I was lucky. The first piece I wrote was accepted and led to several years of solid work. It was only when I started to write fiction that I discovered rejection, and how painful it can be.

Amongst short story writers, you might think that how successful they are would correspond to how much talent they have, but that’s often not the case. It can be their reaction to rejection that makes the difference between success and failure. 

I can safely say that I get more rejections than most writers.

The reason is simple. I write vast numbers of stories, many  of which are rejected by at least one editor or competition judge. In fact, some of my stories get rejected several times.

Being rejected  stopped bothering me when I finally learned something very important. Stories and articles are rejected for all kinds of reasons. The editor may have just bought something on a similar theme. It may be a good story but the wrong length, or written in the first person when they prefer the third person.

Unfortunately, editors are usually too busy to say why they are rejecting your work. It may simply be a case of bad timing, and that certainly isn’t a good reason to give up. Try the piece somewhere else.

If you receive a rejection note on which an editor or publisher has written a comment, read it. Take note of it, and if you can, act on it.

If they have taken the trouble to write something rather than sending a standard rejection letter or note, that often means they think your writing has merit.

Take it as a good sign, and send them something else as soon as you can. .

Character Diversity

Another characteristic of bad fiction writing is a lack of diversity of characters.  If each character understands one another without incident or speaks using the same voice (without dissenting opinion) then it is almost certain to be a bad story.  However, this can only be true unless a lack of character diversity is being used as a plot/comedic/dramatic device.  As you can imagine, I would only suggest a very experienced writer use such a technique.  An example?  Animal Farm, by George Orwell.

Furthermore, a variety of characters who all say the same thing is indicative of a pompous author. And if there's one thing editors cannot stand, is authors who attempt to pound concepts in the head of the reader.  For the sake of ibuprofen, please keep off of the soapbox.

Ebb & Flow

When constructing the story itself (outside of characterization and plausibility), a bad fiction writer tends to jump from one scene to the next without transitions.  Plot devices withstanding, of course.  Mainstream literary fiction craves conceivable transitions.  As I'm sure you know, the vast majority of both print and web-based literary magazines want to do without genre fiction.  (Don't ask me, I adore genre fiction.)  In any case, for the love of realism, a good fiction writer must adequately explain why and how a character goes to a certain place, reacts a certain way, or smells the way she does.

If you haven't already guessed, character diversity and plausibility (here called ebb & flow) are interconnected.  Why?  Because something one character may regard as completely reasonable, it is advised that another character (for adequate reasons) find this same situation/item completely insane.  And as a human endowed with the power of empathy this goal as a good fiction writer, is completely within your grasp.

The Ending (Deus ex Machina)

Generally, I am of the opinion that stories do not end:  The bad guy is never entirely overcome and the protagonist may not live--let alone live "happily ever after."  It seems this sentiment goes against many centuries of American literature.  (Those of you outside of the States can rest assured.)  On the other hand, thanks to the comparatively recent "movement" of postmodernism, the trend in Western literature agrees (for now).
So, in my opinion, how does a bad fiction writer end a story?  Happily, I tell you.  If you care at all about realism (and you definitely don't have to) I would advise you end your masterpiece on a flat note--one neither particularly happy nor sad.

Reading is not a passive activity.  When one is engaged in reading, there are a seemingly infinite number of things upon which to ponder at the end of the adventure.  There's nothing wrong with leaving the reader upset--or even downright perplexed--as long as it is done skillfully and plausibly.

Pontification

This leads me, rather eagerly, to the next point.  If, through the entirety of your narrative, you have revealed nothing of your character's intentions or the plot of the story for the sole purpose of impressing your intended reader, you are pontificating.  Please.  Stop.  There is nothing more annoying (and boring) for an editor to read than a dissertation on philosophy of mind told through two guys sitting in a cafe using elaborate and unnecessary vocabulary.
Save that for academia.

