abominationerupts said:
I suscribe to The Rejected Quarterly Magazine. They only publish stories that have been rejected at least five times. In a recent issue they had an interesting article written by an anonymous writer who was frustrated with being rejected by literary magazines. So he plagiarized William Faulkner and submitted it as his own work to a dozen magazines. He was rejected by every magazine, and some rejections were accompanied by notes with sophomoric comments like "too much telling and not enough showing." Only one editor recognized it as being "Faulknerish" but then she went on to tell him how he got it wrong.
Many stories published by literary magazines aren't even stories. They're pointless vignettes. Or maybe I just don't get it. Either way, I've decided not to worry about it when I get rejected. Most readers and editors are kids straight out of college. What do they know?
This stupid stunt happens about once per month, and literally means only that whoever pulls it is the latest idiot.
There are so many things wrong with doing this, and it proves so little, that it isn't even worth dissecting.
But I will make one point that all these idiots overlook. YES, Faulkner would get publilshed today, and quickly, because Faulkner wasn't an idiot. He never once submitted work by Dickens, and the tried to use that as an excuse for his own rejections. What Falkner did was write for the time and place in which he lived, and if Faulkner were alive today, his writing style and content would reflect that of today. If he were born thorty years ago, and just started writing, he'd still have just as much talent, just as much dedication, and he'd be published just as quickly.
These idiots also overlook one other fact. FAULKNER IS BEING PUBLISHED TODAY. His work is still in print, and is still very widely read and loved.
And, of course, the writer in question being anonymous, you don't know whether he was telling the truth, or just lying his %$$ off.
As for teh literary magazines, I'd say you just don't get it. Not any of it.
As for the editors being kids fresh out of college, nice try, but it's very seldom true. What on earth made you think this? Only college literary magazines, and fly by night shoestring operations, usually have editors who are kids right out of college. But fresh out of college usually means they just spent from four to six years intently studying good fiction and great writers. So they usually know a
lot.
Most of the college literary magazines do a very good job of finding talented writers and great stories.
Writers do not get published because they cannot write well enough. It's this simple. And sometimes writers do not get pubished because they aren't very bright. Some of them are even dumb enough to anonymously submit work written seventy years ago to a dozen magazine it probably isn't suited for, and then try to use that as an excuse for their own lack of talent and skill.
