Rejection letters: confidential personal communication or part of a publication’s public face?
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, July 9th, 2008 at 8:41 am and is filed under Economics, Madness, Writing.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.
I think part of a publication’s public face, personally. I’d be a bit disconcerted if someone published a rejection letter of mine (in print or online), but as is true for all mail, once it’s sent, it belongs to the recipient, to do with as they will.
So don’t write anything in a rejection letter you wouldn’t be comfortable having read out to a convention room full of mocking writers.
Mary Anne, only the physical copy of the letter belongs to the recipient. The content belongs to the author and should not be published without permission.
Yeah, publishing other people’s email isn’t strictly legal, though I used to have a disclaimer on an old website that said essentially “all email sent to [blank] address is considered our property and may be published as we see fit”. Whether or not that would actually hold up in court is another question.
The bottom line, though, is I’m not sure most editors would care if you published their rejection letters unless they were particularly embarrassing. In general, why would they care?
When I wrote rejection letters, I was always very aware that my actions were also how that writer would view the entire magazine–right or wrong, how they saw my professionalism would color how they saw the professionalism of the rest of the staff and the magazine itself. I still do that when I look at markets.
So, if I got a rejection letter that egregiously overstepped the implied boundaries of etiquette–particularly if it was a new or new-to-me market–I probably would share it, in part because I think that other writers should be educated about the markets they’re submitting to. I mean, for example, if I’d submitted a speculative story about women’s suffrage to Deb Layne, and ended up getting a rejection that talked about how uppity women are*, I’d want to make sure that at least my friends were aware of that, so they could make educated decisions to continue supporting her(or explain to me that really, she’s not a bad person, she just had a bad experience with women voting once). Depending on how inappropriate it was, I might widen the group I shared the info with, conceivably to the size of the internet.
*hypothetical situation: I have no idea what Deb’s feelings towards uppity women are, though I suspect she’s pro-uppitiness.
Part of a magazine’s professional face, which may not be entirely public, but isn’t (in my mind) necessarily subject to confidentiality.
I mean, to step away from rejection letters for a minute: after we accept a story for publication at SH, we go through an editing process with the author, all of which takes place in email. While the process is usually pretty straightforward, sometimes it gets very involved. The emails that I write to authors during the editing process are certainly not documents I’m intending for public consumption, and yeah, if someone went and posted large sections of my story comments I would probably be taken aback. But at the same time, I would never -ever- say anything in those emails that I wouldn’t later be willing to stand by. Those aren’t personal emails, they’re professional ones. If I said something offensive or stupid in those, I would for damn sure not be surprised if someone called me out on it publicly.
When I’m acting as an agent of my publication, I’m very aware of the fact that everything I do reflects back on how people will perceive the magazine. This is true whether I’m writing a rejection letter or a plea for fund-drive donations. I’m not going to say that I’ve -never- crossed a line in terms of my public conduct in this sense, but I’ve tried really hard to make those slip-ups rare.
Then again, I haven’t built a professional reputation around being a jerk. If I had, I’m sure I’d have a different set of calculations about what constitutes acceptable behavior.
I agree with Mary Anne and Susan from a professional and practical point of view. I view my rejection letters to authors as professional correspondence that represent the magazine as much as they represent me. I don’t think I’d be embarrassed to see any of my letters in public (well, except for the typos), and while I’m not currently giving permission to anyone to publish them, I’ve never assumed that some of the letters wouldn’t show up online from time to time. I just think it’s important to note that in most circumstances the content of a letter does belong to its author and shouldn’t be published without the author’s permission.
Oh, sure! In my mind, “is this legal?” is a different question from “is this a good idea?”, and they’re both distinct from “should I expect that this will eventually happen to me?” In terms of republishing correspondence, personal or professional, the answer to the first question is (if I understand correctly) usually “no”, the answer to the last question is usually “yes”, and the middle question is a vast range of grey area.
Copyright in a letter belongs to its author. Confidentiality about its content, however, can’t be unilaterally imposed. Absent a prior agreement, I can’t send you a letter full of spluttering expressions of my hatred for Belgians and at the same time require you to not tell anybody. Indeed, you are entitled to tell anyone you like. You’re probably even legally safe in quoting from my letter in order to back up your assertions. Copyright isn’t a charter of infinite privilege for its holder.
I’m going to have to disagree with Sheila (and Gardner), in that rejection letters are part of a publication’s professional face, particularly in this day and age, and that at least when I issue them that I don’t care if they are or are not shared, publicly or privately, because what matters is the criticism. That criticism should hold up in either arena, and an editor should not be afraid or embarrassed regarding them. Mind you, in this case, the rejection letter was unusual enough certainly to warrant public comment, as it does reflect on the magazine and editor, and authors have the right to discuss those issues whenever, and wherever, they feel like it. They are your suppliers, after all :p
Bottom line: to me rejection letters are not confidential, and I find it disheartening and alarming that editors are actually threatening authors, over this. That’s great customer service, there, shifting the blame on writers, instead of: “I’m sorry, I said a few things in my letter that I didn’t mean, or that I phrased poorly, and I’ll try not to do it, again.” End of story, end of controversy.
I agree with those who say that, while seeing a rejection or other business correspondence of mine online would give me a start, I would not write anything in such a letter that I would be embarrassed to have other people see.
Let’s break it down — the only reason why anyone is freaking out and getting upset over this Sanders thing is because his business correspondance revealed something unsavory about him personally. And it seems to me that anyone who feels that flutter in the stomach or chest upon facing the possibility of having their rejections shared on the Internet might be feeling like their rejections have the potential to reveal something unsavory, too. This is more what some find objectionable than the mere sharing of a rejection letter.
Had the OP shared a letter that said “Good writing, but not for us” no one would care. In fact, ever since I started hanging out with writers online I’ve seen rejections posted, in whole or in part, usually in the context of: “It’s sad I got rejected, but there are the nice things the editor said.” I’m sure many editors have seen this. Yet before now I don’t remember people freaking out and talking about lawsuits.
If you’re concerned about writers sharing their rejections with other writers and how that might reflect on you, I suggest you not say something racist or sexist or homophobic or, in general, bigoted. That way this problem won’t come up for you.
