Tag Archives: rejection

Rotten Reviews or Rejections

ClanofCaveBear_rejection_1980 copy


Leave a comment

April 15, 2018 · 4:48 pm


The editor suggested Harold try something brand new.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2017, cartoon by author, CarToonsday


It was either his stories that bounced, or his checks.


Leave a comment

Filed under 2017, cartoon by author, CarToonsday


The pain runs deep, and so does the desire.

1 Comment

Filed under 2017, CarToonsday

Writing tip Wednesday: “Surviving rejection”

How the World’s Most Frequently Rejected Playwright Survives

written by Donald Drake

Source: http://www.pdc1.org/viewthisarticle.php?article=8

Several years ago, I made a profound discovery that has enabled me to weather the storm of criticism, rejection and inevitable, transient depression that is the lot of so many playwrights. What I discovered was how to make rejection work for me. Since playwrights spend far more time dealing with rejection than watching their plays being produced, every playwright should know about this.

I will explain how I made this discovery and what it has meant to me.

Might not be the best way to survive rejection, but it might work.

Might not be the best way to survive rejection, but it might work.

Might not be the best way to survive rejection, but it might work.[/caption]When I started writing plays 26 years ago and finished my first script, I mailed it out to several theaters and waited. And I waited. And I waited some more. I was still waiting as I finished my second play six months later. I sent my second script out to several theaters. And I waited. I was not enjoying playwriting.

Finally I got a response, in the form of my self-addressed, stamped envelope, which contained my first script and a form letter saying the theater didn’t want my script.

Though this was disappointing, in a strange way I felt validated. At least someone had read the script. There was a living, breathing human being on the other end of the line, or so I assumed in my naiveté. Other experienced playwrights conceded that a living, breathing human being probably did put the script into the return envelope, but what proof did I have that anyone actually read it.

Two months later I received my second rejection. The letter attached to the script said “I enjoyed learning about the characters; they are multi-dimensional. Also, I enjoyed the dialogue and how it worked effectively and moved the plot along.” But the theater didn’t want to do my play. This rejection surely proved that the living breathing person had read the script before putting it into the return envelope, though my more cynical fellow playwrights pointed out that no specific characters or specific plot points were alluded to.

Then I got the best rejection ever. The letter said: “I want to let you know that I intend to give my whole-hearted support to your play as a potential candidate for our season. Thank you for a fascinating new play.” Again no specifics were mentioned, but could theater people be so sadistic to say this about a play they had never read? Yes, I was told. I never heard from the theater again.

I brushed the cynicism aside. “Thank you for a fascinating new play.” The phrase kept coming back to me several times during the next couple of months as I pounded away at my computer with renewed enthusiasm, working on my third play. My initial sadness over not getting a production was being replaced by the joy of knowing that my work was being appreciated, though, admittedly, not enough to be produced. Every day when the post lady arrived with my mail, I eagerly looked for the tell-tale, 11-by-13-inch manila envelope, which would contain my script and hopefully an encouraging rejection letter.

I had discovered that I could lift my spirits by simply changing focus. Instead of looking for a production, which rarely if ever happens, I started anticipating nice rejections, which were now happening fairly frequently. I decided to capitalize on the discovery by keeping detailed records of the rejections. And so the Drake Rejection Database (DRD) was born. Ultimately the DRD would show what theaters sent the best rejections (by far the best come from England), the elapsed time between submission and rejection, the number of plays or sample dialogue pending, the total number of rejections to date and many other facts.

I started attacking rejection with abandonment. I came up with a clever way to identify theaters that did not even open envelopes but just threw scripts onto a pile or even worse into the trash can (though I suppose the trash can is no worse than a stack of scripts that will never be looked at). Slyly, I included with the synopses and sample dialogue I sent to theaters a self-addressed postcard with three boxes the assistant, to the assistant, literary manager could check.

“Please send script ___”

“Please don’t send script ___”

“Don’t send any more scripts ___.”

Theaters that never sent back postcards could be assumed to never open envelopes that contained unsolicited scripts. This ploy identified the bad theaters, the ones to stay away from. But how could I identify the good theaters? The answer to this question was contained in the rejection letters I was receiving. Any theater that actually commented on one of my plays was by definition a good theater. I made use of this vital information by including in the DRD abbreviated comments from theaters. For instance, a DRD entry for my play Final Edition looked like this:

COMMENT-FINAL “We are interested in your writing and would be eager to read and consider any other new plays that you might have.”

By doing a computer search for just “COMMENT,” I could identify theaters that were actually reading plays and choose them as the first theaters for future submissions.

