Rejection letters

I have a personal essay/ memoir piece that I submitted to five literary journals about three weeks ago. Yesterday I received a rejection letter from the first one that has responded. I used to get things published a lot when I was a teenager and in college, but this is the first time I've tried submitting things in a really long time. It's so discouraging and depressing! How the rest of you handle it? I pinned the little rejection letter to a bulletin board in my laundry room and told myself it is a battle scar. Today I am a little more optimistic about still getting the piece published, but last night I felt I'd been shot in the heart.

As a rule, having any response except a standard rejection is considered a good sign, and if you get none after 15 submissions, you need to do some reworking of the piece. I got a personal note saying the agent "read it with interest", which it took months before I figured out is a big deal. They get hundreds of submissions a week, and 90% get a standard rejection.

Remember that sometimes your piece really just isn't what they're looking for. Expecting the first place you send it to be able to publish it is like expecting to marry the first person you date... Might happen, but probably won't, and if it doesn't happen it doesn't have anything to do with you.

#3 --

I received many rejections during the 1970s when sending stuff out. Finally got one poem published. It wasn't the big deal I'd expected: the universe didn't brawl with its constituent parts over which would be the first to beat down my door.

And those who should have been impressed (including myself) weren't; and though who shouldn't be were.

I didn't do any further submitting until the 1980s -- to a new humor magazine. The magazine promptly went out of business. I still wonder if my stuff killed it with laughter . . .

Next -- during the early 1990s -- I did what I should have done all along, and which was suggested all along: "research one's market". I.e., find out what sort of stuff this or that publishing outlet is seeking; if yours fits, send it; if it doesn't, don't.

So since the early 1990s everything I've submitted -- and it isn't all that much -- has been accepted for publication first time out.

Otherwise, I don't know the market for "personal essay/memoir," though I think old-school would be very unlikely to accept such, unless it was sent from a graveyard -- a "guarantee" of wisdom, or moral lesson, or some suchlike with which to edify and uplift the reader.*
_____

*Am I showing my age? Or my range of reading?
_____

Perhaps today there is much less resistance to the personal, though the market may be saturated, or the trend may have run its course.

At any rate, during the early 1990s, after quite a few years of not doing the writing I wanted to do, I began reading my old notebooks -- unread for some ten years, so completely out of mind as to contents; it gave me some perspective -- and at the same time evaluating existing publications for what they were seeking. So when it came to submitting stuff from that for publication, I "knew the field," so consciously chose and targetted.

So I've not got a rejection since the 1970s. Then again, I haven't been submitting with any regularity.

Hi voracia,

You were not clear about how long you've been writing, how long your essay is, other publications, if any, your education, where you submitted, etc. So I'll just throw out some generic advice.

I've been writing seriously since the mid-eighties but did not have any major publications until the new century. The more rejections I got the more determined I got. I read more and wrote more. To be honest, I did go through some dry spells, but after about 1994 I became very serious about my intention to publish.

Personal essay and memoir are enjoying a resurgence. In academic life it's often called "creative nonfiction." There are even those who say this form of nonfiction writing will overtake the novel or short story in terms of literary stature. I'm not sure if I agree with that, but it is true that there are more magazines publishing it than ever before. Still, there is more good work than there are places to publish it. This is even more true right now because of the economy. A lot of university journals have had to scale back.

It's best to remember that your piece may have been rejected for a number of reasons:

1. Journal has a backlog
2. Editors change all the time and each editor brings his or her own vision. Your work may not have fit with that vision.
3. What you sent was wrong for the magazine. Do a lot of research. I recommend one of the Writers Markets. Get a copy of the journal you plan to submit to and read it, if possible. Sometimes you can find sample work online. The Writers Market lists recent authors each journal has published.
4. The work needs more polishing.
5. Consider sending to a smaller journal. The big, established journals get hundreds of submissions.

The main thing is, try not to get discouraged. Rejections used to depress me, but now when I get a rejection I sort of shrug and think what my next step will be. Sometimes I edit or polish my work. Sometimes I'm actually happy about the rejection because it showed me the piece wasn't ready. Sometimes I just send it to someone else.

Can you answer this question: why do you want to be published? I know the answer might seem obvious, but actually it isn't. There are many reasons why people seek publication. What is your reason?

Remember that many masterpieces have been rejected many times. Also remember that seeking publication can be a calling that will ultimately help you to improve your work.

Good luck!

#5 --

I'll add:

Start "small": work your way up.

