# Why you can't/shouldn't take rejection or criticism seriously.



## Johnny (Dec 15, 2014)

I came across this today, it's a real eye opener to how stupid and clueless some people in the publishing industry really are. It's a list of bestselling authors and how many times they've been rejected and the mean things publishers said to them before they were rich and famous. I haven't submitted any work yet, but am expecting for people to tell me it's not worthy and to be rejected at least several times before getting anywhere as well. To those aspiring to be published authors remember to never, ever, ever give up! 

List of Best Selling Authors and their rejections/number of times rejected. 
http://www.literaryrejections.com/best-sellers-initially-rejected/

Another list 
http://www.buzzfeed.com/stmartinspress/20-brilliant-authors-whose-work-was-initially-reje-7rut

One of J.K. Rowling's many rejection letters 
http://www.writersdigest.com/writin...al/beat-writers-block/reject-a-hit-jk-rowling

While this is very uplifting I must say it sure will be annoying to try this many times to get a book published.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 17, 2014)

It's encouraging to know that some of the most successful authors started out getting their butts kicked by agents and editors. 

Lets me know I'm not alone in the big, bad, cruel publishing world. 

(Also shows how some agents and editors really blew their chances!)


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Dec 17, 2014)

Wow, the J.K Rowling rejection letter was _harsh._  Do publishers really get that mean with their rejections sometimes?  If so, really not looking forward to that stage in my writing career D:


----------



## Elvenswordsman (Dec 17, 2014)

Umm... a lot of those look like the authors received criticism, fixed their works, and the sold through either the same publisher or different.

Criticism works, and should be taken seriously. Whether the recommended changes should be undertaken is at the writers discretion, but I would never discount critiques.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 17, 2014)

InnerFlame00 said:


> Wow, the J.K Rowling rejection letter was _harsh._  Do publishers really get that mean with their rejections sometimes?  If so, really not looking forward to that stage in my writing career D:



The Rowling letter was a fictional rejection letter—meant to be humorous. 

Though, she _did_​ receive rejections! Just none like that.


----------



## InnerFlame00 (Dec 17, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> The Rowling letter was a fictional rejection letter—meant to be humorous.
> 
> Though, she _did_​ receive rejections! Just none like that.



I should have figured hehe.  Come to think of it it's unlikely a publisher would spend that much time writing something that long if they hated it that much.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 17, 2014)

Elvenswordsman said:


> Umm... a lot of those look like the authors received criticism, fixed their works, and the sold through either the same publisher or different.



This is the thing about rejection stories - one never knows how many revisions the author made until it was 'fit' for a publisher. And I would daresay a lot of these "lists" are like those of "authors who first self-published" - which turn out to be legendary lies misunderstandings. ;-)

Rejections are part of being published. I highly doubt any reputable publishers would get nasty about submissions nowadays, since most go through agents, and most reputable agents tend to be too busy to send any kind of actual rejection letter, unless it's a form letter. Do good stories get rejected? Sure, for a variety of reasons besides the agent/publisher being "stupid". That's why you have to believe in your story and be willing to push for it. If you don't, who will?


----------



## krishan (Dec 17, 2014)

Having my work rejected has often prompted me to edit or rewrite it. By the time some of my stories find a publisher they have improved markedly from the first manuscript that was sent out. The process of rejection can be useful and positive rather than something to resent.

I would much rather work hard, rewrite several times and finally publish something good than publish something that's not my best work with the first publisher willing to accept it.


----------



## Johnny (Dec 17, 2014)

Obviously criticism does have a purpose but I have heard that Rowling never edited or changed Harry Potter even when it was rejected (don't know if that's 100% true though) but the point is you can never make work perfect and there will always be someone to trash it so you have to believe in yourself more than anything. 

I plan on submitting my work for critique but am hesitant to change something I know is good even if someone else doesn't like it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 18, 2014)

Johnny said:


> I plan on submitting my work for critique but am hesitant to change something I know is good even if someone else doesn't like it.



Critiques are opinions. You, as the author, have to decide whether suggestions/advice have merit or not. However, if several people are pointing out the same problem, more than likely it needs changing.


----------



## fpak (Dec 18, 2014)

Johnny said:


> Obviously criticism does have a purpose but I have heard that Rowling never edited or changed Harry Potter even when it was rejected (don't know if that's 100% true though) but the point is you can never make work perfect and there will always be someone to trash it so you have to believe in yourself more than anything.
> 
> I plan on submitting my work for critique but am hesitant to change something I know is good even if someone else doesn't like it.



