Rescinsion

There are thorns in everyone’s side in the publishing world. If you send an editor something they don’t need, that’s a bit of a thorn. If an editor rejects you repeatedly, that’s a thorn. If an editor prints you, but fouls up your format or creates typographical errors when inputting your poem into print, that’s a thorn in your side. Between (and including) your pen touching a sheet of paper and a reader perusing your lines in a magazine or book, there is a keen harmony of things that can, at any point, go wrong. These are common, to be expected, and in some cases, necessary. There is one particular thorn I want to touch down on, a purposeful one that is generally known as ‘rescinsion’.

A definition is in order:

Verb: Rescind ri’sind

1. Annul by recalling.
2. Take back

Synonyms: annul, countermand, lift, overturn, repeal, revoke

Similar, but not to be confused with:

Noun: Rescission ri’si-shun

1. (Law) the act of rescinding; the cancellation of a contract and the return of the parties to the positions they would have had if the contract had not been made.

This, in publishing with the small press, is the simple act of taking your work back from an editor. Why would this be necessary? There are many reasons, but with this post, we’re going to focus on the three most common: Tardiness, simultaneous submission, and offense.


TARDINESS

When you submit a handful of poems to a magazine or other such publication, you are giving notice that your poems are available, and that if the editor so likes, they can be printed with the editor’s publication. Most magazines state in their guidelines that submitting work to them is an act of admission that you own the rights to the work you’re submitting, and that you are the creator of them. Many magazines will also state that the work cannot be previously published, nor simultaneously submitted, though some will allow these properties exist with your works and the rights to print therein.

If you send your work, following guidelines, the remainder of the publishing experience with that submission is a matter of waiting, followed by a brief climax, usually in the form of a letter or email stating they will or will not be published. This wait is a thorn in your side, yes, but necessary. Most publications have systems of print and reading submissions that differ from others, and the manner in which an editor and staff may go through this process can change the timespan in which you can expect a response from them. Clerical errors can come into play, or it’s possible they never received your work.

This calls into question the timeframe in which you can expect your response. Most magazines will state their average reply time in their guidelines, usually with a line similar to “We respond in 2-4 months” or another time allotment. What happens, however, if you don’t hear from them in that time? Do you contact them (and risk annoying them, or possibly severing any good tie you might have developed with the publication), wait longer, give up and move on? It depends. As a basic rule, I give a publication four additional months past their maximum stated response time. I don’t let them know I’m doing this, as patience isn’t the sort of thing you should brag about. You either have it or you don’t. After the four months pass, if I still haven’t received any contact with the publication, I send a letter or email, depending on the type of publication and whether they’ve made their email addresses available. This letter tries to establish contact, but does state how long it’s been, and that I’d like an update. I also states that if they don’t at least acknowledge they have the poems within a few more weeks, to consider the poems rescinded from their publication. This is a clear statement of intent, and is more than generous. If I STILL don’t hear from them in the few further weeks my notice gives them, the poems are rescinded (via that notice, which told them what to expect if irresponse continued). I am now free to send them elsewhere, or retire them, whichever I decide is best. It may sound like a rude practice, but if a publication gives a response time of 2 weeks, and 5 months go by, it should be brought to their attention, along with the fact that you’re now thinking of going elsewhere.

There’s a good possibility (and I know this from many experiences rescinding work from a variety of publications) that the magazine in question will have no record of your submission. This is the most common response (beyond no response at all) that I have received. Blame your email service, or the postman, or chaos theory, or even the staff of the magazine, but things went awry and there’s nothing you or they can do about it. Try again or move on. Before rescinding, it’s a wise idea to try and establish some communication with the publication in question. An email every now and then can go a long way in solving a dilemma, but if it doesn’t, rescinsion is your final act of closure.

An example:

“My review is grand and timeless. Over the years, I have printed some of the greatest names in all of Eternia. Running this magazine, however, isn’t nearly as satisfying as I first thought. I need to take a rest and ignore all these submissions for awhile. I’ll just let them accrue and send one of my henchmen to wade through them later.”

