On May 17, 2007, at 8:19 AM, Sandra Ruttan wrote:
> Respectfully, it doesn't matter if you were
responding to a
> discussion about
> 'is it fair'. You went on at length to say that
what's not
> published isn't
> published because it's crap and that the examples to
the contrary
> are few
> and far between.
If you were being respectful, you'd have responded to what I
actually said.
I never said -- and certainly not at length -- that ALL
rejected work was crap. In fact, "crap" seems to be your pet
word, not mine.
What I said was simply that MOST books are rejected because
they're
"not very good.'
Notice I said MOST. Not ALL. And I said "not very good." Not
"CRAP."
Granted, good is subjective as hell. And yes, commercial
considerations certainly do come into play. Publishing is a
business, after all. And that doesn't mean something "not
very good" can't be revised or improved, or be accepted by
some other publisher with different (lower?) standards. Or
that "not good" automatically means
"crap."
But does anyone seriously think MOST work is rejected for any
other reason than quality?
Does anyone honestly think MOST of the work rejected day in
and day out by the publishing industry is actually really
great stuff, worthy of and ready for publication, and just
doesn't quite fit in to the publisher's current plans?
Take a wade through a real slush pile sometime. Or talk to an
acquisitions editor at a major publisher and ask about what
most of the unsolicited stuff they reject is like. Look at
the stuff that gets sent back with a form rejection letter
(and ask yourself why form rejection letters exist). For
every woulda, coulda, shoulda they have to regretfully send
back with a nice little note of apology there are hundreds of
probably never ever gonnabes that come back rubber-stamped
"Thanks, but no thanks...".
And more every day.
> I submit that if you want to prove what's 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.
You're right -- I should have been a little clearer there.
What I should have said was:
> One final point: the rise of relatively cheap POD
vanity presses has,
> for the first time in history, given us a clearer
idea of SOME of
> the stuff
> traditional publishers may have rejected.
But my opinion on the "merits" of the majority of rejected
works was not based solely on the self-published books I've
read, but also on discussions, both public and private, with
editors, agents and other writers. Plus reading tons of trade
journals and industry web sites, and my own experiences in
publishing and reviewing and editing.
Still, I'm pretty sure most self-published authors aren't
turning down big Random House bucks simply for the glorious
freedom of self- publishing.
And unless they're merely spinning tall tales (writers are so
good at bullshit, after all), a lot of self-publishers do
claim they chose to go the vanity way after being rejected by
mainstream presses.
> ...to say that what's
> rejected is rejected solely because it isn't any
good is a sweeping
> judgment, unsupported by any facts.
Which is why a slush pile reader or acquisitions editor is
probably a more valid source on the quality (of lack of
quality) of rejected work, rather than a few self-serving
stories from disgruntled writers
-- or an "agent" hustling for a fee.
I didn't say all work was SOLELY rejected because it's crap.
It's not. And certainly not "overwhelmingly crap," as you put
it.
But the weaker the story the MORE likely it will be
rejected.
That seems like a reasonable conclusion. So why is it so hard
for some writers to accept?
Are their egos that fragile?
Yes, good books do get rejected. But that doesn't mean all --
or even most -- rejected books are good.
> I mean, I had a short story rejected by The
Thrilling Detective.
> Does that
> mean it was crap?
I'd love to say "Yes" but truthfully, I don't even remember
your story.
I do remember another story, though, My fiction
editor, Gerald So, and I worked very closely with its author.
the story very definitely wasn't crap, and we went through
several revisions, but ultimately we did reject it.
The author promptly sent it off to another place, which he
certainly had every right to do, and they jumped on it. They
even published the original version. Complete with the
original typos and misspellings and plot holes we had worked
so hard to eliminate.
Boy, did they show us! Gee, were our faces red!
Meanwhile, as for your story:
> Someone else published it. It remains the short
story
> I've received the most fan mail over of all the ones
I've had
> published.
Congratulations. But, to respectfully paraphrase somebody
close and dear to your heart, "Which of us hasn't seen a
(published story) that falls under the crap category?"
The writers who sent me nasty or whiny little letters
privately on this issue will never admit, ever, that any work
of theirs has ever been rejected for any other reason than
the colossal unfairness and/ or the titanic stupidity of evil
publishers.
They honestly think no writer -- and certainly not them --
ever wrote a bad story. Tim's summed up the whole mindset
rather nicely, I thought:
> If someone else's work is rejected, it's a quality
issue. But if
> MY work is
> rejected, it's a fairness thing. That's my story,
and I'm sticking
> to it.
He's joking (I think) but some of them actually seem to
believe it.
Poor babies....
Now could we get back to regular programming?
That "recent reads" thread seems good.
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
RARA-AVIS home page: http://www.miskatonic.org/rara-avis/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rara-avis-l/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:
rara-avis-l-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:
rara-avis-l-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email
to:
rara-avis-l-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 18 May 2007 EDT