Rejection Letter Revisited

The following is a personalized rejection letter I received from Every Day Fiction back in 2011. You might be asking yourself why I’m publicly displaying my failure. The answer: I learned from it. Someone in my writing group learned from it. And maybe – just maybe – you can learn from it, too. At the very least, it can be a comforting reminder: Rejection happens to everyone – not just you.

Dear Gretchen Bassier,

Thank you for your submission to Every Day Fiction. I regret to inform you that we are unable to use it at this time.

Very competent prose here, and I liked the buzzing of bees metaphor that you used throughout for Allison. The switcheroo was obviously a nice twist, especially in light of that fact that the attributes given to the other “patients” were all very reasonable and dark-edged when the roles were reversed. This is a close story for me, because I like the twist and enjoyed the flow, but I wanted something a little more from it. I wanted the twist to lead to some other plot development, such as figuring out what was behind the locked doors (the wail from beyond was a foreshadow begging for more). This doesn’t go much further than introducing the switch and then ending, giving it a “first chapter” feel.
— Joseph Kaufman

The prose is pretty solid, except I noticed a typo at the very end with Brute instead of Bruce. The author sets the stage nicely, and this has a very cool Shutter Island sort of feel to it. That said, I’m concerned that this plot has been overdone and that it won’t feel fresh enough to our readers.
— Sealey Andrews

The story was well told and gave the reader many things to be curious about. I liked the imagery in the piece and the use of figurative language in the beginning of the story with the bees. Though I’m left confused- I’m not sure what has happened at the end and think it would need to be played out better for the reader to understand. I get the feeling it is some kind of twist- but I don’t know what the twist was.
— S. A. Ross

Great introduction that really draws the reader in. This story has some good description, too, and the beehive metaphor works.
While the initial dialogue is useful in a show-don’t-tell sort of way, it’s not very unique. This story could start shortly before the forbidden door appears with just a quick summary.
But then things get interesting! Bruce is terrifying and poor Shiri has issues. The perspective totally flips.
This ends up nicely.
— Shelley Dayton

There’s sometimes a fine line between stories that challenge readers preconceptions (which done right, are good) and those that seem to be set ups for trick endings. Here it’s “they’re not really staffers, they’re patients!” The other readers are mixed on this; my feeling is that this one isn’t quite what we’re looking for. I’ll send it along for a final opinion.
— John Towler

Well written with interesting characters, but I’ve seen this twist before (and the reverse of it too, that the “patients” are really staffers), and since the point of the story seems to be the twist itself (rather than character development or a plot beyond the twist) it left me slightly flat.
— Camille Gooderham Campbell

Breaking It Down

As you can see, there are six different critiques in this rejection letter. A six-critique rejection letter is highly unusual, and I think it speaks volumes about EDF’s commitment to helping writers – especially new ones – succeed. I’ve yet to encounter another magazine where every reader takes the time to write detailed comments on every single piece submitted. To this day, it still amazes me.

The reviews are, as one editor mentioned, very mixed. Almost every reader had a different reaction to the story. If you look closely, however, you can see two common threads: 1.) Several readers had seen this plot twist used before, and 2.) There wasn’t enough substance to make the story complete. These are the main two reasons that the story was ultimately rejected – lack of originality, and lack of change.

Re: Lack of Originality:

I once heard a published novelist say that book editors claim to be looking for fresh material, but they’re really not. Novel publishers want something safe. Something proven. Something that will sell. Otherwise, it’s too much of a gamble. And that makes perfect sense – for BOOKS. Short story publishers, on the other hand, are a completely different species. When it comes to short stories, fresh, edgy and innovative are all the rage. Magazines can afford to push boundaries and try new things because there are typically multiple stories per issue – if one particular story flops, there are plenty of others to make up for it. Many mags actually have lists of plotlines and character types they see too often. Read these lists carefully. Read ‘em and heed ‘em.

Re: Lack of Change:

This is exactly what I was talking about in my post The Whole Story. I said I had rejection letters to prove my point, and now you’ve seen one of them. A story isn’t a story without change. Characters need to grow. Stuff needs to happen. There’s only one magazine I know of that doesn’t require a complete story. I think it’s called Vignettes, and I’m pretty sure my story didn’t even qualify as one of those. Remember: A twist ending, on its own, does not a story make.