“Man, what is the freakin’ deal with The Grayskull Quarterly? Their guidelines gave a response time of two months, max. It’s been eight long months and I haven’t heard anything. Did they get my work? Did they hate it and use it as toilet paper? Did they accept my poems and never tell me? I’m sending an email to inquire, because this is lame.”

“Henchman! You’ve made a gigantic mess of these submissions. They’re everywhere! And our office is such a pig-sty that I’m not even getting to half the emails coming in. People are beginning to rescind their work because of it. Gah, you're a horrible intern! Let’s just throw everything out and start over. Anything we missed will just go away, or iron itself out. Mwa ha.”

“Remember kids, when you run into an obstinate or clerically challenged publication, it’s best to move on and leave it behind you. A well-worded and apologetic rescinsion is a great way to ditch a magazine until it figures out what’s going on. You can always try again another time.”

That’s why rescinsion is needed for tardy editors and staff. There comes a point where your patience wears out, or you simply realize how ridiculous it is that a year has gone by without so much as a word on your three short poems. Now, on to the second reason for rescinsion that we’re covering in this post: Offense.


OFFENSE

I once had an editor at a well-regarded magazine call me on the phone, very long distance, to rewrite a poem I had submitted to the magazine. He didn’t want me to just rewrite it, he wanted to go over the entire poem, word by word with me, offering changes, telling me my work was odd, confusing, and rife with problems. A good portion of the lecture he gave me was based on how the simplest and most obvious words were the best place to start when writing a poem (I probably don’t need to mention that, aside from editing the literary magazine, he was also an english professor). I was quite green when this happened, having only been publishing about a month, and so went along. The sheer oddity of the situation made me let it go on. The conversation rattled on into the realm of downright horror for me. He accused me in the nicest ways of being a dolt and ignoring my readers, of abusing the language and, talent aside, writing in a bizarre fashion. He also stated that he couldn't understand why he liked my poem at all, he just somehow did, and a lot. It was obnoxious. I didn’t know that an editor would do this sort of thing. Did he call every other writer he thought about publishing and lecture them, as well? Shocking, right?

In the end, after two hours (no exaggeration) of telling me he would finally print the poem that I wrote (at that point, he’d written near half of it), we went our separate ways. Since that day, I have always fantasized of going back and telling this man what I would now, which isn’t entirely pleasant.

Rescinding your work from an editor due to offense needs little explanation. If you submit to a publication and the editor or staff decide to rewrite your poem or writing to an extent you won’t tolerate, you rescind the poem. I recently had to rescind from a rather nice publication because of a series of offensive events that began to bog down any trace of respect I had for the publication. They accepted my work, then forgot to print it, then the poetry editor wouldn’t answer my emails, then, when I finally got in touch with the chief editor, I was given an apology and a promise to print in a certain issue. The issue came and went and still, nothing. I contacted again, and was referred to a new poetry editor, who apologized again, and then asked me to make changes to the poem they had accepted two years prior. It was too much. The problem was even worse for me due to my inability to hound people. I’m really not the sort to do it, but had to, and I disliked the scenario much. I rescinded in a cordial way, but will never submit to them again.

Offense is a different beast to various people. Seeing that an editor has rewritten my bio bugs me, but not to the point I need stir up any trouble. However, if you have a carefully constructed work and you’ve placed each word with focus (as you should), having it stepped all over might make you angry enough to rescind. Whether a publication has stepped out of line is wholly up to you, and your level of tolerance. Whether you rescind due to this is also your decision. I advise you tread light. Rescind only when you have to.


Simultaneous Submission

When people use simultaneous submission in their publishing mode, they will often have to contact the editors of various magazines to take back poems that have been accepted elsewhere. My view on simultaneous submission is negative, but if you use it, be prepared to give prospective editors troublesome news with regularity. Taking a poem back, no matter the purpose, is an act of rescinsion.

