Learning from rejection

[Nerds_feather]

Rejection is a fact of life for all writers, and especially for aspiring writers. Ideally, it should be something to learn from, but what you can take away from rejection depends on why the piece in question was rejected. I see 5 diferrent rejection scenarios, with different implications for the author:

1. It isn't good enough.

Solution: sadly, in this case, the solution is to scrap the piece and move on.

How to tell if this is the case: you can't go by one person's opinion (opinion being subjective), but you could potentially go by a weight of opinion (i.e. a critical mass of rejections). If you have friends who are both knowledgable and reliably give "tough love," ask for their opinion. It might hurt, but it's better than wasting more time trying to salvage a wreck.

2. It isn't good enough for this outlet, but might be good enough for another with either lower or different standards.

Solution: Send it to another publisher, most likely one that is less selective.

How to tell if this is the case: Take a week to clear your head. Read their fiction. Ask yourself--does your story/novel do the things theirs do, and to a similar degree of success? In your heart of hearts, you probably know the answer. That said, if the same introspective gaze tells you the story/novel is still good enough for publication, then look at "silver standard" outlets. Then "bronze," etc.

3. There are specific issues that can be fixed in order to make it good enough.

Solution: Fix those things, then submit to a similar outlet.

How to tell if this is the case: In a perfect world, the outlet will tell you what they are and allow you to resubmit. If not, you'll have to ask others and re-read your piece carefully to identify what these might be.

4. It doesn't fit what the outlet wants/is too similar to something they've just accepted.

Solution: Don't bother revising, just send it somewhere else, with the same standards.

How to tell if this is the case: They might tell you this, but then again, they often won't. But you also might be able to tell on your own, provided you are self-critical enough.

5. There's something good in there, but a lot of fundamental problems.

Solution: If you suspect this is the case, shop the story around to your writing group, trustworthy friends, etc. Specifically ask them to point out what works and what doesn't. Turn the story into scrap metal, taking out the small but significant good scenes and axing the rest. Rework into something very different.

How to tell if this is the case: Same as #4.

...there's probably more, so please go ahead and add to the list, or amend the stuff I've written in here!

 

[allmywires]

#6 You've written a book nobody wants to read.

solution: ...cry.

Sorry, bitter rejectee here! But these are really good points, actually, and a logical thought process.

 

[Tecdavid]

Points 1 and 3 are difficult to deal with, even if the nature of dealing with them sounds simple. Dr. Seuss, I believe, submitted his work to countless publishers, only to be rejected. The message he could have taken from that didn't reflect the opinions of a world-wide audience, however.

#6 You've written a book nobody wants to read.

solution: ...cry.

Ah, come now. If no one wants to read it, that might just be because they haven't thought to yet. You'll take 'em by surprise when your name's in them there bookshops!

 

[Cathy M.]

#7: Its just to much.

I've noticed that sometimes people just try and do to much at once, which causes readers and agents to loose interest very quickly.

 

[Victoria Silverwolf]

For completeness:

#8: We really like this, but we can't publish it because we need a story of X length and yours is Y length (or any other purely technical reason.)


Solution: Thank the editor very politely and add the name to your list of places to try first with other submissions. Send them something completely different, of X length, of the same or higher quality. Make sure they know your name and think of you as a good writer who is willing to work with them.

 

[Nerds_feather]

#7: Its just to much.

I've noticed that sometimes people just try and do to much at once, which causes readers and agents to loose interest very quickly.

I would probably put that under #3 or #5, depending on just how overboard the author has gone.

For completeness:

#8: We really like this, but we can't publish it because we need a story of X length and yours is Y length (or any other purely technical reason.)


Solution: Thank the editor very politely and add the name to your list of places to try first with other submissions. Send them something completely different, of X length, of the same or higher quality. Make sure they know your name and think of you as a good writer who is willing to work with them.

I'm tempted to say that's part of #4, but you're right: a technical rejection is its own beast. Always pays to pay very close attention to submission guidelines.