I’ve seen rejection letters of mine appear on the web, and it always throws me, a little. I get unhappy and defensive about it, and start thinking things like “How dare they! That was a private letter! They shouldn’t be posting it publicly!”
And then I remind myself that different people have different ideas about these things, and that anything I write in email (unless it’s to a friend and clearly marked as private) may well end up appearing online, and that I didn’t say anything I didn’t believe in those rejection notes anyway. (For example, we consciously chose to make our form rejections fairly nice, because as a writer I’ve seen too many form rejections that seemed designed to upset me.)
So … I personally find it offputting and a little annoying when people post rejection letters I’ve sent, and would personally prefer that people not do that; but I’ve come to expect that it’ll happen now and then, and (like Susan said) I try not to say anything in editorial correspondence that I wouldn’t be willing to stand behind publicly if I had to. Though I’m sure there are things I’ve said during the editorial process for various stories that I would be embarrassed by.
…Re the legality issue, to elaborate slightly on what PNH said: Note that describing a copyrighted work is perfectly legal (as long as you’re not paraphrasing it too closely). So on the legal side of the question, even in circumstances where it would be illegal to publish an entire letter, summarizing the letter in public and commenting on it is quite legal. (But yeah, what Susan said about the distinction between the separate axes of “legal,” “acceptable,” and “likely.”)
…Heh — I read your question and formulated my response before I realized that the question was in reference to a specific incident. I’m refraining from comment on the specific incident; the above are just my thoughts about the general question.
What a wonderful conversation. I wish it were taking place at the Asimov’s site, which sorely needs this insight and thoughtful commentary. Sheila, I do wish you had said there what you said here.
William, I wouldn’t go near those boards if you paid me a million dollars. the toxicity over there is way above my limit. This is true for several people I know and probably many people I don’t. The rampant idiocy coupled with racism and sexism and whatever else doesn’t make it, for me, a place I want to carry on a conversation. Though when I do happen to poke my head over there because of some new brouhaha, I’m usually pleased to see you holding down the fort as the voice of reason.
Tempest, thanks. It is astounding and frightening what one runs into there at times, but most folks on the site are thoughtful and informed. The negativity does such a disservice to the magazine.
Nick, I fondly recall your “gift” to me following submission of one of my stories. I left a bit bruised, but it was smart advice. Hmm. Maybe I should post it . . .
I agree with Patrick that there’s no legal reason one can’t paraphrase and reveal the information contained in a letter. Certainly, if someone finds something objectionable in one of my letters, they are quite free to discuss the subject and reference the letter. Based on these letters, my correspondents are also free to state whether they think I am witty and insightful or boring and obtuse. I thought of mentioning that earlier, but I was mainly focused on the copyright issues that came up in the context of publishing all or most of a letter without getting the author’s permission. I think the copyright information about letters is interesting, and worth discussing in our internet era. Our concept of privacy seems to be changing, and maybe the laws will eventually change, too.
By the way Sean, I don’t think you’re really disagreeing with me. I’m just stating what the copyright laws are. I can think that it’s okay to go sixty miles an hour in a thirty-mile-an hour zone, but that doesn’t mean the court will agree with me.
The funny thing is, I don’t think I can be as generous to the public as Nick because I don’t believe I even own the rights to my own rejection letters. It’s always been my understanding that the rights to anything I write as an employee of a publishing house actually belong to my employer.
The funny thing is, I don’t think I can be as generous to the public as Nick because I don’t believe I even own the rights to my own rejection letters. It’s always been my understanding that the rights to anything I write as an employee of a publishing house actually belong to my employer.
One of the many reasons I try to avoid the devil employment. Needless to say, at the New Gig, it’ll be forms all the way to minimize the amount of stuff Pikachu will own.
I remember the folks at Baen’s Universe being similarly upset when I shared chunks of their “guy’s beer money” form rejection on the blog. But it did get them to rethink it and have a look at what it is they were saying.
Never say anything in correspondence that you wouldn’t share in person.
It was considered good form to return love letters at the end of relationships, too, for similar sorts of reasons. “Good form” but not legally mandated.
The thing with blogs is, we still think of them as “hey, I’m going to share this letter with a few good friends” or “hey, I’m going to post this on the bulletin board at my writers’ group.”
Sure, it’s good form not to post them, but you should be sending out all of your correspondence in writerly circles with the assumption that someone, somewhere, is probably going to see it. Many someones. Don’t write something down that you wouldn’t stand by later.
Particularly in the case of form rejections, I don’t have much morale problem quoting from chunks of letters. Particularly if you’re just quoting for the sake of discussion, I think that’s legally “fair use.” (as discussed above by others)
Sheila, thanks for clarifying my understanding of the legal issue — sorry I was wrong about that and spread my wrongness to the world Sigh.
But that said, I stand by my original point that editorial letters are part of my professional face, and that I think I should conduct myself as such in them that I’d be okay with having them summarized, quoted, etc. in public.
As PNH pointed out, copyright isn’t proof against transmission. The recipient of a nasty rejection letter could laminate it, punch two holes on the top, and wear it around his or her neck as a medallion to DragonCon.
It’s whether or not one has the right to produce and make public copies not whether or not the contents can be shared. Think of all the rejection letters and other editorial correspondence in universities right now, amongst collections of papers.
[...] can spend the next week quibbling over whether or not rejections are private correspondence and whether it’s unprofessional to post one to public or private spaces. (I don’t [...]
I’m kind of startled to be having this conversation at all. I know this is probably silly of me (and I know nothing about the legalities of the situation), but–I’ve been seeing rejection letters posted online as long as I’ve been reading writing-related blogs and communities. Not a long time compared to many folks, but still, that’s 7-8 years of precedent. I expect the rejections that I write to be posted. Not each individual one, but in general? Yes, sure.
As such, a big yes to this:
>But at the same time, I would never -ever- say anything in those emails that I wouldn’t later be willing to stand by…I’m not going to say that I’ve -never- crossed a line in terms of my public conduct in this sense, but I’ve tried really hard to make those slip-ups rare.
