I haven't been writing here as often recently because I am working on a long-term project, for which I am very grateful. It is a writing-slash-teaching project, in that I'm writing about writing and teaching writing by writing about writing.
Which means I produce a lot of words. Thousands. For just that project. Which makes me enjoy not-wording sometimes.
I'm also revising revising revising. Revising. On a mid-August deadline. And vacationing with my sister in July, culminating in a family reunion at which my husband will be able to observe a passel of Agnew cousins. In amongst the revising.
Plus with the revising of writing, with words and all.
Whenever possible I do try to go outside and do things un-word-like. I can't seem to find anything interesting to say about that.
Oh! I know!! We have seen a doe with one fawn and a doe with two fawns. Fawns are even more cute than you think they will be.
In other news, Lori A. May had nice things to say about the Best Canadian Essays 2012. Thanks, Lori!
Words. Those are among some of the ones that have ricocheted around here lately. Happy summer!
Friday, June 21, 2013
Thursday, June 13, 2013
It's Not You, It's the Writing (Really!)
So I did something good, and I'm pretending it was a sign of maturity, though I think it was instinct. Regardless, it was good. Here's what it was: I made a distinction between awards for writing and awards for the author of that writing.
Recently, I was involved in administering the NOWW Writing contest (last year's page: http://nowwwriters.org/?page_id=1641) (mark your calendars: similar deadlines for 2014). The awards for the contest winners were given out at the Literary Awards Party in May.
In announcing the winners, I said, "The winning entry is...." Which is different from giving the award to the writer. It may sound "just semantics" (a phrase guaranteed to get my back up), but hey, we're word people, and we know the importance of words.
Here's the thing. I saw a lot of the entries in this contest, this year and in previous years. Lots of good writing didn't get awards. Screeners and judges are human, and humans have preferences. Some prefer humour, some prefer serious. Some prefer perfect little bagatelles and others prefer imperfect attempts at epic.
We all experience rejection, and I've experienced my fair share. Here are two examples of bad rejections (and yes, I have received rejections with this wording from publications) that you should ignore because THEY ARE WRONG. And then two more, that are more likely to be true.
Bad #1: The rejections that can drive me to eat popsicles on the deck say something like, "We feel you're not yet ready for our magazine." Me? Really? I'm not ready? Do you know me? This kind of feedback is guaranteed poison to someone who never measured up to standards set by perfectionist (either those in the home or those just in the head). It's personal, and it's wrong.
Bad #2: The rejections that can make me stomp around for awhile say something like, "Your writing is not yet ready for our magazine." My writing? Really? You've read it all, and all of it is "not ready"? Pfff. Same remedy as for the previous rejection.
Good #1: The rejections that are useful, though still hard to hear, say something like, "This piece isn't quite right for us." I let slide those rejections that say, "This piece isn't quite ready for us." Either way, the rejection is for a particular instance of writing: not for me, not for "my work," but just for this thing. I can choose to revise or I can just send it elsewhere.
Good #2 but rare: The rejections that are actually helpful say something like, "This part of this piece seems to work, but you might look at that." True, this perspective is just from one person. But it gives me feedback that I can consider. And of course, personal rejections are difficult and time-consuming to write, so I don't see them often and I completely understand why.
But anyway, here's the point: in the world of writing and rejection, it's not YOU, it's that piece. The way to handle any of these rejections: Behave like a writer, which is to say, you write, you revise, you submit. So go and do that.
Recently, I was involved in administering the NOWW Writing contest (last year's page: http://nowwwriters.org/?page_id=1641) (mark your calendars: similar deadlines for 2014). The awards for the contest winners were given out at the Literary Awards Party in May.
In announcing the winners, I said, "The winning entry is...." Which is different from giving the award to the writer. It may sound "just semantics" (a phrase guaranteed to get my back up), but hey, we're word people, and we know the importance of words.
Here's the thing. I saw a lot of the entries in this contest, this year and in previous years. Lots of good writing didn't get awards. Screeners and judges are human, and humans have preferences. Some prefer humour, some prefer serious. Some prefer perfect little bagatelles and others prefer imperfect attempts at epic.
We all experience rejection, and I've experienced my fair share. Here are two examples of bad rejections (and yes, I have received rejections with this wording from publications) that you should ignore because THEY ARE WRONG. And then two more, that are more likely to be true.
Bad #1: The rejections that can drive me to eat popsicles on the deck say something like, "We feel you're not yet ready for our magazine." Me? Really? I'm not ready? Do you know me? This kind of feedback is guaranteed poison to someone who never measured up to standards set by perfectionist (either those in the home or those just in the head). It's personal, and it's wrong.
Bad #2: The rejections that can make me stomp around for awhile say something like, "Your writing is not yet ready for our magazine." My writing? Really? You've read it all, and all of it is "not ready"? Pfff. Same remedy as for the previous rejection.
Good #1: The rejections that are useful, though still hard to hear, say something like, "This piece isn't quite right for us." I let slide those rejections that say, "This piece isn't quite ready for us." Either way, the rejection is for a particular instance of writing: not for me, not for "my work," but just for this thing. I can choose to revise or I can just send it elsewhere.
Good #2 but rare: The rejections that are actually helpful say something like, "This part of this piece seems to work, but you might look at that." True, this perspective is just from one person. But it gives me feedback that I can consider. And of course, personal rejections are difficult and time-consuming to write, so I don't see them often and I completely understand why.
But anyway, here's the point: in the world of writing and rejection, it's not YOU, it's that piece. The way to handle any of these rejections: Behave like a writer, which is to say, you write, you revise, you submit. So go and do that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
