Out of interest, what do you usually write on your cover letter for short story submissions? Do you think it makes a difference?
I don't think the cover letter is all that important unless you have some writing credits that are well known. Even still it all comes down to the story. My cover letters are pretty standard. Just where my writing has appeared and that I have an MFA. However, I leave out publications that the editors probably haven't heard of because I don't think they're really doing me any favors. It's pretty much a version of the bio I would write if they publish my story. I think it's fine not to list credits or if you don't have any. A lot of places don't even read cover letters or only read them after reading the submission. I don't think a cover letter can really make or break your chances of having a story accepted.
I just got a rejection for a query I sent out almost a year ago. I'd already written that query off, but hey, it never hurts to know for certain. Only... this was an agent I was planning to query this coming Monday for my next project. Gonna hold off on that one because wow does it feel gauche to query this agent immediately after a rejection.
I list all my publications in my cover letter but that’s because there aren’t many! I will become more selective as I rack up more publications (hopefully!).
I currently have 28 active submissions - the most I've ever had at one time I believe. I have had nothing but positive feedback on one rejected story. I have touched it up a bit (hopefully improved) so maybe that can do it. I find myself a bit hesitant to change stories that have been rejected with personal notes in case I make it worse though
Short form rejection received a few hours after sending--from a magazine that sounded perfect for my story. Doesn't bode well.
If it's any consolation, I had the exact same rejection back in December Super established agent who used to rep Robert Jordan, loved my work, but said it's not got the wow factor. Told me to keep shopping the book around as he's certain another agent might just love it, but if I don't find representation, then that he'd be very happy to discuss future projects with me. This led to me reopening a book I'd shelved for 2 years, because that's my passion project that I believe has the wow factor. By this point, the book that agent rejected has had a R&R from a small publisher, who gave me in depth feedback, which I've already implemented. But before I resubmit to them, I have submitted it to an agent who liked my pitch from #PitMad last Thur. He reps my genre and is into the themes that are present in my book - so I'm really excited about this one. Fingers crossed. If he accepts me, I might shoot an email back to the last agent and ask if he might reconsider. But I might be getting ahead of myself. In the meantime, getting the passion project ready.
How, exactly, does one tell what a publisher wants? Got a rejection from a magazine, admittedly a big one. At this point, I've no idea if I'm an abysmal writer or if it's just that I need to write more straightforward, popular narratives. It could be anything when it's a form rejection. And if I get accepted by a smaller publisher, what does that mean? Does that mean I'm a decent writer and not a great one, or is it just a case of not having a suitable story for these big magazines that want something they know will be popular? There's so many variables. It's like trying to figure out what someone is thinking. Practically no guidance. Edit: Just to clarify, I'm relatively new to submissions, but I posted to this award-winning magazine because it's general. Edit 2: And is there not a case for submitting nearer to the end of a publisher's next deadline? There's so many human factors to take into consideration. A story could be rejected simply because the reader thinks it's not that great compared to other stories. That's fine. But what if everything that comes after that story is even 'worse'? Why don't they round everything up then judge after they've read them all? It's like having a line of Rembrandts then something worse than Rembrandt, so that something worse is rejected, but everything after that worse Rembrandt is even worse but they won't know that so they reject the worse Rembrandt straight out.
@Teladan -- It helps to read the stories these magazines and journals are publishing. Doing so you will start to get an idea of who publishes what. And that's important. You can also find interviews with editors where they talk about the kind of stories they like. But, still, reading stuff is important and will only help you out. A published story isn't what makes you a good writer. A good story is what makes you a good writer. That has to come first. Really work on your craft and keep working it. I got hundreds of rejections before my first sale, and my first sale was a big deal. It can happen, but I think you really have to brace yourself for a ton of rejection and keep writing if you're in it for the long haul. Selling stories isn't something that happens quickly, but it does happen. Maybe you haven't written the story that's going to sell yet so keep writing and you'll get there. I don't think you have to water down your dreams. You just have to realize that most of what we write gets rejected most of the time. And that's true no matter where you send your work. Another thing is that there isn't one type of story that sells. Again, reading these publications regularly will teach you that. I recently sold a zombie story to a mainstream publication. It also breaks away from the traditional narrative in terms of structure. It could very well be the first zombie story this journal has published. I think my story is more than a zombie story if that makes any sense, but I wasn't sure this one would sell. However, I've read a few issues and an interview with the editor who mentioned liking genre-bending works and avant garde styles. Not that it's what they publish all the time, but I thought it was worth a try. It worked out for me. But this same story was probably rejected twenty or so times from other places before it sold. You can't expect that anyone is going to buy your stories. In fact you should expect the opposite and just push yourself more as a writer. That's what I do. I'm always writing new stories and still hoping to produce my best work.