And forget the rejections for a second. This is a rule that I try to apply to–well–_life._ I’m not always successful, but in general, if I’m not basically okay with something getting out, I figure I ought not be sharing it, period. It may not prevent the occasional nasty surprise. Does help me get through ‘em intact, though.
Sheila: You’re probably right, that we’re pretty much on the same page. I think I was kneejerking with regards to one or two editors actually advocating that either 1) people go after authors that post rejection letters or 2) threatening authors that they might be banned . . . which to me is unacceptable and thoughtless behaviour.
Yes, Sean, I am by no means advocating that anyone go after someone for posting correspondence on the internet. I’m just pointing out that someone could, and that we should all be aware of that. That doesn’t mean the recipient can’t make a personal decision that other issues, such as expressions of racism and discrimination and other forms of social injustice, override the law. I just think the decision should be made with knowledge of copyright law rather than without.
My presumption with rejections is that they can and often will get passed along. I have seen multiple writer’s boards and online crit groups, where rejections get posted word for word as part of the process of sharing market news. Often editor rejections are quoted at crit groups as though they were the Word of God.
Rejections and submissions are professional correspondence and should be treated as such, not used as a way to engage in winkwinknudgery directed at minorities. I wouldn’t say anything in a rejection letter that I wouldn’t be prepared to see all over the Internet.
While some fiction markets really are corporate, most in the sf/f/h world are just some person’s (or persons’) pet project — which contributes to giving the whole environment of genre publishing an informal feel. This gets amped up further because just about all the major editors in the field, corporately employed or not, are readily available for chat on the web. In that environment, I think it’s extremely naive for an editor to assume a note sent to a contributor will stay confidential, regardless of whether or not it legally should, regardless of whether or not the note is deemed “official correspondence.” All someone has to do is click “Forward.” That’s just today’s reality.
[...] On The Asimov’s Boards and Elsewhere… We can spend the next week quibbling over whether or not rejections are private correspondence and whether it’s unprofessional to post one to public or private spaces. (I don’t believe it is [...]
This entire conversation has been very illuminating for me. I have tried to deal with the legality of my posting of the email on my blog. There appears to be a split of opinion, though, on the ethics and propriety of my posting the rejection.
David, your friend Tempest is carte blanche accussing Gardner Dozois, someone who put your story in his YBSF, of improper behavior.
Course I’m sure Susan will tell me it is a comprehension problem.
You going to let that shit slide, pal? I can see going after Sanders for the sheet head bit (hardly the worst term he could have used) but she is chasing around after Gardner (yet Sheila got promoted to ‘Exempt’ even though she uttered the same opinion, which is sexism, last I checked) but I find attacking Gardner to be completely indefensible.
Or maybe I should come out to Lawrence and ask your opinion in person.
SF Murphy, I believe that David has indicated here that he will be offline until Monday, and therefore cannot reasonably be challenged for not responding to anything said here in the intervening time. Given that he will likely be working on Monday and is in a different time zone than his destination, it’s probably more reasonable to wait until Tuesday before expecting a response.
Damn. Too bad I’m working Saturday or I could just simply drive out to Lawrence and ask him in person.
Well, we’ll just have to wait until he gets back from Berekley on the Plains (that, my friends, is what everyone else in Kansas and Most Missourians call Lawrence).
Meanwhile, since David is out, what about the rest of you? Pulling a page from Tempest’s playbook, I am going to take silence as carte blanche consent for her accussing Gardner of being a racist, sexist, bigot.
Sanders may have made a mistake but I don’t see where Gardner gets to take a thermonuclear sabot round because he dared to disagree with her opinion, especially when Shelia effectively said the same thing and BEFORE Gardner did.
What the hell are you talking about? Tempest said the atmosphere on the Asimov boards was unpleasant. How is that an attack on Gardner? Have you ever tried to run an open internet forum? It is actually very difficult to keep trolls away.
What I see there is wondering rather than accusation (along with an, “Oops, I was wrong” ETA), but I am not Murphy (happily for me), and perhaps he sees something else.
Personally, I’m most amused by the idea that our friends are not allowed to dislike/talk smack about people we like/respect/work with/whatever.
Just to avoid this sort of confusion later on if ever it comes up in my journal, I hereby give all of my friends–internet and otherwise–permission to dislike ANYONE, even if I love them madly and am getting married to them in a lavish rockstar wedding. (Just please tell me before you stand up in the middle of the wedding with a list of complaints.) In exchange, I reserve for myself the right to make my own decision, based on the source material itself, and not simply other people’s interpretations of it.
You know, I wouldn’t have thought that was the sort of thing you had to spell out to people.
She’s making an out of the corner of her mouth accusation, Hannah. If a coworker did that to me, I’d call them on it.
Gets even better over at Tempest’s place. She said, “Well, Shelia probably wouldn’t say anything untoward but I’d not give Gardner the same benefit of the doubt.”
Paraphrased, of course.
Tempest should do more than just wonder. If she has got some dirt on Gardner, maybe she needs to bring it up rather than playing duck and cover.
“Ah, well that makes me sad because I don’t want to have bad thoughts about Sheila. then again, I guess I’m not prone to assume she’s said something in a rejection letter she would be ashamed of if brought to light. With Gardner I wouldn’t make that assumption.”
I still fail to see the bit where she’s “accussing Gardner of being a racist, sexist, bigot”. Possibly because it doesn’t exist, but hey, if not, I’m willing to be educated. Please provide a quote (an actual quote, not a paraphrase) and a link to same.
I do see that, for reasons not clear to me (because she doesn’t say and because I haven’t discussed it with her), she’s apparently less willing to give Gardner the benefit of the doubt on this than she is willing to give Sheila same. (Please note that “less willing” is not necessarily “unwilling.”)
That could be because she considers Gardner to be a racist, sexist bigot. It could be because Tempest herself is making a sexist assumption. Or it could be because he kicked her puppy once, or because Sheila came to her last birthday party and bought a swell gift, or because she flipped a coin and Gardner came up heads today.
