International Bon Vivant and Raconteur ([info]nick_kaufmann) wrote,
@ 2008-04-10 17:23:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:writing

The R Word
Someone once told me I should never talk about rejection, or indeed anything negative about my writing career, on this blog. They said that if I let my readers know I still get rejections, it would be a sign of weakness. It would turn them off because it would basically ruin the magic. Instead, I should only ever talk about triumphs and sales and act as if that's all there is. But that's not what I want to do. I know some of you out there reading this are still new to writing and easily discouraged, and I want you to know you're not alone. To me, camaraderie is more important than any perception of flawlessness I may want you to have about me.

So let's talk about rejection.

This afternoon I came home to a rejection from Sheila Williams at Asimov's. It was a very nice rejection, personalized and complimentary. She called the story well done but not right for the magazine and professed to look forward to seeing more of my work. All very lovely, but a rejection nonetheless.

And rejections sting, even when you've been in the writing business a long time. They may certainly sting less than they did at the start, but the disappointment that accompanies rejection will always be there. The tonic, of course, is to send the story right back out again to the next place on your target-market list. Which I did, repackaging the manuscript and sending it off to Gordon Van Gelder at Fantasy & Science Fiction within the hour.

You've no doubt heard many times the advice to send a rejected story back out again as soon as possible, but what you may not have heard before is why. It's not just about keeping the story circulating, though that's important. The simple answer is: It instantly erases the heartache of rejection.

Let's backtrack a minute and say you've received a rejection from the first-choice market for your story. You're bummed. Sometimes you're more than bummed. Sometimes you're tempted to throw in the towel, give up writing forever, tear up everything you've ever written, fire off Al Goldsteinesque "fuck you" emails to every editor who's ever rejected you, and hunt down an application to the nearest technical school. This is known as the Writer's Tantrum, and don't worry, millions of writers have been there. In fact, millions of writers are doing it right now as you're reading this, and a million more will be doing it by the time you're done.

By law, each writer is allowed 30-60 minutes of tantrum-throwing and general crybabyness upon receiving a rejection. Any more than that and you risk falling squarely into diva territory. And yes, maybe you're right, maybe no one does understand your genius, but really, that's not the kind of thing you want to be caught saying out loud.

Anyway, what this all really and truly boils down to is a momentary loss of hope. All hope that this story will find a good home, all hope that your writing career will continue, feels dashed. And the longer that rejected manuscript sits on your desk, staring at you, mocking you with its very presence, day after day, week after week, the worse you'll feel. But remember how much hope you felt back when you sent that story off to your first-choice market? Guess what. You'll feel it again the moment you send it off to the second.

And suddenly you won't feel like throwing in the towel anymore, you won't think you're a fraud who's been lucky enough to squeeze past the gatekeepers unnoticed anymore, you'll once again feel that you're a writer, goddamn it, and you're doing what writers do: you're writing and submitting your work. You're forming contacts with editors! They're learning your name! The story will be published! HOPE!

If it gets rejected again? Yeah, it'll sting, and yeah, you might throw another Writer's Tantrum (in private, please!), but this time maybe you'll remember it's only temporary. This time you'll send it out again even sooner, to the next market on your list, and the hope will come back.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

No one likes rejection, but it's a big part of being a writer. The best thing you can do is remember that all writers get rejections, even your favorites, and if you want to be like them, you'll keep at it anyway.




(Post a new comment)


[info]diseased_inside
2008-04-10 10:30 pm UTC (link)
I loved reading that.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 10:48 pm UTC (link)
I hope you can still respect me knowing I still get rejections!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]diseased_inside
2008-04-10 10:52 pm UTC (link)
Only if one of these days you provide video evidence of your own tantrum and crybaby-ing. Bonus points for throwing yourself on the floor and wailing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]suricattus
2008-04-10 10:35 pm UTC (link)
By law, each writer is allowed 30-60 minutes of tantrum-throwing and general crybabyness

Actually, I'm pretty sure that we're also allowed to sulk overnight, so long as on the morning we're ready to slog it out in the trenches again with Good Attitude. Otherwise, yeah. Keep swimming, just keep swimming...

The other thing I've found myself reminding new writers of lately is the fact that -- mostly -- editors choose not what they personally like, but what suits the magazine/anthology. Yes, there's often 100% overlay, but not always. I once had a story rejected by a BNE who later -- when it was published, unchanged, in another venue, gave it a Year's Best honorable mention. The editor liked the story just fine, thought it was good work...but couldn't buy it. Frustrating, but not quite the ego-killer I'd thought at the time of rejection.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 10:49 pm UTC (link)
You're right, I really should have said 24 hours are allowed. It's the same timeframe one is given when dumped by a significant other; 24 hours of rampant misogyny/misanthropy, and then it's back to being a decent human being.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

You have 5 minutes!
[info]neutronjockey
2008-04-10 11:09 pm UTC (link)


Keyboard Cowboy you've got 5 minutes to shit, shave, bathe,tuck your cocks in your socks, wipe the snot off your face and get your asses back to the keyboard or I will rip off your LCD screens and shit down your CPUs!

