Search This Blog

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Close Down This Blog!

There's been a scuffle recently over the negative comments of a few bloggers, who tend to insult and pontificate.  There's been a call to remove the negative commenters from the blog, which is not my style.  After a few folks expressed these opinions, said negative bloggers have decided on their own that LROD is "disappointing, repetitive, and predictable," and they are leaving.

Because they are leaving (narcissistic ?), they think that I should shut down my blog. Funny. But, as with my persistent fiction, I'm not much of a quitter.  I'll probably be here as long as I get rejections, which as any writer knows, means forever. 

Here are the comments with my responses following:

Boris said:
I do think this blog sort of beats the same dead horse, over and over, though: A post about this or that "injustice" in the publishing world, followed by a few thoughtful comments, followed by an anti-MFA "it's all about connections" rant by anonymous, followed by some back and forth between anonymous berating people for what they read (or don't read), followed by indignant replies to anonymous and then anonymous cutting and pasting what's been said so that he/she (I'm guessing 'he') can tell him or her how he or she didn't read his comments closely enough, followed by 'writer, rejected' telling everyone to go easy on the insults, and then maybe a published writer gets insulted (maybe even by writer, rejected), and then the published writer (or an editor) shows up to say, 'Hey, sorry you guys hate me based on my photo, my advance, my MFA,' and then this gives anonymous an opportunity to puff up, etc., etc., etc. I realize that this is the focus of this blog, but, wow!, it's just so....predictable. Anonymous is the worst offender, of course, but the blog itself suffers the same problem. And God forbid if Writer, Rejected gets his/her novel published. Anonymous would be on his/her ass so fast for being a sell-out, for using his/her blog in some way (that he couldn't articulate) to land the deal, for being (let's face it) accepted rather than rejected. But then I start getting the feeling that rejection is a self-fulfilling prophecy around here. It's one's reason for being (at least on this blog), right? So have at it, folks. And feel free to flog me all you want: I won't be around to enjoy the party. (But, please, "Writer, Rejected": Please think about doing something that transcends the basic gist of this blog. My advice? Be radical and shut it down, putting the time you would normally spend on this blog into your novel -- or maybe a even new novel, putting the ten-year one aside for a bit? I'm dead serious. And, believe it or not, the advice is well-meaning.)

I aim to transcend nothing, dude.  I'm just trying to understand. But this should not stop you from being the one to make a blog that transcends stuff. That would be cool, and I would definitely be a reader of your blog.  Thanks for your concern about my time and my novel.  But I'm doing just fine.

Joey Said: ^ Completely agree. I've found certain (many!) posts on this blog interesting, but I'm not so interested in having WR throw red meat at the commenters (look, an undeserved publication! doesn't that make you mad??? be angry! be angry!) over and over again. It looks like a good way to achieve a nice little echo chamber, but in the end, as anon noted, this just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it's fun; I don't know. But I've never been fond of agitprop, and this site increasingly seems to run on a set formula of posts designed to goad commenters into responding angrily and resentfully over things they have little control over. Oh well. Good luck with it. I honestly have enjoyed reading many posts here, but...I've begun to feel I could drop by once a month and I'd see the same posts and arguments posted over and over again. WR posts a literature is dead or they don't deserve it post. Some agree. Some don't. Some flame. WR cheerfully asks for no flaming. Two days later, he posts another bit of flame-bait. Repeat ad infinitum. It's disappointing. There aren't that many blogs out there that focus on the litfic publishing world at a personal level. But I just can't jive with the gimmick of repeatedly reading things that are supposed to make me bitter, frustrated, or resentful toward other people. Oh well. Good luck, WR. I'm going to take some time off to do some writing and subbing instead of reading and whinging, and I hope, at some point, you try something more than the call-response thing here. Cheers, all.

Thanks for wishing me luck.  I truly appreciate (and need) it.  Please feel no obligation to become bitter, frustrated or resentful; that is not my goal.  I just call 'em the way I see 'em. Sorry to disappoint you by not adding more personal words about my experience in "litfic publishing," though I think I've pretty much laid it all out in my path of rejections.  Maybe I'll reveal myself and really go to town. But probably not. In the meantime, peace out, bro.

