Rejection Slips: How should they be worded?

November 16, 2004 1:38 AM

Rejection Slips: How should they be worded? [More inside.]

Having been the recipient of many a cold, disheartening and standard-sounding rejection slip, I'd like to make an effort to draft a series of three to deal with submissions I'm getting for a small literary quarterly I've recently been asked to edit.

The three categories are:

1) Really bad;
2) Bad, but with a kernel of talent or interest which, though too slight to attempt to rescue through less than an excessively massive revision, it would be immoral and inaesthetic to simply shun;
3) Good and worth pursuing otherwise or elsewhere (in other versions or outlets) but inappropriate for the particular circumstances.

In all cases, we intend to include a brief handwritten appreciation of the manuscript/text but, still, it would be nice if, at the core of each reply, there was a wording which would neither discourage or patronize. Any ideas would be welcome, especially if they were based on actual rejection slips that somehow didn't rankle as much as usual or expected.

Many thanks!

posted by MiguelCardoso to society & culture (15 comments total)

Here is an excellent thread on the subject from Teresa Nielsen Hayden's excellent blog. Very, very, very informative, particularly because the dicussion includes the voices of seasoned editors and authors responding to the angst of novices.
posted by Mo Nickels at 3:40 AM on November 16, 2004

Whatever you say you'll be upsetting people. My favourite type of rejection is the standard rejection with space for a personal note. The standard rejection will simply state that the sent work is not suitable for the magazine, and will go out to everyone, and the personal note will say how much you liked the submission, keep trying, etc. The personal note is for those people whose work you considered, but ultimately rejected.

Of more importance is turnaround time. There's nothing more frustrating than waiting 6 months for a rejection note. This is especially true of work which could be submitted to more than one magazine.

Thinking outside the box: I've tinkered with the idea of publishing a small-press poetry magazine, and am very fond of the idea of the scathing & personally insulting rejection. Firstly, it'll discourage bad writers from constantly bothering you, and secondly, the fact that you'll have a reputation for deliberate rudeness will lessen the impact the rejection will have. People will expect harsh criticism, and recieving it won't bother them so much.

I guess that it's all about expectations.
posted by seanyboy at 4:07 AM on November 16, 2004

i don't know how irony works in portugal, but you could get slips printed with pretty much what you posted above, and three tick boxes next to the three categories, leaving half a page empty. then tick the appropriate category and, if you want, add some kind comment in the bottom half.

it might work well, if people get the humour - you're providing very clear, direct fedback in a friendly way, and the context of the three items lets people know where they stand much more clearly than a wordy letter.

i've only ever got one rejection letter in my life, having written one article and submitted it to just one place, but i know i was left confused about whether they really meant "it's not for us try somewhere else", or whether that was code for "go away! leave us alone! don't write another word, ever!"...
posted by andrew cooke at 4:26 AM on November 16, 2004

I agree with the former posters: you could try honesty. But I mean ripping, vicious, rusty-sawblade-hacking honesty. Just think how amusing it will be to write those letters.
posted by NekulturnY at 5:10 AM on November 16, 2004

For Category One: This article is not fit to publish. In fact, it is not even fit to have been written. Give your pens and pencils away to illiterate migrant farmworkers, you will have no further need of them.

For Category Two: This shows promise, but not enough to justify the massive revisions that would be required to make it fit for publishing. Take some writing courses, practice, practice, practice, and when you have improved, please submit again.

For Category Three: This is pretty good, but it isn't a good fit for our publication. Try another, I look forward to reading it somewhere else.
posted by Apoch at 6:42 AM on November 16, 2004

Dear Mr Cardoso,

Thank you for your question, which I have considered carefully. However, I am afraid that your question is not the type of question which I am currently looking to answer.

I wish you all success in submitting future questions.
posted by salmacis at 6:48 AM on November 16, 2004

Miguel, if it's REALLY bad, with no redeeming qualities whatsoever, I think the polite brush-off is okay.

