10th
Rejection Letters: A Practicality
Today I received two rejection letters which may exemplify the astute teachings of a Gotham Writers’ professor about the hiearchy of rejection letters. Since both were from the same person at the same publication (although he dons two distinct titles at different email addresses) we can employ some scientific methodology by eliminating the variable of personality — “Oh Leonora, he was just not that into you.”
Rejection letter 1:
“Hi, Lenora -
This is clever, as it hints at just how creepy the story of Peter Pan actually is. But I’m afraid I’m going to pass. For me it inspries more smiles than laughs. Appreciate the look, though. Hope you’ll try us again.
Best,
Chris”
Rejection Letter 2 (5 hours and 34 minutes later):
“Hi, Lenora -
We tend to veer from material that references us, so I’m afraid we can’t use this one. Thanks for giving us a shot, though.
Best,
Crhris”
My first impulse that 1. should be framed and laminated on my fridge because I am encouraged — even with hope —to try again. But wait — in the second letter Crhris misspelled both of our names rather than just mine, putting me, the rejected, on an equal playing field with the rejectee. He also gives me an objective reason having nothing to do with my inability to make him laugh rather than merely smile — McSweeney’s apparently is shy of self-referential material (I mean, who isn’t?). Finally, it came later in the evening, explaining its brevity.
There is still a major flaw though with all rejection letters: Upon their arrival, one can no longer assume that the acceptance got lost in the mail/inappropriately directed to spam/not sent it all because, duh, could there be any question about whether or not we’d publish this gem?
(Answer: Unequivoical. Of course not. No, no question at all.)