If it’s the first (of which I realize you’re convinced), then I’d want to see her evidence for that belief before I decided whether or not she has a point. If it’s the second (which I realize you’re also convinced), then I would indeed disapprove and would say as much. If it’s the third, then I’d adjust my opinion depending on the actual circumstance (puppy-kicking matters more to me than coin-flipping, frex) and on the other available evidence.
But again, it seems to me that Tempest is not so much the one making obviously inflated accusations here. Thermonuclear sabot round, indeed.
Oh, never mind. I just noticed that you apparently have a little personal crusade going on against Tempest. I’m okay with engaging you on the more general crusades for as long as doing so remains entertaining, but I’m not interested in participating in this sort of thing. I’m done here, and sorry for helping him further his drama in your comments, Moles.
If one were to accept Murphy’s reading of Tempest’s comments (which I don’t, necessarily–I haven’t had time for a close reading of the discussion in question, so he might be right, but given how clearly he’s demonstrated the weakness of his document analysis skills in the past, I wouldn’t trust his analysis of a picture book, much less an emotionally-charged debate), it’s still not an equivalent situation. If Murphy’s right (see previous disclaimer) then it means that Tempest called Gardner a person of poor character, bascially?
Which might, if she said that and if she’s wrong, mean that she’s a jerk. A jerk is still not the same thing as a bigot, not by orders of magnitude.
If someone dropped into the rumor mill that you are racist (and whatever else I might think, I don’t think you have that problem) would you just let it roll around unchecked?
If it were me, at my job, I would not. I’d confront the person and demand some proof. Either that or I’d make it pretty clear they’d better stop the “wondering out loud” or “just saying” or whatever you want to call it.
She said it. And what kills me is that because I’m calling her on it, that somehow magically makes me a bigot.
So let me see if I get this straight.
Question an African American woman who makes a baseless accusation and regardless of whether she is right or wrong, that person who did the questioning is a bigot.
That is how I see it.
Folks, I’ll be honest. I really don’t care what her ethnic background is or anyone elses.
But taking shots at Gardner isn’t right.
I’ve got to admit, I like how the excuses are rolling down the path now.
Hannah wrote:
That could be because she considers Gardner to be a racist, sexist bigot. It could be because Tempest herself is making a sexist assumption. Or it could be because he kicked her puppy once, or because Sheila came to her last birthday party and bought a swell gift, or because she flipped a coin and Gardner came up heads today.
I’m sorry, this isn’t the first time she has made comments like this. The sort of kinda sorta wondering but never really crossing the line sorta comments. We all know exactly what is going on and more to the point as she has backed down (only to a very minimal degree) SHE knows she did something wrong.
More important than the copyright issue (although I still think it’s shaky ground legally) is the issue of professional ethics. I would not make public the content of a rejection slip sent to me as a writer, a piece of professional business correspondence, because it would not be acting professionally to do–similarly, I would not make public a submission letter sent to me as an editor by a writer (and, believe me, there are plenty that would be highly embarassing in any of dozens of different ways to the writer of the letter), because it would be a violation of professional ethics to do so. It’s business correspondence, and to do that, from either side, is just not acting professionally, and acting in a professional manner is something that has always been very important to me, as I have a horror of violating professional ethics in any way. Similarly, I like to think I’m not seething with racial hatreds, but even if I were, I wouldn’t put any expression of them into a rejection letter; that’s acting unprofessionally as well.
But if it’s primarily a question of ethics, then it seems to me that the ethical obligation to act as a whistle-blower might trump any consideration of professional ethics–for example in the case where one finds oneself the recipient of a piece professional correspondence which happens to be thoroughly saturated with racial/ethnic epithets.
S.F. Murphy wrote: Meanwhile, since David is out, what about the rest of you? Pulling a page from Tempest’s playbook, I am going to take silence as carte blanche consent for her accussing Gardner of being a racist, sexist, bigot.
I dunno about Gardner, but I’m happy to call Murphy a racist, sexist bigot. And I barely know anything about this person, but what I’ve read so far is just dripping with privilege.
Each must decide where to draw the line in professional ethics, on their own. That’s why they’re “ethics,” and not “laws.” The only exception I can think of for myself for the rule against making private professional correspondence public is if the letter contained specific terroristic threats of some sort–”This friday, I’m going to walk into New York University and shoot everybody there.”–and even then, I would notify the proper authorities of such threats, not post them on the internet. (This has actually happened a few times; Scott Edleman received serious-sounding death threats in response to his rejection of a story a few years back, and quite properly informed the FBI, who took action.) There are few other circumstances I can think of that would make me violate professional ethics in this regard, though.
Gardner, thanks for the thoughtful and level-headed comments.
Murphy, if you’ve got something useful to say on the original subject, that’s fine, but take your personal problems with individuals in the field somewhere else.
[...] been said about William Sanders’ behaviour recently; start here, then see here, here, here, here, and here for discussion and further links. But I do want to highlight the latest iteration, [...]
July 9th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I think part of a publication’s public face, personally. I’d be a bit disconcerted if someone published a rejection letter of mine (in print or online), but as is true for all mail, once it’s sent, it belongs to the recipient, to do with as they will.
So don’t write anything in a rejection letter you wouldn’t be comfortable having read out to a convention room full of mocking writers.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Neither. Is clearly communication from space aliens turning you into a self-denoating bomb to, um, go destroy things.
Or something.
What? It’s early. I’m not used to awakeness at this hour.
July 9th, 2008 at 11:48 am
You know, that would explain some things.
July 9th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Mary Anne, only the physical copy of the letter belongs to the recipient. The content belongs to the author and should not be published without permission.
July 9th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Yeah, publishing other people’s email isn’t strictly legal, though I used to have a disclaimer on an old website that said essentially “all email sent to [blank] address is considered our property and may be published as we see fit”. Whether or not that would actually hold up in court is another question.
The bottom line, though, is I’m not sure most editors would care if you published their rejection letters unless they were particularly embarrassing. In general, why would they care?
July 9th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Why not be both?
July 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Because confidential and public are disjoint sets?
