If you are a novelist, rejection is part of the game. Not just novelists, of course, but writing novels is what I am reading up on right now. It seems there are a lot of good novels out there that have been rejected by publishers. That makes sense, I guess, but rejection by publishers is weird. Some of you already know that I feel traditional publishers are becoming obsolete, and will become more so as more and more authors start questioning just what it is they are really getting from publishers. But that is another post.“This manuscript of yours that has just come back from another editor is a precious package. Don’t consider it rejected. Consider that you’ve addressed it ‘to the editor who can appreciate my work’ and it has simply come back stamped ‘Not at this address’. Just keep looking for the right address.”–Barbara Kingsolver
“I discovered that rejections are not altogether a bad thing. They teach a writer to rely on his own judgment and to say in his heart of hearts, “To hell with you.”–Saul Bellow
“Talent is helpful in writing, but guts are absolutely essential.” –Jessamyn West
“We keep going back, stronger, not weaker, because we will not allow rejection to beat us down. It will only strengthen our resolve. To be successful there is no other way.” –Earl G. Graves, founder and publisher of Black Enterprise Magazine
---------
Rejections or not, most of us are not going to stop writing. People who love to write, who MUST write, don't stop writing because they get a rejection slip. Or 1000 rejection slips. If my poetry is too bad to even blog, I will still keep writing it. If you love to write stories and create characters, you are not going to stop writing either.
If you are a writer who simply MUST get published by a "real" publisher, then perseverance is the order of the day, to be sure. If you write for yourself, mostly, that part doesn't matter. On the other hand, if you have a finished product that you know is good, that you truly believe in, there is no reason, in today's age of on-demand book printing and assisted listing, that you can't self publish it. Just make sure your confidence is confirmed by people whose literary opinion you value (not relatives!) before you take this step or you will be out your 300 bucks.
Then, if you honestly market the book you have just published, and nobody buys it still, then you were full of crap and are simply a no-talent hack. (That's a joke.)
Rejection is part of the game in many other areas than merely the writing of novels. It's an intrinsic part of life, so your advice stands for anyone, anywhere, wanting to sell something. The word "sell" doesn't necessarily imply a monetary transaction.
ReplyDeleteBut your advice works for those other topics, too. Like knowing your own worth and knowing what you're doing.
ReplyDeletePractice, learn, observe, learn some more, try, challenge yourself. I don't think life gives you many points for throwing the same substandard garbage out there time and again. Some stuff called garbage isn't, of course, or isn't to everyone. On the other hand, if, for example, you're wanting to make a living writing, you need to know your tools. You need to understand grammatical structures, spelling, syntax. You may choose to violate the rules here and there, but it should be through conscious choice because it works better, not because you don't know any better. You should be able to paint something with words well enough that it touches someone who isn't so friendly with you that they'd lie to make you feel better. You either need to tell a good story or tell the facts in such a way that they speak to people.
If you can't do that, keep learning/honing/working/reading/practicing until you can.
Once you can, though, once you've written something that your harshest personal critic and you both like, then stand behind it, even if no one else "gets" it. There are thousands of reasons to be rejected and only one of them is that it stinks. How you present it, the mood or experience of a particular person reviewing it, the vagaries of today's market - all of them can conspire to work against you as can the fact that there are literally thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people doing the same thing, believing in their own work and trying to sell it.
Make it your best then stand behind it.
Good advice.
I have to admit, I feel more energized about the marketing of my work than I ever have, largely because I found some sites that helped me with what I knew (without knowing why) was a weak spot. Now, I have a new gameplan.
Shoulda did better research before.
My bad.
I'm curious, RM. Why are you reading up on writing novels? I didn't think you wrote fiction (perhaps I misunderstood?). Was I wrong or did you change your mind?
ReplyDelete@Sheila - Yes, rejection is part of life. Lord, how I know it. :) And not just selling. Actually, I wasn't even thinking about selling when I wrote this post; only that persistence is the key ingredient to all success in life (according to Napoleon Hill, anyway.) But, yes, you are right, as usual. :)
ReplyDelete@Stephanie B - I am glad you are feeling more positive about marketing. In the case of marketing books, a blog about the subject of your book is one of the best marketing tools you can have. And if your book is a novel, then a blog dedicated to writing, or to the genre, will help a lot. Marketing doesn't have to mean knocking on doors or doing talk shows. There are more guerilla marketing techniques than you might imagine. :)
@Stephanie B - I am reading your posts, is what I meant. Not really reading anything else, since I am not destined to be a writer of fiction. But it is fun to know what goes into writing fiction. The only actual fiction I have tried to write lately, a short story, is hidden somewhere on this blog. Sheila read it and didn't like it at all. Maybe she'll tell you where it's hidden. :)
I actually like rejection... especially when it's specific. I've saved all the rejection letters I've gotten so far, and I plan to wallpaper my beloved writing room in them once I gather enough.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing keeping me from having a ream of them is that I haven't sent out my work nearly enough.