***

In closing, rescinsion is a useful and, in certain cases, vital procedure. It can be overused, as well as abused. A good tenet when dealing with a troublesome editor or publication is tolerance, but if the trouble evolves into something you’re not willing to navigate, rescinsion is a final outcome that you can control.

While it is best to use patience and understanding with someone holding your work, there are times when you may need to break-it-off and start over. When in doubt, don’t rescind. I’ve sent rescinsions that turned into acceptances of my work, rescinsions that angered editors, and still others that brought heavy and sincere apologies. All of these made me feel like an ass. With rescinsion, keeping a bridge intact bears more couth than burning it, and if you decide you must rescind, use tact and a little diplomacy. It goes much farther than ranting in a letter to someone that doesn’t know you, and more than likely, didn’t know or believe there was a problem.

Simultaneous Submission

Author’s note: This post is designed with poetry submission in mind, though some aspects of it may apply to other forms of writing, especially short stories and the such. Certainly the role of simultaneous submission changes considerably when you’re submitting something as large and time-consuming as a novel or book manuscript, and my opinion of simultaneous submission changes in relation to these circumstances. So, read on and take it as you want, but for the purpose of this article, we’re generally talking poetry and short works.

*********

Through the thousands of magazine guidelines available online and in print, there is strong mention of a process called ‘simultaneous submission’. Some magazines call this multiple submission (though the term ‘multiple submission’ is occasionally also used to describe submitting more than once to a magazine within its given reading period). Simultaneous submission is the act of offering your writing to more than one publisher or editor at the same time. It allows you to send what you consider to be valuable work to several places at once, thus garnering a higher chance of a positive response, or at least, rejections more quickly, giving you more of an idea of what the troubled work needs. This can be a blessing to the poet who has wide aspirations, or not much work, or who has a specifically themed piece that might be used well in several outlets where a submission window is a factor.

The benefit of using simultaneous or multiple submission, for the writer, is unarguable: It increases his/her chance of being published in a very direct, marketed way. Unfortunately, this act can be damaging to some editors, especially when a counted on piece from a submission is retracted close to a deadline, or at all, for that matter.

Let’s run through the process with an example and see where it gets us...

Flagella Garner has aspirations to be a published poet, and she believes she has three good poems to send out. They're entitled: "I Went Wild on Spring Break", "Spring Break Series #2: Pregnancy Test", and "I Think He Told Me His Name was 'Road Bird', But the Song Lyrics on the Napkin He Hid in My Glove Box were Signed 'Shawn'".

Now, Flagella has decided to send these three poems out to the magazine, Youthful Peril Bimonthly, but she thinks they'd also be a good fit at New Mommy Review, as well as at Experience: The Journal of Finding Things Out the Hard Way. She only has the three poems, but each magazine says to send exactly three. What can she do? That’s nine poems Flagella would need to submit to all three magazines. Well, she could send to one, wait until she gets an eventual response, and if it’s a rejection, send the poems on to the next magazine, and so forth, or she could send to all three magazines at once and hope they don’t mind. Well, in this instance, let’s say these three magazines state in their guidelines that they allow simultaneous submissions. Great news. Flagella can simultaneously submit these same three poems to all three magazines. Her odds just jumped up a bit, and someone is bound to accept at least one, right? It will pad her bio and give her a better chance at acceptance, with much more potential for having her work read by someone, which is why people want to print in the first place, to get their work read, yes? Sending these three poems out to a group of magazines, instead of one, will up young Flagella’s chances considerably. This sounds wonderful to her, and in this instance, is surely the best bet for achieving her goal of publishing the poems.

It seems as if things are going to work out for our young poet, Flagella. Or maybe not...

