I didn't say anything whatsoever about Noah Lukeman, nor do I plan to say what you suggest. I think you are imagining things.
I'm imagining things? Interesting. What exactly am I imagining? That a respected agent thinks no sim-subs is not a good thing for writers? Or that you said anything to me? Or that I predicted you would say it's different for him? Fine. Maybe you weren't going to say that. But you asked me what the relevance of my statement was, so I explained. I'll try to keep my "imagining" to a minimum for you, in the future.
I don't think you read the thread very well. My point on the simultaneous submissions can be summed quite simply as this: if you're going to submit to simultaneous markets and some of those markets don't allow it, then if you are honest you'll let the editors know that is what you are doing. Do you disagree with that statement? If not, I'm still not sure what your point is. And then you replied to my statement about contract law, but you said absolutely nothing whatsoever about contract law in your reply or anywhere else. So I'm not sure what point you were making with regard to that. If you'd like to clarify, that would be nice. If you are now mad and don't wish to clarify, then we'll just move on.
Well played. Attempt to discredit and attack me personally so you can win an argument. Because you're not only a lawyer, but you're also psychic, right? Your point is only valid if a writer has signed the CONTRACT that follows an acceptance. Submitting to a publication isn't signing a contract. It's not even signing a verbal contract. You'd have a point if it were, though, so way to go, you've won an argument that only you're having. It would be a problem (a legal problem) if someone accepted the contract to have their work published in two places. Why? Because then the person knowingly had to enter into a fraudulent contract. Or, if a writer wasn't paying attention and submitted to two publications that both required a contract be signed as part of the submission process, which doesn't guarantee acceptance, but does guarantee the publication can publish if they do accept the work. Then, you'd have two publications which both have valid contracts giving exclusive rights to the same work, thus a problem. And sorry, but the argument a lawyer could make a case for something doesn't hold much credence in our overly litigious society at this point, especially when it's then a dismissive argument that you could make a case, but nobody would bother. Well, if you want to talk legalities, if nobody bothers, and the case is never made, then in our legal system that doesn't exactly prove guilt or culpability, does it? Instead of a legal point, it becomes little more than a failed rhetorical device. How is it that professionals in the industry (that I've talked to and worked with, at least) don't agree with you that guidelines are anything more than statements how how they would prefer you submit a manuscript. They aren't claiming their grounds for a lawsuit, and only the most shifty in the industry throw around the 'I'll ruin your career' threats if a writer makes a faux pas. They aren't claiming they're laws or rules or regulations or anything beyond guidelines, and if they wanted it to be terms of a contract, they'd, get this, it'll blow your mind: make those guidelines part of a submission contract! Yet, a lawyer on a writer forum surely knows best! And why? Well, first because not following the guidelines is immoral (GREAT legal stance), and secondly because, well, they could like totally sue you I bet, maybe, if they tried, but nobody has bothered trying, nor would, but still I could make a case for them trying! And no, your point really isn't what you claim. It's evolved from being immoral, and when that didn't go very smoothly, that you'll be ruined, and when that didn't go over well, that you'll need to at least inform the editor, and when that was even discounted, you could be sued... well, really a lawyer on a writing forum could make a case for trying to push a lawsuit through, though it's admittedly so foolish and unlikely that nobody has bothered. But hey, if they lawyer says so, then we're all just ignorant of everything because he's also psychic!
Why on earth would you let them know? Oh, because they won't then just throw your MS in the trash? Because it's the "right" thing to do? I'm not a lawyer, so no, I didn't say anything about the law. What I said was that I don't believe there's any serious risk involved in doing multiple subs, even to places that don't want them, based on what someone highly respected in the industry states. Also, I actually did read the thread, thankyouverymuch. I just don't happen to agree with you. A guideline is what they prefer, it's not written in stone. You can argue that all day (or for days, as you have been with pops) because you're all about the contract, but a guideline is not a contract. The contract is what you are tacitly agreeing to when you sub, so if it's not on the page where you're signing on the pretty little line that the work is your own, you own rights to it, etc. it's not a contract. Because if it was it would say something like "you certify that this work in not currently being considered by any other publisher and that you will not sub to any other publisher until our review time has expired." Or something like that, sorry I'm not up on my legal jargon. If they don't care about it enough to put it on that page, with that line you have to sign, then it's a preference, not a part of the contract. I don't get why that's so hard to understand, and I don't know you insist on arguing about it. The days of handshakes and nods are long gone. They just are. So comparing it to a handshake is pretty absurd, IMO. If you sign it you're bound, if you don't, you're not. Any lawyer worth a damn thing would point out that that's NOT what you signed, that it was seperate, and so is not legally binding. Maybe you'd just have to have a better lawyer.....