July 9th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
When I wrote rejection letters, I was always very aware that my actions were also how that writer would view the entire magazine–right or wrong, how they saw my professionalism would color how they saw the professionalism of the rest of the staff and the magazine itself. I still do that when I look at markets.
So, if I got a rejection letter that egregiously overstepped the implied boundaries of etiquette–particularly if it was a new or new-to-me market–I probably would share it, in part because I think that other writers should be educated about the markets they’re submitting to. I mean, for example, if I’d submitted a speculative story about women’s suffrage to Deb Layne, and ended up getting a rejection that talked about how uppity women are*, I’d want to make sure that at least my friends were aware of that, so they could make educated decisions to continue supporting her(or explain to me that really, she’s not a bad person, she just had a bad experience with women voting once). Depending on how inappropriate it was, I might widen the group I shared the info with, conceivably to the size of the internet.
*hypothetical situation: I have no idea what Deb’s feelings towards uppity women are, though I suspect she’s pro-uppitiness.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Part of a magazine’s professional face, which may not be entirely public, but isn’t (in my mind) necessarily subject to confidentiality.
I mean, to step away from rejection letters for a minute: after we accept a story for publication at SH, we go through an editing process with the author, all of which takes place in email. While the process is usually pretty straightforward, sometimes it gets very involved. The emails that I write to authors during the editing process are certainly not documents I’m intending for public consumption, and yeah, if someone went and posted large sections of my story comments I would probably be taken aback. But at the same time, I would never -ever- say anything in those emails that I wouldn’t later be willing to stand by. Those aren’t personal emails, they’re professional ones. If I said something offensive or stupid in those, I would for damn sure not be surprised if someone called me out on it publicly.
When I’m acting as an agent of my publication, I’m very aware of the fact that everything I do reflects back on how people will perceive the magazine. This is true whether I’m writing a rejection letter or a plea for fund-drive donations. I’m not going to say that I’ve -never- crossed a line in terms of my public conduct in this sense, but I’ve tried really hard to make those slip-ups rare.
Then again, I haven’t built a professional reputation around being a jerk. If I had, I’m sure I’d have a different set of calculations about what constitutes acceptable behavior.
July 9th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Whether sharing letters and emails is legal or not and in what circumstances is beside the point to me. It’s tacky. And rude. But mostly tacky.
And for the record? Celia is correct: I am *very* pro uppity.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
I agree with Mary Anne and Susan from a professional and practical point of view. I view my rejection letters to authors as professional correspondence that represent the magazine as much as they represent me. I don’t think I’d be embarrassed to see any of my letters in public (well, except for the typos), and while I’m not currently giving permission to anyone to publish them, I’ve never assumed that some of the letters wouldn’t show up online from time to time. I just think it’s important to note that in most circumstances the content of a letter does belong to its author and shouldn’t be published without the author’s permission.
July 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Oh, sure! In my mind, “is this legal?” is a different question from “is this a good idea?”, and they’re both distinct from “should I expect that this will eventually happen to me?” In terms of republishing correspondence, personal or professional, the answer to the first question is (if I understand correctly) usually “no”, the answer to the last question is usually “yes”, and the middle question is a vast range of grey area.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:08 am
Copyright in a letter belongs to its author. Confidentiality about its content, however, can’t be unilaterally imposed. Absent a prior agreement, I can’t send you a letter full of spluttering expressions of my hatred for Belgians and at the same time require you to not tell anybody. Indeed, you are entitled to tell anyone you like. You’re probably even legally safe in quoting from my letter in order to back up your assertions. Copyright isn’t a charter of infinite privilege for its holder.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:10 am
I’m going to have to disagree with Sheila (and Gardner), in that rejection letters are part of a publication’s professional face, particularly in this day and age, and that at least when I issue them that I don’t care if they are or are not shared, publicly or privately, because what matters is the criticism. That criticism should hold up in either arena, and an editor should not be afraid or embarrassed regarding them. Mind you, in this case, the rejection letter was unusual enough certainly to warrant public comment, as it does reflect on the magazine and editor, and authors have the right to discuss those issues whenever, and wherever, they feel like it. They are your suppliers, after all :p
Bottom line: to me rejection letters are not confidential, and I find it disheartening and alarming that editors are actually threatening authors, over this. That’s great customer service, there, shifting the blame on writers, instead of: “I’m sorry, I said a few things in my letter that I didn’t mean, or that I phrased poorly, and I’ll try not to do it, again.” End of story, end of controversy.
Is it really that hard to say I’m sorry?
July 10th, 2008 at 1:10 am
I agree with those who say that, while seeing a rejection or other business correspondence of mine online would give me a start, I would not write anything in such a letter that I would be embarrassed to have other people see.
Let’s break it down — the only reason why anyone is freaking out and getting upset over this Sanders thing is because his business correspondance revealed something unsavory about him personally. And it seems to me that anyone who feels that flutter in the stomach or chest upon facing the possibility of having their rejections shared on the Internet might be feeling like their rejections have the potential to reveal something unsavory, too. This is more what some find objectionable than the mere sharing of a rejection letter.
Had the OP shared a letter that said “Good writing, but not for us” no one would care. In fact, ever since I started hanging out with writers online I’ve seen rejections posted, in whole or in part, usually in the context of: “It’s sad I got rejected, but there are the nice things the editor said.” I’m sure many editors have seen this. Yet before now I don’t remember people freaking out and talking about lawsuits.
If you’re concerned about writers sharing their rejections with other writers and how that might reflect on you, I suggest you not say something racist or sexist or homophobic or, in general, bigoted. That way this problem won’t come up for you.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Ditto Susan, pretty much.
I’ve seen rejection letters of mine appear on the web, and it always throws me, a little. I get unhappy and defensive about it, and start thinking things like “How dare they! That was a private letter! They shouldn’t be posting it publicly!”
And then I remind myself that different people have different ideas about these things, and that anything I write in email (unless it’s to a friend and clearly marked as private) may well end up appearing online, and that I didn’t say anything I didn’t believe in those rejection notes anyway. (For example, we consciously chose to make our form rejections fairly nice, because as a writer I’ve seen too many form rejections that seemed designed to upset me.)