Now, don't get me wrong.  Figures such as Sartre, who write out their philosophies in the form of prose create intriguing worlds in which to delve.  Novels/stories requiring a second read to gain more insight into the intricacies of the language used or a plot element are rewarding to readers.  Stories requiring several hundred reads with no epiphanies--are merely examples of the writer's superior intellect and complexity of wit.  Right...?

On that note, this editor has noticed on several (hundred) occasions that literary pontificators tend to use long sentences to get across the points of the story.  Please. Stop.  That kind of sentence structure was allowed (and necessary) in years prior to the twentieth century.  Now, however, at the beginning of the twenty-first, with the aid of technological advancements such as color photography and the internet, a reader does not need to be told what something like the Eiffel Tower looks like.  She probably already knows.  Seriously, sometimes less is more...

RR&R

Revise.  Revise.   And revise again. Word processors can't catch everything, y'know!  There's only one thing frustrating about reading an awe-inspiring story of great depth:  awkward sentence structure, misspellings, and nonsensical transitions.  Originality can't help you if you don't know how to form and represent your ideas in a professional way.  An editor should have no reason to doubt that you've been published online and in print magazines or anthologies from all over the world.

In addition, if your life's work contains errors so  minor even the editor doesn't catch them, I guarantee you one of the readers will catch it and find either your story, the magazine, or both to be unsuitable to his lofty tastes.

Professionalism

Speaking (figuratively, of course) of the guise of professionalism, it's extremely important in other ways as well!

1. Read the entirety of a magazine's submission and writing guidelines.

    Many top magazines have spam filters that will simply toss your work in the trash if you don't make sure to follow their rules.  Some of them may seem strange or superfluous to you, but believe you me, they exist for a reason.  Without an adequate system of accepting submissions, most editors would be pulling their hair out dealing with a myriad of writings and writers.
   

2. Do yourself a favor and assume rejection if you haven't received a response from an editor within six months.

    (Depending on the popularity of the magazine and the information provided on the website.)  Most mainstream literary magazines get an absurd number of submissions per month--far too many to give an acceptable reply to all of the authors.  Of course, you're allowed to send at least one e-mail inquiring about the status of your submission, but don't make it a habit; you're just more like to annoy an editor that way.
   

3. Don't limit yourself

    Or rather, don't dismiss publications that don't pay.  Even non-paying publications get a great deal of readers.  If you want to get your work out there, the best way to do that would be to... just get it out there, no matter where it's published.  Editing a magazine of meager reputation is still a labor of love; not everyone who wants to publish can afford to pay.  Instead of monetary compensation, you get your name (and stories) in circulation.
   

4. Lastly, but not least, if an editor actually goes through the trouble to give extended comments or feedback on your work, do not take this personally.

   Whether your work is accepted by the magazine or not, reflects nothing of your character--and may not reflect anything of your talent either.  If an editor doesn't have the most positive things to say about your fiction, thank him/her for the consideration and send your work elsewhere.  (You may also choose to take some of their advise and partake of some revision.)  The only way to increase your chances of publication is to submit your work to as many magazines, publishing houses, or small presses as possible.  Case in point, J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was rejected a whopping twenty-one times before a publisher decided to take it.  And now look where she is!

While the rejection form letter is a normal part of the writing life, there are also personalized rejections. Sometimes an editor will provide a reason for the rejection and if that reason has to do with content or style, it may be good to consider the comments honestly. However there are some editors who seem to take a particular glee in criticism “just because they can”. These responses may arrive unsolicited save for the simple submission of work. These are the letters that can do the most damage if we let them.

Now before I open the doors to scores of angry responses from editors, let me clarify. When an editor takes the time to offer constructive criticism, it should be welcomed; while the criticisms offered may or may not be fitting, it behooves the writer to take an impartial and thorough look at the work and consider the recommendations made. I am not saying you have to make the suggested changes, but by all means look at it seriously. Professional critiques can cost big bucks and if you have received one for free that is indeed a bonus, give it some consideration.