But that is not the case that is being argued. Yes, you have somewhat of a valid argument of contract law, but it is only valid if an author submitted work, the publisher made an offer, the author then accepted the offer only to revoke it later when they get a better offer from somewhere else. And even if that happened (which I'm sure has happened) the likelihood that the publisher would ever pursue legal action is minimal as the cost to purse legal action would most likely outweigh any sort of benefits that the publisher could gain. Not to mention that if the publisher did take this to court, you can't properly determine the damages of a case like this as how can you fully measure the full worth of the manuscript at hand without publishing it, and aha, there is the clincher, the publisher does not have any contract to PUBLISH the work if the author doesn't sign anything and if the publisher is taking the author to court, does anyone really think that the author will sign anything? The only legal right the publisher would have won if they somehow win the case is the first-rights to publish, but again the author is still in control and can refuse to sign any sort of contract and they can never publish anything and they wouldn't win anything other than first-rights. It would only serve as a halt for the author and further, it is not an indefinite halt. The case would most likely be thrown out. The publisher would get a bad rep even if they did win and it's very counter-productive. The only thing that is foreseeable is that publisher can black list you on THEIR list and no one else. One publisher cannot single-handedly control the reputation of an author first emerging in the market. And some how, I find this argument only applicable to first-time submitters. Those that are still new and aren't well known. Well known authors already have a market out there, already have a reputation, and most likely have an agent and insurance policies out to take care of all of this. And I think we're forgetting the main thing that drives the publishing company. Profits. Bottom line is profits, and one bottom-level agent at the publishing company is not the head of the entire publishing market. The CEO can and most likely over rule anything. Not to mention it is bad practice for one publisher for one company to talk to another publishing agent in another company to supposedly "black list" them. (and that has REAL legal recourse that the author can pursue) << why not talk about how morally bad that is. Plus, do you think that if one publisher got burnt, that another publisher will out of principle also black-list that author DESPITE the fact that the manuscript has a lot of potential? Maybe potential to be the next big thing? Or it be cash-cow? I don't any publisher black-listing an author for that reason. It's silly because their profits would go down and that is the main thing.
And only for when you sub. Many publications attempt to make it very, very, very, (very!) clear that submission guidelines have nothing to do with acceptance to the publication and doesn't guarantee anything when it comes to the contract you will have to sign if you want the work actually published. To the point many publications will ensure a submitter realizes that despite submission guidelines being mostly related to formatting, the published work may have a completely different set of formatting guidelines. Based on the logic some are on about submission guidelines having any relevance for a publication contract, the writer could then have grounds to sue the publication because they wanted submissions in one font, and the published in a font different than outlined in the guidelines. Yes, that sounds ridiculous... but a publishers wanting to published a piece and without even a publishing contract and suing a writer for submitting work that didn't adhere to submission guidelines seems like a sound argument to some. I moggles my bind! (damn, where's that googly eyed smiley)
@sundae - no, I am talking viewing the submission as an offer to sell the work, which would be enough to get you into court. But as Trish notes above and as I said earlier, risk is minimal. There aren't enough damages at issue to justify the claim. @Trish- yes, you tell them because it is the right thing to do.
Ah, okay then. Morality, not law. Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. Oh, and in your response to Sundae... as I also noted you're not signing a contract for "guidelines" or they would be in the contract, becoming a contractual agreement, and no longer just "guidelines". But that part's not as important as morals.
@pops - in this thread as in most where you can't seem to handle disagreement, the vast majority of personal attacks throughout the thread come from you (and start with you). Which is fine if that's your style then so be it. I won't be offended but I will have to pick up the discussion this afternoon instead of continuing it now.