Anonymous said:  I recognize myself as one of those being criticized, yet I still agree with the previous two comments. They're dead-on.  But other literary sites engage in blatant Toadyism. They wouldn't allow any complaints about the status quo. You'd get hit with the W or B bombs (Whiner and Bitter). You get hit with those bombs on LROD, if you point out problems of fairness. I see that the guy on McCain's campaign staff who called people "whiners" had to resign. I can never get it: why, in the literary world, that word is automatically applied to people who have legitimate complaints. But, yeah, you commenters above are right in saying that LROD is predictable and repetitious. Maybe we should all just shut up. Maybe we're all tired of this. Change won't happen. This is an exercise in futility.

Maybe we are all tired. Or maybe it's just you: tired of me. But I have a book to read and an LROD book club to run and more rejections to post, which sometimes spark a flame or two. I have more to understand about what gets published and what doesn't and why.  Also about what is going to happen to literary fiction (and the fate of the book) in general as well as my own "litfic" novel in particular.  So, I'm not closing anything down just yet.  I'm not tired of myself, I guess.  But you are free to come and go at will.  

John Said: Now, I'm new here, but one thing that interests me is how little actual literary fiction I see, notwithstanding the site concerns the rejection of same. W,R has won awards, but she won't post what she's written, as far as I can tell. I go to the blogs of those who identify themselves on the comments, and ditto. I wonder how many rejections some of these folks actually get. (I got two this morning before I came here, by the way, and you can find links to my published stuff on my blog.) Now, some folks may call this humor-challenged, but it reminds me of Bukowski's story about the workshop where everybody read their stuff and bs-ed about it, but nobody actually submitted.

Every rejection posted from the very beginning is mine, and is real, as indicated by the actual posting of actual rejections (read back to June, 2007). And so that's hundreds!  Other writers have written in and sent rejection stories and actual rejections, and I've always noted them as from anonymous LROD readers.  So, are they real? Yes. Otherwise, what would be the point? How many rejections do I actually get.  More than I care to count.  I think a lot of readers submit their work a lot of the time and get a lot of rejections.  Many things in the world are a sham, but not the rejected writer.
Okay, so that's my response.  No end of LROD in sight.  But thanks for your suggestions.  Keep coming by if you want to, and don't if you don't want to.  We're low-key around here about all that.  I'm not really trying to drive anyone to the blog, just writing about what interests me.  Do keep an eye out in the next edition of Poets & Writers.  Apparently there's going to be a little piece about this blog in deputy editor Kevin Larimer's column.  It will be interesting to see what his editorial take is on LROD.  (I don't expect him to love it, do you?)


Anonymous said...

I'm the Anonymous above.
Regarding your first sentence:
I make negative comments; I don't insult others, but I respond to barbs; I do tend to pontificate.
I am not tired of you, w,r. Maybe I'm tired of myself.
I saw truth in the remarks of Boris and Joey; of course, their argument is only half the story.
My words may seem to advocate your shutting down your blog, but I actually believe you've served a good purpose and can continue to do so.

John Bruce said...

As I say, I'm new, so I'm not quite sure where to go to find the "hundreds of actual rejections" you say you've posted. If there were hundreds, I'm a little puzzled I haven't seen em. The last one you posted, for that matter, was mine, so they can't all have been yours.

Also, I haven't threatened to leave, though I would certainly feel more encouraged if I thought you and your commenters were actually writing. Again, you mention hundreds of rejections, but I'm not sure if you mean any of the rejected stories you've posted (half a dozen, as far as I can see) are yours.

I can see a Darin Strauss, who's at least making beer money off his work, wanting to limit what people can get for free on the web. Others, though, like me, find it in our interest to make sure people can find our stuff -- part of the actual work of writing -- if we're giving it away anyhow. Yet so far as I can see, there are no excerpts from the 10-year novel for us to see and marvel at. You may be able to correct me, but this is the elephant in the room you haven't mentioned in your post.

This goes to what I still think is an atmosphere of amateurishness here.

Anonymous said...

