I am wondering why people bother to ask for their manuscripts back when they submit to markets. do the agents/editors write on the manuscripts? is it worth the extra postage to get it back? when i was with the berkeley fiction review, we weren't allowed to write on the stories so this issue is a bit of a puzzle to me.
why have manuscripts returned?
- Thread starter blackpen
- Start date
- Status
blackpen said:
It was a much more common practice in the days when you would use a typewriter to create your manuscript. You'd have to make a new copy (either with a copier, or a typewriter) every time. So you got your manuscript back and sent it to someone else.
These days, printers and ink are cheap enough (I'm told. Still costs ME an arm and a leg) that I don't think a lot of people return manuscripts anymore. They mention it in submission guidelines on the off chance that you do want it back.
I have received the first page back with a handwritten rejection back, but as Pete indicated, it is a holdover from the days of the typewriter.
Manuscripts
I wouldn;t say having manuscripts returned is strictly a holdover from typewriter days. It's just as much a holdover from the first fifteen years of bad or expensive printers.
Even three or four years ago, I still wanted all my manuscripts returned because quite freqently an editor would scribble all over them, and I'd get much more useful information than I did from a rejection slip. It still sometimes works this way.
But it's becoming less and less common fro editors to have the time or the inclination to edit a manuscript they aren't going to buy, so I think it's better now to simply enclose a #10 SASE and a disposable manuscript.
I will, however, say it's still best to get the manuscript back on those occasion when an editor wants a rewrite.
Still, I've gone with the flow, and only on very rare occasions do I still enclose a full SASE for teh return of teh manuscript.
I wouldn;t say having manuscripts returned is strictly a holdover from typewriter days. It's just as much a holdover from the first fifteen years of bad or expensive printers.
Even three or four years ago, I still wanted all my manuscripts returned because quite freqently an editor would scribble all over them, and I'd get much more useful information than I did from a rejection slip. It still sometimes works this way.
But it's becoming less and less common fro editors to have the time or the inclination to edit a manuscript they aren't going to buy, so I think it's better now to simply enclose a #10 SASE and a disposable manuscript.
I will, however, say it's still best to get the manuscript back on those occasion when an editor wants a rewrite.
Still, I've gone with the flow, and only on very rare occasions do I still enclose a full SASE for teh return of teh manuscript.
Jamesaritchie said:
I didn't say it was strictly left over from typewriters. That's what originated it, and that's what kept it around for awhile.
I still did three years or so ago too. Printer ink is not always the cheapest of things. To put it kindly.
It may be my Scots Calvinism/meaness showing through, but I find this attitutude of 'Och, just chuck it in the bin. I'll print out another one.' quite shocking.
I still enclose an sae for my rejections - then I send them on to the next editor on my list. I only reprint what I have to and the waste goes in my recycling bin.
The world's resources are finite - and so are mine.
I still enclose an sae for my rejections - then I send them on to the next editor on my list. I only reprint what I have to and the waste goes in my recycling bin.
The world's resources are finite - and so are mine.
One problem can be, of course, a manuscript returned in a physical condition not suitable for further submission. I generally don't ask for mine back for that reason alone. Since no one ever asks to see mine again anyway, it's kind of a moot point.
caw
caw
blackpen said:
I don't bother to ask for the manuscript back. I agree with the point that by the time it's returned, it's quite often not in any shape to go out again. Typically, I enclose a SASE and on my cover letter (in the corner where I indicate "Enclosures") I type "SASE for reply only; please recycle manuscript if necessary."
Best,
Erika D.
arrowqueen said:
There's no shortage of paper, and unless that manuscript you send out a second time is spotless, all it tells an editor is that he's getting someone else's reject. If you want to save resources, tell them to recycle your manuscript. It saves paper, saves postage, and saves gasoline.
It's cheaper to print out a second copy that it is to send return postage. It costs me less than half as much on average to print out a new copy than to pay return postage. Sometimes it cost no more than a fifth as much, depending on the length of the story.