You know I read a long time ago that Rowling rewrote the first chapter of the Philosopher's stone around ten times. So while she may not have edited the book after she sent it to publishers, I suppose she had reason to be that confident of it.

Actually found the interview where she mentions it!

http://www.accio-quote.org/articles/1999/1099-starledger-garrity2.html


----------



## Olde English (Dec 18, 2014)

You can self-publish through the library of congress for a one-time flat fee of $100, or you can hire an agent, at least in America.


----------



## deadpringle (Dec 18, 2014)

This post is to the truth as white is to rice. Criticism can be good. Sometimes, it's good for someone to tell you, "your subject matter has a very small audience", or "you need to work on your grammar and presentation". These things help you to grow as a writer.

With that said, the fact of the matter is, there are people out there who simply delight in making denigrating comments, issuing personal attacks, and trying to do everything they can to beat people down. They do this because deep down, they know that they themselves have never accomplished anything, and for them this temporarily relieves the pain of a truth they cannot face. Let these words burn into your brain permanently:

DO  NOT  GIVE  UP!

If you speak with anyone who was ever a success, they will tell you the same exact thing. They had to fail several times over until they finally found success. Seeing failure as a stepping stone is a common characteristic among successful people.

I'm sure there will be people who will tell me my books are garbage. Inane babble not even worthy of the bottom of a parakeet's cage. And in the face of this, I will press on anyway. I will tell people about my books, and I will not let those who have never known authorship dissuade me from success. People who seek to cause others to fail are themselves, for all eternity, failures. Those who fight on in the face of such people are successes. Always.


----------



## Kyle R (Dec 18, 2014)

deadpringle said:
			
		

> DO NOT GIVE UP!
> 
> If you speak with anyone who was ever a success, they will tell you the same exact thing. They had to fail several times over until they finally found success. Seeing failure as a stepping stone is a common characteristic among successful people.


I agree 100%. :encouragement:


----------



## Johnny (Dec 18, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Critiques are opinions. You, as the author, have to decide whether suggestions/advice have merit or not. However, if several people are pointing out the same problem, more than likely it needs changing.



This is true, I was more referring to people bashing others' work with no constructive criticism just for the sake of bashing.

- - - Updated - - -



deadpringle said:


> This post is to the truth as white is to rice. Criticism can be good. Sometimes, it's good for someone to tell you, "your subject matter has a very small audience", or "you need to work on your grammar and presentation". These things help you to grow as a writer.
> 
> With that said, the fact of the matter is, there are people out there who simply delight in making denigrating comments, issuing personal attacks, and trying to do everything they can to beat people down. They do this because deep down, they know that they themselves have never accomplished anything, and for them this temporarily relieves the pain of a truth they cannot face. Let these words burn into your brain permanently:
> 
> ...




Exactly, I agree 100%


----------



## dale (Dec 18, 2014)

deadpringle said:


> This post is to the truth as white is to rice.



not all rice is white, though.


----------



## Blade (Dec 18, 2014)

dale said:


> not all rice is white, though.



Actually only polished rice is white, no raw rice is as far as I know.

The above is a constructive criticism of the original metaphor.=D>


----------



## nickpierce (Dec 18, 2014)

deadpringle

 "your subject matter has a very small audience"

[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> This gave me a guffaw.
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## shadowwalker (Dec 19, 2014)

Olde English said:


> You can self-publish through the library of congress for a one-time flat fee of $100



Can you give your source for this? The Library of Congress is not a publisher, and from this http://www.loc.gov/publish/cip/faqs/#self it would appear that self-published works aren't included in their catalog (although their system is a bit confusing). ??


----------



## deadpringle (Dec 19, 2014)

Blade said:


> Actually only polished rice is white, no raw rice is as far as I know.
> 
> The above is a constructive criticism of the original metaphor.=D>




If the rice is white only after it is polished, this means that the white is still there, but that it is just obfuscated. In fact, one may extrapolate this to mean that, "the white of the rice is inside of us all, and all we need is the polish of deep and meaningful connection to our inner selves in order to see it."

NOTE: To all who read this, please heed this warning. The above absurdity which I just wrote is the result of sleep deprivation.  Get your Z's or you'll babble like I do.


----------



## Dave Watson (Dec 19, 2014)

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Rejection letters are badges of honour! They're like purple hearts. Wear them with pride, take heed if a bunch of folks say the same things are wrong, and know that you only fail when you stop trying.