Thanks. I appreciate the response. I have said before though, I'm definitely in it for the long haul. I've been writing for myself for about twenty years. Hundreds and hundreds of pages worth of text. It's an intrinsic passion and highly therapeutic. It's just that only since last year have I really started looking into submissions. The problem is, I don't know how to judge how I can even be close to selling the story that's going to sell. There's very few markers or references points, it seems. Sure, there's fitting a story to an editor's vision and preference, but that doesn't indicate quality. To be honest, quality is all that matters to me. I'm sure I could get published if I wrote something so utterly identical to what an editor wants, but that doesn't tell me whether I'm good or not. To be frank, an editor could suggest in an interview that they want some flashy action-packed sci-fi story about slug monsters. Even though this is my antithesis, I could potentially write it and get it published. It means nothing and more than likely wouldn't have anything important to say. But it could still get published. I do accept that there will be rejections, of course, but it's just very difficult to gauge my quality and skill as a writer when only a handful of people on this forum say my work is decent and that it's worth sending out, but generic form rejections are all we get. I understand it's nearly impossible for them to reply to everything. I just wish there was another way. To me, it doesn't seem entirely fair or just.
What's not fair or just? That doesn't make any sense to me. The best stories get published and it's the editors call on what those are. They've got hundred or thousands of options and they pick the best. That's how it works. Now keep in mind there are also solicited submissions that you have to compete with as well. It makes it tougher. There's just a lot of competition and that's not something that will ever change. As for the quality of your work, I think you need to have a sense of where you are. Does your work read like The New Yorker? The Gettysburg Review? Threepenny? Sure, they're all different, but we all know when we read something that is high quality. It can be hard to judge our own writing, but we it's something we have to learn how to do. When I started my MFA program I was at the bottom. I knew this and it was intimidating so I worked hard to catch up. I had the most to learn and I wanted to take advantage of that. But I wasn't there by accident. My writing was good. It just wasn't at the level of what was being published. Months after graduation I reread my best stories that weren't selling. I was a good writer and they were good stories, but they read more like part of an MFA thesis than what I was reading in the magazines and journals. I rewrote the beginning of one of them and it sold to a big-time publication the next time I sent it out. No one told me anything about the quality of my writing or why I was getting rejected. It was something I had to figure out. I suggest rereading the stuff you think is your best and really being critical of what's on the page. Why is someone on a forum better to judge your work than you are? And even if you find a hundred people who say one of your stories is great, it really means nothing. Sure, feedback is great, but it really doesn't mean you'll get published. Look at your stuff and look at what's being published. That's really the only way I've found to make it in the literary journal world. It's not about conforming, in my opinion. I've never conformed, but I did evolve as a writer. And there is a difference. Good luck!
Since I now know it's less about quality and more about fitness for purpose and marketing, I really have nothing to dispute. Admittedly my words fair and just weren't exactly on the mark. I was just being lazy. Again, thanks for the continued responses. However, I still don't quite understand why you say they choose the best story. They fundamentally can't know this unless they read everything, right? As in my Rembrandt example in bold, it seems that they should rather judge everything after everything has come through, no? Again: It's like having a line of Rembrandts then something worse than Rembrandt, so that something worse is rejected, but everything after that worse Rembrandt is even worse but they won't know that so they reject the worse Rembrandt straight out. What I mean by that is, the "worse Rembrandt" would technically be grouped with the better stories and have a better chance if every story was read before a decision was made. As it stands, it looks like the majority of publishers just arbitrarily choose the story to purchase or promote without looking at all of them. It makes logical sense to me that every story should be read first so that the merit of each story is consider in context with every other story that has been submitted. It distributes the weight. But I'm sure I'm missing something. They probably can't afford to look through everything and so must choose before everything has come through. I have a tendency to overthink things, but I've described this to a handful of other people and they suggest there's nothing wrong with the logic of my example. Can you elaborate on this process? Thanks. I would like to stress that I don't think my writing is on par with a master level painter or is even just a step down from that...
Of course, it's about quality. And there's no need to read everything to spot quality. Most stories aren't even read through to the end. The ones that are will get passed up to the next level reader if they're good enough. From there, the story will make it up to the editor or be discussed at an editorial meeting. But I never said quality wasn't part of the equation. Bigger places will have marketing departments separate from the editorial side of things. The people who read submissions are far more concerned about the quality of a story and have nothing to do with marketing, which is going to be true at most of these places. The publications I submit to are known for the quality of the work they put out. I don't think marketing is such a big thing in the literary journal world. I believe they are far more interested in finding and publishing stories that could go on to win awards like The Pushcart and such than marketing. The only marketing I know of that these publications do is sending out emails to people who sign up for them. The stories they publish are the best form of marketing these places can do. I've renewed or not renewed subscriptions based on the quality of the works published. I'm not really sure how any marketing could sway me. It's all about the stories. It's always about the stories.