Though I didn’t realize it at the time, the DRD would turn out to be an invaluable tool in quantifying the way theaters handled scripts and treated playwrights.

A few of the discoveries:

  • The likelihood that your unsolicited script will be rejected or totally ignored by a theater is 99.57 percent. That means no production, no showcase, no staged readings. Zip.
  • A little more than 41 percent of your scripts won’t even be read. I base this on the fact that 597 of my submissions prompted no return postcard or any other response. It was as if I had thrown the scripts into the trash bin on the way to the Post Office.
  • The chances of winning a competition are much better than having an unsolicited script done by a theater. Four percent of the 300 plays I submitted to contests won first or second prize.
  • Four hundred and thirty-five theaters in the U.S., Canada and Great Britain (and this includes the tiniest of the tiniest) claim to produce unsolicited scripts, but you can’t prove it by me. I sent 22 different plays, mostly full-lengths, to these theaters and got no productions. My reward was 835 rejection letters, mostly form letters. If you assume that the 597 submissions that were totally ignored constituted rejections, that would bring my rejection total to 1,432. The grand total rises to 1,720 if you include competitions that I didn’t win. Surely that entitles me to the title “The World’s Most Frequently Rejected Playwright.” So much rejection is not necessarily bad. In writing about a hugely successful playwright who had had experienced much rejection in his career, a Philadelphia Inquirer columnist wrote: “The irony of it, of course, is that the people who succeed the most are the people who have failed the most, because they are people who have tried the most.” (I have that quote enlarged and in a frame next to my computer, just below the framed manila envelope a theater returned to me with the words “REFUSED Return to Sender” scrawled in filter-tip blue across the front of it.)
  • There is a thin, silver lining to this growing dark cloud that I am presenting. Twenty percent of your rejection letters will include encouraging comments. The comments contain such words and phrases as: “promising,” “exciting,” “well crafted” “thought provoking,” “eager to read any other new play you might have,” “much to admire,” “remain interested in your work,” “compelled by your writing,” “moved by the brave way you handled such a delicate situation.” I’ve received 167 such rejections but none of the theaters offered to do anything with the plays they were commenting on.
  • The chance of getting an agent, if you haven’t had a major production, is about zero, though I don’t have large figures to support this. Just for the hell of it, I sent letters, CV and sample dialogue to 10 agents listed in the Dramatists Sourcebook asking to be represented by them. Only three bothered to reply and none of them wanted to represent me. One of the three replies was from a playwright, working as an agent, I had met in a competition where our two plays were being done. She said she wasn’t taking on new playwrights but she would pass my script on to other agents in her firm. I never heard from anyone.

I don’t want to give the impression that I have never succeeded with any of my plays. I have been a winner in 11 national competitions. One of my plays was done at the O’Neill. I’ve had four showcases, three of them in New York City, and seven productions. One of the productions was done in a theater where the literary manager was a best friend and another production was done in a theater where I was well known to the artistic director, which in itself says a lot about how to get a play produced.

In the 26 years I have been writing plays, I have made about $10,000 in grants, winnings from competitions and actual payment by a theater for a script. This is offset by the $8,876 I spent for script duplication, stationery and postage. Still I made a profit of $1,124. Having spent 34,000 hours writing plays during this period, my compensation comes to 3 cents an hour. (This doesn’t include the $3,000 or so I spent mailing scripts to competitions, so I guess I can’t even claim that meager profit.)

If I had achieved none of these things, would my philosophy and the DRD have been enough to sustain me? I would like to say yes, but I doubt it. I don’t think I could keep on writing if I cut out the middle man and threw all my scripts into the trash can myself after finishing them the way crossword puzzles are discarded once they’re completed. The distant hope that something could come from all this writing is probably necessary.

But this doesn’t change my take-home message. I have proven beyond doubt that any playwright who writes stage plays primarily to get produced or make money is delusional or masochistic. The joy must come from the writing itself, solving the myriad of problems that arise in creating a play, just as you enjoy fitting together the pieces of a puzzle to form a picture with no other reward expected.

I’m in particularly good spirits at this moment, which probably accounts for the fact that I am writing this, after thinking about doing it for several years. Much of the good feeling is coming from writing this essay and discovering that I have accomplished more than I thought. And one of my plays, written with another playwright for the Philadelphia Fringe, is currently in rehearsal. But even after the play closes and regardless of how the critics respond, or don’t respond, I’m sure I will continue to be a happy playwright.

