Well, the article I just linked to had inside it a link to this article, which is also a pretty good read–in which Theresa Nielsen Hayden of Tor Books gives some examples from Rejectioncollection.com of authors seriously overreacting to some fairly positive rejection letters, and then discusses the editor’s point of view when reading slush.

On the one hand, it’s very comforting, because it reminds you that rejection isn’t personal and that editors have to go through so many manuscripts.  On the other hand, it’s kind of disheartening, because when she lists the various reasons for rejecting manuscripts, the conclusion seems to be that if you can build a coherent story you’re really competing with only 5% to 10% of any given publisher’s submissions.  And if that’s the case, then it means, at least speaking for myself, that my acceptance ratio is a lot more disappointing than I had previously believed.

My favorite part:

What these guys have failed to understand about rejection is that it isn’t personal. If you’re a writer, you’re more or less constitutionally incapable of understanding that last sentence, if you think there’s any chance that it applies to you and your book; so please just imagine that I’m talking about rejections that happen to all those other writers who aren’t you.

One reader took issue to this claim (took it personally, I daresay), but for myelf I say guilty as charged.  Though I like to think I’ve learned to hide it well.

It would be an interesting experiment to write a story with the title “Slush” and see how editors respond.  Unfortunately, I usually title my stories after I’ve written them, not the other way around.  Oddly, though, I seem to have already written that poem and gotten it published under a different title, years ago.

I get kind of self-indulgent and talk about how this compares to my own acceptances and rejections after the break. . .

 

In terms of my own submissions, I’ve been either doing well this year or horribly, depending how you break it down.  I’ve sent 11 manuscripts out and, of the seven that have been returned so far, I’ve gotten 1 acceptance, 2 flat-out rejections, and 4 rejections with positive comments.  One magazine where I made a concerted effort sent a form rejection for the first submission, something more positive for the second, and by the third wrote:

Your writing is elegant and you pay real attention to rhythm, which I like.  You also have a subtle tongue-in-cheekness that pleases me greatly. . . You’ve obviously got talent; send us something else with a little more to hold onto.

I’m going to have to send them something else, even if I have to write it to order.

Counting acceptances alone, that’s 1 out of 7, or a batting average of .143.  But if you count positive response vs form letters, I’ve done well with 71% of submissions (or 80% of journals, if you treat the journal to which I submitted three times as only one).

Cross-posted at LiveJournal.

Recently:

• Where to find me online
• Drollerie Blog Tour: Anna the Piper on Dangerous Writing
• Upcoming publications
• Straying from the Path
• Drollerie Press book sale
• Drollerie blog tour: Cindy Lynn Speer talks about music
• Call for Submissions: Trafficking in Magic/Magicking in Traffic
• Updates to appearances
• Because nothing goes with chocolate like excess…
• Celebrate Chocolate Day–20% off The Chocolatier’s Wife