3 ms·
Yes, 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 inte
by gmiller123456 9y ago
Yes, 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