Hi Gang. I’m feeling a bit confused today. I just had a story rejected for reasons I completely disagree with. This would normally be OK but this is the second time it has happened with this particular story and both editors rejected it for the same reasons.
I’ve had rejections before – God knows! – and I’m always happy to try to learn from them. It’s even possible that, sometimes, I actually do! But this is different. Everything the editors say is wrong about this particular story is something I’ve done deliberately. And I’m absolutely convinced what I’ve done works and works very well.
I’m trying very hard to accept their verdict – i.e. that their readers wouldn’t like it. After all, they are the experts in what their readers want. But they’re not putting it like that. They are saying there are structural faults with the story and I just cannot agree with them. I know how to construct the kind of story they’re pushing me towards but it’s not what I want this story to be.
I suppose you’re starting to wonder what the point of this whinge is? Well, I think it’s this. It’s something like my rejection of the notion of government- (or market-) directed research. The editors and publishers are pushing us towards a kind of literature that they believe they can sell – something that satisfies their own short-term needs. It is possible, of course, to write good stories that fit their rather narrow criteria but it is also cutting us off from producing work that is more varied, interesting, or just plain different.
I saw a list of ten rules no short story writer should break by a prominent editor the other day. They were the usual kind of rules that one hears all the time. The guy said flatly he would not publish a story that broke any of these rules – wouldn’t even read it! Then, serendipitously, I came across this story by Chekhov on the Project Gutenberg site. It is a beautiful story and it breaks almost every one of this editor’s rules. He wouldn’t have read it. He wouldn’t have published it. He seems to have roughly the same criteria as most editors I’ve dealt with lately.
Now, I’m not saying I write like Chekhov (I wish!) and I’m not saying that stories by Chekhov would be popular if published in SF&F magazines. I’m just saying, shouldn’t there be room for Chekhov somewhere?
Graham.
Luke says:
I have nothing but sympathy/empathy for you Graham, having recently had a novel rejected by two publishers who both said: “Interesting…but we’re not interested.” Stephen King said he tacked his rejection letters to a wall with a nail, and had to switch to a desk spike because the nail got too full. I know the feeling.
Can I ask – can you post the story on the site for us to have a read? From your post, you’re obviously passionate about the piece and your intentions. Do you need some sober judges?
And which Chekov story is it? I followed the link to an e-book anthology. Any story in particular that broke all the rules?
Ah, sorry. The story was The Student.
Your opinion of this story is ultimately the only one that matters. If you have listened to their feedback (and getting any feedback is a positive sign!), thought about it, and still don’t agree with it, then that’s fine. The story is yours, and can only do what you want it to do.
And mate, two rejections? Your story is at the beginning of it’s rejection life
Send it out again.
Yes, there should be room for Chekhov. But it seems the creative industries are more and more beset these days by the dreaded phenomenon of Risk Aversion.
When did we last see a big stage musical that wasn’t based on a movie or animation or featuring established pop music or written by Andrew Lloyd Webber? How many of the games put out by the big companies are based on existing licences from movies, music or books, etc – all due respect to Parrish of course!!!!
The economic risk at that end of the market is massive, so naturally there is a reluctance to gamble on something new or something that breaks the rules. And I may hate it, but I kinda get where it comes from.
The problem really occurs when that lesson is soaked up by those who operate much further down the economic scale. Truly, what do those editors risk by taking a shot with an unkown author writing something original?
I’m not sure who you’ve had this feedback from, Graham, but perhaps you need to look for a better class of editor
Jo’s right, get it out there again.
And yes, if you want feedback from your posse, you know where to send it!
Thanks, guys. All kind words gratefully received. And for all you know, my story is utter dross, yet you still poured the tea and sympathy unstintingly.
I knew there was a reason I hang out here
)
hi, graham, i agree with luke that maybe we you need some more opinions (if not from us, then from someone who might be familiar with your field). also, what kind of publishing houses did you submit it to? maybe there’s a more experimental one out there that would love your story.
j-a
by the way, i have a theory about rejections. the more you get, the closer you are to getting published!
j-a
Jody-Ann,
You know you should never go to a race track, don’t you?
Graham