Thank you so much, Lisa. I especially enjoyed the last section of your article.
Writers often gripe about rejections.
And I realize there is a Top Tier that many are trying to break into and often those tightrope-walking odds are a breathtaking 1% acceptance rate.
But there are plenty of literary journals whose odds are 10%.
Maybe those editors will be happier to roll out the red carpet.
Anyway I wanted to share an acceptance letter that just landed in my inbox & lit up my Thursday.
Dear LindaAnn,
We are pleased to inform you that we have accepted your #VISPO prose-poem to the inaugural issue of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. We unanimously adored your work and believe it reflects the journal's goals beautifully.
If you have not already, please respond with a short author bio of 150 words or less so that we may include it alongside your work for publication....
I recently got a rejection from a journal that said the editors enjoyed reading the piece and encouraged me to send more work in the future, and then said "This is not our standard rejection." I appreciated knowing that these editors understand how writers try to parse rejections...
Love your article. People get discouraged so easily. A couple of weeks ago, one of our new writers in my workshop announced with great pride her first rejection. The story that is coming out in River Styx got rejected 88 times. But while I get a lot of form letters, these two are so dear to me, that I kept them. I removed the name of the publication and fiction editors.
I am writing to let you know that your story, "Guest," came very close to an acceptance for the NAME REVIEW, Unlawful Acts Issue. We passed your manuscript to PERSON'S NAME, our Fiction Editor, for his final acceptance, and while he did not select it, I wanted you to know how much we admired your story and what our process is.
In order to get to NAME, a story must receive a "yes" from our entire Associate Editors board, as well as our two managing editors focusing on prose submissions, and then me. So there was a lot of enthusiasm for "Guest." We loved the viewpoint shifting and the payoff that comes when the "I" narrative and the "he" narrative merge, and we loved the story's complex way of straddling two different cultures.
I know this is a rejection, and that is disappointing, and I don't like sending these letters especially when something came so close, but you have fans here, and I will always be glad to see your name come across my desk again. Please do send us more work in the future if you're inclined to do so.
Thank you again for sending us such a compelling story. I know it will find a home soon--
A DIFFERENT REVIEW
Thank you for your interest in NAME REVIEW, and for taking the time to send us your work. Although we appreciated the compelling exploration of personal conflict and identity in this piece, we have decided that “Guest” isn’t the right fit for NAME REVIEW at this time.
That being said, your depiction of the narrator's internal struggle between their love/loathing for Venezuela and the US was very powerful. The way that you juxtaposed these complex feelings of longing and frustration—order and chaos—love and disdain—all resonated deeply, inviting the reader into an incredibly personal (and simultaneously universal) dilemma. Furthermore, the staccato rhythm of your prose added a layer of dynamism to your storytelling. I was particularly struck by the following passage, on page 11: “I kept a low profile. Stayed away from the family, cooked at a restaurant, and when I had time stared at the crazy paintings I did of Sofia in all her glorious splendor. I wanted to get back into painting, I wanted to write, I wanted to go back to Venezuela and live by the beach, I wanted to never go back. I loved the chaos of Venezuela. I loved how organized the US was. I hated how organized the US was.”
Thank you again for trusting us with your work. We wish you the best of luck in placing “Guest” with another publication, and we hope to read more of your fiction in the future.
To editors out there, keep sending these letters, they are so important to us.
Thanks Lisa. Enjoyed your article. The Apostle Paul advised that we need to encourage one another. I take encouragement from your analysis. Certainly encouragement is not the business of editors.
From a really good university affiliated journal I got this rejection about a week ago. A number of my pieces are wry, even containing humorous scenes. In a way I think some of my writing cuts against the postmodern grain because it is light. Most of my stuff is full length also, fiction and CNF. That requires true commitment for a journal to accept. Most journals also take themselves quite seriously (so that you can surmise that levity is not always a "fit" in the context of their other "heavier" acceptances). That is the context as I see it. Here's my latest rejection:
"Thank you for your interest in The xxxx Review and for the opportunity to read your work. While we found "The Story" engaging, this submission doesn't fit our current needs.
We encourage you to send more of your work in the future.
Sincerely, Editor
I don't broadcast submissions en masse. I've collected a number of these from really good journals. Maybe it is time to aim lower. Close obviously doesn't count.
PS: There is something particularly irksome about journals (and there are many) that time their rejections so you receive them on Sunday morning. I'll never understand that.