So … I personally find it offputting and a little annoying when people post rejection letters I’ve sent, and would personally prefer that people not do that; but I’ve come to expect that it’ll happen now and then, and (like Susan said) I try not to say anything in editorial correspondence that I wouldn’t be willing to stand behind publicly if I had to. Though I’m sure there are things I’ve said during the editorial process for various stories that I would be embarrassed by.
…Re the legality issue, to elaborate slightly on what PNH said: Note that describing a copyrighted work is perfectly legal (as long as you’re not paraphrasing it too closely). So on the legal side of the question, even in circumstances where it would be illegal to publish an entire letter, summarizing the letter in public and commenting on it is quite legal. (But yeah, what Susan said about the distinction between the separate axes of “legal,” “acceptable,” and “likely.”)
…Heh — I read your question and formulated my response before I realized that the question was in reference to a specific incident. I’m refraining from comment on the specific incident; the above are just my thoughts about the general question.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:39 am
What a wonderful conversation. I wish it were taking place at the Asimov’s site, which sorely needs this insight and thoughtful commentary. Sheila, I do wish you had said there what you said here.
Best to all.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:48 am
William, I wouldn’t go near those boards if you paid me a million dollars. the toxicity over there is way above my limit. This is true for several people I know and probably many people I don’t. The rampant idiocy coupled with racism and sexism and whatever else doesn’t make it, for me, a place I want to carry on a conversation. Though when I do happen to poke my head over there because of some new brouhaha, I’m usually pleased to see you holding down the fort as the voice of reason.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:05 am
The rejection letters I write are a gift given to the would-be contributor, and I treat them as such. They belong to the recipient.
Less generous editors may of course exercise their legal rights as they wish. I’ll just lower my personal opinion of them accordingly.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:16 am
Tempest, thanks. It is astounding and frightening what one runs into there at times, but most folks on the site are thoughtful and informed. The negativity does such a disservice to the magazine.
Nick, I fondly recall your “gift” to me following submission of one of my stories. I left a bit bruised, but it was smart advice. Hmm. Maybe I should post it . . .
July 10th, 2008 at 3:07 am
I agree with Patrick that there’s no legal reason one can’t paraphrase and reveal the information contained in a letter. Certainly, if someone finds something objectionable in one of my letters, they are quite free to discuss the subject and reference the letter. Based on these letters, my correspondents are also free to state whether they think I am witty and insightful or boring and obtuse. I thought of mentioning that earlier, but I was mainly focused on the copyright issues that came up in the context of publishing all or most of a letter without getting the author’s permission. I think the copyright information about letters is interesting, and worth discussing in our internet era. Our concept of privacy seems to be changing, and maybe the laws will eventually change, too.
By the way Sean, I don’t think you’re really disagreeing with me. I’m just stating what the copyright laws are. I can think that it’s okay to go sixty miles an hour in a thirty-mile-an hour zone, but that doesn’t mean the court will agree with me.
The funny thing is, I don’t think I can be as generous to the public as Nick because I don’t believe I even own the rights to my own rejection letters. It’s always been my understanding that the rights to anything I write as an employee of a publishing house actually belong to my employer.
July 10th, 2008 at 3:27 am
The funny thing is, I don’t think I can be as generous to the public as Nick because I don’t believe I even own the rights to my own rejection letters. It’s always been my understanding that the rights to anything I write as an employee of a publishing house actually belong to my employer.
One of the many reasons I try to avoid the devil employment. Needless to say, at the New Gig, it’ll be forms all the way to minimize the amount of stuff Pikachu will own.
July 10th, 2008 at 10:06 am
I remember the folks at Baen’s Universe being similarly upset when I shared chunks of their “guy’s beer money” form rejection on the blog. But it did get them to rethink it and have a look at what it is they were saying.
Never say anything in correspondence that you wouldn’t share in person.
It was considered good form to return love letters at the end of relationships, too, for similar sorts of reasons. “Good form” but not legally mandated.
The thing with blogs is, we still think of them as “hey, I’m going to share this letter with a few good friends” or “hey, I’m going to post this on the bulletin board at my writers’ group.”
Sure, it’s good form not to post them, but you should be sending out all of your correspondence in writerly circles with the assumption that someone, somewhere, is probably going to see it. Many someones. Don’t write something down that you wouldn’t stand by later.
Particularly in the case of form rejections, I don’t have much morale problem quoting from chunks of letters. Particularly if you’re just quoting for the sake of discussion, I think that’s legally “fair use.” (as discussed above by others)
July 10th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Sheila, thanks for clarifying my understanding of the legal issue — sorry I was wrong about that and spread my wrongness to the world Sigh.
But that said, I stand by my original point that editorial letters are part of my professional face, and that I think I should conduct myself as such in them that I’d be okay with having them summarized, quoted, etc. in public.
July 10th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
As PNH pointed out, copyright isn’t proof against transmission. The recipient of a nasty rejection letter could laminate it, punch two holes on the top, and wear it around his or her neck as a medallion to DragonCon.
It’s whether or not one has the right to produce and make public copies not whether or not the contents can be shared. Think of all the rejection letters and other editorial correspondence in universities right now, amongst collections of papers.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
[...] can spend the next week quibbling over whether or not rejections are private correspondence and whether it’s unprofessional to post one to public or private spaces. (I don’t [...]
July 10th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I’m kind of startled to be having this conversation at all. I know this is probably silly of me (and I know nothing about the legalities of the situation), but–I’ve been seeing rejection letters posted online as long as I’ve been reading writing-related blogs and communities. Not a long time compared to many folks, but still, that’s 7-8 years of precedent. I expect the rejections that I write to be posted. Not each individual one, but in general? Yes, sure.
As such, a big yes to this:
>But at the same time, I would never -ever- say anything in those emails that I wouldn’t later be willing to stand by…I’m not going to say that I’ve -never- crossed a line in terms of my public conduct in this sense, but I’ve tried really hard to make those slip-ups rare.
And forget the rejections for a second. This is a rule that I try to apply to–well–_life._ I’m not always successful, but in general, if I’m not basically okay with something getting out, I figure I ought not be sharing it, period. It may not prevent the occasional nasty surprise. Does help me get through ‘em intact, though.
