I just got a rejection where they mailed my story pack to me with a form rejection. What bothers me is that my story looks like it hasn't been touched. There is no crease near the staple and the pages look as crisp as they were when I mailed them out. Did they even read it? I waited 43 days for this rejection. I guess I am just venting, but, really, I don't think they read it.
Did they even read it?
- Thread starter gettingby
- Start date
- Status
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2005
- Messages
- 28,750
- Reaction score
- 2,933
- Location
- right here
- Website
- www.veinglory.com
Or maybe they read it with respectful care giving that there was a SASE indicating you wanted it back, presumably to re-use?
Most editors are pretty honest with how much of a story they'll read before rejecting: some say as little as the first few paragraphs. If it strikes them right off the bat as a poor fit for the venue they won't finish it. But they do read something. If they didn't read anything from the slush pile there wouldn't be a slush pile--having to reply to a story you never read is just a waste of time. Editors don't have time to jerk your chain.
Veinglory could be exactly right--someone handling it with care read all or part of it.
Or it's possible the person reading knew by the end of the first page that some aspect of it isn't what they're looking for. It could be a quality issue, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes that rubber stamp (of course I've gotten rejections with a rubber stamp on page one!) saying
is the truth, with no additional layers of meaning.
FWIW, I don't staple submissions, ever. But that's not the reason they rejected your work.
Maryn, buying you a drink
Or it's possible the person reading knew by the end of the first page that some aspect of it isn't what they're looking for. It could be a quality issue, but it doesn't have to be. Sometimes that rubber stamp (of course I've gotten rejections with a rubber stamp on page one!) saying
NOT RIGHT FOR US
AT THIS TIME
AT THIS TIME
is the truth, with no additional layers of meaning.
FWIW, I don't staple submissions, ever. But that's not the reason they rejected your work.
Maryn, buying you a drink
Maryn - Why don't you staple submissions? I have been stapling all the ones I send by snail mail.
I don't staple either--it lets the reader move through the pages as they please (they might not like fighting with flipped pages, they might make piles, or want to look at two pages next to each other).
ETA: It's the same with novel manuscripts. Neither gets staples.
But unless they specify not to attach the pages together (some do), that probably has no bearing on the story’s fate at any particular venue.
ETA: It's the same with novel manuscripts. Neither gets staples.
But unless they specify not to attach the pages together (some do), that probably has no bearing on the story’s fate at any particular venue.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 12
1. don't you think taking unsolicited stories (ie having a slush pile) leads to many of those hopeful writers subscribing? I wonder what percentage of some of these publications readership is hopeful authors.
2. why ask for the manuscript back? The extra postage (above the stamp for the thin envelope to get the form rejection) has to almost always exceed the cost of the paper, plus the likelihood that the paper would still be clean so that the story could go out again seems remote.
No doubt hopefuls do subscribe to venues they particularly would like to be published in. But I hope you're not implying that's the whole motive behind having a slush pile. Because that would be awfully insulting to the many first-readers who wade through slush on a regular basis, on their free time, looking for a story they love (several such persons can be found here on AW, if you'd like to ask them personally about their slushing experience).
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2012
- Messages
- 1,233
- Reaction score
- 114
- Location
- Central New York
- Website
- authorizedmusings.blogspot.com
I believe in On Writing, Stephen King mentions getting a personal note on an otherwise form rejection rejection: "never staple. Paperclips only!" (paraphrased)
As stated, though, I don't think editors take one look at a paperclip and put the manuscript right back into the return envelope. I'm no an editor, but I know when a book or story isn't for me, I know pretty early on in my reading.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 12
I asked a question is all. but that fact that some readers read for places that might use the slush pile for stories doesn't prove that no other places use the slush pile to get subscriptions, does it?
No, (although that's a little like saying just because I can find people who wear underwear to church doesn't mean everybody does--it's near absurdist logic) but any venue worth its salt and reputation is honest about where they get their stories from and why they have a slush pile. That's what it means to be an ethical professional. As a lawyer I'm sure you run into cases of ethics violations all the time, but that doesn't mean that's how everyone operates.
Standard practice in submitting fiction manuscripts is that they be unbound. It's much easier for a reader to handle the pages if they aren't bound; I edit a lot of technical academic papers, and trust me on this, unbound is much better. It's possible the very stapling of the manuscript conveyed a message to the editor that said, "Amateur; I have fifty other manuscripts to look at today which are formatted properly, and no time for this one."
caw
The bolded part above is my first thought as well...
Every book I have ever read about submitting, and every bit of advice I have received from editors, agents and other writers about the submission process, have all told me to never-ever bind my submissions.
I have even been told that to do so may loosen the wrath of the agent or editor to just slap a thanks but no thank reply without any further elaboration.
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 12
well it was absurd, but I didn't want to tell you that- glad you realized on your own (making a joke here mjnl).
my point is simply in response to the question "why have a slush pile if you don't draw from it?" there are at least two reasons- and I don't know anything about any publication other than one thing- once a reader/editor from a very high end lit mag told me they get NOTHING from slush. People here said "well why would they have slush?" I subscribed to that magazine for a few years thinking it might help. The other reason is places that charge a reading fee. I've seen the numbers of submissions one pub gets each month at $20 reading fees. The reading fees alone equate to a very lucrative job.
I'm surely not saying every place ignores slush, if I felt that way I wouldn't bother writing. But there are reasons places could "accept" unsolicited stories that aren't a valid reason.