Hurts So Good

The awesome thing about getting a personalized rejection is that you know exactly why your piece didn’t make the cut. The sucky thing about personalized rejections: you know EXACTLY why your piece didn’t make the cut. Gone are all the little lies you try to tell yourself about why your undeniably incredible story somehow got rejected. No more “Maybe the slush reader just got dumped by her hot boyfriend” or “Maybe they only read the first paragraph and didn’t really give the story a chance.” It wasn’t the slush reader, and it wasn’t an unfair partial reading. It was the story.

That said, not all of the news was bad. They didn’t say I was a crappy writer, just that this particular story didn’t work. In fact, you may notice that most of the readers followed the feedback guidelines I talked about HERE, including positive comments to balance out the criticism. Some nice little nuggets for me to cling onto until the rejection-burn wore off.

And this one did sting – I remember just feeling frozen as I sat there reading the letter for the first time. Kind of crushed, actually. I took it personally (which it never is) and became defensive, wanting to explain some of my creative choices, like the reason I included the handshake scene, or that fact that the “typo” was actually intentional. I had the letter all planned out in my head. I can’t tell you how pathetically grateful I am that I never actually wrote or sent it. Besides being unprofessional and sounding like a whiny two-year-old, it would have accomplished nothing except to annoy the people who spent valuable time trying to help me. Above all, it would have damaged any future chances of being published by the magazine. Thankfully, the intelligent portion of my brain took charge, and I wrote a simple note thanking the staff for their detailed comments.

Now that I’ve had a bit more experience with the submission-rejection cycle, the big “R” isn’t such a troubling thing to find in my inbox anymore. I just sigh, feel bummed out for a few minutes, and then move on. Every now and then, there’s one that I can’t quite shrug off. Usually it’s only when I a.) really thought I had a good chance, b.) really love the magazine, and/or c.) don’t have many/any other submissions out there. I can’t do much to curb a.) and b.), but c.) is an easy fix, and there are a few other things you can do to minimize your trauma and handle the big “R” like a graceful pro:

Some DOs and DON’Ts

DO stagger your submissions, making sure you have several pieces out to several different mags (I like to call this “Keeping Hope Alive”)

DO let yourself feel a little sad about rejection, especially if your hopes were up, BUT,

DON’T EVER act on the urge to defend your work to a publisher who’s already said “no”

DON’T get your hopes TOO high (if you can help it)

DON’T obsess over waiting for one particular result – learn to let each one go and move on to the next project

DO write a “thank you” note if you are lucky enough to get personalized feedback (UNLESS the magazine’s guidelines discourage it)

DO send the same piece to five different markets at once (if they all allow simultaneous subs), but…

DON’T send the same piece to eighty different markets all at once – after the first wave of comments comes in, you may want to make changes before sending the piece out again

DON’T get so caught up in submissions and rejections that you forget why you started writing in the first place

And, above all, DON’T let rejection stop you. If writing is in your heart and your blood and your dreams, then YOU ARE A WRITER. Use criticism to feed your fire, not douse it. Try, fail, learn, get better.

Keep writing.

-Gretchen

Constructive Criticism: Giving Back

As writers, we thrive on feedback. We need to know which scenes grab the reader by the throat, and which scenes are total snooze-fests. We need to know when our dialogue sounds realistic, and when it sounds like a bad soap opera. We beg and plead for scraps of critique like chubby Dachshunds under the dinner table, just hoping for a few breadcrumbs that might help us improve our stories and get published.

But constructive criticism isn’t a one-way street. If you want other writers to read your work and take the time to give valuable feedback, then you need to be willing to do the same for them. The following are some links, strategies and techniques that have been helpful to me when I’m writing feedback for other authors.

Step One: Getting Started

Before writing any critique, you should ask yourself a few important questions:

1.)    Why are you writing the critique? Is it a genuine attempt to help another author improve, or simply an opportunity to broadcast your opinion?

