in the life of an aspiring (I could call myself "emerging", but a) I don't think anyone's noticed yet and b) it sounds way too butterfly for what I hope to be) writer, rejection letters are a fact of life. I have lots; many nice, some clearly photocopied in batches of 100 and barely initialled by a deputy assistant to the editor's secretary. it's cool. not everyone will take everything, and I feel I'm improving.
yesterday I got the first one that actually upset me. It was from a writer, who I won't name, who is feted as one of Australia's true greats. This person also gets to edit one of our leading journals; presumably there's some pay attached. Even if there's not, stewardship of a good magazine bears some responsibility, and if you can't do it properly, you shouldn't take on the job. those are the ground rules, as far as I'm concerned.
so: Last year I sent this person a couple of poems and stories and the obligatory SSAE, on an exclusive basis, as required, thus locking them up from being submitted elsewhere. Five months later, in January this year, I dared to write again, asking very politely if the first submission had been received, including two further stories, an SSAE, and a paragraph indicating I knew how busy editors were, so I promised to lay off for a while if those didn't suit.
I made a mistake with the date: it was January, and as you often do in January, I accidentally put last year's date, ie, 2005.
Three months later - when I'd written that submission off too, in line with my "12 weeks and time's up" policy - my cover letter came back. On the date was a note with a sarcastic "really? 2005?" with a short dismissal of what I'd sent and a claim not to "recall" seeing my earlier work. Brusque, maybe not outright rude, but I am enough of a reader to understand I was being dismissed.
That might have been enough to get the message through - I certainly wouldn't have tried again, not in five years. But this person, who is supposed by critics to be the height of human sensitivity (despite this person's own denials of same), had put two exclamation marks and a giant tick next to my commitment to stop sending stuff. Like it really had to be emphasised what a great idea this was. To show how
happythis person was that no more crap from me would land on the editorial desk for at least a year.
now, it's possibly the emphasis was meant to refer to the "you're so busy" part of my letter. but any person with a stunning command of English and communication in general, as this editor does indeed have, would surely see how that enthusiastic embrace of not seeing more of my work would affect me, if I was a sensitive person. which I suppose I am.
oh, and my manuscripts - for which I'd included a full size envelope and sufficient postage - were not included. (sound of salt trickling lightly into wound)
sheesh. it's getting so that only elephant-skinned self-promoters will be able to fight their way through the thicket that is Publishing. How many good works lie unread because of this kind of attitude? not as many as crap ones, I suppose, but that's hardly the point. writing matters. good writers matter, and deserve to be nurtured. I have no idea whether I'm good or not. but everyone deserves politeness until they demonstrate their undeservingness.