Shame on me!
From a couple of weeks ago, and I know it's off topic for this post, but since inquiring minds want to know (apologies for the delay, my new work schedule and me being sick off and on last couple of weeks):
ReplyDelete"@Redbeard76 - So you are, like, a middle-of-the roader in your politics? If you say so, then I will stop arguing with you. I really did think you were one of those Big Brother advocates. Sorry. (And that "sorry" was sincere, if you are.)
Ummm... what does "social liberal" mean? I mean to you?"
Yes, at heart I am moderate. At times I will lean left or lean right according to the political climate. And like I mentioned, socially lib ( favoring pro-choice, gun control, pacifist/anti-militaristic, and social programs ) and fiscally conservative ( favor reducing pork, leaving some issues to states and not federal issues). I am however soured on conservatism as of late because a. Bush administration which was not fiscally cons in terms of not reporting war spending in their budgets, Obama administration is actually reporting war budget in their budgeting. b. I had a friend who I feel really pushed his conservative views on me and I feel brainwashed looking back on it. In the 06 election the only reason why I felt like I voted cons was because of the swift boaters. Yes I was swift-boated, bamboozled, horn-swaggled and hood-winked. Had I looked more objectively and truthfully and not being controlled by fear (although Kerry was a windbag), I might have thought differently.
On topic: Rejection is a pisser. But you gotta get back up on that horse.
I wish I was a writer.
ReplyDeleteI love Stephen King's non-fiction book "On Writing".
But I have never had the persistence to write anything close to a "book". Not even a magazine article, LOL.
One time I started writing a novel and started boring myself. I figured it would bore anyone else who read it.
Maybe that's why I blog? I'm a frustrated writer?
♫♪There's a kind of hush, all over your blogs.....♫♪
ReplyDelete@Shakespeare - I like your attitude. :)
ReplyDelete@Redbeard 76 - Somewhat conflictive in my humble opinion (if you have entitlements and social programs, you gotta throw fiscal conservatism out the window in order to pay for them) but I have a little more insight now. Thanks.
@Angelika - You blog because you have something to say. And you wanted to meet people like me. :) I think you could easily write a book - just publish your blog someday. Heh.
@A. - Blogging doesn't put food on the table. But thank you for your patience. I will stay up late tonight and blog. :)
And I DO so love your Herman impression. So cute. (sarcasm there) :)
Fiscal conservatism and social liberalism, in my opinion, doesn't have to be discarded.
ReplyDeleteYou might just have to reduce some other things...like defense. Or raise taxes.
Tense mismatch, however, should be grounds for flogging.
ReplyDelete"don't have to be discarded."
Has anyone else ever noticed that when a Liberal or "Progressive" person is concerned about balancing the budget, they ALWAYS talk about tax increases? Whereas a Conservative who is concerned about balancing a budget will always suggest spending cuts?
ReplyDeleteThat used to be funny (though true) but what are we to make of a person who in the same breath suggests both tax increases AND cuts? Heh. You have my head spinning. :)
Oh, yes. Let's DO cut defense. We can TALK to the terrorists and others who would destroy us. I'm sure they will be most reasonable and let us keep our country.
Say... how about we cut out the space program instead? It's not going anywhere. (Pun intended.)
We spend more on defense than the rest of the world put together. Who are we defending against? Martians?
ReplyDelete(People use things that came from the space program every day a dozen times before they use something that came from defense. Just sayin'.)
You think armies are a good defense against terrorism? Look at the countries that spawn terrorists? What are they spending of defense next to us? Nada.
You can't build a cool new submarine under the notion that it's an anti-terrorism weapon. You can say you are, but you're just humoring contractors. We need to be fighting smarter not with bigger hammers.
(From 1958 to 2008, NASA has cost some $416 billion. Just this year, the defense budget is $685.1 billion, not counting Afghanistan and Iraq. On those wars, we've spent $900 billion in direct costs as of 2008, more than twice the total cost of the space program up until then. You really think they've done as much for this country as NASA?)
It's not that we don't both want budget cuts. We just don't have the same priorities.
By the way, it was really sweet of you to include that link for my new blog up there.
