quote:

---

Thank you for your submission to the journal. At this time, however, it does not meet our needs. First person stories are always difficult to tell, and this one suffers from the same problem that many do. The narrator is too full of herself, and is frankly unengageable. She isn't particularly likeable, and she isn't deliciously villianous enough either. She's arrogant in that annoying way that gets on people's nerves, and she's emotional in that faux emo way that makes you twitch. If you are going to use the first person narrative, the narrator MUST be engageable.

---

It seemed okay to me until "annoying way that gets on people's nerves" and then the deal was sealed with "faux emo way that makes you twitch." The first sentence would have sufficed. I think when you get a rejection letter, in general, you start to get worried when the word "frankly" appears.

<grin>

I'm sure there are others amongst you who have received borderline-insulting rejection letters. If not, I'm sure there are some amongst you who disagree with my assessment of this one!

Any thoughts?

There's another magazine (I won't name it here) that we don't submit to because the editor started bashing another writer in my group in just insanely personal ways on another writing forum. It was unprovoked, out of the blue, and bat$#&! crazy. Then we realized that said editor was a nut.

Edited to remove the reference to the specific editor and publication in question.

I have not received a rejection like that. However, I have received professional criticisms that pinch and a couple of very frank reviews of my writing from Critters (www.critters.com). Usually, there is some grain of truth embedded there and I have benefitted from taking a deep breath and looking hard.

I think I would discuss the review with the group and see if anyone sees the underlying issues that precipitated the comments. The comments may be nasty but they may also be on point and perhaps helpful.

Leslie

however, that is not to say that what the editor did was ok. if your going to trash someones work, include ideas and suggestions to make it better. something more than "that faux emo way that makes you twitch." what about it makes you twitch? I would have to read the story myself in order to figure it out, and even then Im not all too sure I could pull it off...

What bothers me about the comments is that the story wasn't submitted for a critique. Sometimes in a critique, tough love is required. But submitting a story for publication is a different beast than submitting it for a critique. Presumably, by the time it goes out the door, it has already been critiqued. It is in its final form, or should be. It would be bad enough to receive a critique that you had actually asked for with those comments. To receive a nasty critique with a rejection is adding insult to injury.

If you want to reject the story, reject it. If you want to tell the author why, fantastic. But do so in a thoughtful, considerate, mature way.

The positive aspect of this is that the editor took the time to write it. That surely means she saw merit somewhere in the story--perhaps, since she criticized the style and character of the narrator, in the plot itself.

quote:

---

she provides a real honest, no holds barred final crit that friends might not

---

quote:

---

One question you might ask is, in your writer's group, are you getting too close to each other to see the work objectively?

---

On this letter, it would seem somebody did read it---though some of the phrasing seems, well, snarky, the criticism would seem to be valid on the face of it. (I'd have to have read the story to know for sure---is there any way to pass it on to any of us?)

If there's a failing in the wording of the rejection, it's that its second-person imperative, emotionally charged with buzz words context is reasonably likely to ellicit an emotional reaction in persons of sensitive sensibilities.

However, what value might be placed on the commentary is open to interpretation. Ms. Dawson's creative writing is largely self-published. Her Wikipedia page has the hallmarks of a self-published entry. She runs an online RPG slash poetry slash speculative fiction publishing venue, digital and paper. She is of the same manner of self-indulgent creative slant as she rails against, in my opinion. Doth the kettle indict the pot? Or is she seeking a path toward effective first-person narration through condemning its failings in others' writing?

Websites have been closed down by such actions, and several companies have closed previously useful discussion forums rather than risk libel actions, because they felt unable to assure themselves their contributers would avoid defammatory statements about others. The simplest way for Hatrack to avoid any risk of such actions is to refrain from making defammatory comments about identifiable individuals. I'm not sure if Julie has been libelled by any posts so far but fear she might, or could be in future posts.

Such actions are typically taken, I think, when the defamed person believes they are losing business as a result of the libel. But that they do not have to prove the allegations are false, nor that they have suffered loss. In other words, you can be sued for telling the truth about someone and pissing them off.

It's less likely for websites that are password protected for all access rights, since they might claim the words have not been published; but since Hatrack allows anyone to read these forums, the site is open to such action.

While UK libel law is tougher than other places, I know of one US Fortune 100 company, based in California, that closed a useful user forum rather than risk libel actions. The company I work for denied me permission to start a public internet discussion forum for our customers to share experiences for this reason, and this reason alone, and we aren't known as a pushover.

