I was studying general grammar and noticed a difference in these two sentences. "Jane had been making breakfast when she heard a crash." "After having been rejected, Joey was accepted by another." Both are labeled past perfect progressive. The former sounds right. The latter doesn't because having throws me. Is the only requirement a progressive in the past interrupted by another event?
I agree that the first one is a much clearer example. I'm not sure about the second... I guess the state of "having been rejected" is in the past, it's perfect (no longer happening)... but is it progressive? Did it last for a a while? I guess? It's a strange one...
The problem is that ppp implies an action is completed. "After" also implies a completion. The two together are redundant and your ear is picking up on that. Even though they clash, they're not wrong. They're kind of like double negatives. Those are also grammatically correct, but they clutter the sentence structure and should be avoided. The easy fix is: After being rejected, Joey was accepted by another. Having been rejected, Joey was accepted by another. I suppose the second one takes on a strange meaning here (to me anyway), so the first is the only good correction. Sometimes they would both work: After being rejected, Joey wept like a televangelist. Having been rejected, Joey wept like a televangelist. Which is how I would react. LOL. I guess the point is that following the grammar isn't always enough.