Then I don't see the point of your argument as that ^ that is not the reality of the market. Then we're back submission guidelines versus what is considered to be a contract in business. And I still fail to see the logic of any publisher viewing the submission as an offer to sell because it's like saying the author has absolutely no voice as how their work will be published (something that would not be included in the submission guidelines) and if the author has some sort of requirements, then what? I don't think the above scenario really exists in practice, and if it does/did, it's probably out-dated and needs to go.
Trish I don't know what caused you to jump in as pops' groupie, but its very cute. Where can I sign up?
Sundae, I threw it out as an interesting issue. You can go back to my earlier posts and see I said from the start out wouldn't arise.
Yeah, the lack of personal attacks on your end is really something I look up to. Thank you for being such an awesome role model for me. Appreciated. I happen to agree with him - didn't realize that put me in groupie status. Must be those morals I'm missing, or maybe I'm just being cute and imagining things.
This is definitely true and a reason a publisher isn't running around beheading writers left and right just to serve as warnings to others. Too many bridges burned. But also, simultaneous submissions guidelines are more often seen in short fiction publications (or the like: poetry, essays, reviews, etc). Most journals aren't fueled completely by the bottom line, and journals in many ways are the last bastion for publishing for the love of art and writers. Sure, they also want to make money, but usually aren't exclusively profit driven (knowing nobody is going to get rich anyway, so what's the point in trying). Even if you accepted and signed a contract with two publications, most journals aren't going to put up a huge fight, much less try to sue anyone. They're probably not even going to attempt to ruin a writer. They may think twice about working with you again, but most instances like this happen, as you mention, by first-time submitters who are new to the game and learn their lesson fast, and some notion of a big-bad publisher coming in to make an example out of that writer, as some seem to be arguing isn't really relevant. I know it's crazy to consider, but most journals actually care about writers and writing, and while they'll be upset, annoyed or maybe even pissed off enough to ask that writer not submit work to them again, there's simply not some grand conspiracy that people keep vaguely referring to. It just doesn't happen, and even if it does, if your writing is good enough and/or you're profitable enough, oh, well, what do you know, suddenly the big bad publisher who tried to ruin you (hypothetically) has come around and made amends and are happily cashing their checks too now. The original post was about short fiction publishers, and I don't think it's a surprise those arguing so vehemently against submitting against simultaneous submission guidelines keep [intentionally or unconsciously] steering the argument to publishers, which most people think of big publishing houses, which is an easier argument to make for them pursuing legal action or blacklisting an author (and having it mean anything). Most short fiction publications are in no position to wield such power, nor would they, really, because they care more about writers and writing than bottom line profits. In some cases I've heard of when such faux pas have come up where a writer was accepted to multiple publications who had guidelines against simultaneous submissions the publication editors were a bit annoyed and unimpressed, but in the end actively HELPED the writer get the best placement out of a story, even if it wasn't with them. Basically, you're a mid-level journal and a writer you wanted to published just informs you they're sorry, didn't follow the guideline, and the story is now being published in a top-tier journal. The last thing you want to do is burn the bridge with that writer over one story. So, instead, you let them know you're disappointed, but understand and congratulate them on the better placement, hoping to keep a relationship open with a writer now published in a top-tier journal, who will hopefully remember you didn't cause a big stink (and claim you were going to sue them, lol), so will keep your journal in future consideration. Often, if we walk to talk about unwritten rules, writers in these situations will then later give a story specifically only to that market they ended up spurning just to make amends and keep things on the up-and-up, as you never know who will be were in a few years (and that's a two way street where writers shouldn't burn bridges, nor should publications, but both also should understand that sometimes crap happens... including a publication accepting a piece and then, before the contract is signed, changing their mind, which I don't see anyone arguing how immoral and wrong this is, and how a writer should then attempt to sue the publication based on some implied contract!). With most big publishing companies, they do have the power to blacklist a writer and really make it hurt, but you're dealing with them through an agent anyway so it's a bit hard for a writer to somehow manage to get close enough to step on the right toes to make that happen. And trust me, your unsolicited manuscript drowning in the slush pile isn't going to be grounds for a lawsuit or blacklisting because, through some miracle, it made it through two slush piles at large publishing houses that have guidelines against simultaneous submissions. I'm not saying it's something a writer should be naive about or take for granted, but thankfully most short-fiction publications do care more about the writing and writers than what they could legally pursue, maybe, if they tried, possibly, despite little reward and just as much harm done to their reputation as the writer they're seeking to ruin. In the end, the 'us vs. them' arguments I see being made aren't usually very valid because most short-fiction publishers aren't 'them' but rather just 'us' with a bit more power to help out fellow 'uses.' But still, the fear-tactic, self-subjugating writerly rumors and assumptions abound for some silly reason.