Hello, everyone. I'm going to start posting my rejections in this thread. My most recent one came on the 3rd of March: a 10-day form rejection from Upstreet.
Wow, literally just got another exactly a minute after I posted that. 34-day rejection from Fireside.
@Teladan - if I assume your writing is at a professional standard (I don't know, never read your stuff, but you're submitting so that must be the baseline from which we discuss these things I think), and you're getting form rejections, I would look at your structure and story tension. I've found learning how to write well - as in technically string up a good sentence and good paragraphs together - is only step 1. Telling a story well, while that skill does overlap with writing well, is not necessarily the same thing as being able to write. As for your line of Rembrandts analogy - some people are clearly not Rembrandts, and perhaps that is why they can roll out rejections before they've rounded all the submissions up. You're coming from the assumption that everything submitted are Rembrandts or potential Rembrandts. That's simply not the case. That can never be the case. Some submissions are obviously not up to par - so why should they wait with the rejection? In a sense, this person should be glad they bothered to send a form rejection out. I'd always thought form rejection was the standard, but from writing groups, it would seem no response is the true standard. If you're getting a form, it's probably already better, but not enough to garner attention. You'd have to look at the rate at which you're getting responses. Form rejects are part of the trade, so by themselves they mean nothing. But if multiple places are giving you form rejections over a long period of time, and you're sure the story and genre are suitable for the place you're submitting to, then I'd go back to the story. Something isn't resonating with the editors. And I'd argue that if you could actually replicate something exactly how an editor likes it, that's talent. Not that as creators we want to do that, but it does take a significant amount of skill and talent to be able to pull that off. It would seem getting published isn't all that matters to you, but that it should also be a story that means something to you and that says something dear to your heart, and that is great. So perhaps you're discouraged over the possibility that no one wants to hear it. Write it well enough that resonates with enough people, and someone will want to hear it and read it. But it is always about quality. Perhaps you have to adjust your perspective and realise that you do not start out as a Rembrandt. I know you said you are not literally saying you are a master artist, but the premise is still that you think your work is good. I can't know if that's true, but if you're not getting any response over a long period, it's time to reevaluate what you can improve.
Great post. Regarding my Rembrandt analogy, I make no connection to myself and creation at that level. Nowhere near. I was just trying to illustrate logically the idea that if every story is pooled together then considerations would be modified since there would be more context. Another way I could put it, which is perhaps clearer, is the following. Most stories currently being received are decent. The publisher chooses one of these decent stories without having read them all. But what if they've filled their spots, yet greater or worse stories are still to come? They wouldn't know. If every submission was pooled together and then judged in context with all the others, that would surely inform their decision much more than just choosing one from the incoming submissions. Some of the decent stories might even become better in light of the lesser submissions or vice versa. Either way, there would be more data points. That's really all I meant. I'm not sure if some publishers do actually do this, but it seems like most just chose one without seeing all of them. I think I need to work on my overall story tension and plotting. A lot of the stories I tend to write are slower in pace and more cerebral. I did try to make a tense story in my last short story attempt, Nightfall (which can be seen on this forum). I guess it's just frustrating me since there are plenty of authors who seem to get published even when they're experimental. I mean, Thomas Ligotti wrote plotless stories entirely composed of weird imagery and some even criticise him for having abrupt and often meaningless endings. Plenty of people go against the grain, yet they find success. As with every response so far, I can only say thanks for continuing to share your point of view.
One of my stories got accepted to a place that published my work last year. Its bitter sweet because i was holding out for another place... But this story has been rejected quite a bit from other places (most recently from a place 2 weeks ago)... So im glad this place who knows my work decided to take another chance on me, but at the same time, im disappointed because no one else will....
The thing to realise is that, from the publisher's POV, it really doesn't matter. They're not looking to find the greatest story ever, they're just looking to find a story good enough to sell as quickly as possible. And remember also that objective 'greatness' does not necessarily equal saleability. I credit Twilight with getting me to be serious about my writing, because after getting through the first third I threw it down in frustration and thought 'surely if this can get published, I have as good a shot as anyone'. Yet I also recognise that, no matter how good my own books might get, I'm unlikely to ever write anything which makes even a fraction of the impact (or money) that Twilight did. It's not quite 'lowest common denominator' territory, but there is something of that. Accepting this is one of the most frustrating things in life IMO, even when you are not the creator. Like, one of my favourite musicians pretty much had his career crushed for being too eclectic and radio-unfriendly, even though his work is agreed by critics to be infinitely more interesting, complex and challenging than his former bandmate, who made it big simply by understanding what was 'in' and playing to it. It's not fair yet it happens all the time, in every creative industry you care to name.