ReplyDeleteGlad to know that disagreeing as we often do doesn't keep us from being friends.
"We spend more on defense than the rest of the world put together. Who are we defending against? Martians"?
ReplyDeleteNo, we are defending a good part of the rest of the world. We are defending YOUR way of life.
"(People use things that came from the space program every day a dozen times before they use something that came from defense. Just sayin'.)"
Americans have a country to live in because of their ability to defend that country. We really wouldn't need those space program marvels if we didn't have a country.
"You think armies are a good defense against terrorism?"
Why, yes. Yes I do. A lot of dead terrorists out there who missed out on the virgins would agree with me, too.
"Look at the countries that spawn terrorists? What are they spending of defense next to us? Nada."
And your point is what? That we should spend the same amount as they do for defense? Then, just retaliate against our conquerors by turning terrorist for a really small amount of money? Don't make me question the superior eugenics that made you a smart person.
"You can't build a cool new submarine under the notion that it's an anti-terrorism weapon. You can say you are, but you're just humoring contractors. We need to be fighting smarter not with bigger hammers."
Actually, we need submarines to deter and match the Russians and the Chinese, and to continue to fight our enemies even if they destroy our homeland. Don't make me call you dopey. Hear?
"(From 1958 to 2008, NASA has cost some $416 billion. Just this year, the defense budget is $685.1 billion, not counting Afghanistan and Iraq. On those wars, we've spent $900 billion in direct costs as of 2008, more than twice the total cost of the space program up until then. You really think they've done as much for this country as NASA?)"
Ummmm... Yes! Here's why:
Americans have a country to live in because of their ability to defend that country. We really wouldn't need those space program marvels if we didn't have a country.
Are you REALLY asking me to choose between space experiments and a country, secured by a first rate military? Such a hard choice to make. Please don't insist.
"It's not that we don't both want budget cuts. We just don't have the same priorities."
So true. I agree 100%.
Now, if you really think we can do without defense, or be able to spend 25% of what we do now, then I don't have the capacity to argue with you because we are simply living on different planets.
I do realize you can probably TALK to our enemies and they will understand the error of their ways and just leave us alone, head hanging in embarrassment.
@Stephanie - the above was for you. Sorry I didn't label it. Guessing you knew, though. :)
ReplyDelete@Stephanie - I do have one suggestions for defense budget cuts though: Smart bombs. I think we can do without them.
ReplyDeleteThere is a world of difference between "no defense" and "more defense than the rest of the world combined."
ReplyDeleteI never asked for "no defense." But I think we are spending more (perhaps an order of magnitude more) than we need on it and spending it on the wrong things.
I have to ask, though, if we hadn't attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, if those wars had never been, do you honestly think we'd be without a country today? Because that's how you framed the answers.
I think that's a nonsense argument. In fact, I don't think we've truly defended the US, and our way of life since 1945. I don't doubt you see it differently.
Though, admittedly, I don't think it's defense if we're the aggressor.
Do I think we need defense? You bet. But I think we can spend it far more wisely than we're spending it now.
There is a world of difference between "no defense" and "more defense than the rest of the world combined."
ReplyDeleteYour comparison is made for grandstanding purposes and has no real basis in fact. Where do you liberals get your facts and hatred for America from? If we spend no more than the whole continent of Africa, we still couldn't adequately defend Iowa. Nobody knows how much Russia and China spend on their military, and that includes you. So how do you know we spend more than them combined, much less more than the whole world? Did they call you and tell you? Or did you get your info off the back of one of your scientific global warming charts? Where do you guys get this crap from? Anyway, it doesn't matter because it isn't germane to our defense: the only thing that matters is that we spend ENOUGH to adequately protect ourselves. You say we are spending much more than enough. So what would you lose? The Air Force? All but 3 bombers? One Infantry division? 4 helicopters? Lose the submarines? Just the nuclear submarines? You say we spend too much. You should be able to tell me what we should get rid of. Is one missile enough to make you feel secure? What? Get specific please.
If we need to spend TRIPLE what the rest of the world spends in order to preserve our country and not be bullied into a subservient lifestyle, then we should spend triple. Your comparison is just worthless.
"I never asked for "no defense." But I think we are spending more (perhaps an order of magnitude more) than we need on it and spending it on the wrong things. "
So tell me what you would get rid of? Since you think we should only be spending half now (as you said above) then it should be easy to answer. Half our Air Force? Half our Army? I just want you to back up your outrage at our military spending.
"I have to ask, though, if we hadn't attacked Afghanistan and Iraq, if those wars had never been, do you honestly think we'd be without a country today? Because that's how you framed the answers".