2.)    Is the story you’re critiquing a first draft, a recently-rejected manuscript, or a finished/published piece?

3.)    What is the experience level of the author? Is this the first time she’s ever shown her work to another living soul, or has she been published twelve times already?

All of these things will help determine the tone and tenor of your critique. For example, you might want to present criticism more gently to a brand-new author, or not be overly harsh on a piece that’s already been published (seeing as how there’s probably nothing the author can do to change it at that point, and any advice you give will have to be applied to future pieces, not the current one). On the other hand, you might want to get more nitpicky when it comes to recently-rejected pieces (since the author will want to figure out why the piece was turned down) or a piece that’s just about to be submitted (since you want to help give it the best possible chance of acceptance, and sometimes that can mean getting a bit critical 🙂 ).

Step Two: Structuring Your Critique

No matter what the situation, the bottom line is that you want the author to hear you. You want the author to take your advice seriously and apply it to his or her writing. The following are some examples of the best – and worst – types of critiques.

Example A: “Wow. That sucked. I mean, truly. The amount of suckage caused by that story nearly popped my eyeballs out of my head – which actually would have been a blessing, since at least I wouldn’t have had to keep reading. You should definitely stick to your day job, because this writing thing isn’t going to work out for you.”

The review above is just plain rude. It personally attacks the author, and offers no valuable information about why the reader didn’t like the story. There is never any excuse to leave a review like this. It is unprofessional, unhelpful, and reflects poorly on the reviewer, rather than the story.

Example B: “Didn’t care for it. Long paragraphs make me snore, and the dialogue felt like cardboard. Definitely not my cuppa.”

Okay, this review is a bit blunt, but it does offer some specific insights as to why the reader didn’t like the story: the paragraphs were too long, and the dialogue wasn’t natural. There are lots of reviews like this floating around the Internet, and there’s nothing really wrong with them, but think about the first question listed above: “Are you writing the review to help the author, or simply to express your opinion?” If your main goal is to give back to the writing community by helping another author improve, then you might consider using a different format – one the author is more likely to respond to in a positive way. Observe:

Example C: “I really enjoyed your description of the rain forest – I could feel the mugginess of the air, and I could hear the exotic bird calls like I was really there. I did struggle somewhat with the long paragraph structure you used in the middle of the story, and some of the dialogue felt forced, but overall the concept of the story was cool, and the setting was well-handled.”

If you look closely, you can see that Example C gives the exact same constructive criticism as Example B. In Example C, however, that criticism is framed by things the reader actually liked about the story. By saying something nice first, you make the author ten times more likely to listen to any criticism that comes later on. By finishing up with something nice, you encourage the writer to keep working on his/her craft (hopefully using the advice you just provided).

This technique is called the “sandwich technique,” and you can read more about it in this wonderful article: “The Give and Take of Critique” (http://www.lspark.com/writing/critique.html). I like the technique because it’s easy to remember, and it works. For other strategies and tips that can help you write the best critiques possible, check out these useful articles: “Tips for Critiquing Other Writers’ Work” (http://www.writingforward.com/writing-tips/tips-for-critiquing-other-writers-work) and “How to Critique” (http://marilynnbyerly.com/page9l.html).

(Special thanks to my writing group member, Pamela, for finding and sharing those resources!)

Step Three: Before Handing it Over

Before you show your review to the author – and especially before you post it online – take a moment to read over what you’ve written. Think about how you, as a writer, would feel if someone wrote this critique about your work. Would it excite you, bum you out, or stomp on your soul like an army boot on big fat cockroach? If you can hear the squishy-crunchy noises of someone’s writing dreams getting squashed, maybe you should tone down your review just a little.

Some reviewers use the realities of the industry as an excuse for writing harsh critiques. I mean, if the author can’t take some blunt remarks, then he/she doesn’t have a thick enough skin to handle rejection from publishers, right? To this, I say: Yeah, you’re right. It is a hard industry. And we do need to have elephant hides in order to survive. But with a steady stream of rejections coming from publishers, editors and agents alike, I believe there should be one group of people we can to turn for some honest feedback and some encouragement to keep going: our fellow writers.

-Gretchen