Re: RARA-AVIS: My Unfair Lady

From: Sandra Ruttan (
Date: 17 May 2007

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" <> 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