ReplyDeleteNo, we would still have a country. One which would have been attacked again several times after 9/11. One which was being terrorized and demoralized. But, yes, I think acting in response to being attacked in New York was appropriate use of military force. Further, I am also one who thinks in this day and age you can't always wait until you are attacked. Sadly, if someone is acting aggressively and telling you they wish you ill and will soon do something about it, you must sometimes wipe out that threat before it happens. This is a difference in our personal philosophies. I don't think it is always prudent to wait until the attack actually happens. You, on the other hand (since you ridicule Afghanistan) think we shouldn't respond militarily even if we ARE attacked. At least you are certainly questioning us fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan.
If people won't cooperate with you and talk to you and demonstrate they are not going to attack you, it is foolhardy not to believe they WILL attack you when they start mouthing off at you and posturing and testing missiles. Especially if you had just been attacked by someone else from their part of the world.
Just in case I've confused you:
1. YES I think we were right in attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan.
2. YES I think we were right to attack Iraq, given the signals Saddam was ending out and given the fact he wouldn't give us positive assurances of his attentions and given he wouldn't comply with the world's instructions and resolutions on how he could avoid a war. If I had been gifted with 20/20 hindsight as I am now, I would not have attacked Iraq. They deserved Saddam. But none of us had that kind of vision at the time and had to act on probabilities. Plus, having been attacked on our homeland, we were trigger happy and should have been humored by Saddam. Sometimes if a world power who can crush you asks you to let them look at your weapons systems so they can feel safer, you just must roll over and let them look at your weapon systems. That's just a realistic fact of life. If you instead choose to defy that world power and stonewall their security fears, then you shouldn't be surprised if you wake up with no palaces.
3. My only regret is that we didn't violate Pakistan's sovereignty and attack the borderland tribal regions instead of begging them to do it themselves.
I am so sad that even an attack on our homeland doesn't get you upset enough to violate your liberal philosophy of non-response and non-defense.
And while we are at it, remember those bombers bombing the caves? Which of those bombers would you have scrapped to save money? Would you have deactivated the 10th Mountain Division earlier in order to save money on defense?
"I think that's a nonsense argument. In fact, I don't think we've truly defended the US, and our way of life since 1945. I don't doubt you see it differently."
ReplyDeleteYou'd be right. We defend our way of life daily.
"Though, admittedly, I don't think it's defense if we're the aggressor."
Dear America Haters:
My country is never the aggressor. Never has been. But neither will we be bullied by tinhorn dictators who brutalize their own populations. That's how we've stuck around for over 200 years. America does GOOD in the world. Isn't it astonishing to hear someone say that? Countries who enslave and murder their own people are aggressors. People who try to get nuclear weapons in order to attack countries whose religion they don't like are aggressors. Countries who gas thousands of their own citizens are aggressors. Countries who slaughter thousands of their own citizens are aggressors. Regimes who make women wear Burkas and stay away from schools are aggressors.
My country is not the bad guy here, Liberals are referred to as America haters because they always think their country is wrong in international affairs, are embarrassed to stand up for what is right, and think these people mentioned above are merely misunderstood good guys.
"Do I think we need defense? You bet. But I think we can spend it far more wisely than we're spending it now."
Then tell us what should go. Don't just THINK we are spending too much, tell us what we can do without and still feel safe. Why would you not want to err on the safe side and be a little over prepared? Isn't your country and way of life and future of your children worth defending properly?
And point out the war where we are the aggressor. Can you do that for me?
@Stephanie B - I don't think you are an America hater. I got carried away. I need to learn to just accept your views and opinions without exploding. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteKorea, Vietnam, Iraq (second one), Afghanistan. Of course, that's my opinion, but one of the things I love about my country is that I'm entitled to it.
ReplyDeleteBeing patriotic doesn't mean you always agree with what the government does - or do you disagree with that?
I don't think of us as the aggressors in Kuwait since we were defending an ally and backed off once he was repelled. You'll notice how painlessly (relatively speaking) that went.
You may think we saved ourselves from more terrorists by attacking the Middle East. I think we did just the opposite. But, since there's no way of knowing for sure, we'll just have to both think we're right.
As for what to lose for defense? It's a challenging question and not one I'm willing to answer blithely. I do like being cutting edge. I do like being able to defend ourselves. I don't think soldiers should take a pay cut. I think they've been somewhat abused for the past eight years. But, I don't like spending like I'm the world's police force. I don't see why I would be.
And, if we truly are, why have I looked the other way when so many horrible things have gone on in Africa?