1. Evaluate all possible sources, then focus on those most likely to accept your sort of stuff.

2. Loosely organize those by apparent "qaulity" of the work published. Aim yours as "just above" most in a publication likely to accept your stuff.

If accepted it will tend to stand out.

3. Some editors read other similar publications. If they see your name frequently enough, it will come to stay in mind. If they like your stuff . . .

And there is peer pressure: if an editor sees others accepting your stuff, s/he'll begin to believe s/he should get with the program.

Treat yourself to one of those books that tell you how many rejections famous authors got for their most well-known works. I'm sorry, I can't remember any of the names but they are out there and I used to have one. Failing that, start collecting - every time you read somewhere that Catch 22 got 29 rejections before it was accepted (it didn't, can't remember how many it actually got but it was a lot) you'll start to see those rejections as just steps on the way to your great best-seller. Good luck and stay positive.

I just got my first rejection letter today after finally sending my children's book out to a few publishers. Amazing how disappointing it is even when you're expecting it! Oh well. Keep plugging away.

#8 I do know how it feels, believe me, and I'm not convinced it will ever stop hurting but do try and think of it as one rejection out of the way. Congratulations on having fnished your book (that's the hard part, after all) and on having sent it out into the wild to fend for itself. Every rejection is a step nearer to publishing. If you try to convince yourself that every author has to have 5 rejected books before the next one is accepted it does take the edge off it. And do try to start writing again while you're waiting. I'm sure I'm not the only one who is frozen into inaction while I'm waiting for those 'no thank you' envelopes to drop through the door, but I do know how bad that is. A comment (and I'm paraphrasing here) that Stephen King makes in On Writing is that 'writers write. The only way a writer can fail is by not writing.' It's the writing that matters, not what happens to it aftwerwards. Write for your own pleasure and if other people want to buy your work that's fantastic! (I am so much better at giving this advice than taking it. My own writing ground to a halt back in March when my mother died. I'm trying to convince myself, as well as you, that it's time to get on with it again!)

The more you do it, the less it hurts. If you do your job by

reading,
researching,
writing the very best you can
and sending out,

the rest will fall into place.

It is a matter of dedication and belief in your work. Also having the courage to revise, if necessary. You can't ever sit on your laurels (whatever that means! :-) ); you have to keep pushing, growing, and believing.

#9: I'm sorry about the death of your mother. I understand what that is like; sometimes our grief stops us for a while. It halts our confidence because life can seem so precarious (in the face of death, illness, pain, what does writing mean?). It helps to remember all authors go through this. I hope you do indeed "get on with it again" very soon.

#10 You have a very good point there about the precariousness of life. I must admit I hadn't thought of it that way before but it makes perfect sense. Thank you for your kind words.

Booksloth and TheresaWilliams - thank you so much for your kind words, wisdom and encouragement. On Writing is indeed my favorite book on the craft of writing. King brooks no whining - only picking yourself up, dusting off and moving on. It is hard though, to write through the waiting period. I haven't done much writing since I sent my first book out to a few publishers. Now I realize that continuing to write on other projects is probably what will help me keep my sanity (and my hope).

Booksloth, I too am very sorry about the loss of your mother. My advice is to be very gentle with yourself. You will know when the "right" time to start writing again comes along. Six months is no time at all in the grand scheme of grieving a parent. My father passed away two years ago, and I was completely immobilized for several months. Just doing the ordinary things like getting out of bed, taking care of the kids, the house, cooking dinner, etc. took three times as much energy as they had before - leaving little left over for creativity. Things came back slowly, in bits and pieces, including the writing. Grief is one of those things that you can't go around; you can only go through - and only at your own pace. All the best to you during this time.

Today, I am resolved to write two more cover letters on my existing book and spend two hours working on my other two "works in progress."

Rejection letters are a vital facet of the world of writing. Every great writer has had his or her work rejected, later to sell millions, or otherwise be world renowned. Confederacy of Dunces was only published after the author committed suicide, after wave and wave of rejection.

As far as how to take rejection letters, the best advice is to realize: They're not rejecting you, no matter how much of yourself you poured into your manuscript. Some writing workshops have the writers hold their manuscripts at arm length and say, "This is me," pointing to self, "And this is my story," pointing to manuscript.

Rejection letters have several categories. Most are form rejection letters. Impersonal. So, don't take it personally. They just have a LOAD of things to go through, and I'm sure you'd rather they spent time looking for quality material than to spend time writing suggestions to every other work they have to read.