I have scripts or sample dialogue pending in 78 theaters. And the DRD tells me that I will assuredly be receiving 15 letters of rejection with very encouraging comments in the coming months.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016, writing tip, Writing Tip Wednesday

Writing tip Wednesday: “Watch you language”

Why Your Story is Getting Rejected: Language

by Chelsea Henshey

Source: http://www.writersdigest.com/uncategorized/why-your-story-is-getting-rejected-language?platform=hootsuite

Getting to the heart of the matter.

Getting to the heart of the matter.

As a former reader for a literary journal, I first learned to watch for language. I looked for creative, rhythmic prose that engaged the senses and provided a clear voice. But it took time to recognize and appreciate these qualities, and even longer to apply them in my own work.

Now, as an editor, writer, and reader, I’m constantly on the lookout for crafted prose that’s evident from paragraph one. Crafted prose means the writer isn’t simply moving characters from point A to point B, but arranging images and syntax to create rhythm and evoke emotion.

While all levels of a story must be effective for publication, stilted language can stop an editor in her tracks before your plot even begins. To refine your own language, remember the following tips:

Choose Your Style

When I use the term style, I’m referring to minimalist, maximalist, or somewhere in between. Notice the difference between the passages from Raymond Carver’s “Cathedral” and Cormac McCarthy’s Child of God.

This blind man, an old friend of my wife’s, he was on his way to spend the night. His wife had died. So he was visiting the dead wife’s relatives in Connecticut. He called my wife from his in-law’s. Arrangements were made. He would come by train, a five-hour trip, and my wife would meet him at the station. She hadn’t seen him since she worked for him one summer in Seattle ten years ago.

They came like a caravan of carnival folk up through the swales of broomstraw and across the hill in the morning sun, the truck rocking and pitching the ruts and the musicians on the chairs in the truckbed teetering and tuning their instruments, the fat man with guitar grinning and gesturing to others in a car behind and bending to give a note to the fiddler who turned a fiddlepeg and listened with a wrinkled face.

Much of your style has to do with instinct. Do you cringe at the thought of sprawling descriptions, or could you describe a scene for pages? Whatever you choose, stay consistent. Don’t be minimalist on page one and switch to a maximalist style on page three.

Avoid Abstraction

Many writers rely on abstractions in their descriptions. The issue with abstractions is they do not ground your reader. When you say something is beautiful, hideous, terrible, amazing, etc. it doesn’t provide a concrete image the reader can see. Instead, abstractions remain different for everyone, with one person’s view of beauty drastically different from the author’s. If you don’t explain what beautiful looks like, your reader is lost, and your description has no effect.
Avoid Abstraction

Many writers rely on abstractions in their descriptions. The issue with abstractions is they do not ground your reader. When you say something is beautiful, hideous, terrible, amazing, etc. it doesn’t provide a concrete image the reader can see. Instead, abstractions remain different for everyone, with one person’s view of beauty drastically different from the author’s. If you don’t explain what beautiful looks like, your reader is lost, and your description has no effect.

Be Creative

When you meet a new person, how do you describe him to someone else? Do you say he’s 6-feet tall with blue eyes, brown hair, and a beard, or are you more likely to explain unique things about him? The same goes for setting. Are the mountains tall? Is the sky blue? Does the dining room have a table? As you write, move beyond the obvious and into the memorable.

But Watch for Runaway Similes and Metaphors

Runaway similes and metaphors are tricky. I can see the writer has good intentions, but the image has backfired. These comparisons are so unrelated, they depart from what they’re describing. For example, if you compare your character stretching his legs out to unrolling a sleeping bag, notice what happens: You’re going to jump to the sleeping bag and leave the character behind. I’ve written many metaphors like this in the past, and it usually takes a trusted reader to point them out. If you’re feeling particularly proud of an out-of-the-box image, use caution, and test it on a reader.

Other things to consider:

Listen to your writing

Eliminate Repetition


Rest of the article: http://www.writersdigest.com/uncategorized/why-your-story-is-getting-rejected-language?platform=hootsuite

Leave a comment

Filed under 2016, writing tip, Writing Tip Wednesday

Robert De Niro’s advice can be of use to us all

Esteemed actor Robert De Niro’s commencement speech to the 2015 graduates of NYU’s Tisch School of Arts is colorful, humorous, and honest. Reject will come often, he said. His answer: Next. Next project. Next part. Next try.

It will not be easy, he said, but succumbing to your destiny often isn’t, especially in the arts.

Don’t worry, it’s only about 16 minutes long. He headed the advice of a couple of Tish students he consulted beforehand who told him to keep it short.

Leave a comment

Filed under 2015, advice