In the past few years, I've had the unsurpassed pleasure of talking with a great many editors. When I began my career in writing, the only editors I knew were newspaper editors and they were very THEM. We, the lowly writers, knew they were THEM and we didn't quickly forget it. THEY rejoiced in making us do hard stuff. THEY messed up our magnifient prose. And sometimes...THEY were mean to us. When I snuck out of the newspaper world and discovered the very different atmosphere of magazines, I started to reassess my view of THEM. When I graduated to writing for children's magazines, I discovered editors weren't "them" at all -- they were "us" at a different desk.

My goal as a children's writer is to good, interesting material that entertains and assists readers. I want readers to enjoy what I write, and I want them to find something in it of value -- something to make them think. The goal of an editor is to coordinate a myriad of elements so that they produce a product that is filled with good, interesting material that entertains and assists readers. They want readers to enjoy the contents and to find something in it of value. In other words, we really want the same thing.   

If you chat with editors at conferences, workshops, on the phone or through email, you quickly realize that they value their readers very highly. They respect them. And they don't take their responsiblity to the readers lightly. They believe firmly in the value of reading and the importance of getting kids to do it. I like that. I can totally appreciate those sentiments. They feel like me.

I would love to be able to simply write whatever flows out of my pen and know that readers will love it. I would love that because that would certainly make my job easier. Producing material that is the very best quality of which I am capable is hard. Doing it while balancing the twin jobs of entertaining and bringing value makes it harder. And doing it while keeping in mind the realities of a marketing is enough to make a girl go straight for the chocolate.

Add to that the fact that I don't just want to write -- I want to communicate and that requires publication. Oh, and I'd like money too (since chocolate doesn't grow on trees...well, actually, I guess it does, but not in New England). Since these last two bits are added into the equation, I am under pressure to produce wisely. Good material. Marketable material. And unfortunatly, the market is not nearly as impressed by me as I would like them to be.

This can make a writer cranky. This can make a writer especially cranky about anything that seems to be slowing down my goals. And the clearest thing I can see is....rejection letters. And who sends those? Editors.

Suddenly, editors are firmly back to THEM.

A Little Light on the Subject

Editors do not like rejecting people. In reality, they are -- of course -- merely rejecting this single product of our fevered writing pen. But editors are not stupid. They know that to us, it feels like we are being rejected. No matter how many times someone reminds me not to take rejection personally, I still take it personally. I mean -- really -- who doesn't take it at least a teensy bit personally? Who doesn't grumble a little? Who doesn't say -- What the happy heck do they want anyway? Not me, I can tell you. I hate rejection.

But, you know, editors don't like sending me rejection letters. They don't get a kick out of it. They don't fall into giggling fits at the picture of you pulling that SASE out of your mailbox and getting another rejection letter. They especially don't like it when you've actually done a good job, and shown clearly that you're making an effort to get to know their company or magazine. They hate rejecting folks who are working so hard.

But they do it anyway -- because that's the crappy part of their job that we don't have. And they don't like it. It's depressing. Imagine looking at a big pile of rejection letters and knowing they represent a lot of REAL people and you're job includes ruining their day? Makes telemarketing look good, doesn't it? As least they just have to annoy people, not make them cry.

And most of the time, they don't even get to tell you why.
And why don't they?
*grumble grumble*

An editor's job is varied and busy. If you're submitting to a small market -- a small magazine or a tiny publisher -- sometimes you're submitting to practically a one-man band. One person doing more work than one person can possibly handle without a serious Tylenol habit. That person's job is to produce an end result -- a magazine, or a line of books -- that can compete in a cut-throat market. And the pressures are incredible.

If I write a crappy story -- I get rejected. If an editor puts out a seriously flawed issue or book -- she could lose her job. And if she doesn't do it fast enough or she can't handle the work load -- bang -- job again. You know how folks remark on how there are always plenty of authors to take our place. Well, there are far too many young, eager newcomers who will do an editor's job cheaper. She knows that. I can't imagine that kind of pressure.

And under that pressure, the thing she gets the LEAST time to do is deal with submissions. And there are so many of them. Some editors end up doing submissions on their own time. Why would they do that? Because they know those submissions are people too. People who are waiting. And an editor feels the pressure of those people every time she has to do something else before she handles submissions.

I have met dozens of editors and talked to even more. And not once have I ever gotten the impression that any of them had forgotten that submissions represent people pouring their hearts out because they want to reach kids. And because I know that -- I try to do my best to send my best work with my best effort at marketing. And when I get rejections -- and we all do...well, I just mutter about the MARKETING PEOPLE...and leave the editors out of my grumble. Cause we're all in this together.