I like checking in here. I've got my own rejection saga going on, and I like hearing your take on the whole submitting slap down, stand up effort.

The occasional thing about other writers is interesting -- sometimes I find things you post not quite so interesting, but I don't hold it against you. After all, my most recent posts have been about the milk frother at my work and my love of iced coffee and design blogs. At least you're not superficial. But then again, it's my blog, and I get to write about whatever weird stuff I feel like.

Same with you. If people don't like to read it, then they should read something else. It's not actually that complicated.

Oh, and why do people keep referring to you as a "he"? I'm totally sure you're a she.

John Bruce said...

BlogLily, I agree, I think W,R is a she. I also agree, "If people don't like to read it, then they should read something else." I found this blog via a link a couple of weeks ago, and the quality of posts has been uneven. I was encouraged by the discussion of Darin Strauss, but it's fallen off since then, and while I'm not making threats, it's certainly my prerogative to visit or not, but it's also my prerogative to leave feedback.

I'm realizing that the literary world has layers, like an onion. Many of these layers are ineffectual and silly: at the outer layer are the folks to pay scam agents and vanity publishers, and then the people who maintain the many web sites that complain about scam agents and vanity publishers, as if by chasing them away we could more easily get published. Then there are workshops, which are often just places for wannabes to socialize. I'm starting to think this site is somewhere in that category, since so far, nobody who's a regular commenter I've seen has taken me up on my observation that you can't find any actual literary output among the regular bloggers who comment here. I've seen some personal comment on menopause and frothers, but nothing representing itself as a literary piece someone might submit and risk rejection for.

(In fact, the more I try to parse the scrambled syntax in W,R's post above about the hundreds of rejections she's printed here, the less I think these refer to her own work.)

Here's another thought. Blogging takes energy (I know). So does writing. So does a day job, if W,R has one. If W,R is spending n amount of energy on a blog that's often somewhat silly, then how much energy does she have left for the real work of writing? Steinbeck, full time, could turn out 3-500 words a day. How many can you turn out if you're doing a day job, running a house, and blogging to boot?

I frankly doubt if much serious writing is getting done by anyone involved, chief among them W,R. So why the complaints about rejection? You can say it's fun to drop by, but then it's fun, I guess, to watch the early-morning cartoons before the news comes on. At least, for some people.

Anonymous said...

John: You are a frustrating blogger. Instead of just saying you don't know what's on this blog, why don't you have a look around? LROD started this blog by posting his rejections, which got all the named editors and agents up in arms. You should have been around for that; those were fun days, too. And as he said he posted all his rejections here.

Pick any of the archived posts dated in the June-Dec 2007 and you will find some very entertaining personal rejections.

As I see it, the blog is evolving and keeps evolving. Who knows where we'll end up. I hope with Writer, Rejected getting a book published.

Anonymous said...

Amateurishness? Has anyone gone over to see John's blog? It's pure drivel. Brilliant that he's over here criticizing LROD! And how noble to be worried about W,R's writing life.

She has often had to defend herself on this count many times, whenever some man comes on over here to tell her she should get writing and stop wasting her time. She often says she gets a lot of writing done, has a job, and is working full-force on her novel. I believe that.

It's patronizing to "worry" about what she does with her time. If I thought I could get away without being slapped down by our magnanimous host (W,R), I'd say that John was just an a***hole! But I won't because I know name calling is not allowed on this blog.

But anyway I know it's not very bloggerly, but I kind of wish John would bug off.

John Bruce said...

heyhey, how much writing do you get done? You can call my blog what you like, but it's kinda like arguing with an empty chair where you're concerned.

And W,R is claiming hundreds of rejections above.

John Bruce said...

Now also, 5:05 said, "Pick any of the archived posts dated in the June-Dec 2007 and you will find some very entertaining personal rejections." I went to December and found, by my count, four rejections of LROD herself for the month. I got three today, not sure how many this week.

She may be writing, but I don't see it here.

Anonymous said...

I for one like the blog. I'm glad you're going to keep on keepin' on. There are plenty of "negative" "whiny" blogs out there, and this ain't one of them.

John Bruce said...