MOVE IT! MOVE IT! MOVE IT!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: You have 5 minutes!
[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 11:31 pm UTC (link)
"Did your parents have any children who lived?"

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stephen_dedman
2008-04-11 03:09 am UTC (link)
I think it's directly proportional to the length of the work (or, in your other example, the length of the relationship), and possibly, the length of time you had to wait for said rejection.

If it took you more than a year to write a novel, and the editor about that long to get back to you, 24 hours of angst and a week of sulking seems not unreasonable.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2008-04-11 02:03 pm UTC (link)
This makes me feel much better, Nick. My actual tantrums are usually pretty short, consisting of something like, "What the hell ... not again!, but I sulk for at least a day before writing again. I may or may not put the manuscript back in the mail during that time (certainly by the end), and I may or may not consume something extremely bad for me.

Nice post. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]janni
2008-04-12 02:50 am UTC (link)
Actually, I'm pretty sure that we're also allowed to sulk overnight, so long as on the morning we're ready to slog it out in the trenches again with Good Attitude.

That's my take, too. You pretty much get the rest of whatever day the rejection arrived on, then have to start the new day with your positive and professional attitude back in place.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

*applause*
[info]eeknight
2008-04-10 10:38 pm UTC (link)
Well said.

I allow myself whatever time is necessary to get dressed, go out, consume some combination of cake, ice cream, fudge, and whipped cream -- then it's back to the laptop.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: *applause*
[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 10:50 pm UTC (link)
I try to stay away from sweets because I gain weight very easily. Instead, I take my comfort from snorting coke off hookers' asses!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: *applause*
[info]suricattus
2008-04-10 10:55 pm UTC (link)
dude, we told you, that wasn't coke, that was talcum powder....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: *applause*
[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 11:32 pm UTC (link)
But those were hookers' asses, right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: *applause*
[info]suricattus
2008-04-10 11:38 pm UTC (link)
Asses, donkeys, whatever...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]newguydave
2008-04-10 11:03 pm UTC (link)
Am I allowed to go back and throw a tantrum for a past rejection, or do I have to suck it up and wait for the next one. I guess I could always throw a double tantrum to make up for it next time around.

Seriously though. That was a well written and optimistic way of dealing with things. How do you guys deal with this on a regular basis?

Now I want to hear how you celebrate!!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 11:33 pm UTC (link)
I usually celebrate with alcohol and kisses from my honey.

How do we deal with it on a regular basis? We get used to it, and we keep moving forward.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]rfrancis
2008-04-10 11:33 pm UTC (link)
Does Gordon still write those awesome detailed rejection letters? I mean, I would've preferred getting an acceptance, but his rejections were a close second. I'm pretty sure I sent everything to F&SF because of them.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 11:35 pm UTC (link)
I haven't submitted a lot to him, but I don't remember getting very detailed rejections. Mostly I remember the dreaded "alas"!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]stonetable
2008-04-10 11:41 pm UTC (link)
Very nice, thanks!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-10 11:48 pm UTC (link)
Any time.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]kelliwithani82
2008-04-11 12:35 am UTC (link)
Hooray for you. ^_^

This is a kickass entry.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 12:40 am UTC (link)
This is what I did instead of writing this afternoon. ;-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]lupa
2008-04-11 01:08 am UTC (link)
I'm glad you wrote this. Way back when I used to get very nice rejections, with lots of detail, and for some reason I let it get to me rather than stick it out. Now that I'm heading back into the trenches, I have to remember all of this and keep my butt moving.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 02:12 am UTC (link)
Nice, detailed rejections are awesome! I mean, aside from the fact that they're still rejections. But if an editor takes the time to let you know how to make something better, or why it wasn't right for their particular publication, that means something.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]lupa
2008-04-11 02:22 am UTC (link)
Well, reading the journeys of people I know personally and whose work I respected back in college days (like you and Seth) definitely is a sterling inspiration. That's part of why I'm so glad you wrote this. Thank you :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 02:28 am UTC (link)
You're welcome, and good luck diving back into the deep end!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]shadowwhys
2008-04-11 02:09 am UTC (link)
Well said! It's nice to know there are still people out there who will be honest and give a true view of things, rather than only show the positive and possibly mislead those who admire them. Anyone who would think less of you for doing so isn't a true fan of you or your work.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 02:13 am UTC (link)
I'm glad you liked it. I think there are plenty of people out there still giving honest views, it's certainly not just me. That was simply overprotective advice someone gave me.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]burger_eater
2008-04-11 02:24 am UTC (link)
PFFFT!

