After quitting my job, and a glorious little outing to South Carolina, it's back to writing and submitting!
Which brings me to my favorite rejection, which just came in last week. I sent in my book to a literary agency which will go unnamed. The response I received was: "There really was a lot to like about it, I thought. The writing was great and the world building credible, and nicely served up." But ultimately the publisher chose not to take it due to the slower build-up (in my defense, I only got to send in the first three chapters. The shark-punching and explosions come later).
So, I'm a great writer, but no thanks. As far as rejections go, that is at least a nice way to put it, and it beats my previous favorite rejection I got for a story which remains unpublished to this day. A year ago I wrote a high-concept piece meant to illustrate the arbitrary assignment of meaning to actions. The set-up was that an alien who was monitoring the daily life of a California yuppie has a machine that tracks his every movement and another that tracks his emotions. The two fall out of sync and so the alien has to put the daily routine and emotions through a simulator and see which is the more plausible. Three simulations (or stories) are created and while the actions are the same in each story their meaning completely changes. Either in one story the yuppie is a happy person who learns his girlfriend is cheating on him and looks for solace in a Buddhist monastery. In another he is suicidally depressed and when his girlfriend reveals she is cheating on him, something which he expected, he feels a weight lift off his shoulders as the certainty brings him closer to acceptance and the Buddhist principle of letting go. In the final scenario he realizes he is gay and his girlfriend cheating on him opens up the possibility for him to fall in love with Krish, the bald-headed, soft-handed monk.
I thought it was good. The only rejection letter that detailed why it was rejected (most litmags don't because they deal with hundreds of stories and personal letters would bog them down) said it was 'too esoteric.' Perhaps being the pseudo-intellectual I am I took that as backhanded praise. But it would have been nice to have that piece published and share it's genius with the world.
C'est la vie. Which is French for 'dammit.'