Anything with more info than a form rejection letter will usually provide helpful critique, so really, an impersonal form letter is the worst you're likely to receive.

What I do with my rejies is put them in a folder, attached to the title page of the story (this also helps me keep track of who got what). I don't take them personally, 'cause I know it must mean that my work is too good for that publication. :)

Also, I'm not sure about what you're writing, but the publishers I deal with frown upon simultaneous submissions (that is, one work sent to multiple places simultaneously).

jhedlund - Thank you too for that. It's certainly been a tough year one way or another but I get nearer to moving in on the WP every day!

#13 Tell me you're not suggesting we all commit suicide as a way of feeling better about our rejections;-)

#13 - yes, publishers say they don't want simultaneous submissions, however, here is my view:

1. They don't know you've submitted simultaneously unless you tell them.
2. If you end up with more than one publisher interested, what a great problem to have!
3. They frown on them, but given how long it takes to get responses, writers would starve if they sent out submissions one by one all the time.
4. Publishers already hold almost all of the power and the cards over new writers. You have to do what is best for you, too.

Having said that, I am very careful not to submit to more than one imprint/division/editor at a single publishing house. I do consider it fair game to send to more than one house at a time, though. We'll see how effective or ineffective this approach is as time goes on.

And no, I am not going to commit suicide. :-) However, it makes me want to go read Confederacy of Dunces which has been on my tbr for a while.

>15 jhedlund:.

Your first point is invalid for the following reason:

A. Editors talk to each other all the time. Some editors are even married to other editors for different publishers. Given enough time, you will be found out.

In fact, most editors won't even consider your submission if they know its on another editor's desk.

You will lose your credibility in the publishing community so fast if you're caught simultaneously submitting. By submitting your work, you're agreeing to their submission terms, which usually includes a statement saying "no simultaneous submissions."

The quick solution to not waiting is to have a cycle of works out. You send Work A to Publisher 1, Work B to Publisher 2, etc., and then switch it up. That's how you don't starve.

Also, it helps to have a day job, as the probability of being an independent, successful writer is very, very low, especially if you haven't yet been noticed for the genius you are. That's why I work for NASA.

I like the three rules of getting published presented by Doctorow and Schroeder in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Publishing Science Fiction:

The Three Rules for Getting Published
These are the three most important steps to establishing your career as a writer:

1. Write.


2. Finish what you write.


3. Send your work to an editor.

(Repeat as necessary.)

#15 Yes, me too! It's been on my TBR heap for a while now as well, and I've just moved it up.

#16 Me heart bleeds for these poor publishers. You send work to - let's say - 10 of them and consider yourself lucky if one of them wants to publish, yet they throw a hissy fit if you have the temerity to try and get your work accepted while it is still current by overlapping your submissions - and are willing to lose what may (maybe) turn out to be the next big seller just because of that, instead of reacting by snapping the piece up before their competitors can grab it (which is the way any normal business would react). As jhedlund rightly points out, publishers do hold all the cards and, sadly, writers are stuck with that - another good reason for a) not making publishing your main aim when you write and b) targetting small publishers first as they are far less likely to be playing power games than some of the larger names.

Yes, it's all well and good to have multiple works out. However when, as you suggest, you have a day job to pay the bills (not to mention small children to care for), that doesn't always work out.

I'm not suggesting sending it out to the world. But a reasonable, short, well-targeted list of simultaneous submissions will not, I believe, destroy credibility. I know PLENTY of authors who got their first book deal this way and none of them ended up with more than one offer at the same time.

That said, I know nothing about the publishing business for science fiction. Perhaps it is a much smaller universe and requires additional care. I think each writer has to decide what to do based upon his/her market expectations and set of ethics. This is obviously a point that burns me up a little. I just don't believe publishers deserve the right to sit on a manuscript for months with no response and expect writers to let them do that exclusively. Many publishers don't even respond anymore at all unless they want your stuff. What does the writer do then? How long to wait?

>17 Booksloth:.

Sure, simsubs make PERFECT sense to a writer in a world ruled by publishers and their editors, but when you simultaneously submit a piece, most editors will consider a piece as a fit to a larger issue or theme. If you pull out at the last minute, you'll gain a reputation of being wishy-washy. Now, the poor editor, whose livelihood depends on continually publishing quality prose, must work extra time to fill that hole with something a little less thought out or more last minute.