Simultaneous submission is trouble, and perhaps selfish. I wouldn't recommend it. There are rights involved in printing with magazines and anthologies. Rights to print are important and held in serious regard. Flagella can send to all three magazines at once, and hell, she could send the same poems to 12 magazines if she desired (and if they allow it), but she’ll have to let the others know the second one of them sends her an acceptance, or worse, she’ll have to tell the magazine accepting her that she’s holding out for a better magazine if she decides not to take the first acceptance. The rights become an issue (a big one) the minute she fails to do either of these things. Different magazines ask different rights, as well, and she'll have to maneuver her way through them in order to figure out what she can send and what she can't. The process can be a hassle, submissions can become more complicated than necessary, and there’s always the ever-present chance that she’ll piss someone off.

To give you a better idea of what's really going on when you simultaneously submit, with the fronts and well-meaning stripped away, try looking at it with the roles reversed. Imagine, as a poet, getting something like this in the mail from an editor:


Dear poet,

As you'll remember, I accepted two of your poems last month for my upcoming issue of World Renowned Literary Journal. As part of my selection process, I strategically 'over-accept' for each issue. I use twelve poems per issue, but will usually accept around 20, to make sure I have enough at crunch-time, when I head to the printer. I am about to release the issue, and am sorry to tell you that I have my twelve set up now, and yours aren’t in that, so I won't be using your poems as planned. Sorry if I got your hopes up, and please consider your poems freed and no longer of use to me; I've chosen to go with other poets. Thanks for your submisson to World Renowned and sorry to take back the acceptance. No hard feelings, and feel free to submit to us in the future.

-Editor

Yeah, no hard feelings, right?

I've never had an editor do anything this cold and horrible to me, so why would I toss this kind of wreckage on one of them? I wouldn't, and I wouldn't advise you do it, either. Simultaneous submission in poetry is, in effect, over-submitting. There’s also the between-the-lines message inferred when you simultaneously submit. This message is that you don’t care about the magazine enough to send them something that’s solely for their perusal. This message is that you’re only out for the acceptance or credit, and don’t necessarily see yourself as a potential part of that magazine’s ongoing history. This message is that you probably don’t find their magazine any more important or necessary than the next one you have earmarked for the poems. In short, speed-dating. Many editors understand, of course, and are both tolerant and patient about a contributor’s submission practices, but on a certain level, simultaneous submission still bears with it an undercurrent, no matter how courteous it is handled, of disrespect. It can be a rude behaviour and carries with it a selfish vibe. Having to retract your work from an editor because of an acceptance elsewhere is an act of aggressive marketing, no matter how polite an editor may be to you regarding it.

If you're serious about your work and you’re doing you job as a poet, you should have enough material to send to the magazines you like. If you don't have these things, wait until you do. If you’re not serious about your work, wait until you are. Sending various editors the same poems at the same time is an efficient, expedient, helpful, bad idea. It requires more active charting and records, and can turn on you rather quickly. There are magazines that allow it (many, in fact, and some even encourage it), but most of them don't like it when it backfires on them much, especially when rights or money come into play. They're agreeing to allow it because they feel for you. They know you're trying to navigate a large and unusually sporadic gauntlet and they're willing to help, to some degree. Some editors do it when sending out their own work. Regardless, simultaneous submission is still a situation that can easily become a mess, cause you to burn bridges, and anger some editors that were counting on the poem you sent them for an upcoming issue. What happens if two magazines accept a poem? There are ethical choices to make in this situation, but in the end, you’ll most likely have to go with one and ditch the other. How is this going to mutate the now cuckolded and ditched editor’s view of you?

If you have certain works that you feel would be well received at various magazines, the smartest thing to do is go without and just submit within your capability until you've accumulated enough material to send unique and real submissions to the magazines you hope want them. In dating, under normal circumstances, you wouldn’t ask ten people in a room, one at a time, to go out on a date with you within earshot of the others, would you? If so, what the hell for? Upping your chances? Ask yourself this: Chances for what? Certainly not establishing something meaningful. An acceptance, a score? Sure, but to what end? There’s no simple way around it that isn’t damaging: You simply have to try your luck and wait for the rejection. You’re just going to have to wait. Want more poems out at more editors? Write them, then send them. If you get an acceptance, problem solved; you printed the work. If you get a rejection, problem solved; the work is free to revise and send elsewhere.

