Reasons manuscripts get rejected...

[deborahjross]

Check out Wendy Loggia (editor at Delacorte) 's keynote address at SCBWI on reasons "almost there" manuscripts get rejected. Some are familiar, but this one was new to me:

4. The writer seems like a difficult person to work with. Wendy always Googles an author’s name before offering a contract. She says she may be prompted to change her mind about signing up an author if they share too much information in their blog, if they tend to blog a lot about how hard writing is, if they blog about being rejected many times, if they publicly bash a book she’s worked on, or if they bash a colleague in the business who is her friend.

Comments

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

I really don't think that's what she was talking about. I've never read anything that could be construed as a nasty attack on your LJ. We all need to chew over the gazillion challenges of the work in progress, and we all need support through the times when it seems we can't write our way out of a wet paper bag. Taking good care of one's creative ego is professionalism. Whining in the sense of trying to justify not doing the hard work, or back-biting, or poor-me, or in general acting like a spoiled preschooler, is not.

This advice follows something I realized when I was first finding my way into the sf/f community -- things go around. Editors change publishers, so don't ever take out the disappointment of a rejection in a personal way; the newbie writer you publicly slam may switch hats next year and be holding the reins of the anthology of your dreams.

Once, it was word of mouth that granted immortality to vicious remarks. Now, they're up on the internet for everyone to read.

Keep on blogging about writing problems so we can learn from one another!

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

Okay, that makes sense!
I've never understood the desire that some people have to write slasher reviews. They are exercises in pettiness, rather than anything useful -- they tell readers only of the reviewer's bile, and they hurt without any constructive side. I've reviewed books I didn't like, certainly, but that's my taste, and usually they ahve good qulaities I could recognise too.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

I agree. There are negative reviews, either because the book really wasn't that good or else just not to the reviewer's taste (which is always interesting -- "I didn't care for it, but it's brilliant"). And then there are nasty reviews, where what's going on is not a reaction to the book itself, but a verbal tantrum on the reviewer's part. You are so right, these tell the reader only of the reviewer's bile. And spleen. And a few other physiological/anatomical parts.

So if you were an editor about to invest a good portion of your already overpressured time in a new writer, would you take that into account?

[http://users.livejournal.com/la_marquise_de_/]

So if you were an editor about to invest a good portion of your already overpressured time in a new writer, would you take that into account?
you know, I think I wouldn't. That's probably the historian in me -- I look at text alone as much as possible.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

If the text is good enough, sure. I hope that otherwise wonderful stories aren't being passed over because of the defects in personality of the authors. (There may be cases where editors refuse to work with an author because s/he is just too much trouble, but very few.) I think the problem comes when an editor is faced with a choice between stories that are promising but will need work.

[zanzjan.livejournal.com]

Augh, I'm doomed!

Seriously though, it's my sense that most people's depiction of self as they portray themselves on the internet is, in some ways, almost like that of a character rather than a whole and accurate representation of who they are. Some things are emphasized or de-emphasized (or omitted) depending on our perception of audience, which can be greatly misunderstood, or can change dramatically over time w/o the ability to go back and change our words to refit any shift in context. Frex, back when I was posting to usenet in the early 1980s, what I could reasonably anticipate in terms of possible readership is vastly different than it is now, while those comments are still available exactly as is. Fortunately they mostly just paint me out to be a dorky teenaged nerd-in-training (unlike today's Angry Stompy Sick-of-Politics me, who is much more obstreperous about it all.)

I think if I was trying to judge whether or not I wanted to be someone's friend, I'd consider their internet portrayal of self as sufficient guide for setting my expectations for any future relationship (with the implicit understanding that my perception of them will likely evolve from there.) However, if I was looking for a solid sense of who a person was for a one-shot no-saves decision on a professional relationship, unless the material posted was extreme (badmouthing/abusing other people would definitely count, though) I'd feel very hesitant to use that as my sole or final decision-point.

Hmmmmmm. Definitely going to have to think about this some more.

[deborahjross.livejournal.com]

Excellent points, particularly how our online presentation of ourselves changes filters over time.

I wonder if decisions about people based on their online posts/blogs aren't skewed toward red flags. (Is it harder to create a negative impression with a single careless comment than to build a portrait as a serious professional?) I think that's what the editor in the article was getting at. She certainly isn't looking for a bosom pal, but she may be asking, "Do I see any indication this writer is a pig-headed amateur?" Is it fair? No. Do we writers have to live with it? I wouldn't bet otherwise.

I've been awed and deeply touched by the behavior of people I've met only online -- their generosity, their humor, their unfailing support. I've also encountered people whose posts were downright vicious, but who in person were kind and gentle.