There are a few lit mags I really really would love to appear in but after 10 rejections of 10 wildly different pieces, I have come to the sad conclusion that I am not for them - style, theme, vibe, who knows. Note that these 10 were happily accepted in other places. I've stopped beating myself up or trying to tweak some stories to death. There are some relationships that are not meant to be. It's life, not everybody will love you!
It's potentially useful to distinguish between rejections from journals that have high editorial staff turnover (e.g., the many university-based mags staffed by grad students) and mags that have more editorial stability. I take feedback from the latter more seriously.,
I've received cold, dead form rejections for a story that also was a finalist in a fiction competition out of 183 submission, but still not a winner. So it's still out there looking for a home. I'm thinking it might be one that needs to lay low for a year or three so that I can come back to it with truly fresh eyes, and maybe more skill.
Useful article, but how much can you really read into a rejection except to recognize that the publication didn't like your work?
Interpreting rejections can become almost an industry, albeit a crazed one, like trying to forecast the future by reading chicken entrails.
True story: A magazine editor rejected four or five separate submissions by a writer. (Not me.)
The editor claimed that he was trying to tell the writer that he, the editor, liked the writer's work and was trying to encourage him to keep submitting.
I recite that story to show how utterly clueless and out of touch many editors are. This was something I saw in my career as a newspaper reporter. Editors, oftentimes, had no idea what they were doing.
My limited experience with people who run lit mags convinces me that the same situation applies in that realm.
A frustrating scenario that I've experienced more than once: a journal comments that the submission came close but the staff couldn't reach consensus--and please do try again. I follow up within weeks (months at the latest) with an equally strong (subjective, of course) batch of poems or story, and this time get a low-tier rejection. Had the editors changed? I try to research this if the masthead is posted. When the answer is no, editors are the same, I am left to ponder the semi-random motions of the literary spheres.
There are a few journals I've submitted to several times over the past few years, and I always get a "high tier" rejection, with no specifics. I tend to think this is their standard rejection - they are just very nice editors who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. It's just as easy for them to click on this standard rejection as a harsher one. But I don't think it means I'm close to being accepted. Have others had this experience? What do you think?
As I've mentioned in L.M.N. before, I would encourage all my fellow writers to believe in themselves. If your writing resonates with YOU--if when you read it, you are amazed that you wrote it [in a good way], then feel pity for those editors who cannot see its truth. In other words, you must be your first fan!
I came to this game late in life, pushing 70 when I first got published, but in 7 years now I'm closing in on 200 lit mags in 15 countries publishing my poems and the occasional essay-- none of which I ever imagined doable in the last furlong or two of this incarnation. I've done it without paying fees or caring as to the 'status' of the lit mag [personally I've read a lot of God-awful poetry in some hoity-toity lit mags run by the MFA mafia no doubt]. All that really matters is that some folks might read my work, and for some of them it might have some meaning.
I recently received a cold dead form rejection from a children’s book publisher to which I’d sent a story almost TWO YEARS ago! Their sub guidelines say that if they haven’t answered in 4 months, writers should assume they’re not interested--so, yes, I’d assumed that long ago. It gave me a laugh, which rejections don’t often do, but how to read between the lines…?? Did their submission portal (similar to Submittable) get over-full and burp out everything inside it? Did they sit a new assistant down in front of the portal and say “just clear out everything that’s been there more than four months”? Who knows…?
I suspect that slush pile submissions from writers without name MFAs or a limited publication history are simply read only partially or very quickly. The bar is thus higher for these writers, particularly if the work is subtle or requires reader effort. I'll add that rejected writers often search for reasons for why a submission was declined when there isn't really a good explanation beyond the screening reader's mood or time pressures. There's probably a tendency to over read rejection emails.
I've been getting a lot of "we hope you will submit again in the future" variants and have begun questioning for several months whether this was what it seemed to be or the new copy form that places are using to blunt the sting of rejection.
Rejections might get a "bummer" moment from me (or not) but trying to sus out the higher tiers in letters has had me a little confused.
That makes the rubric at the bottom the most valuable piece and honestly if I had a printer right now (ink all out) I'd print it out and tape it next to my computer because that is so immensely useful.
Thank you so much, Lisa. I especially enjoyed the last section of your article.
Writers often gripe about rejections.
And I realize there is a Top Tier that many are trying to break into and often those tightrope-walking odds are a breathtaking 1% acceptance rate.
