A WRITER’S DILEMMA

               

This piece is for writers and future writers, but I encourage you readers to read and discover some of the speedbumps those words you enjoy are encountering.

As with all writers, I have accumulated my fair share of rejections. Often the rejection is a form letter with no indication as to why the work was rejected, or if it’s even been read. But on occasion I have received what I consider a ‘good rejection’. From the editor’s response you know that your work was read for they will tell you why it was rejected and what they consider to be its weaknesses. With this knowledge necessary corrections can be made which may be able to smooth the road to publication.

Now here’s the problem. When a piece is accepted for publication the editors seldom, if ever, tell you, in any detail, why they accepted the piece.

I recently had a short story accepted for publication. The editor said it was the best story she read that day. Why was it the best story of the day? I, for one, never question the editor who accepted my story as to why they accepted it.

Leave well enough alone.

So, this is the dilemma I see. For me, I have sometimes learned why my work was rejected. But never learn why it was accepted. That knowledge might be as helpful as that gained in a rejection.

What do you writers think?