Now, many people use simultaneous submission to get around the achingly long response times of many magazines. This is understandable, and certainly a simultaneous submission can help you get your work to more publishers in that time span for which you’re waiting. However, in lieu of simultaneous submission, I offer that a well-placed rescinsion when necessary works much more efficiently and is far less confusing. I’ll get into rescinsion in another post, but for now, a ‘rescinsion’ is when you contact an editor and take your poems back because an irresponsibly undue amount of time has passed and you still haven’t heard back from them. This shouldn’t be done lightly. When I say ‘irresponsibly undue’, I mean that the magazine is out of line, and usually by leaps and bounds. Basically, if a publication states they received your poems and that they’ll respond in up to 6 weeks, and then eight months go by, and they aren’t answering your emails, they deserve to lose the poems. But that’s for another post. I only mention rescinsion as a useful and cleaner alternative to using simultaneous submission in the solving of long waits.

While the process does abound in the small press, I’d advise you to think it over before sending your work to multiple editors at a given time. Instead of debating how to out-maneuver the publishing process, and how to get a small number of poems out to more editors, you might want to ask yourself why you don’t have enough writing to avoid having to ponder these things. Again, you’ll have enough material to avoid simultaneously submitting if you're serious about what you do.

In conclusion, use simultaneous submission if you want to, but bear in mind the trouble you can cause, and the variety of bridges you can burn simply by losing track of who you sent what. Ask yourself this: Is getting a few more acceptances here and there worth pissing all over the longstanding conventions of the only place left that actually wants to print you and your ilk, for free, and often unprofitably?

**************

The following are some various viewpoints from several sources on the subject, as well as some information taken from guidelines of various magazine that use poetry. Some are fine with simultaneous submission, some discourage it, and some downright hate it. If anything, this should give you an idea that simultaneous submission bears with it some controversy, and the tolerance of it seems to vary nearly by press. Brackets are mine.


Here’s an approval of it from the submission guidelines at Pemmican Press:

“It is indeed difficult for poets to send out poems, wait weeks, perhaps months on end for a reply that, odds are, will be negative--and then have to start the entire submission process all over again. Therefore multiple submissions [at Pemmican] are understood and encouraged.”

Here’s a no-no, with the punishment, from the submission guidelines at Toasted-Cheese Literary Journal:

“We do not accept simultaneous submissions. Withdrawing a submission because it has been published elsewhere will disqualify you from future submissions.”

Several links to other articles of varying views on this subject:

http://clairelight.typepad.com/seelight/2006/03/simultaneous_su.html

http://www.writing-world.com/basics/simsubs.shtml

http://www.star-dot-star.co.uk/multi.htm

http://ezinearticles.com/?Are-Simultaneous-Submissions-a-Good-Idea?&id=455928

http://www.writehabit.org/journalfaq.html

http://www.marketlist.com/articles/artsimul.asp

An interesting article that also discusses a bit of rumored history behind how simultaneous submissions first began (purportedly Norman Mailer started it):

http://www.theroseandthornezine.com/Article/17SimultaneousSubs.html

Comics writers take note.

Jesse Hamm has some interesting (though not entirely convincing) things to say about why comics writers should step off and let the artist draw. I'm not sold on his line of action "rule," his ideas on visual cliche's seem a little too vague, I kind of like the "archie andrews two-face" and a few of his examples are really worse-case-scenario kind of things where the artist should just call the writer up and call them names. Hamm's always pretty insightful though, when it comes to the technical conventions of comics and it would do everyone well to read his post and mull it over.

I'll have some of my own opinions on the collaboration process for comics in a day or so.