Respectfully, it doesn¹t matter if you were responding to a
discussion about
Œis it fair¹. You went on at length to say that what¹s not
published isn¹t published because it¹s crap and that the
examples to the contrary are few and far between.
I submit that if you want to prove what¹s passed on by
publishers is overwhelmingly crap based on the self published
titles you have read, then you need to support that the
overwhelming majority of those who have rejected work opt for
self publishing.
Life isn¹t fair. Why should publishing be fair? But to say
that what¹s rejected is rejected solely because it isn¹t any
good is a sweeping judgment, unsupported by any facts.
I mean, I had a short story rejected by The Thrilling
Detective. Does that mean it was crap? Someone else published
it. It remains the short story I¹ve received the most fan
mail over of all the ones I¹ve had published.
Tomato, tomahto. I chalk it up to taste, and don¹t take it
personally. We reject stuff all the time that is publishable
and sometimes is very good, just doesn¹t quite make the cut,
and sometimes that comes down to our preferences. Doesn¹t
make one accepted story necessarily better than a rejected
one... Just different. Any editor should know that.
Cheers, Sandra
On 5/17/07 8:29 AM, "Kevin Burton Smith" <
kvnsmith@thrillingdetective.com> wrote:
> Several of the responses to my post about the
perceived "unfairness"
> of publishers-- including the private messages full
of the usual
> insults and typical hyper-ventilated posturing --
were exactly as I
> predicted.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 17 May 2007 EDT