I guess I'm just responding to the rhetorical "why would they have slush if they didn't look at it?"
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 12
I don't care about getting the manuscript back. They just sent it back, but I did not ask for it. I only included a regular SASE for a response.
Sorry, I just take business ethics very seriously. Any false accusations (or implications) regarding industry standards and motivations automatically raise my hackles (joke intended or no).
ETA: Not to mention there was no rhetorical question--It was a firm statement.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 11, 2007
- Messages
- 2,392
- Reaction score
- 394
- Location
- Back home
- Website
- www.kuri-ousity.com
Well, if you want to be sure, you could always do what I do and place a hair between each and every page of your manuscript. Not only does it show whether or not they read your story, it shows exactly what page they stopped reading ('Aha! The hair between page 13 and 14 is still there!'). Of course, it has some drawbacks. You might go bald, or the editor might notice all the hairs and assume you're a Sasquatch, and we all know how anti-Sasquatch the publishing industry is (but that's a topic for another thread...).
Oh, my, does that need a sarcasm smiley.
Stapling *does* show a lack of industry knowledge, and it's quite possible that got it sent back; depends on the slushers. Also, as a past slusher, i can tell you that 90%* of the shorts sent to me only got read to paragraph 5 and some less than that, so it's very possible that the page wasn't turned, even if the first page was read.
It's very easy to find the 99%* that don't come even close in a slush pile. That 1%* that you're not sure about is where most of your time is spent.
*All percentages are pulled out of my behiney, of course. Which means they're close approximations.
cat
Stapling *does* show a lack of industry knowledge, and it's quite possible that got it sent back; depends on the slushers. Also, as a past slusher, i can tell you that 90%* of the shorts sent to me only got read to paragraph 5 and some less than that, so it's very possible that the page wasn't turned, even if the first page was read.
It's very easy to find the 99%* that don't come even close in a slush pile. That 1%* that you're not sure about is where most of your time is spent.
*All percentages are pulled out of my behiney, of course. Which means they're close approximations.
cat
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 12
duotrope won't list pubs that charge reading fee, right? Why not? Doesn't that mean there is the possibility that some pubs aren't completely on the up and up? doesn't that imply that some pubs might not really entertain slush, just imply the possibility?
or do you disagree with duotrope that the fee charging pubs are bad? and if you don't disagree with duotrope, do you feel there is some complete wall that means the only pubs that are bad are those that charge, like the non-charging can't be bad? not looking for a fight, serious q.
I've never noticed a lack of or inclusion of pay-to-subs on duotrope, so I can't speak to that. *But no, I don't submit to those markets. *And no, I don't think it's the way to go or the right thing to do, but nor is it the industry standard.
That's like having a discussion about agents with the same peramiters--major fee charging agents are often scammers or incompetents. *They are not the standard, they are so fringe they cannot be talked about in the context of the proffesional publishing industry--because they're not part of it. *And yes, they are to be avoided.
Should I have said that only scammers won't be honest about what they do with slush? *Ok, maybe. *But like your jest, I thought that was obvious.
You've argued about editors reading (or not reading) slush before. *I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the idea that the slush isn't getting read (You cited rumors about Tin House and Zoetrope as proof that there are pro venues that ignore the slush--even though another poster pointed out they knew people who had been published in one of those venues via the pile). *
Or maybe you're not hung up on it, but it's coming off that way. *
ETA: Ignore all the asterisks--the formatting is wigging out.
Another ETA: I personally feel strongly about this subject because claiming that a story was never read is a common excuse dished out by new writers who want to find anything to blame for a rejection other than the story. It in no way helps them become a better writer, and often keeps them from doing so because they're hyper-focused on finding outside sources to blame for their lack of success.
That's like having a discussion about agents with the same peramiters--major fee charging agents are often scammers or incompetents. *They are not the standard, they are so fringe they cannot be talked about in the context of the proffesional publishing industry--because they're not part of it. *And yes, they are to be avoided.
Should I have said that only scammers won't be honest about what they do with slush? *Ok, maybe. *But like your jest, I thought that was obvious.
You've argued about editors reading (or not reading) slush before. *I'm not sure why you're so hung up on the idea that the slush isn't getting read (You cited rumors about Tin House and Zoetrope as proof that there are pro venues that ignore the slush--even though another poster pointed out they knew people who had been published in one of those venues via the pile). *
Or maybe you're not hung up on it, but it's coming off that way. *
ETA: Ignore all the asterisks--the formatting is wigging out.
Another ETA: I personally feel strongly about this subject because claiming that a story was never read is a common excuse dished out by new writers who want to find anything to blame for a rejection other than the story. It in no way helps them become a better writer, and often keeps them from doing so because they're hyper-focused on finding outside sources to blame for their lack of success.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2008
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 12
fair enough. I'm not looking for any fight. I'm not sure "hung up" is the right term, I'm more fatalistic. But a few acceptances will get me past that maybe. I wasn't trying to denigrate the people doing the journals, cuz that does seem thankless*. and I don't want to discourage anyone from submitting anywhere.
*and you are right, my hang up, such as it is, is really focused to the very top, which probably do make money. I was not trying to cast doubt on the great middle and bottom of these markets.
I know you weren't trying to be agrivating--it is a hot button issue with me, I admit. I apologize if I came across too heated. I just felt I had to make a point.
- Status