Sites like the Guardian newspaper and the BBC, which invite user comment, are heavily moderated to avoid libel issues.

Here are the UK's leading lawyers on the subject:
http://www.carter-ruck.com/FAQs/Libel%20and%20Slander%20Cases.html

I don't think this editor crossed any line. Yeah, it's not particularly helpful except that the editor didn't like it enough to publish it, and it sounds a bit snarky, but...live with it. It was just one person's opinion, anyway.

I also don't think we've come close to libel here, but it is worth noting the point. We get on slippery ground when we start threads singling out an editor. The best way to strike back, so to speak, is not to submit to that market anymore.

I don't quite see those comments the editor made as crossing into the line of personal insult, though I admit they do drift over into that line. And while I have no problem with sharing stories of harsh rejections, it's the direct use of the editor's name that troubles me, especially when we start looking at her own personal work. No matter how upsetting her original commentary may be, the discussion of her work without her present makes me a little uncomfortable.

2. You write the story--someone else writes the crit. They don't control what you write, and you shouldn't control what they write.

3. Don't submit if you require sugar-coated responses, because, as noted above, you can't guarantee getting them.

4. If a story bores me, why shouldn't I say so? In fact, why should I bother reading it all or even writing a crit/response? Where's the contract that says I have to politely say in 100 words what I could express bluntly in 20 word?

Sometimes it is just quicker to be blunt--at least they could be bothered to respond and give you clues as to what went wrong.

5. Why should I tell you how to fix it? If it is boring, then make it exciting, if it is 'faux emo' (fake emotion, I guess) then make it 'true emo'. It's your story--you are the writer--learn.

I mean, why not a form letter if she hated it? I would think she has one prepared.

Maybe the story was close to what she wanted, but not quite, so she did it to see what kind of stuff the writer was made of.

quote:

---

I think that if this thread continues, it should do so with caution, for it discusses Julie Ann Dawson and if it could be seen as damaging her reputation, she could sue for libel.

---

Being able to sue is very different from being able to win.

Libel is someone writing something demonstratably false about her. Like... she does acid at work and/or she had an affair with my brother. (Obviously those are just facetious examples)

In UK law that is not correct. As I said, one can be sued for telling the truth about someone, like it or not. In the US the law is not so strict and I'm not clear on it. But it is a mistake to assume that libel law aligns with what one might believe is reasonable.

Winning is only part of the issue. The legal costs of defending a libel action can be crippling.

The issue of whether the libel laws are overly restrictive is a political debate, probably not for this forum. I happen to feel they probably are too restrictive, certainly here in the UK, for the way they do indeed restrict free speech and have been used to do so. That does not alter the fact that the law is as it is.

I agree with BoredCrow. I'm uncomfortable discussing someone who is not here, and not doing so is the simplest way to avoid libel issues.

I don't know if this editor is bad at her job or good at her job; to me that's irrelevant and not what this thread was intended to be about. I thought it was a lousy thing to do, that critique. Some seem to agree with me, and some seem to think that the actual lousy thing to do was for me to start this thread.

Look, that's fine. I don't have a problem with anyone for disagreeing with me on this particular topic. I posted it for three reasons: First, to get a sense of whether or not other writers are receiving tough critiques, and how they handle it. Second, to compare my own interpretation of this specific critique with other interpretations.... Fresh set of eyes, as they say. And finally -- and this is why I revealed the publication and editor -- so that if there are others amongst you who find this critique as offensive as I did, you could spare yourself the trouble of submitting to it and her.

It has been interesting to see the responses. Honu's response, in particular, goes to show how different people can get different things from similar sets of circumstances. And it was a response I appreciated. I've always been a bit on the sensitive side, so I think honu may be on the right track in turning these types of critiques into a positive. For me, I think it was a combination of what I, perhaps wrongly, took to be a borderline-insulting tone from this editor, as well as the sort of pointlessness of what I would consider to be a non-constructive critique.

I have seen several different markets mention, on their submissions pages, that they like to comment on the stories, and for writers who prefer no comments to make a note of it in their submission.

In this case, if the editor in question had done that, I wouldn't have had a problem with the rejection.