Some writers may make nuisances of themselves. Some may counter an otherwise helpful rejection with a nasty comeback. And some may have done everything but follow the guidelines for submission or may make unreasonable demands in their cover letters. These are certainly instances that invite testy responses from editors. Then again, some editors are just testy.

Twice in my career I have received nasty rejection letters to work I have submitted. The first time was from a magazine that said they would accept unsolicited manuscripts. I followed the guidelines to the best of my ability. And I waited. About a week beyond the time the magazine said they would respond, I received a large envelope. My article was inside the envelope (this goes a long way back when all submissions were made in hard copies), a personalized rejection letter accompanied it. This letter did not start off with the customary “Thank you for your submission but…”; instead it said my manuscript was being returned and that “maybe you should go back to school and learn about the English language”! I was a new writer, I was devastated. I brought my manuscript to several friends including two high school English teachers and to this day cannot figure out what the editor was referring to.

More recently, I submitted a manuscript to an editor via email as per the submission guidelines after the response to my query letter was positive. The listed guidelines on the website stated that a response would be made within 6 to 8 weeks IF they were interested. Three months after my submission I still hadn't heard anything so I sent the manuscript to another source. My work was accepted in less than a week. Long story short, two-plus months later, after my work was already in print, I received a response from the first submission. The letter included phrases like “hodge-podge” and “head-hopping”. It finished up with “The time required to properly edit this work is more than we are willing to invest.”

Writers must develop a thick skin, but not to the point of ignoring help when it is offered with good intentions. Part of the job is to learn the difference between constructive and destructive criticism and not to allow yourself to be defeated by unkind words. Most editors who take the time to personally critique work are trying to help you, most are not just spewing venom for the pure sake of it. But there are some…

A writer friend recently said she has to constantly remind herself that she doesn't like every book in her local bookstore so she can't expect everyone to like her writing. That is a good thought that will help keep you going.

Wrong

One paragraph. Yes, just one. After this advice, frustration shows. My fellow writers explain it cannot be done, more details show the whole story, or the subplots need mentioning due to equal importance.

Wrong

You must propose your main plot-and only your main plot-in the query letter because you want to pitch fast and hold the agent or editor's attention. It shows you can choose the right words and focus on the big picture. This is the main reason you want to do this.

Wrong

I'm going to tell you the real reason: The pitch you use will be the same pitch an agent uses to court an editor. It will be the same pitch the editor uses to convince the publishing house. It will be the same pitch the publisher uses to get your book in the stores. And-this will thrill you-it will be the blurb on the book's back or jacket.

That's right. You're not only working your query letter, but the pitches for everyone else in the game. So remember the next time you want to go on and on with the plot portion within your query letter-if you can't pitch the project in ten seconds or less, neither can anyone else.

And that means no sale for all involved.

1. Address your letter and envelope to a specific editor on the publications masthead-the managing editor or the department editor in the subject area discussed, such as, sports, entertainment, or local news.
2. Make sure you have the right address if the publication has more than one office.
3. Send your letter as soon as possible after the publication. Fax or modem it, if available.
4. Identify the specific issue, date, and location of the story that motivates your letter.
5. If the subject is controversial, make it clear in the first sentence which side you are on.
6. Stick to the point.Suppress any urge to ramble or overstate your opinion.
7. Be as brief as possible. A powerful short letter will win out over any articulate of tomes.
8. Proof read your letter carefully to avoid typos and errors or otherwise give the impression your letter was written to hastily or emotionally.
9. Identify yourself. Provide valid reasons why you speak with knowledge and authority.
10. If you should prefer to remain anonymous should your letter be printed, give a sound reason for the request.

Editors encourage responses to the items, stories, and features they publish." Letters to the Editor" are the most widely read of any publication. Opposing views and out-and-out controversy are at the heart of ongoing dialog on important issues reported in the news. But editors insist on responses that are factual, tightly written, and provocative. Meet these requirements and speak your mind, and your chances of being published will greatly improve.