----------



## Apex (Dec 19, 2014)

CC


----------



## Freeditorial (Jan 6, 2015)

I agree with some of the points made by you, but I would have to disagree with others. Yes, you shouldn't let a harsh letter deter you from pursuing writing. However some members such as Eleven Words Man and Shadow Walker pointed out, rejection is part of the process, and criticism should be taken seriously. By "taken" we mean "considered". Also, know that rejection in publishing is often due to a lack of need in that particular category. Sometimes publishers are focusing more on some specific genres and your book isn't what they're looking for.  Not necessarily that something is wrong with it. In short: keep writing, keep improving.


----------



## BryanJ62 (Jan 10, 2015)

*It is part of the process and for me a learning experience. If an agent gives me advice I listen. Also, how you approach a rejection letter is key as well. I always respond with a thank you. I thank them for their time and I never take it personally. Does it hurt, you bet but I move on.*


----------



## J.T. Chris (Jan 10, 2015)

Eventually you learn which criticism to accept and which to ignore. Especially in critique. Some people just don't know what they're talking about. The best criticism I find is that which I agree with.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jan 10, 2015)

Freeditorial said:


> I agree with some of the points made by you, but I would have to disagree with others. Yes, you shouldn't let a harsh letter deter you from pursuing writing. However some members such as Eleven Words Man and Shadow Walker pointed out, rejection is part of the process, and criticism should be taken seriously. By "taken" we mean "considered". Also, know that rejection in publishing is often due to a lack of need in that particular category. Sometimes publishers are focusing more on some specific genres and your book isn't what they're looking for.  Not necessarily that something is wrong with it. In short: keep writing, keep improving.




I like this as an answer, given how specialized most areas of publication are, each knows exactly what their customers like to read.  You could have the best story or book out there.  If it is sent to someone for consideration, the first thing they are going to look at is how their customers are going to receive it not on the content or style of the piece.


----------



## spartan928 (Jan 11, 2015)

I read an article by a guest editor in The Atlantic recently who worked for a children's book publisher. He said they receive 100 book submissions a day. Sure, most of it sucks but look at it from the publishers perspective. They have a very tiny window of time to find something that appeals to them. Publishers can't scrutinize and examine every submission before a committee before rejecting it. I'm not surprised in the slightest Rowling got rejected. Imagine the world pre-Potter. Oh, here's a book about a kid who goes to a school to learn to be a wizard. Jeez, that sounds dull, next. Honestly, I'm sure it happens that quickly, but what can they do? There's an avalanche of writing pouring through their door every day. That doesn't make publishers stupid, it makes them prudent. Hopefully publishers have a few hits among the misses, just like every other industry. Remember the recent movie Lone Ranger? I read that lost upwards of $100 million. In hindsight, it's amazing what a business sees in a work or fails to see then rejects out of hand and it later takes off. But that's hindsight for you. It's worth precisely $0. You just have to decide if it's worth it to play along.


----------



## Plasticweld (Jan 11, 2015)

Anyone who thought this was a good idea for a movie and a believable story line needs to lose that kind of money. If they said ok to this what on earth did they say no to?


----------



## spartan928 (Jan 11, 2015)

Plasticweld said:


> View attachment 7206
> 
> Anyone who thought this was a good idea for a movie and a believable story line needs to lose that kind of money. If they said ok to this what on earth did they say no to?



But it's a beloved classic...isn't that enough? Guess not.


----------



## BryanJ62 (Jan 11, 2015)

*Well....beloved classic yes....produced by people who understood or were even alive when the beloved classic was playing....no.*


----------



## Johnny (Jan 11, 2015)

spartan928 said:


> I read an article by a guest editor in The Atlantic recently who worked for a children's book publisher. He said they receive 100 book submissions a day. Sure, most of it sucks but look at it from the publishers perspective. They have a very tiny window of time to find something that appeals to them. Publishers can't scrutinize and examine every submission before a committee before rejecting it. *I'm not surprised in the slightest Rowling got rejected. Imagine the world pre-Potter. Oh, here's a book about a kid who goes to a school to learn to be a wizard. Jeez, that sounds dull, next.* Honestly, I'm sure it happens that quickly, but what can they do? There's an avalanche of writing pouring through their door every day. That doesn't make publishers stupid, it makes them prudent. Hopefully publishers have a few hits among the misses, just like every other industry. Remember the recent movie Lone Ranger? I read that lost upwards of $100 million. In hindsight, it's amazing what a business sees in a work or fails to see then rejects out of hand and it later takes off. But that's hindsight for you. It's worth precisely $0. You just have to decide if it's worth it to play along.



And this just shows you what poor judges some people are of what is going to be successful and what isn't. I don't however know how much Rowling edited it again after being rejected but still. It made billions. Most books that are published don't even make money, which is odd to me, it should be obvious which ones are going to make money and which ones aren't, plus a good marketing plan helps too. 

