Simultaneous Submissions
I said yesterday that I had another question about writing. But since there is not likely to be decisive answer--any more than there is for the first question-- let's just call it a concern, an ethical dilemma. And this will only interest those of you who have, or will publish.
Is it okay to submit the same work simultaneously to two (or more) recipients?
From what I've gleaned reading on the issue and talking to folks, I have come to this incisive conclusion: it depends.
Fewer publishers these days are insisting on "payment on publication" and "no simultaneous submissions". Wait times for responses have increased to six months or more with many book publishers, and if a writer only eats if they publish, this is a long time to play a fish that will spit out the hook two seasons later.
Again, the bottom line is: be honest. If you want to be able to submit to more than one place, chose those who say it is okay. If you've got something out there, tell the publisher. It may be that, even if they say "no" to simultaneous submissions, if the other place where you've shopped your piece is not a direct competitor or is in a different genre of publication, your primary recipient may give the go-ahead anyway.
These are just conclusions I've culled. Here is one good (if dated) discussion on the matter.
If any of you have thoughts, or experiences or horror stories on this topic, I'd love to hear them.
Comments
I'd like to believe that the days of payment upon acceptance have arrived, but alas, that has not been my experience. In fact, mostly my experience has been Payment on Screaming and Threatening. Body and Soul Magazine, formerly New Age Journal, was so bad (like a year after PUBLICATION they still hadn't paid me in full) that I gently suggested to their accountant that the way people who are deeply in debt deal is to pay their creditors a little every month. How much could she pay? $50? $100? Okay.
I feel a lot of sympathy for struggling magazines. It's a tough climate out there. But they've responded by treating their writers WORSE, not better. Read the Contracts Watch newsletters from the American Society of Journalists and Authors. They want to buy our work outright and then make money off it over and over. They want electronic rights without paying anything (though they certainly expect their advertisers to pay THEM.)
The only publishers we owe exclusive first choice to are those that get back to us in six weeks. Otherwise, they can take their chances like the rest of us.
The publishing world is perched on the edge of a vast revolution, brought about by the Internet, by Publishing on Demand, by chain bookstores and changing reading habits. So far, the response has been to try to divide and conquer writers rather than forming partnerships and alliances with them.
I love Writer's Market and Writer's Digest. But its audience is the vast number of would be writers who think there's a formula they can apply to get rich and famous overnight, who think if they just write that novel using the Five Rules for Character Development, Doubleday Dell will pay them a large advance and their career will be made. I've consistently found Writer's Market advice upbeat, encouraging, and slightly tinged with unrealism. Paying on acceptance, "An idea whose time has come!" lacks only a smiley face.
Every writer has got to find a niche between the grumpy jaded losers and the often befuddled winners ("I don't know. I was lucky I guess. The first house I sent it to took it!") Somewhere in the middle, slogging and doggedly writing along, come most of us.
Simultaneous submissions, AND turning a piece of writing around and around for different audiences and different markets, is the only way to make a living. Getting your work out there and keeping it out there is the only way to get published.
Having a blog, thank you very much Fred for yours, is a way around the whole damn system.
Posted by: travelertrish | January 22, 2004 8:30 AM