|
7/8/2008 1:57:53 AM
|
themasterknitter
Posts 425
|
Last week is was Strahan, this week the Editor we'll be lynching is William Sanders.
In my latest recon I found that someone we all know (and some of us can't stand) posted a rejection letter from William Sanders, in public, where everyone could see it.
Now, I've made no real secret I've got an axe to grind with a certain editor (actually three or four) but now hear this.
I've never gone so far as to actually post the contents of a rejection letter in public. Not even really irritating material I got concerning Maternal Soldier. Nor the ones from Hartman or anyone else.
Why?
Simple. No Editor is going to give you an honest assessment of your story if they believe that you are going to post the contents of their rejects on the internet with their names attached. No one.
Me? In spite of what some folks see as very bad behavior on my part, I have never violated this rule. Not ever. Not for any reason. Because if I were to post the exact contents of a letter from an editor on the internet the result, I believe, would be that other editors in the field will decide to respond to future projects in this fashion.
"Sorry, can't use it."
Do editors do stupid things? Sure they do, go read any entry on Hartman's blog and you'll get a daily dose of stupid. But it seems to me, even me, that sometimes discretion, just a dab of it, is the better part of valor.
I might add that if I were an editor and this happened to me, I'd be certain to ensure I never purchased a project from idiot ever again.
|
|
7/8/2008 2:12:19 AM
|
themasterknitter
Posts 425
|
Why that is not what William Preston thinks, Thomas. He believes if you sent a letter or an e-mail, it is all fair game and up for the public domain.
Which is patent insanity typical of an English Major. Some commo traffic is meant to be confidential, NO MATTER WHAT.
Besides, just because the law might say you have a right to do something doesn't mean it is a good idea to do it.
The American Science Fiction Community, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, is in serious need of an enema.
|
|
7/8/2008 3:03:04 AM
|
mark-h
Posts 44
|
What exactly made you post this here? So Luke is stupid too?
I wouldn't exactly invite you to a writing workshop to talk to the students about professional behavior.
|
|
7/8/2008 3:56:27 AM
|
|
Guest
|
Yeah, this is quite a lark isn't it... Murphy lecturing another writer on how to behave professionally.
Murphy, this time you have out done yourself.
|
|
7/8/2008 4:13:07 AM
|
themasterknitter
Posts 425
|
Mark, I posted it because I felt like it AND because the fracas surrounding it is another standard issue example of political correctness run amok.
Problem with the reject letter is that without seeing Luke's story, we have virtually NO CONTEXT with which to judge. Everyone is mainly upset about two words, which isn't what they ought to be aggravated about.
|
|
7/8/2008 10:22:25 AM
|
WPreston
Posts 1275
|
For anyone wishing to see Luke's post of his rejection letter, it's someplace on the July 1 thread of my website, ladislaw.livejournal.com.
For anyone of sound mind (or what the opening statement to the documents of Vatican II called "all people of good will") wanting to read what I actually said about the ethics of posting people's correspondence, please see my July 7 entry.
Note that Mr. Sanders did not request that I remove the letter, which would have been a perfectly reasonable request. (Perhaps Luke would have posted it on his own site, perhaps not.) Maybe Mr. Sanders thought I would turn him down.
Note too that, despite Mr. Murphy's practice of barring people with whom he disagrees from his own blog (I have never attempted to post there, I should add), his own comments on my blog have been allowed to stand.
--
http://wmpreston.blogspot.com
|
|
7/8/2008 10:41:22 AM
|
Bill Moonroe
Posts 4377
|
Is it okay to post a rejection letter if it's accompanied by pictures of the editor's family, as seen through the bushes of their neighbor's yard?
--
"A thagizer? What's that do? Hey, what's this button for? Uh-oh. Sorry about that, man. It'll grow back, right?"
|
|
7/8/2008 10:50:00 AM
|
Clint Harris
Posts 754
|
I dunno about this. I thought about commenting on Bill's blog, but I had to mull it over a little. By then, it was old news, so I'll share some thoughts here.
The door of professionalism ought to swing both ways. Unless Sanders is on a friend-level with Luke, maybe he shouldn't share his opinions of Islam and Middle Easterners in this way. It's hardly a platform for chit-chat, it's a rejection letter. If he wants to critique the story, fine, but that's a little off-center as far as professionalism goes. But, not having read Luke's story, I don't know if it was chock-full of Anti-Arab/Muslim sentiments or something to make Sanders think they were on the level with their opinions of the Middle East. Beats me.
As far as Bill posting the letter, well, that's tricky too. I doubt the editor stamped the damned thing with CONFIDENTIAL or DO NOT POST ON TEH INTARWEBBS. I can't say why Bill decided to post it and Luke didn't, since Luke does have his own blog(s). Why is that, guys? But you've got to realize that if you send a letter to someone, once they open it, it is their property. It's a letter, not a written work protected by copyrights. They can do whatever they want with it. They could run it on a full page spread in The Onion or Westword if they wanted. That's the same reason if you leave a message on someone's phone, you don't have to sign with a big record label. It's a message!