I was going to send a 4,000 word story to one ezine until I saw the 3,500 word limit. Ignoring that would have resulted in a waste of everyone's time.

 

[Nerds_feather]

Another one: you were rejected because you are an unknown or minor author, the outlet gets a massive volume of unknown and minor authors, consequently doesn't read through their submissions very carefully and, again consequently, didn't really give yours much of a chance.

Solution: keep sending it out and hope someone does.

How to tell if this is the problem: it's going to be near impossible to know this from form rejections, so when looking for another outlet, try to select one that has a reputation for personalized replies (instead of form replies). You should be able to tell from that whether the reviewer read your piece carefully or just stopped after the first few paragraphs.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

# 9 your query was rubbish so they didn't read on. - learn to write a query!

# 10 your opening was generic, info dumping, lacked a confident voice, so they didn't read on

#11 your book is derivative and lacks an original premise so they didn't read on

Basically, you need to give yourself a chance and not shoot yourself in the foot at the very start.

 

[Hex]

#12 You can't spell/ punctuate/ write English (which I guess is part of #1, but quite dramatically so).

#13 Your voice does not appeal to them.

#14 They're clearing their inbox before the weekend and they're not in the mood to be interested.

There are things you can deal with (12) and things you can't (13/14)

 

[Brian G Turner]

My understanding is that most of what is submitted to agents is at least first draft material - stories that might be good, but are buried under too much bad writing that required an editor.

I've always argued that aspiring writers should seek editing services where possible, and even if you cannot afford a full book edit, at least get the first few chapters sent so you can get an idea of your weaknesses.

Some people may be naturally good writers, but I think most need some outside help (myself included!) to help show them their mistakes to learn from.

Once you reach a competent writing standard, my expectation is that it's a matter of continued perseverence.

I may be naive.

 

[Glitch]

Once you reach a competent writing standard, my expectation is that it's a matter of continued perseverence.

I may be naive.

It's always good to have a positive attitude

 

[Kissmequick]

A nice list of some reasons for rejection can be found here (scroll down to 3)

If you get to the point you're at 11 +. then there's a reasonable chance it'll get picked up by someone, if you pitch it properly, follow guidelines, sub to the right people etc etc. Obviously it's more complicated than that...but the OP's list is good.

Though I'll add another

#whatever Your query isn't doing your story justice. How do you tell? Well, if you're getting no requests at all for materials. That means it's probably time to tweak it/rewrite it. Although it may also mean you've written a book that sounds very derivative (in which case, change the book, or work to highlight specifics in your query, ones that will pique interest and not make anyone think, oh an X clone)

 

[Nerds_feather]

I only write short stories, and query letters aren't really a bit part of that--hence my omission of them in the OP.

 

[Bowler1]

I always get very frustrated by people complaining about rejections, it’s very clear that success is a mountain to climb. Even then some dumb luck is involved, finding the right person at the right time etc. But if it was easy, where would the challenge be?

What really makes me wonder is, what’s the problem? If you enjoy writing, you’ll write. If it passes the time and is pleasant for you to do, you’ll still be writing even after all the agents in the world refuse you. Yes, please take it seriously and push yourself, but remember why you started to write – to tell a story that’s within you, and if you get lucky you’ll get published. I can’t see why having a hobby that you enjoy is seen as failure, that does baffle me. I think that writing is something you do.

 

[Hex]

I think that rejection is difficult and it can sap your joy in writing. Not all of us have stories we must tell (or secure jobs), some of us just like writing and want to do it.

I don't see anything wrong with recognising that it's tough to be turned down over and over again, and discouraging.

What's not so reasonable is blaming the people who reject you. If your story doesn't grab them, well it doesn't. If they loved what you wrote, then they'd want it.

It's like designing an interface -- if you produce an interface and people can't use it, it's not users being stupid, it's a failure in your design.

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I always get very frustrated by people complaining about rejections, it’s very clear that success is a mountain to climb. Even then some dumb luck is involved, finding the right person at the right time etc. But if it was easy, where would the challenge be?

