Yes, this is filled with whisky

Yes, this is filled with whisky

Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The subtle art of form rejection

I'm still cackling over this post at Editorial Anonymous.

And just to brighten up your day here's a picture of her slush monster created by Melinda Beavers


Josin L. McQuein said...

I LOVE the slushmonster. And I hear he gets along very well with sharks ;-)

(Seriously, it's a symbiotic relationship. He eats the letters, the shark eats the writers. I'm not sure where the octopus fits in, though.)

Janet Reid said...

Don't forget my Herpet-American assssistant also.

Rebecca Knight said...

We would never forget your faithful assssssissssstant!

This slush monster always gets an "awww!" from me :).

Josin L. McQuein said...

Yipes... so embarrassing. I thought your assistant was a stray tentacle. :-D

Kate said...

The slush monster makes me smile, but the list of Things Not To Send in Slush Ever Again makes me laught out loud EVERY TIME.

Furious D said...

I read that blog about how to interpret "Not for me thanks."

However, it failed to interpret a "not for me thanks" written by an agent on toilet paper in their own blood.

I guess my paper didn't have the right watermark.

Steve Stubbs said...

The response needs to be more subtle IMO. Try this:

Q: "My question is, how does an author figure out if rejections are due to: agent not interested in novellas (word count), weak query, manuscript has a weak opening, weak writing, silly premise, etc, or that the project is altogether unsellable?"

A: Yes.