July 10th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Sheila: You’re probably right, that we’re pretty much on the same page. I think I was kneejerking with regards to one or two editors actually advocating that either 1) people go after authors that post rejection letters or 2) threatening authors that they might be banned . . . which to me is unacceptable and thoughtless behaviour.
July 10th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Yes, Sean, I am by no means advocating that anyone go after someone for posting correspondence on the internet. I’m just pointing out that someone could, and that we should all be aware of that. That doesn’t mean the recipient can’t make a personal decision that other issues, such as expressions of racism and discrimination and other forms of social injustice, override the law. I just think the decision should be made with knowledge of copyright law rather than without.
July 10th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
My presumption with rejections is that they can and often will get passed along. I have seen multiple writer’s boards and online crit groups, where rejections get posted word for word as part of the process of sharing market news. Often editor rejections are quoted at crit groups as though they were the Word of God.
Rejections and submissions are professional correspondence and should be treated as such, not used as a way to engage in winkwinknudgery directed at minorities. I wouldn’t say anything in a rejection letter that I wouldn’t be prepared to see all over the Internet.
July 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
While some fiction markets really are corporate, most in the sf/f/h world are just some person’s (or persons’) pet project — which contributes to giving the whole environment of genre publishing an informal feel. This gets amped up further because just about all the major editors in the field, corporately employed or not, are readily available for chat on the web. In that environment, I think it’s extremely naive for an editor to assume a note sent to a contributor will stay confidential, regardless of whether or not it legally should, regardless of whether or not the note is deemed “official correspondence.” All someone has to do is click “Forward.” That’s just today’s reality.
July 10th, 2008 at 6:11 pm
[...] On The Asimov’s Boards and Elsewhere… We can spend the next week quibbling over whether or not rejections are private correspondence and whether it’s unprofessional to post one to public or private spaces. (I don’t believe it is [...]
July 10th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
This entire conversation has been very illuminating for me. I have tried to deal with the legality of my posting of the email on my blog. There appears to be a split of opinion, though, on the ethics and propriety of my posting the rejection.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:43 am
David, your friend Tempest is carte blanche accussing Gardner Dozois, someone who put your story in his YBSF, of improper behavior.
Course I’m sure Susan will tell me it is a comprehension problem.
You going to let that shit slide, pal? I can see going after Sanders for the sheet head bit (hardly the worst term he could have used) but she is chasing around after Gardner (yet Sheila got promoted to ‘Exempt’ even though she uttered the same opinion, which is sexism, last I checked) but I find attacking Gardner to be completely indefensible.
Or maybe I should come out to Lawrence and ask your opinion in person.
S. F. Murphy
July 11th, 2008 at 4:11 am
SF Murphy, I believe that David has indicated here that he will be offline until Monday, and therefore cannot reasonably be challenged for not responding to anything said here in the intervening time. Given that he will likely be working on Monday and is in a different time zone than his destination, it’s probably more reasonable to wait until Tuesday before expecting a response.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:51 am
Damn. Too bad I’m working Saturday or I could just simply drive out to Lawrence and ask him in person.
Well, we’ll just have to wait until he gets back from Berekley on the Plains (that, my friends, is what everyone else in Kansas and Most Missourians call Lawrence).
Meanwhile, since David is out, what about the rest of you? Pulling a page from Tempest’s playbook, I am going to take silence as carte blanche consent for her accussing Gardner of being a racist, sexist, bigot.
Sanders may have made a mistake but I don’t see where Gardner gets to take a thermonuclear sabot round because he dared to disagree with her opinion, especially when Shelia effectively said the same thing and BEFORE Gardner did.
July 11th, 2008 at 10:55 am
Mr. Murphy,
What the hell are you talking about? Tempest said the atmosphere on the Asimov boards was unpleasant. How is that an attack on Gardner? Have you ever tried to run an open internet forum? It is actually very difficult to keep trolls away.
Ben
July 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Ben, I assume Murphy is referring to this:
http://tempest.fluidartist.com/2008/07/10/dear-people-on-the-asimovs-boards-and-elsewhere/
?
What I see there is wondering rather than accusation (along with an, “Oops, I was wrong” ETA), but I am not Murphy (happily for me), and perhaps he sees something else.
July 11th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Personally, I’m most amused by the idea that our friends are not allowed to dislike/talk smack about people we like/respect/work with/whatever.
Just to avoid this sort of confusion later on if ever it comes up in my journal, I hereby give all of my friends–internet and otherwise–permission to dislike ANYONE, even if I love them madly and am getting married to them in a lavish rockstar wedding. (Just please tell me before you stand up in the middle of the wedding with a list of complaints.) In exchange, I reserve for myself the right to make my own decision, based on the source material itself, and not simply other people’s interpretations of it.
You know, I wouldn’t have thought that was the sort of thing you had to spell out to people.
July 11th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
She’s making an out of the corner of her mouth accusation, Hannah. If a coworker did that to me, I’d call them on it.
Gets even better over at Tempest’s place. She said, “Well, Shelia probably wouldn’t say anything untoward but I’d not give Gardner the same benefit of the doubt.”
Paraphrased, of course.
Tempest should do more than just wonder. If she has got some dirt on Gardner, maybe she needs to bring it up rather than playing duck and cover.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Quoth Murphy:
“Gets even better over at Tempest’s place. She said…”
Please provide a link.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Oh, there we go. I assume you mean this:
“Ah, well that makes me sad because I don’t want to have bad thoughts about Sheila. then again, I guess I’m not prone to assume she’s said something in a rejection letter she would be ashamed of if brought to light. With Gardner I wouldn’t make that assumption.”
In this comment here: http://tempest.fluidartist.com/2008/07/10/dear-people-on-the-asimovs-boards-and-elsewhere/#comment-#6787
I still fail to see the bit where she’s “accussing Gardner of being a racist, sexist, bigot”. Possibly because it doesn’t exist, but hey, if not, I’m willing to be educated. Please provide a quote (an actual quote, not a paraphrase) and a link to same.
