The Knott of Rejection

By David Nemeth

Throughout my education, I have many great teachers and one of the best was the poet Bill Knott (1940-2014). In an obituary in Open Letters Monthly said:

The intensity of our grief at an artist’s death should not be a measure of how widely their work was known, but how intensely it was loved, and by whom. Knott’s poems are and were a beacon to younger writers, a constant reminder that the innovative can be classically beautiful, and that on the page, the coldest anger can fire the mind.

I'm bringing up Knott because of how he embraced the rejection and criticism of his poetry. When Knott had given up on publishers (or was it the publishers giving up on him), he started self-publishing his own work. And these books usually included quotes critical of his work: "Bill Knott . . . is so bad one can only groan in response" or ". . . Knott seems to hate himself . . . and he seems to hate his readers".

Then there were collages of rejection slips and letters that he dedicated a blog to, a few hundred of the thousands of rejection slips i've got over the years—. The blog had the subtitle: "why I spent so much time trying to do something which the 20-30 pages below show I had no talent for, is a mystery to me—just more evidence (if any were needed) to prove what a futile waste my life was—"

Was Knott seriously pissed about the criticism and rejection? From Robert Baird's New Yorker piece, "Remembering Bill Knott":

You always wondered with Knott, but the mask never slipped. Elisa Gabbert, a poet who studied under him at Emerson, told me that she eventually came to believe that some of Knott’s pranks, like the anti-blurbs, were part of an elaborate performance: “It was kind of a goof, but that was his whole life. It was a really grand goof.” At the same time, she said, his anxieties about fame seemed utterly genuine: “He was just so suspicious of praise and of success.” 

What I do know is that Bill Knott decided to own the rejections and the criticisms until they became a part of his work. As writers, getting rejected hurts, a bad review even worse. But we all have a choice either to drown in the negativity or embrace it as part of the job.

You Know What They Say About Opinions ...

I'll be the first to admit I'm not much of a comic book reader. Even as a kid, I preferred immersing myself in words and I think the comics I did see when I was young weren't the best. Of course, I grew up in a town without a bookstore, before the days of Amazon, so options were pretty limited. 

And I certainly don't remember our library having a comics section.

Which means that I could have been a comics fan, with the right exposure. I think all I ever saw was geared to five-year-old readers. 

That said, we've always been very happy to encourage comic book reading. We're happy to encourage any reading, and a gift certificate to the nearby comic book store has been a regular holiday present for one of the kids for years. 

This past week, Stan Lee passed away, and Bill Maher barely held a breath before he took out a big stick and started bashing Lee and comic book readers.

"The guy who created Spider-Man and the Hulk has died, and America is in mourning. Deep, deep mourning for a man who inspired millions to, I don’t know, watch a movie, I guess."

Now, when I first saw headlines and links about this on social media, I wondered if it was a joke. I mean, he goes on to infer comic book reading is to blame for Trump.

"I’m not saying we’ve necessarily gotten stupider. The average Joe is smarter in a lot of ways than he was in, say, the 1940s, when a big night out was a Three Stooges short and a Carmen Miranda musical. The problem is, we’re using our smarts on stupid stuff. I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to suggest that Donald Trump could only get elected in a country that thinks comic books are important."

Now, I could easily slip back to my communication theory studies from college and talk Neil Postman and why Bill Maher is so very wrong and what he doesn't understand about communication theory, but that would detract from my intended point here.

Simply, there will always be people out there who will take a piss all over you the first chance they get. I think Maher is wrong, and it makes me wonder how sad he is that he has to criticize a person who just passed away and blame all the problems of the world on that person.

I'd say he (sadly) doesn't understand the concept of superhero stories at all, or why they resonate with so many people. What a shame that he doesn't grasp how beautiful and important stories are. That's truly tragic. Imagine living a life unable to appreciate great stories. Why go on?

He does prove a point, though. There will be people who are petty. There will be people who don't like you just because they knew someone named 'Sandra' or 'Bob' or 'Tim' or 'Susie' decades ago who they didn't get along with.

And some of those people may just be waiting for an opportunity to cut you down a peg or two.

When I started writing what became my first published novel, my goal was just to finish a manuscript. I'd started many and abandoned them over the years.

Once I actually finished the story, the goal changed. It needed to be a good manuscript.