But there are plenty of literary journals whose odds are 10%.
Maybe those editors will be happier to roll out the red carpet.
Anyway I wanted to share an acceptance letter that just landed in my inbox & lit up my Thursday.
Dear LindaAnn,
We are pleased to inform you that we have accepted your #VISPO prose-poem to the inaugural issue of _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. We unanimously adored your work and believe it reflects the journal's goals beautifully.
If you have not already, please respond with a short author bio of 150 words or less so that we may include it alongside your work for publication....
[Insert smile emoji]
To crack the code of particular journal, look (and contribute) here:
https://www.rejectionwiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page
Also, I suspect journals are being more polite now that so many charge for submission to help offset the labor.
I recently got a rejection from a journal that said the editors enjoyed reading the piece and encouraged me to send more work in the future, and then said "This is not our standard rejection." I appreciated knowing that these editors understand how writers try to parse rejections...
Love your article. People get discouraged so easily. A couple of weeks ago, one of our new writers in my workshop announced with great pride her first rejection. The story that is coming out in River Styx got rejected 88 times. But while I get a lot of form letters, these two are so dear to me, that I kept them. I removed the name of the publication and fiction editors.
I am writing to let you know that your story, "Guest," came very close to an acceptance for the NAME REVIEW, Unlawful Acts Issue. We passed your manuscript to PERSON'S NAME, our Fiction Editor, for his final acceptance, and while he did not select it, I wanted you to know how much we admired your story and what our process is.
In order to get to NAME, a story must receive a "yes" from our entire Associate Editors board, as well as our two managing editors focusing on prose submissions, and then me. So there was a lot of enthusiasm for "Guest." We loved the viewpoint shifting and the payoff that comes when the "I" narrative and the "he" narrative merge, and we loved the story's complex way of straddling two different cultures.
I know this is a rejection, and that is disappointing, and I don't like sending these letters especially when something came so close, but you have fans here, and I will always be glad to see your name come across my desk again. Please do send us more work in the future if you're inclined to do so.
Thank you again for sending us such a compelling story. I know it will find a home soon--
A DIFFERENT REVIEW
Thank you for your interest in NAME REVIEW, and for taking the time to send us your work. Although we appreciated the compelling exploration of personal conflict and identity in this piece, we have decided that “Guest” isn’t the right fit for NAME REVIEW at this time.
That being said, your depiction of the narrator's internal struggle between their love/loathing for Venezuela and the US was very powerful. The way that you juxtaposed these complex feelings of longing and frustration—order and chaos—love and disdain—all resonated deeply, inviting the reader into an incredibly personal (and simultaneously universal) dilemma. Furthermore, the staccato rhythm of your prose added a layer of dynamism to your storytelling. I was particularly struck by the following passage, on page 11: “I kept a low profile. Stayed away from the family, cooked at a restaurant, and when I had time stared at the crazy paintings I did of Sofia in all her glorious splendor. I wanted to get back into painting, I wanted to write, I wanted to go back to Venezuela and live by the beach, I wanted to never go back. I loved the chaos of Venezuela. I loved how organized the US was. I hated how organized the US was.”
Thank you again for trusting us with your work. We wish you the best of luck in placing “Guest” with another publication, and we hope to read more of your fiction in the future.
To editors out there, keep sending these letters, they are so important to us.
Thanks Lisa. Enjoyed your article. The Apostle Paul advised that we need to encourage one another. I take encouragement from your analysis. Certainly encouragement is not the business of editors.
From a really good university affiliated journal I got this rejection about a week ago. A number of my pieces are wry, even containing humorous scenes. In a way I think some of my writing cuts against the postmodern grain because it is light. Most of my stuff is full length also, fiction and CNF. That requires true commitment for a journal to accept. Most journals also take themselves quite seriously (so that you can surmise that levity is not always a "fit" in the context of their other "heavier" acceptances). That is the context as I see it. Here's my latest rejection:
"Thank you for your interest in The xxxx Review and for the opportunity to read your work. While we found "The Story" engaging, this submission doesn't fit our current needs.
We encourage you to send more of your work in the future.
Sincerely, Editor
I don't broadcast submissions en masse. I've collected a number of these from really good journals. Maybe it is time to aim lower. Close obviously doesn't count.
PS: There is something particularly irksome about journals (and there are many) that time their rejections so you receive them on Sunday morning. I'll never understand that.