Not sure if that is the sort of press Sanders would want. Maybe he shouldn't have written what he did if he didn't want it repeated. Just sayin'
--
Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?
|
|
7/8/2008 11:16:15 AM
|
WPreston
Posts 1275
|
Clint Harris wrote:
I can't say why Bill decided to post it and Luke didn't, since Luke does have his own blog(s). Why is that, guys?
A good question (and I appreciate and agree with your other thoughts). Luke posted it, I didn't. This may seem a jesuitical distinction (sin of omission versus sin of commission), but since I don't think a wrong was done, I don't believe I'm passing the ethical buck, merely describing the means by which it ended up on my blog. People do post the contents of their rejections; I've seen people here provide quotes from GVGelder's rejections on many occasions. Once Luke had posted it and I'd commented (and I checked with him to confirm the authenticity of the letter), I saw no reason to make the letter migrate someplace else.
--
http://wmpreston.blogspot.com
|
|
7/8/2008 11:23:51 AM
|
Sheila Williams
Posts 86
|
Legally, the material in a letter is copyrighted by the person who wrote it and can not be published without the permission of the author. On the other hand, the letter is owned by the person who received it, so technically, a third party should get permission from the author and the recipient before publishing the material. On the third hand, "Letters to the editor," which are written as commentary on a subject in a magazine or newspaper and submitted to either one for publication become the possession of the magazine or newspaper. I don't believe this exception covers personal correspondence between a writer and an editor, however, and would never publish a cover letter in the magazine without express permission from the author. Although Dell Magazine's seemed to own the letter containing bio information that Alice Sheldon sent me in the eighties, I asked the executor of her literary estate for permission to print it before I used it in an editorial last year.
|
|
7/8/2008 11:50:12 AM
|
gdozois
Posts 4260
|
Sheila is right.
|
|
7/8/2008 12:10:08 PM
|
Berry
Posts 92
|
So, Luke chose to post it on Bill's LJ.
The letter's out there, damage done.
Right or wrong, 'tis all blogosphere tail-chasing from here on out.
edited by Berry on 7/8/2008
|
|
7/8/2008 12:11:59 PM
|
WPreston
Posts 1275
|
So: Sheila, Gardner: Since neither Luke nor I (nor livejournal, since they are the publisher) recieved permission to "publish" the e-mail, it should be removed, yes?
Obviously, no one would be addressing this from a legal standpoint were there not something problematic about the letter itself.
--
http://wmpreston.blogspot.com
|
|
7/8/2008 12:14:00 PM
|
WPreston
Posts 1275
|
It seems to me that journalists print correspondence all the time without receiving permission from the sender. How is that treated legally?
Calling John Rogers...
--
http://wmpreston.blogspot.com
|
|
7/8/2008 12:21:36 PM
|
Sheila Williams
Posts 86
|
Bill, it should definitely be removed.
|
|
7/8/2008 12:31:41 PM
|
Luke Jackson
Posts 176
|
I would have removed it myself but I'm not sure how to. But now it has been copied to other livejournals I see.
Yes, I screwed up. All I can say is that I posted it in a completely different context and not to become some sort of cause. If you look at the chain of discussion, I was talking to Mr. Preston about the line between SF and non-SF. It may be cocky to say that it was a conversation "between writers", but I just thought of it as an informal discussion in the comments section in an area that was not high-traffic whatsoever (before the posting). When I mentioned that I had a story rejected by Helix primarily because it was not SF, Bill expressed curiosity, so I put the rejection up. I really had absolutely no idea that so many eyes would see it and that it would brew such controversy. It might have been foolish of me, but I really don't know how many people came to see it so quickly.
I don't really want to get into the legal aspects of it, since there appears to be a lot of conflict whether writers have a reasonable expectation of privacy in email... what matters is that what I did was rude and presumptuous, although I did not possess any malicious intent at the time of posting.
|
|
7/8/2008 12:33:55 PM
|
Luke Jackson
Posts 176
|
And in private email, I did apologize to Mr. Sanders and he accepted my apology.
|
|
7/8/2008 12:35:04 PM
|
gdozois
Posts 4260
|
Yes, it should be removed. Were it posted on the Asimov's Forum, back when I was moderating, it would have been removed as soon as I noticed it.
It'll never come to this, but Sanders would be within his rights to sue you, and the law would be on his side.
|
|
7/8/2008 12:45:47 PM
|
Clint Harris
Posts 754
|
I am curious what the charge would be? Certainly civil, but could you really go for copyright infringement? Would that really hold up in court? Letters get published without permission a lot of times by the press, but they probably settle out more often than not.
You can't get Luke or Bill for slander, because obviously the letter was presented in whole, so it's not like it was taken out of context. The words are Mr. Sanders' and they stand for themselves.
I'm just glad that this has been dealt with more civilly than bringing the law into it (so far). I don't think it should reflect on Sanders as an editor, and I'm glad Luke apologized, but I think it's very important to realize that our words carry weight. We should be careful how we use them.
--
Is that you John Wayne? Is this me?
|
|
7/8/2008 12:58:36 PM
|
Luke Jackson
Posts 176
|
I figured out how to delete it. I had to login with my blogger account on OpenID. It's gone.
|
|
pages:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 |
|---|