Here's a post from LROD last December (one of many like it): It apears that Nelson has never heard of the most prestigious nonfiction journal around, which is entitled, hello, Creative Nonfiction. (Incidentally, I am proud to report that I have had the good grace to be chosen for publication by Lee Gutkind and the editors at CN.) I also will continue to call my nonfiction work creative because I think the above reasoning is ridiculous puffery used to fill up a blog. BTW, I very much doubt that the term "creative nonfiction" has ever been responsible for any of my esteemed rejections. (Raise an eyebrow all you want: me no care.)

Sound whiny to you?

Writer, Rejected said...


Go to June, July, August, Sept, Oct, 2007. Those are all my rejections.

How much writing do I get done? What do you mean? Page counts? I write every day and get stuff rejected at a rate 30:1, as discussed on this blog. But this is an anonymous blog, pretty much the opposite of your blog, and this is not by any means my creative outlet, so I don't share my work here.

I have two books of short stories, an essay collection, and a novel I'm going to get perfect (plus a few others waiting in the wings that may or may not be the next novel). So, I feel that for a relatively young writer, I'm doing okay. No worries.

As for whether my penis is as long as yours, I'm third-gendered, so it's hard to say. :-)

Glad you keep up your writing and have it easily accessible for people to find. That's good. I'm sure when the publishing world comes knocking, your door will be first. Me? I like to pound the pavement and track those people down. It's more fodder for my blog, which is indeed an accounting of all my many, many rejections.....hundreds is no exaggeration. I think you'll see that when you go deep into my archive, as has been suggested by others.

My blog may be cartoonish and silly, as you say. But my literary writing, however, is anything but. At least says me.

Writer, Rejected said...

P.S. I am whiny, my friend. I've never refuted that.

P.S.S. You have a lot of time on *your* hands, no?

Anonymous said...

Um...John...actually no. It doesn't whiny.

Anonymous said...


I'm usually just a lurker, but you're annoying the crap out of me so I felt like I had to say something.

Hope your blog is better than your ability to conduct a search. WR posted tons of rejections in the early days of his blog. They're not hard to find. Unless you're too busy writing snipey posts to even bother searching.

As for the point of the blog, well, you're missing it. If you want to read literary fiction, it's out there on other peoples' blogs, but that's not what this one is about. How about if I go onto your blog and complain that the crap you write isn't about t.s. eliot? Why not take your negativity elsewhere and leave this blog to those of us who want to enjoy reading or blogging about our fate as rejected writers?

To WR: Your blog is charming and funny. Don't waste your time responding to losers like John.


Anonymous said...

Why it it so easily forgotten that there is, on this very site, exactly what John wants to see?
If you go to the right, John, to the listing entitled "labels," you'll see (near the bottom) a Rejected Story Corner.
This was an experiment that went nowhere (although the comments were oppositional and interesting). Still, I thought the idea was on the right track.
My strong suggestion is that you begin with the last story ("A Change of Season"), for it was the first printed. Work your way from the bottom up.
I think the first three authors were sincere.
The first story that appears in the queue was the last printed --the experiment ended with "Big Fish." I believe this story was intentionally bad, and was planted to sabotage the whole project. (Look what amateurs these rejectees are.) Seems it succeeded.

Anonymous said...

I just changed my mind. I think W, R is a man. No, a woman. No, a man. I'm having a Chinatown moment. Sorry.

What I meant to say before I got caught up in the topic of who's who is that blogging and fiction writing are not the same thing. They're like men and women. Or women and men. I mean, they're like apples & oranges. Sugar and salt.

Whatever. I blog for fun. I write fiction to make big bucks and humiliate those who displease me.
Come to think of it, I could start an anonymous blog and do all those things at once. I could call it Things White Writers Hate and get a huge advance, and never have to go on tour because I'm anonymous. Which leads to the important question of why I'm commenting here. I need to go and write some fiction of my own. (Or, as the great Scoop Nisker at KFOG in San Francisco used to say: "If you don't like the news, go out and make some of our own.")

darinstrauss said...

It seems to me that this blog provides a helpful service: it shows all of us who try to write that rejection comes to everyone -- and at every stage in one's career.