Real writers would never get rejections because their writing was so awesomely writerly. Because they're writers!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 02:29 am UTC (link)
Are all those your rejections?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]burger_eater
2008-04-11 02:34 am UTC (link)
That's from a year and a half ago. The box is nearly full now.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 02:36 am UTC (link)
Many, many years ago, when I was just starting to think about writing as a possible career, my father gave me a beautiful leather briefcase. It was small, not the handle kind, more like a very large leather envelope with a magnetic brass snap. I told my brother, [info]alexkaufmann, that I was going to use it to hold all my rejections. He said it wasn't big enough. I was like, "Ha ha, what an asshole," but you know what? He was right.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]alexkaufmann
2008-04-11 03:13 am UTC (link)
To be fair, I am an asshole.

But I did also mean that, as a writer, you'll get more rejections than can fit in any briefcase-sized container.

That is, if you're a writer who keeps at it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]marcy_italiano
2008-04-11 02:57 am UTC (link)
Whose "law" is this anyway? LOL!

Great post!

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 03:18 am UTC (link)
I make the law!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]marcy_italiano
2008-04-11 04:05 am UTC (link)
LOL! Your universe must be fun.

I've been thinking though... I've been told an editor wants to think that you wrote the story for them, not that they're getting hand me downs from rejections. They want a story written for them - so when you post about a rejection, which story and which market, aren't you shooting yourself in the foot that way?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 04:12 am UTC (link)
Editors want good stories, period. They know most stories make the rounds before finding a good home. The only ones they don't necessarily want are stories rejected from strongly themed anthologies, because then they wind up seeing hundreds of vampire space cat stories for months on end, and that's enough to drive anyone crazy!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]marcy_italiano
2008-04-11 12:28 pm UTC (link)
Ah - I see what you mean.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Tor editor's perspective:
[info]zornhau
2008-04-11 09:32 am UTC (link)
Since nobody else has posted this link:
http://nielsenhayden.com/makinglight/archives/004641.html

It's amazingly inspiring, e.g.

QUOTE STARTS
Manuscripts are unwieldy, but the real reason for that time ratio is that most of them are a fast reject. Herewith, the rough breakdown of manuscript characteristics, from most to least obvious rejections:

1 Author is functionally illiterate.

2 Author has submitted some variety of literature we don’t publish: poetry, religious revelation, political rant, illustrated fanfic, etc.

3 Author has a serious neurochemical disorder, puts all important words into capital letters, and would type out to the margins if MSWord would let him.

4 Author is on bad terms with the Muse of Language. Parts of speech are not what they should be. Confusion-of-motion problems inadvertently generate hideous images. Words are supplanted by their similar-sounding cousins: towed the line, deep-seeded, dire straights, nearly penultimate, incentiary, reeking havoc, hare’s breath escape, plaintiff melody, viscous/vicious, causal/casual, clamoured to her feet, a shutter went through her body, his body went ridged, empirical storm troopers, ex-patriot Englishmen, et cetera.

5 Author can write basic sentences, but not string them together in any way that adds up to paragraphs.

6 Author has a moderate neurochemical disorder and can’t tell when he or she has changed the subject. This greatly facilitates composition, but is hard on comprehension.

7 Author can write passable paragraphs, and has a sufficiently functional plot that readers would notice if you shuffled the chapters into a different order. However, the story and the manner of its telling are alike hackneyed, dull, and pointless.

(At this point, you have eliminated 60-75% of your submissions. Almost all the reading-and-thinking time will be spent on the remaining fraction.)


8 It’s nice that the author is working on his/her problems, but the process would be better served by seeing a shrink than by writing novels.

9 Nobody but the author is ever going to care about this dull, flaccid, underperforming book.

10 The book has an engaging plot. Trouble is, it’s not the author’s, and everybody’s already seen that movie/read that book/collected that comic.

(You have now eliminated 95-99% of the submissions.)


11 Someone could publish this book, but we don’t see why it should be us.

12 Author is talented, but has written the wrong book.

13 It’s a good book, but the house isn’t going to get behind it, so if you buy it, it’ll just get lost in the shuffle.

14 Buy this book.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Tor editor's perspective:
[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-11 01:28 pm UTC (link)
Thanks so much for the link. I remember reading that back in '04 -- great stuff!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]morbidmusings
2008-04-11 06:52 pm UTC (link)
Well said, Nick. Thank you. :-)

~Meg

(Reply to this)


[info]benpayne
2008-04-12 02:56 am UTC (link)
Nice post, man.

And I don't see why knowing an author receives rejections should be a mark against them.

Who wants to buy into that notion of the creative genius as perfect and beyond failure or criticism? It's an outdated notion and perpetuates the myth that there are "talented" humans, and then the rest of us. And it denies the hard work that "talent" requires.

And excellent advice on the speedy re-sending of work.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]nick_kaufmann
2008-04-13 03:51 am UTC (link)
And I don't see why knowing an author receives rejections should be a mark against them.

I agree. I think it was just overprotective advice from a friend.

And I ditto what you said about the myth of innate talent. Everything comes with hard work, not a confluence of the right stars.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…