Your irony is killing me. Now you're bringing in claims and assumptions from your personal judgements of me in general, from other threads, to claim you're not the one personally attacking anyone... you can't be, because you've perceived me as the first to personally attack. It's like when my little brother used to yell "No, YOU'RE the one yelling and being mean, you stupid fat-head!!!1111" Common tactic on these forums: I disagree with the content of someone's post, so they argue the content until it doesn't seem to be going well, at which point they argue against me personally, then, when I inform them I'm simply trying to discuss the content and that my personal stance on the issue is perhaps not even the same as the facts I'm discussing, they get personal, then claim I'm getting personal as they get more personal... then, the thread is locked and yay, they won? I don't care, whatever, get the thread locked. Get personal and ignore the points about the INDUSTRY I've tried to make, tell me I'm just immoral, tell me I'm just moaning about how unfair it is, tell me I'm ignorant and don't know anything about law, tell me I can't handle anyone disagreeing with me in any thread (as if that makes it okay to get personal anyway?), tell me I'm the one throwing around all these personal attacks... then when I respond the the personal attacks by questioning them and your grounds for making them, yell, SEE YOU'RE THE ONE GETTING PERSONAL YOU IDIOT (figuratively)... and, of course, because I'm not a squeally wheel constantly seeking grease by telling on others, even knowing those who report first or are friends with the mods are often seen in the right, I'm not going to report it. Feel free, though. I'll find it ironic and funny how we all know I'll be the one to get an infraction, despite how many pages of an argument that was effectively "You're just an immoral person" as I tried to discuss the issue and facts of this situation, not whether other members were bad people?
I apologize to everyone for how blatantly personal I'm getting with my attacks.... oh wait, once again, I wasn't the one posting this sort of thing!
Newbie cautiously venturing an opinion... I think the conract/agreement talk in this thread is a red herring. Seems the two issues, as I read them are: 1. Is it a smart move or risky move careerwise to simsub to mags that discourage the practice? 2. Is there an ethical problem with choosing to ignore such guidelines? My take? Question 1: The answer I've always heard, contrary to some others here, is that it's risky and that you could ruin your future chances with certain editors. If you don't care about the risk, there's nothing saying you can't ignore the guidelines (or if you know for a fact it doesn't matter). That's a matter of choice. Once, I ignored the no-simsub guideline and I would never do it again. It was simply too nerve-wracking. The magazine in question was too prestigious and, though it was unlikely they would have taken this story or any I sent them, I had too much respect for the mag that the risk wasn't worth it in the end. Maybe I fretted needlessly, but honestly, I felt stupid playing that particular game. That's just me, of course. (Btw, all turned out fine: everyone rejected the story!! ) Question 2: On the question of personal ethics I'll just say this. I worked for a time as an assistant editor for a lit journal back in the days when no-simsubs was the norm, and there was a very good (from the editor's POV) for this. Reading and evaluating submissions is not as simple as one editor reads story, says yea or nay, then on to the next. There are often committees. A single story can be read by many different people before it even falls into the "let's consider this one" category. Then there is the meeting wherein the story gets discussed, its merits and appropriateness for the issue/journal debated. When an agreement can't be reached, the same story may be debated again at a subsequent meeting or meetings. And on and on. It is a time-consuming process. The journal invests a lot of time, energy, and man power into the review process. All of this time and effort will be for nothing if the writer suddenly withdraws the manscript because someone else has accepted it. Now, as people here have pointed out, what's good for the editors isn't necessarily good for the writers. Simsubs are a godsend for writers, and the fact that most smaller (and some larger) publications are now accepting them is good news for us. But, if for whatever reason (and the reason is most likely similar to the one I've just outlined) a journal decides to refuse/discourage them, I think it's best to respect their guidelines. A publication reads our submissions in the good faith that the simsub guidelines are being followed. If I were an editor today, I'd certainly be annoyed if an author chose to ignore this. To me it would show a lack of respect. Yes, on paper, guidelines aren't contracts, we have no obligations, etc, etc. But to me that is beside the point. I agree with Steerpike on this. It's just my personal ethics, of course, not trying to impose it on others. But I see it as a do-unto-others kind of situation. Yes, it's not an equal situation, I understand that, but I'm afraid that we're the ones knocking at their door, hat in hand. And, as has been pointed out, if I don't like a journal's guidelines, I don't have to submit there. Like it or lump it. There's enough dog-eat-dog out there for me. I don't really want to participate.