Eventually, it needed to be read. Which meant it needed to be published.

In some ways, that felt like an unending series of changing goal posts that left me always falling short of some mark. You get published and that isn't enough, either. You want to get good reviews. You want to be read. You want your work to be popular and liked.

After all, we're all just trying to entertain people in our own way, right? That's what we, as novelists, do. We tell stories.

But man, there always has to be someone to rip you apart* for that effort.


You've attempted a manuscript? Actually put your butt in the chair and typed at it for days/weeks/months/years? Then you've done something that most people haven't, and that's an accomplishment. You've tried.

You finished a manuscript? Maybe it's a hot mess and needs extensive editing, but you've actually told your story and gotten a draft done? That's a huge achievement.

Wait ... You got published? Not by your mommy or a buddy? Some stranger took your baby and said it was beautiful and they wanted to help share it with the world?

That's tremendous. It's an extraordinary feat.

Don't let anyone ever take that from you.

Look ... On a certain level, anyone who starts submitting a manuscript has to have enough ego to think that they have done a decent job and that their story is worth publishing, but that doesn't mean every published author needs to be taken down a peg or two. I went to school. I got good grades in writing. I had a straight 4.0 in my journalism courses in college. That's how I know I can write. It's an objective assessment based on my education.

But I'm not going to run around going, "Me me me me me," because I don't happen to think I'm the hottest thing ever. I'm a storyteller. I set my own goals for each work and measure my success by whether or not I achieve my personal goals.

I'd love to be read. I'd love for people to connect with my characters. That simply means something that was important to me resonates with other people, and that's cool.

But in this business, there are a long list of people ready to tell you all the ways you don't measure up, and it's disheartening.

The flip side is, there are a lot of people who also don't consider anything but success level or friendship. I never thought writing books would be so much about popularity, but it is. "Big" authors who will only blurb other "big" authors because it raises their own profile, instead of endorsing newer unknown writers. Friends review friends, some focus on the "big" books because more people will read their opinions, etc. etc.

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to like what friends produce. I'm also not saying you aren't allowed to like what's popular.

It's just too bad that so much of what's out there seems to either be about tearing people down or buttering up people you think can help you.

Do you. Do it because it's sincere. Frankly, I don't trust anyone who isn't capable of being a total fan about someone living and breathing who is producing art in the field they aspire to. Have that author you unapologetically acknowledge is your go-to comfort book/entertainment source provider year in and year out.

If you don't hear that X author has a new book coming out and run to mark it on your calendar or pre-order immediately, if you don't read a book description and think, Hell yeah, I HAVE to read that and why is that author so freaking smart that they came up with that concept and I didn't? then I don't even know why you'd want to be published.

Be real.

And for those of you who feel like you're at the bottom, trying to claw your way in, take heart. Every single step in the process of publishing marks success. It takes passion to attempt to write a manuscript. It takes determination and commitment to complete one. It takes willingness to grow and learn and master skills to effectively edit and revise one.

And it takes nerves of steel to be published.

So, if you're anywhere in that process, a virtual hug from me. Or from a virtual avatar I create if you prefer something younger with perfect teeth.


Remember:

1. Another person's success doesn't mean there's less success for you to have. It isn't pie. When people read a great book they want to read another great book. When people read a bad book they want to rake leaves in the forest.

2. You don't have to be mean. Sure you can jump on the 'is Franzen sexist?' bandwagon or join his hate club, but what does that get you? Hate. Negativity. It's kinda like the Democrats eating their young. Sure, Bill Clinton didn't actually write his novel, but I've been hired to ghostwrite and I know many others who have been as well. What Bill Clinton did do? Got some people who don't usually read much to read a book.

3. Have some integrity. I have mad respect for Heidi Heitkamp. She may not be a senator anymore, but she made a choice knowing that was the likely result. And she still made that choice:

"If this were a political decision for me I certainly would be deciding the other way," Heitkamp said in the interview. "History will judge you, but most importantly you will judge yourself."

Maybe nobody will acknowledge your accomplishments today. Some days, it would be nice to get an email saying, "You rock" or that you're a good writer or that you have a powerful voice and we need more from you. Most days you won't get that.

So hold on to those moments when you do and keep going. The only way we fail is if we quit. (Or, perhaps, if we join a clique and lose our integrity in the process of selling our soul for 10 seconds of fame.)