MS
Most wirters I know just type "disposable manuscript" on page one. Butthese days I think all editors out there know a #10 SASE means you only want a reply, rather than having the manuscript returned.
PracticingWriter said:
Most wirters I know just type "disposable manuscript" on page one. Butthese days I think all editors out there know a #10 SASE means you only want a reply, rather than having the manuscript returned.
Jamesaritchie said:
I followed the advice of writers who suggested noting that the ms should be recycled. I just find it less negative than suggesting my ms is "disposable."
I weigh the cost of return postage and extra envelope against the cost of reprinting those pages.
If I decide it's cheaper for them to destroy the submission, I add something to the end of my letter to the effect that by their rejection I assume my manuscript has been shredded or destroyed. I dread the thought of a garbage bag coming undone and my manuscript pages flying around where anyone could pick them up and, in the case of a short story, have a passing writer decided he can make some changes and present the story as his own. Should that happen, the ageny/publisher is at fault because they didn't follow my instructions.
In one instance, when a London publisher asked for a full, I decided it would be far too expensive for me to have it mailed back across the Pond to Canada. Oddly, they had a contact in NY and mailed it back to me via them.
Has this ever happened to anyone else?
If I decide it's cheaper for them to destroy the submission, I add something to the end of my letter to the effect that by their rejection I assume my manuscript has been shredded or destroyed. I dread the thought of a garbage bag coming undone and my manuscript pages flying around where anyone could pick them up and, in the case of a short story, have a passing writer decided he can make some changes and present the story as his own. Should that happen, the ageny/publisher is at fault because they didn't follow my instructions.
In one instance, when a London publisher asked for a full, I decided it would be far too expensive for me to have it mailed back across the Pond to Canada. Oddly, they had a contact in NY and mailed it back to me via them.
Has this ever happened to anyone else?
I have had many manuscripts not be returned even when including the correct size of envelope/correct postage. It is a waste of money to ask for the return. Nowadays, I send only an SSAE for the reply, and maybe....just maybe, there will be a shortage of new submissions...quick: they need a MS that's ready to go right now--this one on the floor--this one will do fine!
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 2,130
- Reaction score
- 186
- Location
- At the computer
- Website
- www.daverobinsonwrites.com
I have a laser printer. I can print a novel in less than half an hour and still have plenty of toner left over for several more manuscripts.
Why bother with having the manuscript returned. It's not worth it.
If you don't have a laser printer, go out and get one. Mine cost less than C$200 with two full toner cartridges and was worth every penny.
Why bother with having the manuscript returned. It's not worth it.
If you don't have a laser printer, go out and get one. Mine cost less than C$200 with two full toner cartridges and was worth every penny.
arrowqueen said:
I'm the same, except not Scots. Just very skint.
And environmentally conscious. Well, yanno. I try.
What you do, Arrowqueen,
and other good eco citizens, is buy paper made from recycled paper. Then you can save on postage and keep editors happy. I have noticed so many more guidelines asking for disposable scripts.
And if you are a good eco citizen then you are recycling all your paper aren't you? So the 'wicked' ones like JR posting here can carrying on wasting paper but we're saving it at the other end!
and other good eco citizens, is buy paper made from recycled paper. Then you can save on postage and keep editors happy. I have noticed so many more guidelines asking for disposable scripts.
And if you are a good eco citizen then you are recycling all your paper aren't you? So the 'wicked' ones like JR posting here
can carrying on wasting paper but we're saving it at the other end!Dave.C.Robinson said:
For business purposes, I recently bought a laser printer, new, for $80 US (was $120, but had an instant $40 rebate, from Office Max). Also needed a USB cable, which cost about $20. Simple, works great for text. I always think in terms of business with these things, cost vs. benefit. If you value your time at X amount, figure out how quickly something like that will pay for itself. In my case, in terms of time I save by being able to get high-quality print immediately, I figure this thing paid for itself in a couple of days.
caw
- Status