Rejection - the lows and the highs

One of the first things you find out about as a writer is rejection. It comes at you soon after you begin submitting. Of course you might get lucky and have the first thing you submit published. And then you think you've made it. Hmm, if only. Even bestselling authors suffer rejection, and what is the first thing you think of when rejections come? That you are a bad writer and not worthy of publication. But hang on, let's think about this.

Pieces are rejected for various reasons. I've been to enough writing conferences and workshops to realise that there are so many reasons the story you have laboured over or the poem you have edited for months has not been accepted. 

1. All publications receive far more submissions than they can ever publish.

2. Agents are always looking to reduce their submissions pile, so always make that difficult for them by following their submission rules, however pedantic they are. Don't set yourself up to fail before you even get read.

3. Editors have their own agenda. You may submit something that doesn't fit their theme. They might not have set a theme, but if the majority of what lands on their desk seems to suggest a theme, they will go with it. If your piece doesn't fit that, then sadly yours won't be chosen.

4. Your piece may have landed when the agent/editor is having a bad day, or is about to leave the office. Yes, it can be as simple as that.

Rejection is numbing. You might feel like giving up. It makes you cry, eats away at your self-confidence and plays on your theory that your writing is just not up to it. I have attended workshops given by agents where I have come away feeling totally dejected. It's as if agents are putting so many barriers in the way that you will never make it.

What annoys about the subnmission process:

1. Those that say 'send us your best work'. Are you likely to send your worst? And when the rejection comes, the first thing you think is, well, my best is still not good enough.

2. Obscure submission criteria. I do my homework and read what they publish, but am still none the wiser. Their guidelines are so offputting.

3. Waiting months for an outcome. I avoid those who publish once or twice a year and those that take six months to tell you sorry, but no thanks. I rarely send the same work to multiple magazines (even if they allow it), so it means my work is stuck in the system and cannot be submitted elsewhere until I hear.

4. No contact when shortlists etc. have been published. It is sometimes left to me to flit around websites to check where things have got to, though if I've not heard that means 'no'. Even so, if a piece of work is freed up, I'd like to know.

What is positive about rejection:

1. Those editors whose rejection letters are encouraging about your work and suggest you submit again in the future.

2. Those who offer a small critique. I know this is difficult due to time. But just one line is all it takes. Some competitions offer a critque (at a price) or a paragraph as a condition of entry (free). These have made all the difference to me. If you don't know why your piece isn't hitting the top spots, how are you ever going to learn?

3. Speedy replies - four months is about what I'd consider the max for me. However, one publication I know has taken nine months for an answer. I still use them from time to time because it suits me, but nor normally.

There you have it, my personal likes and dislikes about submissions. My experience is mainly with small press magazines, and I am sure you have your own experiences. Please enlighten me! And despite this experience gleaned over many years of submitting, my first thought on rejection is still 'I'm not good enough.' I'm not sure that will ever go away. At times like that, I cling on to the fact that I have been published, so I can't be that bad!