Otherwise, a new writer will be happy with any brief praise or constructive criticism. Honesty is good. If you liked something, but you feel it was bogged down in some other flaws, I would say what you liked and suggest the writer work on this/that/the other thing. A writer needs to know where he's succeding AND where he's failing, and if he's not thick-skinned enough for that, he may as well quit.

I suppose all of this has to brief, as you can't afford every submission tons of time, but a few words go a long way.

On a personal aside, I think the best rejection notice I ever got was from a magazine that had recently attracted some big-name superstars. The editor said some stuff about "...space and synergy..." and basically let me know the heavyweights had beat me out, but he raved and gave me tons of encouragement (but also suggested a less mundane ending for one story.) I felt almost as good as if I'd received an acceptance. Very conflicting, heh.
posted by Shane at 7:21 AM on November 16, 2004

More or less what Shane said--if someone sends you something that is unprintably bad, there's no point trying to tell them, because they have such poor judgment that anything you said would be seen as your not understanding their genius. So "I'm sorry, but your submission does not meet our needs at this time" is just fine.

For the middle category, something like "This is a great topic, but you didn't give me enough detail" or "You're an engaging writer, but I thought the topic was kind of slight" can be helpful.

And for the last category, "This is a great piece, and I wish we had room for it, but as we don't, I look forward to seeing it in print elsewhere" or something of that ilk is always fine.
posted by Sidhedevil at 9:06 AM on November 16, 2004

Whatever your wording, don't include a subscription form for the journal along with the rejection. I have no idea why some magazines do that . . . cold, man. Cold.
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 9:44 AM on November 16, 2004

Whatever your wording, don't include a subscription form for the journal along with the rejection. I have no idea why some magazines do that . . . cold, man. Cold.

Cold, not to mention it leaves you with the questions "If I had a subscription, would I be more likely to be accepted? Is it like the old Reader's Digest contests, do they toss out the entries that aren't from subscribers?"

It's bad enough that so many magazines aren't available locally in bookstores, yet you really have to read an issue to get a feel for what they want, making it necessary to buy sample copies before submitting. Magazines that publish a few sample stories online are gems.

/sorry, rant
posted by Shane at 9:58 AM on November 16, 2004

You could always do what Asimov's does and put ALL of that into the UBER FORM LETTER OF DOOM. It starts off very pleasantly enough, saying that chances are, the story was fine, it just didn't meet their needs. Then it goes on to say it could also be that it's full of cliches. Or that the writer has no basic grasp of grammar or spelling. On and on and on with the many sins of literature the author *might* have committed-- this letter is a full page long; there's barely room for the signature at the bottom.

It'll scar the newbies into never writing again, but it'll amuse the living hell out of people who have been doing this for years.
posted by headspace at 10:09 AM on November 16, 2004

I guess we're not really directly answering Miguel's request for three "form" answers. 1) and 3) are pretty easy, but 2) [or any other situation that might occur between 1) and 3)] is quite tough and would be best explained with a few additional notes.
posted by Shane at 10:26 AM on November 16, 2004

There's no point trying to answer Miguel's question—not because it's a bad question (it's a fine one), but because nothing we could say would be worth reading compared to the thorough discussion at Mo Nickels' link. Absolutely everything worth saying got hashed out there, with input from all sides. Seriously, Miguel, if you haven't gone to Teresa's thread yet, do it now: everything you need is there.
posted by languagehat at 2:16 PM on November 16, 2004

Channeling Bodhidharma, come in Bodhidharma: You must not choose, select, hate, or prefer. Abandon the mind of selection. It is never happy nor content, and tends towards madness. Accept all submissions.
posted by jfuller at 3:09 PM on November 16, 2004

Any editor that has the time to offer a reason why my piece was rejected (and I understand if they don't have that time) offers me something almost as valuable as an acceptance, perhaps even more so. Scathing rejections might be fun to write—and you will doubtless have many submissions deserving of scorn—but I would avoid using them. Polite, professional and prompt rejections are fine by me. It always stings a bit, but that’s a peril of submission.

I’d be curious to know what you say to someone who really, really should not be trying to write for a living, or even for occasional publication. Some writers you do not want to encourage...
posted by Savannah at 11:16 AM on November 20, 2004