But perhaps the revised version didn't get that particular editor what they were hoping for?
Then they should make it clear what they are hoping for. They are essentially commissioning work at that point. It's not right for them to tell you to do more work, then just walk of on it.
And if you couldn't do what they wanted, why bother to submit again.
I've run into editors who can't tell you what they want, but keep telling you to try again.
I once told one, "So you want me to take the story that I think is done right, and without any input from you turn into something that you will think is right, but I don't?"
Actually, in that case, when I said it in front of a bunch of journalists in a writers hangout, he caved in and ran the story. But that's rare.
As I say, if somebody pulled that on me, I'd ask him for more clarification on how to wrap the story up for publication and if he couldn't come through, he'd be off my list.
By the way, the same editor I mentioned...who later quit to be politician's press secretary...also gave me one of my favorie "editors are coddled assholes" lines--he wanted a rewrite on a piece I'd turned in for a regular column that had been running weekly for over a year and won awards and said, "It didn't grow on me like a fine wine". Because he'd already verbally accepted it, then was going back on it. And I had a written contract for once. My response to that caused him to refuse the balance of payment of a story he'd given me an advance on and HAD ALREADY RUN!!!
I won the case in court (the judge referred to it as a "laydown" and couldn't understand why their attourney had been dumb enough to bring it to the bar) and it cost them about ten times as much as if they'd just paid me. They also ended up paying for all the stories remaining on the column contract, with no compulsion for me to actually turn them in. Which I didn't.
Here's what I'm saying: just because an editor hands you that sort of crap doesn't mean you have to take it.
I ended up suing th
