What a hoot! And fun to read. Yes, yes and yes! Having read submissions for a major literary journal for a year, I got a sense of the other side--and how exhausting it is to read a lot of work that isn't ready yet. I call it "almost land". So there might be strong characters, or great pacing, or a really compelling topic, but it doesn't hold together. Doesn't really go anywhere. And after several paragraphs, really doesn't hold my interest. I don't think editors can put that in their "no thank you messages", but as writers, we can remember to work and rework and to get readers and to put a piece aside and revisit it before sending it out. My wish list: respond quickly, never ask me not to send out my work simultaneously, be polite, and maybe have a fun form letter--maybe multiple choice. If you want help with that, call me!
Short and sharp does the necessary for me, unless actual feedback is being offered and it's not from a slush reader who appears to be barely literate. Some things that get me riled are:
- litmags who have the arrogance to expect you to wait 3-6 months and won't accept simultaneous submission
- litmags that refuse to send rejection letters
- editors offering the excuse that they are inundated with submissions. If you don't have the resources to handle your workflow in a timely manner, don't make your submitters suffer. Close submissions, impose submission limits, close down, whatever, but don't be in the game if you can't meet the fair and reasonable needs of submitters to celebrate or move on.
One of my favorites is, "You made it to the final round," or something to that effect. It's useful because seems to step out of form letter mode and, therefore, offers hope. When it potentiallyhas the opposite effect is when a journal allowed multiple pieces within a single submission and they don't say which piece "made it to the final round." Of course, maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe all that matters is believing that some editor or reader stepped out of form letter mode to say, "it was oh so close."
"We are unable to publish your piece at this time." Yes, I've also received that one a few times, and I'll confess it gets under my skin. It's an inaccurate statement which reminds me of adults correcting children about the difference between "May I?" and "Can I?" Yes, you ARE able to publish my work; you just choose not to. Which is fine. But please convey that properly: ""We choose not to publish your piece at this time."
This is more a response to those who have commented on Fiona's piece that they just want the editor to cut to the chase: I don't like that at all. And I so appreciate "tiered" rejections where I am told what the readers liked about my submissions and if possible why it wasn't selected.
Yes to all of this, especially #3. I hate it when there's a lot of tip-toeing around the author ego in a rejection letter. My preferred rejection letter would be:
Dear Author,
You are rejected.
Sincerely,
The Editors.
I just want to know if it is a yes or a no and move on. The less I have to read of the email, the better. And it is my responsibility to keep my records straight, so it is fine if they don't list the pieces.
Very astute commentary, Fiona! As to #3, I am particularly annoyed by advice on a turndown letter to "keep on writing" -- perhaps useful cheerleading for some people, but for snowflakes like me, a bit patronizing.
I agree with everything you wrote only I don't think many will do it. Some are lazy, some are inundated with too many submissions and some may think- this just didn't hit me with something fresh and really not know why. Another reason is that what they want is not solidified in their minds until they see it. I don't pay attention to rejection notes because they are usually useless. I think some of my poems are pretty good- as good as some that are published today. I think there is a bias against those of us who have many degrees but not the all-important MFA. And they look at where you have published and make judgments on that. Late bloomers beware- your task is greater!
The best/worst rejection letter I ever read was in a children’s picture book published years ago: “The Plot Chickens” by Mary Jane Auch, about, yes, a chicken wanting to be a published writer. The Rejection read (I’m paraphrasing from memory) something like: “We don’t publish stories written by chickens. Even if we did, we wouldn’t want yours. We didn’t like it. Don’t quit your day job…” It’s the “we didn’t like it” that cracks me up, and also rings true. I mean, that’s what it mostly comes down to. That said, I really don’t want a publisher to spell it out so brutally!
Thanks for this, Fiona. I'm with you on naming the piece in the rejection letter. On the other side, I've sent a fair share of these, usually asap, and it's just a template. You cut and paste the title in the spot where the template says to. It's 15 seconds that saves hours.
I just received an email rejection from A Major Poetry Journal that ended: "We hope you are as safe and well as you can be." Boy, that was a head-scratcher, until I realized that it was a form rejection left over from the pandemic. This Major Poetry Journal has a great deal of money and could afford a staff to keep up with these annoying matters.
Thank you for this. I'm sure most of us have felt similar/same feelings/reactions.
I would also add one additional note, something about clearing out their submission queues. This drives me nuts! I keep them hanging there so I can be irritated again and again. Here is one that is going on eleven years old, journal name omitted.
The Possibility of Fire XXXXXXXX Journal Open Reading Period 2013 Jul 19, 2013
So agree with the snowflake comment in particular (but really, everything). Well into my career, I got a long one of those rejections that began, "Dear Young Writer" and went on and on giving me advice that I knew quite well from experience. The disconnect was stunning.
"A rejection letter that includes the title of the piece that you’re rejecting—that helps."
I've run into an odd spate of these in the past two months and its my avoidance of simsubs to the same place that has helped me but there are a couple of exceptions and its only submittable that saved me.
Also I don't mind straight forward rejection letters or soft rejection letters. I don't need it to be a specific way. What I do request is that if you put something in there that might sound personal you mean it. If you say, submit again, please mean it. If you say, we liked your pieces, please mean it. I'm not advocating harsh language or stripped down language, I think that what works for everyone can be different and what works for one doesn't work for another. Just not language that muddies the water of tiered rejection because it makes me question all publishers tiered rejections and I am not sure who to take seriously.
