Thursday, March 29, 2007

Under submission

I'm never quite sure what to say about "rejected submissions." It's one of those things I guess. When we were running Lamport Court, because it was mostly poetry, fiction came in but rarely. Most of the things we rejected were obviously wrong for the magazine. What we didn't find was a wealth of good writers out there waiting to be published. Our range wasn't particularly wide, it's true, but the fiction we did publish was generally good, although it took about 5 issues before this was as good as the poetry. There aren't many outlets for fiction, its true, and I've a lot of respect for those literary magazines that trawl through that particular slushpile. Personally, though, it's really hard. I think most of my best writing is in my short stories, but, over the last few years, I'd have found it easier to get into the England team (hey, I'm left-footed), than to get a story published. I've sent a few stories to a particular magazine, and got rejected; but the latest thing I sent, I genuinely class as amongst the finest things I've written. I was giddy with excitement when I got the idea; giddier still when I finished executing it. In this particular case, I've somewhere else lined up to send it, but I think its true that a good story does lose a bit of its lustre when, like a kid at school, its had its confidence undermined a bit. As the writer of it, its very hard to see it for what it is. Publication gives a story justification: proves that "yes, it's a good story."

1 comment:

Elizabeth Baines said...

Editors make mistakes all the time, and you can't afford not to keep telling yourself this and get the thing out there again!!!! This has happened to me many a time, but when a previously rejected story has then been accepted, guess what, it's covered in lustre all over again!