Now you've successfully made an angry editor, who will no doubt tell all his or her editor friends, but you've also put the quality of the publication into question, and therefore, have shown that you couldn't care less about the people reading your work. You just want your name in lights. That's a big middle (or in your case, index and middle) finger to the fans.

Likewise, you're hindering your fellow writers, who have to wait patiently in line while an editor reads a story that's already been sold. Now we have to wait even longer to be noticed before we get our food and rent money. Likewise, if you're not a pro, you're making other non-pros look bad.

Further, if you do have the choice of two publishers, you're burning a bridge when you say "Sorry, pubA, I'm a pubB kinda writer." What if your next work fits more with Publisher A? Well, "Sorry," they'll say, "but why don't you try publisher A." So, you're effectively doing a disservice to you, too. And you depend on that writer's income to buy the bread and milk.

Even further, you could be selling yourself short by accepting the first, possibly inferior, offer. Or, you could miss out on some very helpful suggestions that would have made your story award material from some editor with a little too much time on his or her hands.

So in summary, you're doing a disservice to not only the mean, grumpy editors, but also to the fans, your writing peers, and even yourself.

As I said earlier: the best solution, so as to not be a burden to the system, is to be prolific, that way, you're not just spending your time waiting. You're spending your time writing too.

>18 jhedlund:.

The only time I have had a publisher not respond to me was when the submission got lost in the mail. If you're submitting to publishers who don't reply back, you're submitting to the wrong publishers. Even the slicks send you xeroxed rejection letters. That's what the SASE is for.

#20 Accepted, like you, I have never had a 'non-response', in fact I have rarely had a form letter either, nonetheless, people obviously are having that problem and how, exactly, are these people supposed to know they are sending to the 'wrong' publishers until they have waited a year for a reply that never came? The fact that certain publishers don't bother to reply is rarely mentioned in the Writers' and Artists' Yearbook.

And, if a writer is willing to sacrifice Publisher B at the cost of Publisher A that is surely their choice? If their next book is better suited to a publisher they have alienated, whose business it that of anyone but themselves? By the same token we might as well warn publishers that turning down a particular book will risk their losing another book by the same author, which could be the next Da Vinci Code (in earning potential - I make no comment on literary style). C'est la vie or, perhaps more accurately, that's business.

And surely you're not suggesting that publishers plan their entire schedules around the possibility of a book that has been submitted to them before the contracts have even been signed? Of course, a writer who reneges on a contract so that they can take up a better offer deserves to lose both publishers (and that's what contracts are for, to make sure the penalties for doing that are severe) but any commitment undertaken before that stage has no business being stacked in favour of publishers only. In fact, I would suggest that making simultaneous submissions acceptable might well encourage a healthy competition between publishers actually having to work hard to make sure they get to be the first ones to snap up a fantastic work that is doing the rounds. The current policy, where everyone steps aside in a gentlemanly fashion while plenty of time is taken over each publisher's decision, can only encourage complacency among publishers and despair among writers.

#18: I have been to your blog and read some of your entries. It is very clear that writing is your passion. I know how hard it is to keep doing it when you have job and responsibilities. I didn't even start college until I was married and I had 3 children as I was getting my degrees. I had a few years when my writing slipped away from me. For me it was a matter of telling myself I had to do it no matter what because I wouldn't be a complete person unless I did. I truly wish you the best on your literary journey, your creative life. I need to put your blog on my favorites (bloglines) so that I can see whenever you post.

I'm not going to delve deeply into the subject of simsubs but I will say that many editors are seeing the light and allowing them. As I get older it seems less and less plausible to wait a year or more for a response (which could be a rejection, after all).

#11: You're welcome. I know how it is. Sometimes it's hard enough to justify to others (and ourselves) that writing is important. But in the face of tragedy, that problem just intensifies. May you soon find your literary legs again.

Wow I had no idea how many responses there would be, this is great! It's inspiring just to hear from other writers. I will write more later when I get home from work, but for now I just wanted to address the simultaneous submission issue by saying that I only submitted to literary journals that were listed in Writer's Market as clearly stating "accepts simultaneous submissions." So I'm hoping that doesn't make them mad. As someone else pointed out, it takes some of them 6 months to respond, according to Writer's Market. I hope they don't expect writers to wait that long to hear back before re-submitting elsewhere!