What really makes me wonder is, what’s the problem? If you enjoy writing, you’ll write. If it passes the time and is pleasant for you to do, you’ll still be writing even after all the agents in the world refuse you. Yes, please take it seriously and push yourself, but remember why you started to write – to tell a story that’s within you, and if you get lucky you’ll get published. I can’t see why having a hobby that you enjoy is seen as failure, that does baffle me. I think that writing is something you do.

But not all of us are writing for a hobby. I mean, yes, I have another job(s), but this is what I want to do, and I want to make enough from it to drop some of my other work and have more time to do it. Which means being very, very professional. With the last book I queried, I got a lot right, but got the demographic slightly wrong, judging by the agent replies I got. So, fine, I'll not make that mistake again. I might also do a review to up-adult it. But it's not a case of getting lucky, it's a case of working very hard -- as I think people like KMq and Anne Lyle have said -- and then, maybe, having some luck. But for me, the querying process isn't about a punt, or an I don't mind if nothing comes of it, exercise, but an exhausting grind to bring about a dream.

 

[Jake Reynolds]

What really makes me wonder is, what’s the problem? If you enjoy writing, you’ll write. If it passes the time and is pleasant for you to do, you’ll still be writing even after all the agents in the world refuse you. Yes, please take it seriously and push yourself, but remember why you started to write – to tell a story that’s within you, and if you get lucky you’ll get published. I can’t see why having a hobby that you enjoy is seen as failure, that does baffle me. I think that writing is something you do.

Very, very well said. A lot of people in 'expressive' pursuits often get caught up in the final stage, focussing all their energies on their failure and not why they do it in the first place. Whether musicians going for an album deal, artists competing for installations, and so on. Those who are only in it for the money are doomed to fail (and by fail I don't necessarily mean commercially), so why do we focus so much on that aspect of the process to the detriment of all else when our work reaches that stage?

You can bet EL James, Dan Brown and Stephanie Meyer, whatever you think of the quality, loved every word they put onto the page. That they enjoyed commercial success is a huge bonus, but it's not why they do it.

In fact, I find that nowadays the Stephen Kings and the John Grishams are the ones starting to crank stuff out with less love of the writing (sorry Steve, I love you, but your last few have been a bit disappointing for me).

Every time I sit down to write, consider world building elements, do some plotting or structuring, I think how amazing it is that I have such an exhilarating hobby. Rejections are a downer, sure, but being published isn't why I do it. May as well say that your position when you cross the line is all that matters in a marathon.

 

[HareBrain]

The situation I find frustrating is not being able to learn from rejection because I have no clue what it's telling me. It's like running a piece of code and the computer coming back with a non-specific error message, not even telling you which line it's on. In fact, there might not even be an error; it might just be that there was an electrical malfunction while it was running. You've had the code tested to the best of your ability, even professionally, and no one came up with any suggestions for improving it. So you hit "run" again and wait another two months. And each time it comes back "error", you know you've spent another of your limited opportunities to run it. Nightmare!

(I know there's no choice but to keep going: I only posted because I like the analogy. And the first few lines of code are now with an expert programmer, so that might throw up something.)

 

[Hex]

So. I'd like to be published. I'm prepared to put in the work to get close to that goal.

I hate rejections. They make me miserable (although some of them less than others -- there can be rejections that make you feel wonderful(*)). I want to get as few of them as possible, which means I will work, I will be professional and I will write to the best of my ability.

I don't write because I love it (though I do), I write to be published. And I might still fail, but I'm serious about what I'm doing.

(*) but I didn't start getting these from agents until I was pretty much there anyway. The first time I queried I got nothing and it was desperate.

 

[Boneman]

(*) but I didn't start getting these from agents until I was pretty much there anyway. The first time I queried I got nothing and it was desperate.

Absolutely: getting nothing is far worse than getting a rejection. (Remember! Nothing acts faster than Anadin - so take nothing...)

ps: and perhaps, the one thing to remember is that every single writer in the universe started with rejections, and Ultimately agents and publishers need writers, or they have no business. And every rejection means you're one closer to acceptance.