![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
redheadedfemmeCheryl Wright, the author of one of my writer's newsletters, had this to say in the last issue.
And that leads me into a rant. One of the stories rejected didn’t just ignore the guidelines, it was so far out, it wasn’t funny. Not only didn’t the writer include the mandatory character and storyline, but the submission included pornography, which was not acceptable, and was so stated in the guidelines. I contacted the writer, letting her know the reasons the story was rejected, as I did with each story we didn’t accept. (Individual feedback is given with every story submitted.)
What followed was something I’ve never experienced before. I received a really nasty email, telling me I had no idea what I was talking about – that there was nothing wrong with the story. So I wrote back and politely explained that she needed to re-read the guidelines. Another email arrived, this time going further than the previous one, and calling me all sorts of names under the sun, and telling me I was an amateur.
This time I didn’t respond, and I’ve blocked that writer forever.
That, my friends, is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I guess I must be missing an arrogance gene, or an egotist's id, or something, because I cannot fathom acting like this. I assume those guidelines are there for a reason. They're not "suggestions," like the speed limit--they're honest-to-God demands, and they're demands the editor has the right to make. It's the editor's magazine or anthology, after all, not yours.
There might have been nothing wrong with that story--if it was submitted to Playboy, or Penthouse, or one of those first-person confession magazines. But the author's trying to strongarm it into a place it wasn't wanted was just plain stupid. And her reaction to being called on said stupidity was beyond the pale. Either this person is slightly unhinged, or she's fallen into the trap of believing that True Artists are Always Misunderstood, and they must Suffer for their Art.
Which is a load of steaming elephant byproducts.
I may not have agreed with all the constructive criticism I've gotten, but I've always sat down and considered it. More often than not, at least part of it has been on the mark. At the very least, such criticism has started me thinking about the story from a different perspective, which usually ends up improving it. I certainly don't think that because I'm a *cough*PublishedAuthor*cough* that I'm beyond considering an editor's reasonable requests. Nobody's prose is so deathless that it can't be improved, and in any case, not following the frakking guidelines is the act of a Spoiled Brat, not a writer.
I almost wish Cheryl had published this person's name, so we could fill up her inbox with snark. Still, it probably wouldn't have done any good...the Poor Misunderstood Genius would have cried and run away, until the next time she pitched a fit and called someone who was trying to help her an "amateur."
Sheesh.
And that leads me into a rant. One of the stories rejected didn’t just ignore the guidelines, it was so far out, it wasn’t funny. Not only didn’t the writer include the mandatory character and storyline, but the submission included pornography, which was not acceptable, and was so stated in the guidelines. I contacted the writer, letting her know the reasons the story was rejected, as I did with each story we didn’t accept. (Individual feedback is given with every story submitted.)
What followed was something I’ve never experienced before. I received a really nasty email, telling me I had no idea what I was talking about – that there was nothing wrong with the story. So I wrote back and politely explained that she needed to re-read the guidelines. Another email arrived, this time going further than the previous one, and calling me all sorts of names under the sun, and telling me I was an amateur.
This time I didn’t respond, and I’ve blocked that writer forever.
That, my friends, is called cutting off your nose to spite your face.
I guess I must be missing an arrogance gene, or an egotist's id, or something, because I cannot fathom acting like this. I assume those guidelines are there for a reason. They're not "suggestions," like the speed limit--they're honest-to-God demands, and they're demands the editor has the right to make. It's the editor's magazine or anthology, after all, not yours.
There might have been nothing wrong with that story--if it was submitted to Playboy, or Penthouse, or one of those first-person confession magazines. But the author's trying to strongarm it into a place it wasn't wanted was just plain stupid. And her reaction to being called on said stupidity was beyond the pale. Either this person is slightly unhinged, or she's fallen into the trap of believing that True Artists are Always Misunderstood, and they must Suffer for their Art.
Which is a load of steaming elephant byproducts.
I may not have agreed with all the constructive criticism I've gotten, but I've always sat down and considered it. More often than not, at least part of it has been on the mark. At the very least, such criticism has started me thinking about the story from a different perspective, which usually ends up improving it. I certainly don't think that because I'm a *cough*PublishedAuthor*cough* that I'm beyond considering an editor's reasonable requests. Nobody's prose is so deathless that it can't be improved, and in any case, not following the frakking guidelines is the act of a Spoiled Brat, not a writer.
I almost wish Cheryl had published this person's name, so we could fill up her inbox with snark. Still, it probably wouldn't have done any good...the Poor Misunderstood Genius would have cried and run away, until the next time she pitched a fit and called someone who was trying to help her an "amateur."
Sheesh.
Tags:
no subject
Date: 11/25/06 06:59 am (UTC)Chantal