What a hoot! And fun to read. Yes, yes and yes! Having read submissions for a major literary journal for a year, I got a sense of the other side--and how exhausting it is to read a lot of work that isn't ready yet. I call it "almost land". So there might be strong characters, or great pacing, or a really compelling topic, but it doesn't hold together. Doesn't really go anywhere. And after several paragraphs, really doesn't hold my interest. I don't think editors can put that in their "no thank you messages", but as writers, we can remember to work and rework and to get readers and to put a piece aside and revisit it before sending it out. My wish list: respond quickly, never ask me not to send out my work simultaneously, be polite, and maybe have a fun form letter--maybe multiple choice. If you want help with that, call me!
Short and sharp does the necessary for me, unless actual feedback is being offered and it's not from a slush reader who appears to be barely literate. Some things that get me riled are:
- litmags who have the arrogance to expect you to wait 3-6 months and won't accept simultaneous submission
- litmags that refuse to send rejection letters
- editors offering the excuse that they are inundated with submissions. If you don't have the resources to handle your workflow in a timely manner, don't make your submitters suffer. Close submissions, impose submission limits, close down, whatever, but don't be in the game if you can't meet the fair and reasonable needs of submitters to celebrate or move on.
One of my favorites is, "You made it to the final round," or something to that effect. It's useful because seems to step out of form letter mode and, therefore, offers hope. When it potentiallyhas the opposite effect is when a journal allowed multiple pieces within a single submission and they don't say which piece "made it to the final round." Of course, maybe that doesn't matter. Maybe all that matters is believing that some editor or reader stepped out of form letter mode to say, "it was oh so close."
"We are unable to publish your piece at this time." Yes, I've also received that one a few times, and I'll confess it gets under my skin. It's an inaccurate statement which reminds me of adults correcting children about the difference between "May I?" and "Can I?" Yes, you ARE able to publish my work; you just choose not to. Which is fine. But please convey that properly: ""We choose not to publish your piece at this time."
This is more a response to those who have commented on Fiona's piece that they just want the editor to cut to the chase: I don't like that at all. And I so appreciate "tiered" rejections where I am told what the readers liked about my submissions and if possible why it wasn't selected.
Yes to all of this, especially #3. I hate it when there's a lot of tip-toeing around the author ego in a rejection letter. My preferred rejection letter would be:
Dear Author,
You are rejected.
Sincerely,
The Editors.
I just want to know if it is a yes or a no and move on. The less I have to read of the email, the better. And it is my responsibility to keep my records straight, so it is fine if they don't list the pieces.
Very astute commentary, Fiona! As to #3, I am particularly annoyed by advice on a turndown letter to "keep on writing" -- perhaps useful cheerleading for some people, but for snowflakes like me, a bit patronizing.
I agree with everything you wrote only I don't think many will do it. Some are lazy, some are inundated with too many submissions and some may think- this just didn't hit me with something fresh and really not know why. Another reason is that what they want is not solidified in their minds until they see it. I don't pay attention to rejection notes because they are usually useless. I think some of my poems are pretty good- as good as some that are published today. I think there is a bias against those of us who have many degrees but not the all-important MFA. And they look at where you have published and make judgments on that. Late bloomers beware- your task is greater!
Thank you! We will take your comments to heart - and we hope you'll submit to our next issue (subs open April 1-30).
The best/worst rejection letter I ever read was in a children’s picture book published years ago: “The Plot Chickens” by Mary Jane Auch, about, yes, a chicken wanting to be a published writer. The Rejection read (I’m paraphrasing from memory) something like: “We don’t publish stories written by chickens. Even if we did, we wouldn’t want yours. We didn’t like it. Don’t quit your day job…” It’s the “we didn’t like it” that cracks me up, and also rings true. I mean, that’s what it mostly comes down to. That said, I really don’t want a publisher to spell it out so brutally!
Thanks for this, Fiona. I'm with you on naming the piece in the rejection letter. On the other side, I've sent a fair share of these, usually asap, and it's just a template. You cut and paste the title in the spot where the template says to. It's 15 seconds that saves hours.
I just received an email rejection from A Major Poetry Journal that ended: "We hope you are as safe and well as you can be." Boy, that was a head-scratcher, until I realized that it was a form rejection left over from the pandemic. This Major Poetry Journal has a great deal of money and could afford a staff to keep up with these annoying matters.
Thank you for this. I'm sure most of us have felt similar/same feelings/reactions.
I would also add one additional note, something about clearing out their submission queues. This drives me nuts! I keep them hanging there so I can be irritated again and again. Here is one that is going on eleven years old, journal name omitted.
The Possibility of Fire XXXXXXXX Journal Open Reading Period 2013 Jul 19, 2013
A wonderful piece, so my experience! xo
So agree with the snowflake comment in particular (but really, everything). Well into my career, I got a long one of those rejections that began, "Dear Young Writer" and went on and on giving me advice that I knew quite well from experience. The disconnect was stunning.
"A rejection letter that includes the title of the piece that you’re rejecting—that helps."
I've run into an odd spate of these in the past two months and its my avoidance of simsubs to the same place that has helped me but there are a couple of exceptions and its only submittable that saved me.
Also I don't mind straight forward rejection letters or soft rejection letters. I don't need it to be a specific way. What I do request is that if you put something in there that might sound personal you mean it. If you say, submit again, please mean it. If you say, we liked your pieces, please mean it. I'm not advocating harsh language or stripped down language, I think that what works for everyone can be different and what works for one doesn't work for another. Just not language that muddies the water of tiered rejection because it makes me question all publishers tiered rejections and I am not sure who to take seriously.