I do see that, for reasons not clear to me (because she doesn’t say and because I haven’t discussed it with her), she’s apparently less willing to give Gardner the benefit of the doubt on this than she is willing to give Sheila same. (Please note that “less willing” is not necessarily “unwilling.”)
That could be because she considers Gardner to be a racist, sexist bigot. It could be because Tempest herself is making a sexist assumption. Or it could be because he kicked her puppy once, or because Sheila came to her last birthday party and bought a swell gift, or because she flipped a coin and Gardner came up heads today.
If it’s the first (of which I realize you’re convinced), then I’d want to see her evidence for that belief before I decided whether or not she has a point. If it’s the second (which I realize you’re also convinced), then I would indeed disapprove and would say as much. If it’s the third, then I’d adjust my opinion depending on the actual circumstance (puppy-kicking matters more to me than coin-flipping, frex) and on the other available evidence.
But again, it seems to me that Tempest is not so much the one making obviously inflated accusations here. Thermonuclear sabot round, indeed.
July 11th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Oh, never mind. I just noticed that you apparently have a little personal crusade going on against Tempest. I’m okay with engaging you on the more general crusades for as long as doing so remains entertaining, but I’m not interested in participating in this sort of thing. I’m done here, and sorry for helping him further his drama in your comments, Moles.
July 11th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Personally, I’m most amused by the idea that our friends are not allowed to dislike/talk smack about people we like/respect/work with/whatever.
I found that odd, too.
July 11th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
If one were to accept Murphy’s reading of Tempest’s comments (which I don’t, necessarily–I haven’t had time for a close reading of the discussion in question, so he might be right, but given how clearly he’s demonstrated the weakness of his document analysis skills in the past, I wouldn’t trust his analysis of a picture book, much less an emotionally-charged debate), it’s still not an equivalent situation. If Murphy’s right (see previous disclaimer) then it means that Tempest called Gardner a person of poor character, bascially?
Which might, if she said that and if she’s wrong, mean that she’s a jerk. A jerk is still not the same thing as a bigot, not by orders of magnitude.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
Susan, you work in academia. Let’s try this.
If someone dropped into the rumor mill that you are racist (and whatever else I might think, I don’t think you have that problem) would you just let it roll around unchecked?
If it were me, at my job, I would not. I’d confront the person and demand some proof. Either that or I’d make it pretty clear they’d better stop the “wondering out loud” or “just saying” or whatever you want to call it.
She said it. And what kills me is that because I’m calling her on it, that somehow magically makes me a bigot.
So let me see if I get this straight.
Question an African American woman who makes a baseless accusation and regardless of whether she is right or wrong, that person who did the questioning is a bigot.
That is how I see it.
Folks, I’ll be honest. I really don’t care what her ethnic background is or anyone elses.
But taking shots at Gardner isn’t right.
I’ve got to admit, I like how the excuses are rolling down the path now.
Hannah wrote:
That could be because she considers Gardner to be a racist, sexist bigot. It could be because Tempest herself is making a sexist assumption. Or it could be because he kicked her puppy once, or because Sheila came to her last birthday party and bought a swell gift, or because she flipped a coin and Gardner came up heads today.
I’m sorry, this isn’t the first time she has made comments like this. The sort of kinda sorta wondering but never really crossing the line sorta comments. We all know exactly what is going on and more to the point as she has backed down (only to a very minimal degree) SHE knows she did something wrong.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
More important than the copyright issue (although I still think it’s shaky ground legally) is the issue of professional ethics. I would not make public the content of a rejection slip sent to me as a writer, a piece of professional business correspondence, because it would not be acting professionally to do–similarly, I would not make public a submission letter sent to me as an editor by a writer (and, believe me, there are plenty that would be highly embarassing in any of dozens of different ways to the writer of the letter), because it would be a violation of professional ethics to do so. It’s business correspondence, and to do that, from either side, is just not acting professionally, and acting in a professional manner is something that has always been very important to me, as I have a horror of violating professional ethics in any way. Similarly, I like to think I’m not seething with racial hatreds, but even if I were, I wouldn’t put any expression of them into a rejection letter; that’s acting unprofessionally as well.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
But if it’s primarily a question of ethics, then it seems to me that the ethical obligation to act as a whistle-blower might trump any consideration of professional ethics–for example in the case where one finds oneself the recipient of a piece professional correspondence which happens to be thoroughly saturated with racial/ethnic epithets.
July 12th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
S.F. Murphy wrote: Meanwhile, since David is out, what about the rest of you? Pulling a page from Tempest’s playbook, I am going to take silence as carte blanche consent for her accussing Gardner of being a racist, sexist, bigot.
I dunno about Gardner, but I’m happy to call Murphy a racist, sexist bigot. And I barely know anything about this person, but what I’ve read so far is just dripping with privilege.
July 12th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Each must decide where to draw the line in professional ethics, on their own. That’s why they’re “ethics,” and not “laws.” The only exception I can think of for myself for the rule against making private professional correspondence public is if the letter contained specific terroristic threats of some sort–”This friday, I’m going to walk into New York University and shoot everybody there.”–and even then, I would notify the proper authorities of such threats, not post them on the internet. (This has actually happened a few times; Scott Edleman received serious-sounding death threats in response to his rejection of a story a few years back, and quite properly informed the FBI, who took action.) There are few other circumstances I can think of that would make me violate professional ethics in this regard, though.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:54 am
Gardner, thanks for the thoughtful and level-headed comments.
Murphy, if you’ve got something useful to say on the original subject, that’s fine, but take your personal problems with individuals in the field somewhere else.
July 13th, 2008 at 2:56 am
[...] discussions of rejection letter ethics welcome [...]
July 13th, 2008 at 2:57 am
I’m closing comments on this thread. Further on-topic comments are welcome here.
July 14th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
[...] been a lot of chatter in the threads dealing with the William Sanders rejection letter fiasco to do with my post last week where I said [...]
July 15th, 2008 at 10:09 am
[...] been said about William Sanders’ behaviour recently; start here, then see here, here, here, here, and here for discussion and further links. But I do want to highlight the latest iteration, [...]