I also don't like watching a show about the new US Sub while they try to tell me it's cutting edge to counter terrorism. Keeping up with China and Russia, fine, but don't insult my intelligence.
As for relative amounts spent, I stand corrected. We spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined (if we don't count the "emergency" funds for Iraq and Afghanistan), seven times more than China. See here. If you don't like SIPR figures, use the CIA factbook info that follows and track down the GDP breakdowns to do your own calculations.
You'll note there are no global warming stats there.
I respect our soldiers and understand that war is sometimes necessary, just like I recognize the danger of space flight and think our astronauts are brave to risk it. All the more reason to make sure I'm not putting those brave people in harm's way except for inescapable need and after I've done all I can to ensure their safety. I feel we failed there.
If you think that makes me unAmerican (though you said later you didn't so I don't suppose you do), I have to differ.
You can support and fight for this country without killing people. You can do so even if you think you're government is not doing things right. You can do it as a soldier, absolutely, it's not the only way. Or so I think, and I'm the third of three generations doing just that, supporting this nation in a civilian capacity.
Isn't it amazing how a discussion of novelists and rejection moved to this? Really, the ways of the human mind.
Aggressor means someone who starts a war (dictionary.)
ReplyDeleteYou said it's ok to fight back if attacked and ok to come to the aid of a friend who was attacked, right?
I assume you count first Iraq (Kuwait) as coming to the aid of a friend, so that one was ok with you.
Korea and Vietnam were coming to the aid of a friend who was attacked. Why were those not ok then? And Afghanistan was fighting back after being attacked. So what's wrong with that?
Being patriotic has nothing to do with the government. Patriotism is love of and loyalty to country, not government. Sometimes you have to throw off the government for the sake of your country. Like pretty soon now. :)
ReplyDeleteYes. Painlessly. The burned out corpses of the fleeing Iraqis leaving Kuwait City were pretty painless. And Bosnia was pretty painless by that standard, I guess.
ReplyDelete@Stephanie B - You think we should have done nothing after the attack on New York then? I am trying to understand you but it seems irrational not to want to defend your home. I can't reason with that thinking.
ReplyDeleteYou say we would have been better off not attacking terrorists in the Middle East. You say they wouldn't have attacked us again if we just sat pat. Well, you are right about us having different opinions.
You think our soldiers have been abused for the past 8 years? Finally something we agree on. Both Bush and Obama are shits for sending the same ones back again and again and again. But then, neither of those boys ever was in a war.
ReplyDelete@Stephanie B - We're not the world's police force. We are not responsible for the world's problems any more than any other country is. We just have so many interests because of our size and success, that we sometimes seem that way. Many things affect us, and many things we do affect other countries. But we are not the keepers of the world.
ReplyDelete@Stephanie B - I don't know about any show that said our submarines were to fight terrorism. I can't see that either. The connection would be very tenuous I would think. We have many things to keep our eyes on in defending a country like ours. Not just Terrorism, but real wars too, old fashioned wars like with Russia and China. Hence submarines. It wasn't me who insulted your intelligence.
ReplyDeleteSee, I read our comments and don't find us so very far apart in many ways.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said painless, I meant to us and relative civilian losses (~4100 civian and US losses). I tend to think invading armies (like Iraq in that instance) get what they deserve.
I don't think we should have done "nothing." But you don't attack terrorists with a blunt weapon and win - as demonstrated by nearly a decade and Osama is still at large. We should have fought smarter and cleaner, going after a specific target and not crushing everything in our path instead. Those terrorist didn't care who got killed in their wake except for the recruiting capabilities.
Terrorist masterminds, in my opinion, deserve to be put to death. But creating conditions conducive to making angry dispossessed individuals eager for a target to blame (as you noted in your Nazi articles) is a great way to breed expendable terrorists and enemies. One can kill any number of these sad angry individuals without ever getting close to the real problem.
I maintain that, in my opinion, we used the wrong tactics for this enemy.
In both Korea and Vietnam, the people had already chosen someone else. We just didn't like who they chose. We attacked the "spread of communism." Admittedly, it was aggressive, but, since we were supporting unpopular regimes both times, it's hard to say we were defending our allies.
And I never said you insulted my intelligence. Just that I didn't like it when it was insulted. Billions of dollars have been spent using the "war on terror" mantra on equipment that, while cool and effective for many uses, has no effect on terror whatsoever. As an American taxpayer, I can be irked by that.
@Stephanie Barr - How do you debate someone who makes up their own history? Please go back and read about Korea and Vietnam again and then come back and talk some more.
ReplyDelete