Somebody here will complain that I have no right to say this, or participate in the discussion, because I've had 3 books published. And maybe there's something to that. Maybe getting published buys a little more emotional cushioning, a sense of riding higher in the saddle, seeing more terrain. But that doesn't mean rejections ever stop, or stop being painful.

Want proof? In what other field do even the SUCCESS stories bitch about the job? Bernard Malamud talked about writing for a living as a kind of psychosis, like a mental illness. Cheever, too, called ours a “a dangerous profession.” Philip Roth says: “The difference between being a famous writer and an Olympic swimmer is that the swimmer doesn’t think she’s drowning every time she jumps into the pool.”

What's great about this site -- if I may add my two bits -- is that it helps remind people not to let all of this endeavor's b*s get too discouraging. (If Philip Roth feels rejection, it must not be YOU, but the game itself that, often, is at fault...)

If you want to be a writer -– want and need to write –- then no one and nothing can stop you. But I think people should know these kind of things, going in. And that's the service this site provides.

p.s.: The site doesn't claim to be a clearing house for fiction, so to take it to task for not including links to stories feels like disparaging "Lawrence of Arabia" for not having any dance-hall numbers.

Anonymous said...

LROD writes, "I aim to transcend nothing, dude. I'm just trying to understand."

Sure; okay. But what's there to understand? That commercial publishing is a business? That more people write than read? That magazines, small and large, get 99.9% more stuff than they need? That friends sometimes publish friends? That some people never get the break they deserve? That bad writers get published? That bad writers also sometimes don't get published? That if short story collections sold 50,000 copies, publishers would be buying them by the boat-load? That books with easily marketable hooks get $350,000 while serious literary novels go unsold? That the world isn't fair?

You have no obligation to transcend anything. It's your blog. People will read it or they won't. But...what is it you're trying to understand? There are people on this blog who clearly don't read any contemporary fiction, and yet they're suprised when they can't place their own? Let's look at this from a purely business standpoint. If people writing contemporary fiction aren't reading it, let alone buying it, there's not going to be a market for it, so don't be surprised when no one wants your masterpiece.

I personally think a transcendent blog entry might be to get people to list the last 20 books they've BOUGHT. Not checked out of the library; not borrowed; hell, not even read. Why would that be transcendent? Because it may just illuminate something that hasn't already been stated here, while (possibly) pointing the finger at a new culprit. Or not. Who knows?

Anonymous said...

Let me make my suggestion more specific:

Name the last 20 books of contemporary fiction you bought when they were new releases. (Not remaindered; not used; etc.)

Sorry for the addendum, but I think, if you pursue this, the distinction between new (meaning: it's helping to earn a profit for the publisher and, thus, encouraging the publisher to continue publishing literary fiction) and used/remaindered is an important one.

E. said...

I'm not W,R but I'll play:

The Archivist's Story
Then We Came to the End
The Maytrees
In the Woods
My Life in Heavy Metal
The Mystery Guest
Falling Man
Samedi the Deafness
A Spot of Bother
My Latest Grievance
The Road
People of the Book
On Chesil Beach
Varieties of Disturbance
Diary of a Bad Year
The Summer Book (new translation)
Fellow Travelers
The Brief, Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao

These are books I've bought *for me* in the last year. Not included: gift books for my sister, husband, daughter, friends, etc., recently purchased still-in-print (not remaindered) books like The Hours, The Final Solution, Use Me (which I hated), etc., and CNF such as The Year of Magical Thinking (a beautiful beating).

I buy new books. I read contemporary *and* classic fiction. The people in my orbit buy and read contemporary fiction. I write fiction. I get rejections and the occasional bite. I'm not sure what we're proving here.

Fun to think about books.

Anonymous said...

I like Elizabeth's list.

But I also think at the core of this question about whether the writers who come to this site buy brand new books is a ridiculous proposition -- that it's only when writers themselves start to fork over their dough for new books that contemporary fiction will bloom.

Anybody who thinks something like that vastly overestimates the number of writers in the world, the amount of dough that population has to spend on books, and really needs to get out a little more.


Anonymous said...

