Blog Archives

Submission And Rejection (For Writers)

This is a little bit especially for people in the early days of their sending-their-writing-to-total-strangers-and-asking-them-to-publish-it careers. Which is daunting. It was for me. It was every time I did it, and so far I’ve chalked up around 200 rejections for 4 acceptances, only two of which are still in print (in the sci-fi world, small mags can come and go fast).

Rejection sucks no matter where you find it, but it’s worth it. And it’s just part of the game. An editor gets hundreds of stories for every one they print. Rejection might mean you need to do more work on your story or your writing in general — but it also often means a story isn’t a good fit for the mag, the upcoming issue, or the editor just likes another story a smidge more. Just part of the game.

But anyway, I had this little exchange. Maybe you can take something away from it.

 

If you’re going to submit stories, and you might have more than one in circulation — and that’s likely if you’re steadily writing. It can take an editor a day or two to reject a story (Clarkesworld, in my experience, was always quick to reject me, and that’s not only because my stories didn’t do it for the editor, but because they have notoriously fast turnaround in general probably due to hard work and fast reading). Or it can take two weeks, or two months for some markets, sometimes even more. Take a peek at the bottom of the landing page of the Submission Grinder — they keep a running list of response times reported by writers. They also maintain a great list of markets to send stories to if you’re doing that.

It’s very easy to end up with multiple stories in play at once.

So you can use a tracker sheet like I do (below). Or keep a digital record on a spreadsheet. Or something else that suits you.

The advantage of the simple little one-story-per-sheet tracker is it’s very easy to see where a story has been so you don’t send it back to the same place twice (which is a no-no 99.9% of the time).

The weakness of this sheet is that you have to look over all the sheets for all the stories that you have out at a time to make sure you are not submitting a second story to the same market that hasn’t yet decided on the first story you sent them (also a no-no 99.9% of the time).

Personally, I can live with that. You may not be so excited, in which case I’m sorry I wasn’t more help!

The notes section gives you a place to write “send more” if the editor says send more, or anything else you think is relevant. It also gives you a place to note the exclusivity period on the story if you’re accepted so you know when you can resubmit it to a reprint market or self-publish it (which, of course, is my personal game).

Here’s the tracker sheet I use. I wanted simple, so I made simple. I just copy-pasted it here — I don’t know if you can copy it and use it in this form. If not, drop me a comment and I can email you the .doc file.

Story:

Word Count:

Submitted To

Date

Accepted/Rejected

Date

Notes

Advertisements

Editors For Great Justice

Earlier today I watched a bit of the Zimmerman trial (if you’ve been living under a rock or live outside the USA where I’m guessing it’s not such a big news item, here’s a basic rundown) because I’m somewhat interested and also apparently a bit masochistic this morning/early afternoon.  As I listened, something occurred to me: the literary world has something to offer the justice system.

We don’t need jurors listening to all this testimony, viewing all this evidence, listening to the lawyers work to spin it this way and that.

We need a board of editors instead.  Think about it.  Who else is more qualified to cut a story down to its essential details and throw all the fat away?  Who else has seen more convoluted plots and worked to make something understandable out of them?  Who else is trained to ignore flowery prose and overwrought adjectival constructions (which are basically what lawyers do when they’re speaking aloud)?  Who else is experienced in stripping all that flowery-ness and adjectival overdoing down to terse, clear prose?

The only catch in my idea is the fact that professional editors just don’t have the time.  They’re already buried under their slushpiles, I can’t imagine getting them to take on trial work as well.

What a shame.   They’d be perfect.