tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2703861414547309188.post1752506510772061746..comments2024-03-25T20:40:44.806-04:00Comments on Literary Rejections on Display Now Has Long COVID: Rejection Equation: Proust = YouWriter, Rejectedhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17241982229214057815noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2703861414547309188.post-38262862049283212562009-01-13T12:23:00.000-05:002009-01-13T12:23:00.000-05:00they don't do this anymore because it's all electr...they don't do this anymore because it's all electronic. same message, just no proust quote.<BR/><BR/>of course after they reject everything i send them within a week of sending, and this happens 10+ times a sub period, i wonder how much they do "appreciate your interest in the magazine".<BR/><BR/>i've had editors at commercial magazines tell me flat out that i'm "just not their kind of writer." why are these "literary" journals such pussies about it?<BR/><BR/>would a college journal like this ever say "look, you're just not for us, stop sending"?<BR/><BR/>i'm gonna keep flooding them until they do.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2703861414547309188.post-85261288950746513322008-04-09T09:59:00.000-04:002008-04-09T09:59:00.000-04:00After getting a rejection back from West Branch I ...After getting a rejection back from West Branch I kind of have to agree with the comment above. I could tell that the pages weren't even separated in my submission packet. Whatever goes on behind the scenes there, I do not think I had a fair shot at being accepted. I'm just glad to know I'm not alone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2703861414547309188.post-66435606215311543622008-03-10T12:56:00.000-04:002008-03-10T12:56:00.000-04:00The difference is that Bernard actually took the t...The difference is that Bernard actually took the time to put down his rejection thoughts on paper - something the editors of West Branch would never do. Instead, they use the Bernard-Proust situation to imply that the same thing could be happening here. But the editors don't believe it. I don't think they believe anything they publish is as good as Proust, nor do they think of themselves as important editors. It's just another credit.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2703861414547309188.post-5440024328720081502008-03-09T13:03:00.000-04:002008-03-09T13:03:00.000-04:00Anonymous--isn't this saying the opposite? That W...Anonymous--isn't this saying the opposite? That West Branch, in rejecting this writer's work, recognizes it could be making the same sort of mistake that Bernard did, in rejecting Proust? I think it's meant to cheer up the writer (of course it doesn't work, but still).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2703861414547309188.post-2344105884260152612008-03-08T11:02:00.000-05:002008-03-08T11:02:00.000-05:00The "inane" rejection was right, in the case of Re...The "inane" rejection was right, in the case of Remembrance. <BR/>My problem is that West Branch is implying that THEY, with their exquisite sensibilities, would have appreciated Proust (and just loved Finnegan's Wake).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com