*****************************************************************

Side Notes

Now, since the question of legitimacy of 'best of' compilations has been raised, I'm going to share that my plan is to do an advent calendar of likes December 1-24 over at my site. There will be a new issue up this week and then we move on to the advent calendar.

And I'll disclose any connection I know I have to any source of entertainment I endorse.

Kinda sad it even needs to be said. However, I agree with Jim. I ignore almost all 'best of' lists from almost every single source. Brian writes a 'shit I liked' summary specifically to avoid the issue. 

(Of course, this sort of undermines awards as well, doesn't it, because not all books in any category published in any year are read and considered. That's another topic, though.)

The fact that this even needs to be said is evidence of another problem. Buttering up for personal gains.

If you're only going to review/endorse your buddies? That's part of the reason blurbs, endorsements and reviews mean so little to so many people. It cheapens the process.



*I'm not talking about legitimate reviews/critics. They have their place. I've been trained to write reviews in college, and when there's a system in place for standards they can be very helpful, for both readers and writers.

That said, even amongst "industry" standards, there are some reviewers who hide behind the veil of anonymity to poke at people they don't like. I've read reviews from amateurs and pros alike that are clearly personal. And I'm not talking about saying, "This didn't work for me because ... " I'm talking about reviews that are about the person rather than the product.

There's a real dilemma now with the ease of posting fake reviews for all sorts of products, books included. So much so that some book reviewing outlets have some clear guidelines about not making a book review personal and people have actually needed to talk about this issue and how to avoid personal attacks in reviews.

Some have been public about the fact they've felt reviews have been personal. I haven't read all the reviews, so I really don't know, but Morrissey does have one point here. Some reviewers want to make it be about them and their opinion. That's why I'm happy to post a review saying, "This didn't work for me, but check out this review over here and get another perspective - it still may be a book you're going to love, even if I didn't."

Oh, and here is a link to a review of Morrissey's book. I'm not sure I've even had a one-star review that's ever been this brutal.

PS: Oh, and when I review? I am always looking for a reason to like a book. I never start reading a book wanting it to be bad. I always want to be blown away.

Yes, I have to be honest if there are issues ... but I'm also savvy enough to know that sometimes, it's simply a question of taste, and sometimes it's simply a question of not being in the right place for a certain story. (First time we started the Leftovers we abandoned it and then when I tried again, months later, I loved it.)

Even when I have the reviewer cap on (and I have been a paid reviewer for several years now) I'm mindful of that.

And I am specifically reviewing a lot outside the genre these days to avoid presumed conflicts. And because there's a lot of great stuff being published outside the genre ... and sometimes, there's too much circle-jerk/I'll-only-link-to-my-buddy's stuff nonsense in the genre.

Everybody loves some novel, sometimes...*

By Russel D McLean

I have a nightmare.

Not the one involving snakes.

Not the one involving Jay Stringer and Dave White's disturbing burlesque routine.

But rather the one where I finally get found out. The one where people realise I was faking being a writer all along. Where they call me out on years of bullshit.

Its a fear common among us all. When someone doesn't like our work, we wince and get this feeling like someone kicked us in the heart. Even when that criticism is wrapped up with good stuff there's a feeling like, you know, we failed somehow with just this one person.

And you know, what I've realise over the years is you either get used to that feeling or you night as well pack up your keyboard and go home. Because part and parcel of being a writer is dealing with criticism. I watched recently as a would-be writer kicked back against someone who gave them a professional report on their work.I won't go into details but it got me thinking about how we react to criticism, particularly early on in our careers.

Now I get the emotional reaction to criticism, but here's the thing: if one reader thinks there are issues, you can guarantee others will.  And you can either feel strongly enough that other readers will understand your work, or you can listen to the critism and learn from it.

Early in my career I signed with an agent who worked with in house editors. The first editor - who persuaded the agent that I had something - loved my work and gave me a lot of constructive advice that finally made its way into what would become The Good Son. The second editor had a hand in booting me out of that agency because they didn't like what I was doing and wanted me to write a very different kind of novel. Now that novel would have probably got me a huge six figure deal but it wasn't the kind of novel I wanted to write. I stuck to my guns. And got booted off that agent's list. Quite unceremoniously.

