Arguing with Editors
I enjoyed Nick Mamatas’s gonzo YA novel “Under My Roof,” and I follow his Journal regularly. I’m also always fascinated by his tales of writers behaving badly after receiving a rejection from the magazine he edits, Clarkesworld.
Mamatas takes the time to respond personally to every submission, a rarity these days. His remarks might be pointed, but they always seem polite.
However, the submission guidelines for Clarkesworld clearly state that you should not argue with any rejection letters you might receive. And yet, people do. And wind up writing some spectacularly dumb stuff that winds up on the Web and gets them permanently banned from Clarkesworld.
Some choice examples include the German Chauvinist, an Unimaginative Pottymouth and a Lady with a Cat and a Bathtub.
Is this solely a product of the digital age? Is the temptation to hit SEND on a snippy e-mail so strong that otherwise rational writers cannot resist?
I wouldn’t dream of arguing with an editor about a piece from me that she or he had rejected. What would be the point? Nothing good can come from it.
If you ever think of doing it, stop. Immediately.
March 8th, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Haha! I found this post to be spectacular! I’m glad I found you on Entrecard! Keep it up!
-Brady
March 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Wow, what the heck, haha. That’s crazy, I would never argue with the editor either. That could be damaging to your goals in the future. Better off to take what they say and look into it, if you don’t agree, go elsewhere, I think. *shrug*
Good post, glad I found you on entrecard too.
March 18th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
I don’t imagine there’d be much point. I know editors choose by taste…if I happen to think the editor is a complete idiot for not taking my piece, I know I can’t just make them change their taste. Plus one doesn’t want to burn bridges in case the editor like something later.