I wouldn't like to see the thread deleted. There's no reason for deletion that I can imagine, and I've gotten something out of it. I think it's a good thing to be able to look at something from multiple angles. Instead of deleting the thread, if it comes to it, I would prefer to just remove the reference to the editor in the original post.

I think we should be able to vent somewhat, if it helps us find some kind of solidarity here. But we should be venting more about frustrations with writing or the industry in general and not about specific people most of the time, you're right. But in this case I don't think Troy was being as inappropriate as may appear.

Also, I'm reading things about speech limitations in Canada being fairly restrictive. Can anyone confirm this?

This thread is going the way a few others have in the past, someone is insulted, people start drawing up sides, emotions begin to rise and pointed arguments are taking up large amounts of space on hatrack.

Instead of saying what already has been said let me add a perspective. This is my very first response from an editor that I submitted since belonging to critique groups. This was a lesson that any fellow writers opinion can cut like a knife, but an editor's comments will cut like a chainsaw.

quote:

---

I'm not usually this harsh, but the spelling, punctuation and grammar are atrocious. In my opinion, it is unprofessional to submit something that hasn't been proofed.

---

and...

quote:

---

The conversation doesn't make a lot of sense without some background information. I had lost interest before all was revealed at the end.

---

Now I felt wronged. I bounced this off a friend. We found a few things that were wrong but the entire script didn't read like a second grade report that received a D minus, like these people suggested. So what did I do next?
I pulled up my boot straps, reworked it, sent it in to another publication. It sold.
Lost Potential was printed in the inaugural issue of Goldenvisions. And to prove that I wasn't all bad, I continued to submit to that insulting publication (I liked their candor). I sold them a story and it was published in thei august issue.
Let's face it. Writing is tough. Convincing someone to give you money for what you write is a lot harder. I've gotten a few rejections where the editor gave me reasons why they passed, I've gotten a lot more that were polite but nothing else. I prefer the former.

The best way to prove to an editor that they're wrong is to find another editor that thinks you're right.
I feel for your friend, Troy. I am a brother in arms with them, as is most of the people on hatrack. Instead of succumbing to shellshock, I suggest that he/she storms out of that trench and attacks.

quote:

---

This thread is going the way a few others have in the past, someone is insulted, people start drawing up sides, emotions begin to rise and pointed arguments are taking up large amounts of space on hatrack.

---

I, personally, don't think the thread should be deleted. I'm actually against deleting anything anyone says no matter how goofy/stupid/offensive it is. Learn from it and move on.

I do agree with others, though, that I think naming names is not productive when that person being named can't or won't be able to respond.

I also don't see a problem with Troy posting something as a way of venting, or seeking another opinion (though without naming names). I mean, that's that what everyone's here for, right?

I do think the editor could have taken a moment to not make the critique so snarky, but I wouldn't consider that a necessity, more of a nicety. When I write critiques I do my best to try to keep the tone constructive, but I still say what I've got to say, which will often be negative.

This bothered me for a couple of reasons:

1) Nothing on what was interesting or what that something was that was going on.

2) It was flash fiction; a decidedly different take on the Last Supper. It was all about that last meal, and (IMO) there was nothing more to bring out. It would stand or fail on its own, and obviously failed. Just tell me that you didn't like what I did and leave it at that.

Although many of us are happy to get any personalized comments along with a rejection, a submission of a story is not a request for a critique; it is an offer of rights for sale. That's a business proposition that is best answered professionally with a "yes", "no", or "yes, conditional on changes". If an editor chooses to go beyond that and offer advice on a story that is rejected, I think usual standards of business decorum should apply (objective language, politeness, respect).

Ill take cherry garcia.

and I personally would like to get something more than the form letters that DC and Marvell send out...

"thank you for applying, please go somewhere else" is basically what they say.

Just to add something to the libel debate: there's something called fair comment. If you can prove what you've said is a fair comment, you can get away with it in most cases. Hence why comedians get to insult politicians all the time. Furthermore, whilst you can be sued for libel for saying something that's true, it's unlikely the case would be successful, because libel is a type of defamation and you cannot be defamed if, through your own actions, you have no reputation to speak of, even if the defamatory things you say are not true.

For example, I could say Gary Glitter was a psycho and probably get away with it, because his reputation is already in tatters. Me calling him a psycho isn't going to make his reputation any worse in the eyes of a jury (at least, you'd hope ). That's one of the tests they use--whether the comments would reduce a person's reputation in the eyes of a reasonable third party.