As far as not having the time to read every submission perhaps there's a shortage of agents, or perhaps they should limit the submissions or find a way to only read the really good ones in depth (which pretty much already happens with query letters and stuff).


----------



## spartan928 (Jan 12, 2015)

Johnny said:


> it should be obvious which ones are going to make money and which ones aren't, plus a good marketing plan helps too.



Yeah, boggles the mind doesn't it? Wouldn't it be cool to go back in time and have 50 editors read Twilight and predict the sales figures? My guess is every editor would be off the mark by millions of copies, despite their skill and relative objectivity.


----------



## shadowwalker (Jan 12, 2015)

Acquisition editors and agents can only make educated guesses. And of course, there are so many reasons a book isn't picked up at a particular time - they already have a full slate, not the right genre, already signed a similar book, etc etc. Probably the least likely (though not impossible) reason is the agent/editor didn't recognize a good seller.


----------



## Mondestrunken (Jan 12, 2015)

J.T. Chris said:


> Eventually you learn which criticism to accept and which to ignore. Especially in critique. Some people just don't know what they're talking about. The best criticism I find is that which I agree with.



I can understand not everyone wanting to go to college for writing, but I can say if anything it has really helped me in terms of criticisms. All of my writing classes are workshop oriented, meaning we're working on one big piece or a couple of pieces and we're workshopping them with our peers for the entire semester. This has given me a lot of insight into what kind of critique I should ignore, what I should take something away from, and even just people in general. I've done so much workshopping it has gotten to the point where I can speak to someone in a group for a minute or two and already know "this person is not going to give me anything worth listening to" or, "I really trust this person's judgement, I'm going to pay attention to what they have to say about my piece" and so on.


----------



## tabasco5 (Jan 19, 2015)

Best-selling works don't necessarily equal great writing.  If I were a publisher and JK Rowling had sent me the first HP novel for consideration, I would have either rejected it on the basis that the writing is pathetic and full of cliches or sent it back requesting a major overhaul and/or deep professional edit.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Jan 19, 2015)

I have four words to say: Moby Dick, The Hobbit. Both of those, the way they are written, are not even 'proper' books. But (subject to debate) are both good reads and insanely popular to this day. Even if you're not a grammar master, a good idea is a good idea, and at any level of refinement it will be loved. And that applies to life in general, not just writing.


----------



## Dilbert J. Wellington (Jan 20, 2015)

Back then, I seen some people lose their stuff over criticism (this was on FFn mind you). In the Pokemon section, there was this person (I forgot her name) that would pop in and criticize some piece of work here and there. It caused some drama, with people being equally critical of her work. Poor young me took this head first and thought she was bullying, so yeah*. 

Another band of critics, the "Literate Union", was also present. Their idea was to be somewhat of a quality control system due to the pure lack of one. Lots of people on there HATED this, thinking of them as trolls and bullies when they were just well-meaning people that wanted to fix what was wrong with FFn. 

As I grew older, criticism isn't bullying. It's just something that points out what's wrong and how you can fix it. And sure, while it sounds mean and hurtful-it's not. It's a tool to make you become better and bolder in writing. Too bad many don't think this way, but it's more about immaturity and not realizing how criticism benefits them in the long run. 

*But of course, old me didn't bother with FFn anymore, and yeah. That's a whole different rambling for another time.


----------



## dale (Jan 20, 2015)

if you're unwilling to take criticism seriously, then you may as well not take praise seriously, either.
other people's opinions of your work should either matter to you or not matter to you. otherwise, you're
just hearing to what you want to hear, regardless of validity.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 21, 2015)

Dilbert J. Wellington said:
			
		

> . . . criticism isn't bullying. It's just something that points out what's wrong and how you can fix it.


To me, criticism highlights what _certain individuals believe _may be wrong and/or needs fixing.

I think that's an important distinction to make.

Criticism definitely deserves to be considered, in my opinion. But not accepted with open arms. One should always scrutinize any criticism and weigh its merits and its faults.

Sometimes critics have valuable insights that can really help your writing. Other times, critics are biased, ignorant, or just plain wrong.

The trick is learning to tell the difference. :encouragement:


----------



## Johnny (Jan 22, 2015)

tabasco5 said:


> Best-selling works don't necessarily equal great writing.  If I were a publisher and JK Rowling had sent me the first HP novel for consideration, I would have either rejected it on the basis that the writing is pathetic and full of cliches or sent it back requesting a major overhaul and/or deep professional edit.



It's pathetic? How? 

