5 ms·
> Mr. Congdon offered the author a chance to void the contract and to absolve himself of responsibility for the dangling project. But the writer declined, sayin
by Shank 9y ago
> Mr. Congdon offered the author a chance to void the contract and to absolve himself of responsibility for the dangling project. But the writer declined, saying he would finish the manuscript instead.
The title is a little misleading, given that the author was given a chance to void the contract. The title implies that it's mandatory or a requirement, but if the author still /wants/ it published that's almost like a "university still willing to publish after 30 years" rather than "still wants it."
- GCA10 9y agoI actually read the verb "wants" in exactly the way that you prefer. Having submitted a lot of book pitches, article pitches, etc. over the years, I'd say "want" is generally used as an expression of interest and appreciation. Publishers tend to revert to "expect" when they're getting testy about an overdue manuscript. As in "When can we expect to see it?" Or "We had expected delivery a month ago."
- gmiller123456 9y agoYes, he said "misleading" not incorrect. The vast majority of people who will read it don't have your experience dealing with publishers, and likely won't interpret it the way you do. I'll go further and say the title is deliberately misleading. Since the author still wants it published too, it is deliberately misleading to mention that one party of the contract wants it, while not referencing the other side at all.
- itp 9y agoI have no experience in publishing, and I interpreted it in the non-misleading, entirely positive sense.
- abritinthebay 9y agoIt's not misleading - it's vague. Could go either way but it's intent seems to match one of the meanings and many people read it that way. The vagueness is what tripped up OP