I don't think it's a ridiculous question at all. I've taught numerous creative writing workshops (not just undergrad workshop but conferences that include wannabe writers of all ages) where, if you're lucky, one person actually buys books. (I'm stunned at how few wannabe writers actually read anything new.) I know because I often ask, "What's the last new release you've bought?" The point 'who's to say' is making (I think) is that if you want to be a writer but aren't buying newly released books, how can you expect anyone (publishers OR readers) to support you career? Of COURSE you need more than just wannabe writers buying new books for the industry to bloom. That goes without saying. But I'm w/ 'Who's to Say' in wondering what LROD is trying to understand. Publishing is a business. In the old days, an editor might build a career with the hope that it would take off and the back-list would become worth something. Now, publishers are mega-corporations, and the bottom-line is money. A short story collection by an unknown writer may sell 2,000 copies -- a first novel: 5,000? These aren't encouraging numbers for a business that thinks only about profit margins. Editors worry about keeping their jobs. They don't have a lot of latitude for failure. It's all terrible and it's awful, but it's not a mystery.

Writer, Rejected said...

People spend their careers analy-ng market dynamics, but you do iy brilliantly in a sentence or two. Anyhoo, can you tell me as breezily how to function successfully as a writer in this market? If yes, write a book and sell it to all of us! If you say something about being a good craftsman of fiction, go back and read the early rejections on this blog!

Anonymous said...

Darin Strauss misses the point (as successful writers are wont to do). The words he supplies from Malamud, Cheever and Roth are about the difficulty of writing. But after they completed that difficult task, these three authors could look forward to publication, good sales, and maybe an award or two.
What about writers who go through the difficult task of writing with no hope of success? Those are the people who concern me (because I was one, before I opted out). Look at poor w,r, ten years into a novel and now faced with a huge revision. And doing it with no prospect of publication. It can make you desperate.
An Anon above suggested a look at the Rejected Story Corner. (I wonder if anyone has.) The first story, "A Change of Season," was rejected 34 times. Is it worthy? If so, that's the whole point of this blog.
The worthy should be appreciated. That's only fair.
And please don't say "Life isn't fair." I already know that. But I don't have to like it.

John Bruce said...

More here.

R.J. Keller said...

Anoymous 10:29am

I am one of those "writers who [are going] through the difficult task of writing with no hope of success" and I agree with Mr. Strauss 100%.

"If you want to be a writer -– want and need to write –- then no one and nothing can stop you. But I think people should know these kind of things, going in."

Write your passion, polish it, put it out there and hope for the best. But don't expect it. Frustrating? Hell yes. But if you can't deal with that frustration, then it sounds like you made a wise decision by "opting out."

WR, keep it up. Coming here is very theraputic for me.

Anonymous said...

LROD: "People spend their careers analy-ng market dynamics, but you do iy brilliantly in a sentence or two. Anyhoo, can you tell me as breezily how to function successfully as a writer in this market? If yes, write a book and sell it to all of us! If you say something about being a good craftsman of fiction, go back and read the early rejections on this blog!"

No, I can't tell you. It's serendipitous at best. It's a lottery. I would recommend that you read John Barth's essay "Doing the Numbers" from The Friday Book. Even for the best writers out there, the odds are overwhelmingly stacked against them. Having a great agent increases your chances but doesn't guarantee you anything. So, no, I can't tell you "how to function successfully as a writer in this market," and anyone who does give you a definitive answer is probably full of it. That said, you write the best you can; you give it your best shot (getting an agent; publishing excerpts; submitting it for awards); and you hope for the best. You don't really think that there's an answer to your question, do you? I hope not.

E. said...

W,R -- Just want to give a guffaw over the photo that accompanies this thread. Genius.

Writer, Rejected said...


Is there one definitive answer as to whether or not there's a God? Or what the meaning of God is? No. But do people keep looking for the answer? Sure. Worlds of meaning are based on that single unanswerable question. And I do not mean to be esoteric....there are many similar unanswerable questions worthy of our humble exploration.

So, do you really think I'm ever going to stop trying to figure out the mystery of publishing? Does a place exist for me within the vast literary divinity? Can I write something that will be read and passed on, rendering me immortal? What's going to happen to the modern American agent, and do I really need one?