The main power a publisher or publication has in reality is their prestige, reputation, and ranking as far as being the best-of-the-best. It's the value, the good will that exists after the money and costs have been accounted for. The prestige to be published in a well know and respected publication so you can part of a group of elite writers that "made it." It's branding really, that is what the publishers and publications market for the writers, and so yes, I think in the end many will end up doing what is right for them, but there are lots of factors to consider. Because as much as you want to say that if you work hard enough, you will make it, the reality is it as much a game as to who you know and your connections. And this is thing that is true in all ares of buisness, not just artistic pursuits. For some people, simply being "published" is enough. For others it's not enough. For some, they just want to churn out formulaic stories that they know many people will read versus stories that are unique that many may or may not read. It's not that one party is right or wrong, it's a choice that the person needs to make for themselves because it's RIGHT for their goals. The prestige you talk about, of course, you want to respect them and their guidelines, because in reality that brand has that much power and respect to them. But for small publication who have the same amount of power of prestige as another, to me the lines blur because their prestige is not worth that much. I don't mean that to sound as if I'm saying their crap, it's just that if you got accepted by X or Y, you would just go with X because they may offer more money or more something. But if you had an option of X which will offer you more as far as money and maybe advertising, versus Y-brand that has a high value to their name but don't offer you as much money, now you might think, okay, I won't nearly get as much money but I will instead have the power in saying I not only been published, but have been published by Y-brand. I don't think it's so black and white because every publisher out there do not operate on the same level. There are a lot of other factors that need to be considered when making a personal choice of what is right for you. Personally, I don't have a side on the ethical dilemma here, that's up to the person and however they choose to resolve it. But at the same time, it's a disservice to use scare tactics to discourage someone by saying that they will be black listed or sued for it. Instead, why not just present the situation from what it is and go for there and let the person decide? There are pros and cons to all situation, but to hype up the cons with quasi-truths to make your argument is not doing anything constructive as is hyping the pros with quasi-truths. In the end, writers just need to make sure they know what they are doing with information that is what it is, what they are risking, and need to make informed choices. There is so much miss-information and half-truth and exceptions to everything that it's hard to even properly discern information out there.
Indeed. Which is why I don't blame publications for wanting and hoping a writer only submits to them. The real issue, and the one we're all best served discussing, is the fact that most journals are overflowing with simultaneous submissions whether it's a guideline or not. This simply became a reality, like it or not, declare it immoral or not, it doesn't change the fact. The issue is that at one point not allowing sim subs was indeed the norm, and generally followed. Then, as competition grew, so did the risks people were willing to take to be competitive. At first, it was a minority trying to get ahead. Soon enough people were doing it that it wasn't needed to get ahead, but to stay competitive at all. It became a bad situation all around that I don't think anyone was pleased with, and over time publications have had two ways to respond: A) Recognize it's happening anyway, whether a publication liked it or not, thought it moral or not, preferred it or not, it wasn't worth trying to stop it and instead the best solution was to just foster better communication. So instead of writers trying to keep it secret and ugly surprises rearing their uglier heads, a publication at least knew what was going on. This way, it also meant that instead of a writer simply pulling a submission and giving a bogus response as to why, they can simply be honest and say the piece got accepted somewhere better. This keeps good, two-way communication open between the writer and publication--no shame, no guilt, no lies--and, in theory, the next story the writer is pitching around they might give it to that journal they had to pull their last story from because of their continued good relationship. So, yeah, time may be spent on a story the writer didn't ultimately want published with that journal, but networking and writer-relationships are good and that relationship may pay off in the future. or B) A publication continues to insist on not allowing simultaneous submissions, but recognizes people are doing it anyway, but they don't want to condone it or allow it, so all they're left to do is punish it (or usually, just threaten to). So now, you STILL have people submitting sim-subs to a publication that doesn't want them, and now have