in the discussion beyond declaring others immoral, providing little support beyond vapid 'I agree' sort of posts, and refusing to engage any of the questions or points regarding the issue... and me pointing out that you seem interested in little more than personally attacking others IS a personal attack. The irony is killing me. And I'd bow out of the discussion, I'm just still waiting for someone, anyone, to engage a shred of the content of my posts, instead of just repeating the same moral judgements, when that isn't really helping anyone stay informed or make their own decision regarding this issue. Seriously, please answer me ONE question I've had to repeat several times. If it's so detrimental and immoral to have writers submit simultaneous submissions when it's against a guideline, why don't these publications simply make an actual contract out of submitting. And no, trying to argue submission guidelines is a contract isn't really valid. There are publications that do require a contract where the writer is LEGALLY not allowed to submit the work elsewhere (not just morally, lol), so why don't more do it? The only reason I can presume is that these publications also then have to adhere to their own legal terms which usually involve express time-frames to get a piece read and responded to, meaning they can't just take their sweet time or leave a writer hanging for as long as they can, hoping they find a spot for work somewhere down the line, and instead have to make an acceptance decision in a reasonable amount of time or let the writer go. Is it the non-contract submission guidelines many publications don't use is because they can then effectively sit on a writers work for as long as they want, as long as the writer is too scared to go elsewhere or sell it to another publication? Is it because the publishers have an advantage over writers in this way, as the second you sign a contract it's there for public scrutiny and then the publisher is also expected to adhere to the terms. And what about the 'morality' of what publishers do? We keep hearing about how writers are just evil, conniving little sinners, but what about when a publication doesn't accept simultaneous submissions, says in their guidelines or on their site they'll respond in three months, and then it's been 7... Oh, wait, I've already seen people STILL defending the publishers. When it's a writer not following a guideline, they're immoral, but when it's a publisher not following a guideline, well, hey, it was just a recommended time-frame or an estimate of their expectations, not anything actually binding. It's easy to look at this situation in such black and white terms as casting writers as the immoral dogs--hell, it's been done for centuries since publishers have had a virtual monopoly over the life and hopes of writers--but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it a competitive business practice anymore. Let me guess, I'm also just moaning and am immoral for one of my main concerns being the fact it's just bad business that publications in denial about the reality of simultaneous submissions; the fact writers are doing it whether they want to realize it or not, whether a few forum goers swear it's immoral or not. The smart publications have adapted, either not taking any unsolicited submissions or adding a contract into the submission process, or simply allowed simultaneous submissions under the idea open communication is more important. Why are they smart? Because they've seen a problem in the publishing system, and adapted to it, and in a way that in essences not only gives them more power in many cases. So, one may think it's immoral and publications are thus immoral for responding in a way that could be seen as rewarding immoral behavior, it's beside the point. Casting judgements on others for being immoral isn't the freakin' point, and all it serves to do, as we've seen, is avoid having to actually discuss the reality of this issue, the facts and situation that exists... and why? To what benefit? When has just declaring something immoral and wrong over and over ever done any good? Especially seeing as that's been done against every single revolution or change in society ever. Declaring something is immoral and refusing to discuss it further, wanting to keep the focus on arguing morality, is the oldest tactic in the book, and sadly for a reason, because meanwhile it becomes a discussion about morality where it's easy to simply say others are going to hell, hoping that enough newcomers to the discussion aren't willing to take any chances with their souls so just fall in line and also start decrying something as immoral before they've even tried to understand the situation or facts. Yep, we get it, abortion is immoral, women owning property is immoral, mixed couples marrying is immoral, and not following submission guidelines is immoral (well, only this ONE guideline, it seems). Yes, we all understand the rhetorical device here... but it's not fostering discussion or helping inform aspiring writers, which in my opinion is the greatest sin of all.
You don't understand contract law and it would be a mistake for anyone here to think you do. An offer followed by acceptance before revocation of the offer creates a legally binding contract. No other document is required except in a few limited cases. If you are going to give advice, know what you are talking about.
So you're just going to ignore what I said? Really? Noah doesn't know what he's talking about either? Since he's a respected agent IN the publishing industry, I think he would have a fairly good grasp, don't you?
I don't see where you said anything about contracts. All you said is that Noah said the policy on subs isn't a good one, and I don't disagree with that. What point are you making?
He actually says that he submits to multiple publishers that don't take sim-subs at the same time, and also says that short story writers shouldn't feel confined to their guidelines because it creates an unfair situation for writers. Of course, you'll probably say that he's a well respected agent and the rules are different for him, but whatever. It doesn't change the fact that not allowing sim-subs is essentially a gimmick for publishers, that eliminates (they hope) the possibility of more than one publisher trying to get the same MS (more money for writers). He does admit that it's a risk, but also believes it's a small one.