Come on, people, don't be so narrow minded. There are vast mysteries out there, and we are lowly students, trying to understand as much as we can. Stop scratching your heads and acting dense and saying: "What's W,R talking about? What's so mysterious about publishing, or about why ze can't get published? (Note my use of the third-gendered pronoun "ze" instead of "he" or "she."

p.s. Thanks, Elizabeth, for appreciating the blog imagery. Baby-Crying-Baby is totally freaky, and yet apt.

This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

"Come on, people, don't be so narrow minded."

Does that constitute name-calling? :)

x said...

Having been a reader of this blog since its inception, all I dare to say is, all blogs have their ups and downs. Why should this one be any different? I also find the dynamic here fascinating: this is a blog about rejection, and now it's a blog about rejecting the blogger. Psychiatry calls it "parallel process," a universal phenomenon in group psychotherapy. It actually means this blog is a therapeutic success. And I have no doubt whatsoever that WR is a he. None.

x said...

As far as gender goes, I think what throws people off is the Go Fug Yourself link which has been there forever, I believe one of the first three or four links. But, you know, some guys are really into women's fashion.

Anonymous said...

W,R writes..."Is there one definitive answer as to whether or not there's a God? Or what the meaning of God is? No. But do people keep looking for the answer? Sure. Worlds of meaning are based on that single unanswerable question. And I do not mean to be esoteric....there are many similar unanswerable questions worthy of our humble exploration."

I enjoy this site, but this is a wee bit melodramatic, isn't it? Rejection of a short story or a novel is as mysterious as the existence of God? That's a bit of a hyperbolic comparison, wouldn't you say? And I would have thought you were joking if it didn't seem so...earnest.

z said...

Dearest Son:

Melodrama? Fashion? Triple-Gendered? You're onto something h., but of course you blogless anonymice can say absolutely anything on this blog and get away with it. (Don't worry. I love half of you. I just don't know which half).

But since early childhood LROD, also known as Lenny, which didn't help, has been obsessed with being rejected on every level and has been asking for this for a year, finally provoking blog rejections far, far worse than any he's gotten from editors. Editor readers probably love this. Or maybe they ARE the anonymous back-biters. Joey for sure is an editor LROD wronged, and maybe me in one of my comments. Also, one of the Anonymice correcting my spelling in a previous post regarding Flinery OKonnair gave it away.

You rejectors are all just fulfilling poor LROD's masochistic fantasies. I mean, whose blog commenters in the history of fanciful blogging ever, ever asked the blogger to see his credentials, to show his resume??? When has an anonymous blogger ever had to be who he claims to be, especially when self-revelation would alienate him from the very industry he's trying to break into?

As my other adolescent son says: This is the Internet, Mom. There are all kinds of crazies out there. What did you expect???? He has years more experience with such things than either I, or probably LROD, who, as the eldest, I sheltered far too long.

Well, I've been spoiled, meeting few such people in most of the blogs I inhabit who screen the mosquitoes out. But, LROD, honey, you just love this, don't you? It confirms that the whole universe is rejecting. But as your mother, I will no longer embarrass you with the time-out chair and will always love you anyway no matter what, my recent tangle with your comment-thugs notwithstanding. And remember, there is such a thing as Blog-Envy by non-bloggers.

Love, Mom

Writer, Rejected said...

Erskine: Joking.
Mommy: Love you.

z said...

And darling, I hope you forgive me for that ugly doll I had made especially for you above. Your analyst once told me it was the source of your rejection fixation. I now feel so guilty. Which is your fault of course.
----Mummy Dearest

Anonymous said...

I had an epiphany!
It happened while I was reading this "baby" post.
Many who regularly visit LROD are like the baby in the picture: noisy, cruel, messy and -- most of all -- selfish.
Since I visit this blog regularly (though at least I don't, like many regulars, have a blog of my own; gads!), I may fit my description above. This worries me.
So I've decided to change my ways. To leave this place for good. Spend my time gardening or reading Gogol. Whatever -- just something loftier.
You come too.