taken on the added task of penalizing such behavior. Otherwise you just condone it, and are then a hypocrite and everyone asks why you don't just openly allow them. So, the publication is still swamped with the deluge of sim-subs, whether they allow them or not, but also have the added issue of having to spend time, energy and reputation trying to enforce it, which is usually done by way of threats and making writers afraid they'll be punished and ruined if they get caught. Eep, now suddenly writers aren't as happy/friendly with such a publication (as I'm not, for instance, as I mentioned I follow sim-sub guidelines, but simply don't respect many of the journals that still try to restrict and enforce the guideline, so don't sub to them anyways [not that they care, but it's the principle!]). And what happens if you do get caught? Well, now instead of an unfortunate situation actually serving to possibly enhance a writer-publication relationship, it's a big nasty incident. The publisher has to stick to their guns and threaten things everyone knows they can't really enforce (you're not a criminal for ignoring submission guidelines, just a jerk). The writer usually feels bad, and has probably already tried to 'finesse' their way out of the situation with a few 'oops, I forgot I submitted there' or 'I thought they didn't want it since I submitted there 7 months ago and never heard back' sort of excuses that may or may not be true. Ugh, awkward, unfortunate situation, where the publisher isn't at all happy, the writers is embarrassed and probably going to never submit there again. Nobody wins. From a writer's perspective only, allowing simultaneous submissions is awesome. From a publication's perspective, allowing them isn't ideal, but is the best response to what became a worse situation. Many publications I've heard of actually like it, though. They want to know where their writers are also being published. They don't want to piss off a writer just because they got into a better journal with a story they also accepted, but congratulate that writer and hope the next story by that writer is sent to them exclusively as a consolation prize. Sure, again it's not ideal, but smart publications make the best of what is rarely an ideal situation. And sadly, smart writers took every possible competitive advantage and created the bad situation in the first place. It's waste of everyone's time and energy to spend either casting blame or trying to figure out how to stop the progression of time, though, which is why my main complaint against publication who refuse to accept simultaneous submissions isn't that it's unfair or mean to writers, but that, in the end, it's just bad business. It's bad for the publication. It's bad for the writers. It's bad for readers. Nobody wins, not even the publishers.
Why screw around? There are hundreds of print journals that accept simultaneous submission, and I don't think there's necessarily more prestige to those who don't (then again, I've only recently started reading journals).
Many of the last holdouts on not accepting simultaneous submissions are doing so because it's plausible they're big enough all the scare tactics are true. We're the effing -insert top journal- don't mess with us or we'll bury you!!! They're also the ones most flooded with submissions that are frustratingly inferior and simply don't match the quality or themes they're looking for, so are trying desperately to do anything they can to dissuade people from submitting. BUT, there's more than one way to respond to the deluge of sim-subs journals started getting. I outlined the two responses most relevant to this discussion on following the guideline or not, but have also mentioned that many journals (wisely, imo) have removed this issue entirely by simply making submission require a contract. And some top journals now simply don't take unsolicited submissions; problem solved. In general, there are in fact two types of journals I see holding onto not allowing simultaneous submission. Journals that are so big, as above, that they at least think they can get away with anything, or are so big and so successful they're slow to change (as it often seen). And journals that are relatively small needing to [imo misguidedly] fight for any shred of advantage they can get and run the risk of losing stories if they openly allow and foster sim-subs (not realizing they're going to probably lose the stories anyway, AND with a burned bridge potentially). Most journals are in the middle, comfortable with their status, caring about fostering relationships with writers, knowing that's the best way to slowly build reputation and prestige, and almost encouraging the competition that sim-subs encourages because they're confident in a feast or famine situation they'll still come out with acceptable results. Basically, the top-dogs have everything to lose, and the fear is if they give and inch, they lose a mile. And the bottom-dogs have everything to gain, fearing if they give an inch they'll be unable to gain a mile. Most journals in the middle are a bit more casual, accepting and healthier regarding just about everything related to this area of publishing (though it's still always a fight to stay alive, they've at least gained enough ground they aren't constantly paranoid about everything).