These days self-publishing is gaining strength. It doesn't have the stigma it used to. I would put my time and effort into being my own company and reaping a larger percentage of the profits. If you are going to do all the work for the publishers, i.e. looking for the right market, then why not just sell the stuff yourself. These days it's easier. It takes time to get a business up and running but it takes lots of time to find someone to publish too. Independent artists are realizing this in every field. Might as well start now before everyone is doing it. You'll be ahead of the pack. And total control is amazingly addictive. You might give it a shot. You'll never reject yourself. :)

"You'll never reject yourself." This is often the complaint about self-publishing - where's the quality control. I totally agree it's a viable option so long as the "self" goes through the rigorous editing, polishing, professionalizing process. When low quality self published material enters the market, it contributes to the stigma. Likewise, when high quality material is self-published, it increases its credibility.

I know very talented writers who've used both techniques and had success with both, so it's interesting to note that it doesn't have to be an either/or approach. If there is something that probably wouldn't appeal to a mainstream publisher, that can be self published while still seeking traditional publishing for other work. Perhaps that's the best of both worlds.

Good points jhedlund. I have always been a do-it your-selfer..to a fault at times. I guess I just want writers to know that lots of rejected work was self-published and sold like hotcakes. No matter what you do keep your options open and KEEP WRITING.

Self-publishing works well for non-fiction with a specialized market, where the author has distribution channels in that market. This is the kind of thing that publishers are rarely interested in, because the profits for them are modest.

For general non-fiction, and for fiction, it's not really effective. There have been exceptions, but people have also won the lottery; self-publishing a novel is like buying a very expensive lottery ticket.

Publishers do, indeed, serve a purpose: they distribute and promote books far more effectively than authors can.

The average self-published novels sells less than 100 copies. And with good reason - 99.9999% of them are rubbish.

If you want to sell your book to only your friends and relatives, then by all means self-publish. If you want strangers across the country to read it, then you need to go the usual route with proper commercial publishers.

"There are three types of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." (Mark Twain) Yes, if you send your book off to a third party who promises to sell it...and this is where these statistics (if not pulled from thin air) came from... you will not succeed. You must sell your book. Unfortunately writers are very often not marketers. (Indeed you have to market to publishers if you want them to accept your writing...you have to convince them its salesworthy.) If you can go out and sell your book you have a greater chance of being successful.

And books don't have to be masterpieces for people to enjoy them. At times the writing put down by the average person sharing their thoughts or telling their stories is very enjoyable and has merit.

But I have strayed far from topic. Keep plugging and do whatever you can. Take suggestions and try new things. Don't accept pessimism from anywhere or anyone. Don't give up. The very best of luck to you all.

#29 Agreed - persistence and a strong belief in your own work!!

Thanks everyone. I haven't received any more rejection letters yet, but I haven't heard back at all from the other four journals.

To answer some questions, I've been writing my whole life, but more seriously again for about the past two and a half years. And by that I mean actively writing and editing and participating in a writer's group every week. I just started to submit things again for publication. I write short stories, memoir, and shorter memoir/ personal experience essays. My strongest area seems to be the latter (although my true love is short stories!), and the piece I sent out and received the rejection letter for is a memoir piece of almost 5,000 words. I sent it to literary journals that were looking for creative non-fiction.

I'm sure this is a common complaint but the people in my writer's group will like a piece (and they're tough critics) and give me great suggestions and I will re-edit it and polish it until I think it's as golden as can be. So when I get a rejection letter, I feel deflated and think, "If I put that much time and energy into a piece, and it's rejected, how am I ever going to be published?!" (Again, I had some short stories, personal essays and poems published for pay when I was in high school and college -- but that was at least 10 years ago. I went to law school and became an associate attorney and unfortunately put my writing on the very very back burner for far too long.) :(

As someone said, I do think it's a numbers game and eventually *someone* will want to publish my work. As the last poster said, very inspirationally!, I do believe in myself and think I have talent as a writer. I'm not the next Hemmingway but I love to write and I have been told all my life by teachers, friends (I know this one is obvious but my classmates were all very surprised that I was going into the law instead of "writing" -- as if just writing were a practical possibility, ha ha), and other writers and readers that I can write. Even if they're all wrong, I have this burning desire and need to write, that wouldn't go away with 2,000 rejection letters. I've felt since I was very young that I was born to be a writer (we all have our dreams, ha ha), and that, to answer one of the first poster's question, is why I want to be published. I have a more than adequate "day job" that pays well, so it's not about money or fame, it's just that I love to write and I would love to see my name in print and get my words out there for the world to read. (Just as I myself love to read words!) And honestly I daydream about being published and paid so that I can *only* write, instead of having a very demanding other career that leaves me with much less time to write than I would prefer.

voracia: my hat is off to you. Writing has its satisfactions quite apart from publication. And if you can continue to write under any circumstances you will probably eventually be published.

