Submitter's block

I see your point, James and can't say I disagree. Except that I think that's exactly what he was doing and he got discouraged and quit entirely. Which means he already did that and it didn't work for him. Better to try something different and get unstuck than stay stuck and out of the game completely, imo. If I understand the situation correctly. Also, top markets acceptance rates, response times etc. can vary quite a bit by genre. Of course it's up to him and I have no idea what he thinks will help. Just trying to think outside the box for getting unstuck.

I've gotten a same-day rejection from Clarkesworld. I've done the six-month nudge at The New Yorker (to get the response that "they never received the story".) I've yet to receive an acceptance, but the more I submit, the more I write.

My personal rule of thumb, in addition to my perhaps-too-highly-inflated sense of my stories' worth, is if I wouldn't read the magazine myself, I'm not going to submit there. If I think the other stories in it are terrible, I do not want to be cheek and jowl with them, for a publishing credit.

I read somewhere about the benefits of setting your sights high and not relaxing your standards, but of course I can't think of where that was now (Janet Reid's blog? Michael Seese?).

blacbird said:

I detest the "process"* of submission of writings to potential publication venues at the same level I detest scorpions and cockroaches and rats and the coming of winter. I didn't used to, but the miasmal results of my submission efforts over many years have got me to this point.

Click to expand...

I started out detesting it, but that's because a) I'm lazy (and it's EFFORT ew effort gross barf) and b) I haven't really ever thought it would lead to anything and operate on the assumption I won't get anywhere. I keep trying to prove myself wrong, but, well...no dice, so far.

I suppose I lack imagination. I can no longer imagine the "acceptance" of anything I could submit anywhere. I search submission targets, agents, publishers, publications, and nothing looks even remotely worth submitting to. It was by no means always that way. But you learn reality by confronting it, and I've done plenty of confronting.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone can possibly confront enough things in their lifetime to learn what reality is.

I'm sure I won't get anywhere, I'm sure everything I write is moronic and stupid, and I'm sure I can't succeed.

But, I try to remind myself, the only constant in my life so far is that I'm really bad at predicting what I'm going to do, and generally speaking, I don't know anything about anything, so all the certainty in my body isn't worth more than a kitten turd.

My own ignorance is what keeps me going, if I am going anywhere at all. (Which, I am not always.)

This is a rant, I guess. But tonight I was writing, and at the end of that effort, I arrived at this place in the "process".*

caw

* pro-cess n. 1. A movement forward, an advance in endeavor.

2. In the context of creative writing, see euphemism, stasis, stagnation, futility

-- Blacbird's Unabridged Dictionary, 2014 ed.

Click to expand...

It's not really a process, it's just shit you do, like any other shit.

We have to do a lot of shit on a daily basis that is ultimately futile or not pleasant or boring or will just have to be redone the next day, all our efforts of the past hours erased...

(GOD I HATE CLEANING)

It's an ephemeral activity that may mean something someday. Or not. The only thing that is sure is that if you don't submit, you don't get published by someone.

So. Don't submit and write only for yourself. Don't write at all. Submit and have a shot at someone publishing it. Or bypass the whole thing and self-publish.

It is up to you to decide what makes you the most satisfied, and there is no wrong answer, but those are your options.

Personally, I submit when I'm feeling dopey and cavalier about life, and when I'm feeling moody and blah, I just don't write. Or submit. Or do anything, honestly.

It's not a process, just something to do.

Ken said:

Submitting is fun if you are writing excellent stories. Then you send them out and usually you will get an acceptance somewhere and be tolerably compensated. So what one needs to do is improve. It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Would that it were just that simple. There are far too many instances where authors have been rejected time and time again and then, finally, someone takes note and the work turns into a mega blockbuster with movies and any assortment of products on the market. Obviously that is not the norm, but those instances of being repeatedly rejected only to eventually become a best seller illustrate that it is not merely as simple as improving your writing.

Surely, we should all continue to strive to improve our craft. But that, in and of itself, is hardly the panacea for our acceptance/rejection woes.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of perseverance. Just because one or twenty agents or publishers are not drawn to a work does not mean it's no good. (Of course, conversely, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't look at that possibility as well.)

Submitter's block? Oh, gosh, yes!

I was stuck in this state something awful at the end of last year. That's when I went off on this lovely little tirade on my blog. (Okay, it's not really a tirade, but I promise, the feelings were there.) That was also when I changed my AW icon and user title. I just got so sick of feeling down on all my work. I won't say I'm totally over it, but the process of sending stuff out as frequently as I could helped a bit. (No, I haven't kept up the one-a-day pace, but I have sent out way more this year than last year.)

I really hope you're able to push through this. It's true that acceptance is an awesome thing, but it is definitely NOT true that a lack of acceptance means you didn't write (or worse, can't write) anything good. If anyone suggests otherwise to me, I'm sorry, but we will have to simply agree to disagree.

One a day ... I should do something along those lines... I dunno if I'm blocked or lazy it's a 'meant to be'. (I also like my newest almost-ready MS waaaay better and it's in a different genre so...)

Once I'm getting R's for that I may think differently, however ...

I used to send stuff out like crazy when doing W1S1's weekly challenge. I did it for a year. It was a great experience, but now I am not as quick to rush things off. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. I have learned that some stories need more time than a week and others are not worth holding onto. I also believe the more time you spend reading different publications, the better sense you will have if it is a good fit for your work. I have gotten some personal rejections and even marked up copies back from editors who took the time to point out something was there in my work. But the whole process can be very discouraging no matter what kind of rejections you are getting. Even if you are taking a break from submitting, keep an eye on what the journals and magazines are publishing. Try to really think about where your work could find a home. There are a lot of good publications out there. Editors change. Taste change. Watching the market will only help when you are ready to try sending stuff out again. I wish you lots of luck.

blacbird said:

If you don't get something accepted anywhere, how can it be defined as "good"?

Click to expand...

But then you have to ask, were these stories "bad" until they were accepted for publication, at which point they magically became "good"? And if, God-forbid in at least a few cases (a few I'm just meh on), the author had stopped submitting them, would they simply have remained "bad" even though we now consider (most of) them "good"?

ETA: Actually (and this may be a tangent, so begging your pardon), a few books on that list might be considered "bad" but were published. Which IMHO doesn't make them "good."

TheWordsmith said:

Would that it were just that simple. There are far too many instances where authors have been rejected time and time again and then, finally, someone takes note and the work turns into a mega blockbuster with movies and any assortment of products on the market. Obviously that is not the norm, but those instances of being repeatedly rejected only to eventually become a best seller illustrate that it is not merely as simple as improving your writing.

Surely, we should all continue to strive to improve our craft. But that, in and of itself, is hardly the panacea for our acceptance/rejection woes.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of perseverance. Just because one or twenty agents or publishers are not drawn to a work does not mean it's no good. (Of course, conversely, it doesn't mean that you shouldn't look at that possibility as well.)

Click to expand...

You have a point. Johnny too.

Quality of course still matters. Write really good stuff and you'll get acceptances, w/o much need of perseverance. Many writers reach plateaus and they quit trying to improve, which can be their undoing. There's always room for improvement, even among the best. Take your stories or novels up a grade, from B+ to A- and that can make a major difference, especially if you write a bit off the beaten path as I suspect Blacbird does. Not exactly the conventional sort. (A compliment ;-)

I'm glad you did! But not to worry, we'll have expectations for you. I myself have a surfeit of expectations; it'd be nice to spread them around a bit.