Shows what you know, publishing companies want to make money, and no other series in history has made more. It's a good thing you're not a publisher then, and people like you are really the purpose of this thread. I didn't, however, mean that all criticism is bad, constructive criticism is or can be good. I wasn't really referring to constructive aspect and should have made that clearer in my first post. 

Money makes the world go 'round and publishing is no exception, so just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people won't and that it won't be a huge hit.


----------



## dale (Jan 22, 2015)

Johnny said:


> It's pathetic? How?
> 
> Shows what you know, publishing companies want to make money, and no other series in history has made more. It's a good thing you're not a publisher then, and people like you are really the purpose of this thread. I didn't, however, mean that all criticism is bad, constructive criticism is or can be good. I wasn't really referring to that and should have made that clearer in my first post.
> 
> Money makes the world go 'round and publishing is no exception, so just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people won't and that it won't be a huge hit.



a lot of things in this world that are pathetic and cliche go commercial and make money. a lot of what is deemed "commercial" by the market is really pretty generic. not just in the publishing industry, but in the music and movie industries as well.


----------



## Johnny (Jan 22, 2015)

dale said:


> a lot of things in this world that are pathetic and cliche go commercial and make money. a lot of what is deemed "commercial" by the market is really pretty generic. not just in the publishing industry, but in the music and movie industries as well.





True, but in the world of business, if it makes money, that's all that matters. May be unfortunate but that's the case. 

If I hated Harry Potter I would still publish it because then I would be up however many billions of dollars.


----------



## dale (Jan 22, 2015)

Johnny said:


> True, but in the world of business, if it makes money, that's all that matters. May be unfortunate but that's the case.
> 
> If I hated Harry Potter I would still publish it because then I would be up however many billions of dollars.



well, i'm sure all agents wish they had the kind of crystal ball that would tell them the future like that.


----------



## Johnny (Jan 22, 2015)

dale said:


> well, i'm sure all agents wish they had the kind of crystal ball that would tell them the future like that.



Yea but I think it should be pretty obvious which books are going to sell well and which aren't just by reading them.


----------



## tabasco5 (Jan 22, 2015)

Johnny said:


> Yea but I think it should be pretty obvious which books are going to sell well and which aren't just by reading them.



Yes, just like knowing which stocks will do well by looking at the company website and their financial statements.


----------



## tabasco5 (Jan 22, 2015)

Johnny said:


> It's pathetic? How?
> 
> Shows what you know, publishing companies want to make money, and no other series in history has made more. It's a good thing you're not a publisher then, and people like you are really the purpose of this thread. I didn't, however, mean that all criticism is bad, constructive criticism is or can be good. I wasn't really referring to constructive aspect and should have made that clearer in my first post.
> 
> Money makes the world go 'round and publishing is no exception, so just because you don't like it doesn't mean other people won't and that it won't be a huge hit.



Let me rephrase my statement.  In my opinion, JK Rowling's writing in the Harry Potter series is pathetic.  It is embarrassingly bad.  And as a publisher I wouldn't want it on my label coming from a previously unknown author because it would reflect poor judgment of quality.  Bad writing is bad writing regardless of story just as bad story is bad story regardless of writing.   Now, I will admit that the story in this case is interesting.  I might have been of the mind to tell JK that we would publish the book if she would agree to work with an editor and take writing classes/lessons before working on the next books.  

Yes, publishers are in the business of making money, and I would have lost a big deal on that one had I rejected it completely.  Probably gotten myself fired.  But, one can never be upset over spilled milk, especially when the milk is sour to begin with. And just because dogs like sour milk doesn't mean I do.  I would personally be more upset over not publishing a well-written book that didn't sell than an amateur one that did because I prefer quality over quantity.  

And I never said I don't like that money makes the world go round -- I didn't comment one way or the other.  And I agree with you, other people are welcome to like and make money off things I don't like.  That's fine.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 23, 2015)

tabasco5 said:


> Let me rephrase my statement.  In my opinion, JK Rowling's writing in the Harry Potter series is pathetic.  It is embarrassingly bad.


Huh! I find Rowling's writing to be pretty good. Especially for the target audience. Goes to show how varying opinions can be. 

One person's trash can be another person's treasure, and vice versa. :encouragement:


----------



## dale (Jan 23, 2015)

i found "the sorcerers stone" enjoyable enough that i finished it. i liked it, but i never did bother to read any of the others.
as far as her writing? i wasn't writing myself at that time, so i wasn't "reading it like a writer". so i really couldn't give an
opinion on her "writing"; but i guess if i enjoyed the book, it was "good enough".


----------