I had to make peace with myself by deciding if I never published anything, it still would be necessary for me to write. Brenda Ueland's book IF YOU WANT TO WRITE was very helpful for me at a certain point in my writing life.

Glory in the satisfaction of creation. Wallace Stevens said that satisfaction comes in mapping the imagination and finding whatever form will suffice.

Many writers see their writing life in terms of some kind of progress. This may be a spiritual progess or a progress in terms of craft. Either way, it is fulfilling. I talk about these things often with my college students.

I wish you the best!

I think the whole agent query process is silly, wasteful and not very effective.

My free time (not to mention lifespan) is limited, so I'd rather spend it creating. If I was younger, I might have time to waste on the horribly inefficient and archaic vetting system that is the publishing industry, but my current mode is simply just to polish something till it sparkles and turn it loose as a free ebook (Yes, even a turd can be polished).

It's a wonderfully iterative process as I get hundreds of readers, many of whom offer feedback (and amazingly sharp-eyed copy-editing). Could I have gotten somewhere via the traditional route? Perhaps, but I'm too busy writing to bother.

Thanks, TheresaWilliams, for all the helpful advice. And thanks again to everyone else!

Thee's a rejection heirarchy:

Bottom -> No Response at all
-> form rejection
-> form rejection with notes
-> personalised rejection
-> personalised rejection with interest in other works
-> personalised rejection with request to edit and resubmit
-> personalised rejection, but have passed it on to someone else/suggest you sub to someone else mentioning editor's/agent's reccommendation
Top ->acceptance!

Even a form rejection is better than bottom! Paper your wall with them and feel smug that someone actually read your work. It's better than never knowing if they did or not!

A writer friend gave me this advice when I was writing a few nature pieces, CNF, memoir ect.

Editors usually will go for the shorter pieces. After you write your piece, let it cool off for a few days, then go thru it with a pencil & see what can be eliminated. Shorter is not always better, but it does have a better chance of finding space in a journal than longer.

I got rejected for my book Encyclopedia of Hell AFTER it had been accepted for publication --- and boy did that hurt! The publication house (Facts on File) was sold and they chose not to honor contracts written by the previoius owner, so I had to start all over again! It stunk, but I finally was able to get the book published through St. Martin's Press. You, too, will find success --- just be persistent!

PS --- if you get discouraged, remember Stephen King's 1st novel "Carrie" was rejected 40 times before finally launching his stellar career!

NKKingston - Very true! I guess that the rejection letter I received could be considered one step up from a form rejection, because it was one, but it also had "Re: The name of my piece" on top and a "With thanks" on the bottom of the smallish slip. So I guess I received a form rejection with notes, woo hoo!

MarianV - I've noticed that as well. Sadly brevity has never been my strong suit but I will keep in mind that I might need to kill some babies in order to have a better chance of seeing them published.

MirimVanScott - Wow, that experienced sounds very stressing! I too am glad you finally got it published. It shows that persistence really is key.

Rejection letters are a fact of life for writers, but I always say, "Never give up!" If you knock on enough doors, someone will answer, assuming the work is good enough. You can get many rejections, but it only takes one to accept. I finally got one of those.. Yeah! It feels good when a major Agency signs you up.

Ah, rejection! Rejection, acceptance--all part of the journey, grasshopper. A friend writer used to send rejection letters to those venues where he did NOT want to publish, ahead of submitting to those he did want to publish. Silly, but it made hiim feel better. His growing list of those he did NOT want to publish included all those who had rejected him without comment.

My life did not change after having a short story accepted--it did not change after my 16th story was accepted or after a novel was accepted or after my first two Mark Twain reference books were published (except being sought after as a speaker). The only true validation you need as a writer is the one that person in the mirror gives you. If being published is your aim, its very much like an ambition to consume cotton candy as a balanced meal.

Dear voracia,

Remember that the economy is Not Good.

Do not think about the letter: send your poem out to the next place and write other ones while you wait.

(Give the poem another read just to be certain there are no typos and your cat did not walk-type I HATE ALL POETRY EDITORS in the middle while you were up getting a cup of coffee.)