It's sort of extraordinary that the conclusion of the piece is that the book was published and he was paid in full
Poor guy
Poor guy
Free association is also an important liberal right.
This is just such a weird perspective.
The vast majority of people attempting to get published during the "Golden Age of Science Fiction" for starters.
Even reading the autobiographical writings of those that became big names you'll find a seemingly endless runway of rejection before liftoff, cancelled acceptances, demands for rewrites, multiple publisher approaches, etc.
One publisher getting cold feet isn't the end of the world, ask any writer that's made it.
Then we can know that their work is superior, probably due to their privilege.
Or maybe it would've been better to destroy his work completely? Then the world will be better off for it.
Am I doing it right?