All right, so as best as I can tell, this is the proper spot for this post. I'm senior editor at a small publisher, and the worst part of my job is rejecting manuscripts. Lots of the talk on here suggests that writers think editors enjoy sending rejections, but that's quite untrue in my experience. Over the years I've made friends with several other senior-level editors at various publishers, and no one particularly gets a thrill out of it. I remember when I was first given the authority to make rejection decisions; it was terrifying a bit, even though my opinions had been relied on for a long time. Actually sending the letter was a different thing.
And no one likes a rejection letter. In reading through the various threads here and in other forums, and simply from personal experience, the only clear thing is that you can't please everyone. Some folks would rather have a simple "No," while other want a point-by-point breakdown of every fault in the ms. So how to be kind to the writer? Because my goal is not to tell writers that they suck, but to tell them why it didn't work for me, so that maybe they can use some of that input to become better writers.
Sometimes the rejection letter is easy. If a writer clearly hasn't read our submissions guidelines, I let them know that. If the writer has such terrible basic writing skills that the ms is unreadable, I simply suggest having it looked at by someone and let it go. But those cases are extremely rare now that I'm not doing first reads on manuscripts. I do every once in a while, just to keep the backlog restrained, but generally by the time a ms gets to my desk it's already been vouched for by one of the readers and cannot be easily dismissed.
So I've changed my approach to rejection letters. Whether via email or post, I'll write a very short and simple note saying no, thanks, and usually give one or two brief explanations why. I figure that should satisfy some people. But I also make a note that I'm including an attachment which includes excerpts my review notes. I keep a note document for every single submission that I read, and it's usually rather candid, which I do mention. I never include all of my notes (because sometimes they are of the WTF variety, and I've no desire to scar anyone), but the writer will get a very solid understanding of why the piece was rejected and what may need focus in revision or what simply didn't fit for my press.
I'm hoping this is helpful to people, even though I know 99% of people will open up that attachment just out of morbid curiosity, so maybe it won't please the "just say no" folks. Oh well.
Tell me what I can do better. My job isn't to mock/hurt/discourage writers, but to assist. What does the perfect rejection letter look like? Is there such a thing?
And no one likes a rejection letter. In reading through the various threads here and in other forums, and simply from personal experience, the only clear thing is that you can't please everyone. Some folks would rather have a simple "No," while other want a point-by-point breakdown of every fault in the ms. So how to be kind to the writer? Because my goal is not to tell writers that they suck, but to tell them why it didn't work for me, so that maybe they can use some of that input to become better writers.
Sometimes the rejection letter is easy. If a writer clearly hasn't read our submissions guidelines, I let them know that. If the writer has such terrible basic writing skills that the ms is unreadable, I simply suggest having it looked at by someone and let it go. But those cases are extremely rare now that I'm not doing first reads on manuscripts. I do every once in a while, just to keep the backlog restrained, but generally by the time a ms gets to my desk it's already been vouched for by one of the readers and cannot be easily dismissed.
So I've changed my approach to rejection letters. Whether via email or post, I'll write a very short and simple note saying no, thanks, and usually give one or two brief explanations why. I figure that should satisfy some people. But I also make a note that I'm including an attachment which includes excerpts my review notes. I keep a note document for every single submission that I read, and it's usually rather candid, which I do mention. I never include all of my notes (because sometimes they are of the WTF variety, and I've no desire to scar anyone), but the writer will get a very solid understanding of why the piece was rejected and what may need focus in revision or what simply didn't fit for my press.
I'm hoping this is helpful to people, even though I know 99% of people will open up that attachment just out of morbid curiosity, so maybe it won't please the "just say no" folks. Oh well.
Tell me what I can do better. My job isn't to mock/hurt/discourage writers, but to assist. What does the perfect rejection letter look like? Is there such a thing?
*pokes, wink, wink, poke*
