No reason

[james_davis_nicoll]

What's the better strategy, arguing about the merit of a rejection slip with the editor of a magazine whose guidelines specifically mention that they don't want their rejections argued with, or as above but in public?

Comments

[sargent.livejournal.com]

As above but in public, as doing so both serves as a warning to other editors and provides the peanut gallery with entertainment.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

Agreed. Did you really need to ask?

...or by "better strategy" did you mean "more likely to be constructive" as opposed to "would give Ande something to read when bored"?

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

Are those necessarily opposed?

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

Ooh, it really depends on my mood. *shiftyeyes* But not always, no. Still, clarification is always good.

[gjules.livejournal.com]

Mmm. I agree with this. I much prefer entertaining drama I can link people to. (And public shamings could theoretically decrease the frequency of other writers stepping into that particular beartrap, although I'm not sure I've seen evidence of it.)

[jonquil.livejournal.com]

I choose (3), whacking my head with a rubber mallet until the impulse goes away.

[antikythera.livejournal.com]

Editors must get sick of people trying to 'contest' their rejections. Is this one really telling people not to complain to anyone anywhere, or is he just trying to stop people from pestering him personally/professionally?

[knotty-pine.livejournal.com]

Personally, I prefer that people stupid enough to argue about rejections do so in public, as it becomes a source of amusement for countless people.

Were I contemplating doing so myself, I would have to weigh carefully if my complaint had actual merit and might win people over to my side, or whether making it public would result in me being at the bottom of a pile of irate people who support the editor. In the case of no one in particular, the latter was true; he would definitely have been better off keeping his plaints private. Dogpile time!

[jwgh]

What fun is burning bridges in private?

[mmcirvin.livejournal.com]

Stop that. You're making me think about the time I spent moderating sci.physics.research.

[sargent.livejournal.com]

Oh dear lord. I'm so sorry.

[james-nicoll.livejournal.com]

I was going to do an april fools about SFWA suspending elections and appointing Bailey President for Life but then I realized what Bailey's probable reaction to being stuck with that post until he dies would be.

[mrteufel.livejournal.com]

*sigh* And no-one has the courtesy to link to the "totally unrelated" caffufle? I'm so sad.:(

[knotty-pine.livejournal.com]

Well, no, because I'm a jerk; courtesy is incompatible with that. However, a little birdie told me that it might be related to nihilistic_kid. Or I could be imagining that.

[julesjones]

Ah, thank you. I had run out of flame wars to read as a way of avoiding working on my WIP.

Anyone got some marshmallows we can toast?

[matgb]

That was my immediate reaction as well, you'd have thought people online would've learnt by now, but no, he keeps getting them.

[dsrtao]

You lost me after "arguing about the merit of a rejection". De gustibus nondisputandum est, and de selection part of editing is all about de gustibus.

If one is planning this stupid thing, why not commit fully and get "Plays Poorly With Others" tattooed on one's forehead?

I'd say...

[seawasp]

... clearly to do it in public. With, if possible, an air of unassailable superiority and condescension.

[bricklovinfreak.livejournal.com]

I prefer the option where we sterilize the person in question with a butter knife to prevent contamination of the gene pool.

[bricklovinfreak.livejournal.com]

I just saw the covers of his books. Make it a soup spoon.