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.