There are a few lit mags I really really would love to appear in but after 10 rejections of 10 wildly different pieces, I have come to the sad conclusion that I am not for them - style, theme, vibe, who knows. Note that these 10 were happily accepted in other places. I've stopped beating myself up or trying to tweak some stories to death. There are some relationships that are not meant to be. It's life, not everybody will love you!
It's potentially useful to distinguish between rejections from journals that have high editorial staff turnover (e.g., the many university-based mags staffed by grad students) and mags that have more editorial stability. I take feedback from the latter more seriously.,
I've received cold, dead form rejections for a story that also was a finalist in a fiction competition out of 183 submission, but still not a winner. So it's still out there looking for a home. I'm thinking it might be one that needs to lay low for a year or three so that I can come back to it with truly fresh eyes, and maybe more skill.
Useful article, but how much can you really read into a rejection except to recognize that the publication didn't like your work?
Interpreting rejections can become almost an industry, albeit a crazed one, like trying to forecast the future by reading chicken entrails.
True story: A magazine editor rejected four or five separate submissions by a writer. (Not me.)
The editor claimed that he was trying to tell the writer that he, the editor, liked the writer's work and was trying to encourage him to keep submitting.
I recite that story to show how utterly clueless and out of touch many editors are. This was something I saw in my career as a newspaper reporter. Editors, oftentimes, had no idea what they were doing.
My limited experience with people who run lit mags convinces me that the same situation applies in that realm.
A frustrating scenario that I've experienced more than once: a journal comments that the submission came close but the staff couldn't reach consensus--and please do try again. I follow up within weeks (months at the latest) with an equally strong (subjective, of course) batch of poems or story, and this time get a low-tier rejection. Had the editors changed? I try to research this if the masthead is posted. When the answer is no, editors are the same, I am left to ponder the semi-random motions of the literary spheres.
There are a few journals I've submitted to several times over the past few years, and I always get a "high tier" rejection, with no specifics. I tend to think this is their standard rejection - they are just very nice editors who don't want to hurt anyone's feelings. It's just as easy for them to click on this standard rejection as a harsher one. But I don't think it means I'm close to being accepted. Have others had this experience? What do you think?
As I've mentioned in L.M.N. before, I would encourage all my fellow writers to believe in themselves. If your writing resonates with YOU--if when you read it, you are amazed that you wrote it [in a good way], then feel pity for those editors who cannot see its truth. In other words, you must be your first fan!
I came to this game late in life, pushing 70 when I first got published, but in 7 years now I'm closing in on 200 lit mags in 15 countries publishing my poems and the occasional essay-- none of which I ever imagined doable in the last furlong or two of this incarnation. I've done it without paying fees or caring as to the 'status' of the lit mag [personally I've read a lot of God-awful poetry in some hoity-toity lit mags run by the MFA mafia no doubt]. All that really matters is that some folks might read my work, and for some of them it might have some meaning.
Isn't that why we write?
I recently received a cold dead form rejection from a children’s book publisher to which I’d sent a story almost TWO YEARS ago! Their sub guidelines say that if they haven’t answered in 4 months, writers should assume they’re not interested--so, yes, I’d assumed that long ago. It gave me a laugh, which rejections don’t often do, but how to read between the lines…?? Did their submission portal (similar to Submittable) get over-full and burp out everything inside it? Did they sit a new assistant down in front of the portal and say “just clear out everything that’s been there more than four months”? Who knows…?
I'm hoping that work I put on my substack site can also be submitted to lit mags. Any thoughts on this?
I suspect that slush pile submissions from writers without name MFAs or a limited publication history are simply read only partially or very quickly. The bar is thus higher for these writers, particularly if the work is subtle or requires reader effort. I'll add that rejected writers often search for reasons for why a submission was declined when there isn't really a good explanation beyond the screening reader's mood or time pressures. There's probably a tendency to over read rejection emails.
I've been getting a lot of "we hope you will submit again in the future" variants and have begun questioning for several months whether this was what it seemed to be or the new copy form that places are using to blunt the sting of rejection.
Rejections might get a "bummer" moment from me (or not) but trying to sus out the higher tiers in letters has had me a little confused.
That makes the rubric at the bottom the most valuable piece and honestly if I had a printer right now (ink all out) I'd print it out and tape it next to my computer because that is so immensely useful.