: Re: Why aren't literary magazines more honest in their rejections Many literary magazines routinely send out form rejections with the following types of statements: Thanks very much, bla bla… Unfortunately,

@Sarah872

Vote Up Vote Down

There is nobody who would write an obviously poor quality story and then throw a tantrum when kindly told that it isn’t perfect.

This is incorrect for two reasons. First, people who write stories don't necessarily know if they are poor quality, and second, because many --perhaps most-- writers are emotionally involved with their stories. I myself have thrown tantrums on multiple occasions when receiving good, valuable, and kindly meant criticisms on stories I have written.

it seems dishonest and irresponsible that they would be sending form rejections with such obvious falsehoods.

These aren't actually obvious falsehoods. Writing IS subjective. Editors have made big mistakes before. Famous books have gone through multiple rounds of rejection before being accepted. Something which seems terrible to someone who doesn't appreciate its style or genre might be acclaimed as genius by someone else. It might not be likely, but it's possible. It's also quite possible, and considerably more likely, that a well-written piece might not be right for the current needs of a given magazine.

If the purpose is to be ‘kind’ to the rejected author, it seems to me that there are obvious alternative ways of writing (genuinely) kind and helpful rejection forms without lying to the novice authors or misleading them.

First --it isn't the magazine's job, or a part of it, to provide feedback. That's not what they're there for. Any time spent on evaluating submissions beyond the binary question of "right for us / wrong for us" is time wasted for them. Second, it's difficult to think of any response that wouldn't anger someone. For instance, consider your first replacement response. What if you had twenty years writing experience, and you had extensively workshopped your piece, and you got that response. Wouldn't that anger and frustrate you? It's making assumptions --potentially unwarranted --about who you are as a person and as a writer. And, as @Jedediah mentioned in the comments, angry people are potentially violent people. Something that distinguishes you from the crowd might end up being the thing they latch onto to focus their anger around. Or, conversely, the shorter, neutral dismissal might anger other people, and for other reasons. No one likes rejection, so there's really no winning here.

(0)

Login to post a comment!