But I didn't call for the editor's head. I didn't gnash and wail and grind my teeth (in public). I looked at the reasons I got booted and weighed them up. I wondered whether there were things I could learn. In the end I took a few of those things and made the novel stronger, but I learned that sometimes people just aren't going to react to your manuscript. And that different folks have different tastes.

I took my keyboard and walked away from that one.

In another case, I sent a manuscript off to someone whose opinions I trusted. They came back and told me the book wasn't worked. I was gutted. It was a good book. I was sure of it. But I couldn't be sure. So I went through the manuscript looking at the points they suggested. And sure enough there were issues there. And in this case the person was right to tell me I maybe needed to restructure and restart. Sure, I could have sold the novel, according to this person, but it would have been for a pittance and it wouldn't have gotten the kudos that was clearly deserving of the story. I needed to re-examine it. I needed to really really re-examine it.

This time, I followed the advice.

And the book that emerged was, I think, better.

What I'm saying is this: at every stage of your career you will get criticism. Some of it will be as meaningless as a ranty one star review on Amazon saying that you're "not like Rebus" but some of it might just be worth listening to. Some of it might be well intentioned or even good advice that just might not gel with your plans, but is still worth listening to without losing the plot. Some of it might even save your book.

But anyone who simply praises your work should not be listened to at all. I never send WIPs to friends or family. I did it once and actually got measured responses, but I need to know that the person reading my book has the impartiality of a distant reader or someone who won't take into account who I am or what they know about me. Sometimes that means I get things that do not tally with my expectations. But I learned long ago that kicking up a fuss doesn't help. Listening the criticisms and asking yourself whether you think they might help your novel does.

In short, you and your novel are not special flowers. You do not get a pass just because you wrote something. You have to expect criticism. You have to expect to be imperfect. And you have to expect that sometimes you will learn from that.

*with huge apologies to Dean Martin...

Sick Transit Gloria

By Russel D McLean

“I think crime writers are very sick people.”

Thus spake a commenter on this article on Patricia Cornwell. Let’s leave aside whether one likes or dislikes Cornwell’s works* and think about this commenter.

“…very sick people.”

Why?

“Once one has had even a glimpse of a wicked deed as words on a page, it stays put in the imagination- the torment is transmitted by a third party, crime writers spread about their material- it is the canker (sic) of warped minds.”

Which sounds like a bad thing. And maybe it is to a degree. In reality no one wants to confront the worst that humanity has to offer. Yet myself and other crime writers (or worse, horror writers) do so all the time. We distill terrible acts and place them on the page in the name of entertainment.

What the bloody hell is wrong with us?

Well, let’s leave aside the fact that our readers are clearly worse because they want more of the same and right now, please. And let’s think about entertainment.

The Greeks were clearly as sick – maybe more so – as any modern crime writer. Their tragedies were built on buckets of gore. Oedipus Rex is clearly the work of a screwed up mind. Yet it is a classic of literature. Even Shakespeare - - he wrote Titus Andronicus, where incest, cannibalism and a thousand other atrocities are depicted, and of course Hamlet where just about everybody dies**

Drama – at its heart – is conflict. And conflict is not pretty. It never has been. It never will be. I can accept that certain people don’t want to be reminded of ugly truths in this world – and in fact, at times, even I can’t take it and want to escape from such things – but the principle of entertainment is not merely diversion. Fiction and drama are our ways of coping with the world. By dealing with something in a fictional narrative we are excising it, in a sense. By confronting darkness on some level we process our reaction to it in a safe environment.

Fiction without conflict, without some essential darkness, is worthless. Even in the lightest of comedies, there is conflict and loss and struggle, even if it is over seemingly inane stakes. The fact is, however, that crime fiction and other dark forms of writing allow the reader and the writer to make sense of those things in the world that may otherwise be senseless. A person cannot cope with life by running away from that which makes them uncomfortable.
Good fiction – whether we see it as harmless “entertainment” or not – is always about making some sense of life. To be effective in doing this, sometimes that means going to places that we may find unsettling, confronting parts of ourselves and others we might otherwise run away from. There is no sickness or “canker” in admitting that people do bad things. There is more sickness in denying this, perhaps, in pretending that the world is all sweetness and life.

Not that I propose for an instant all fiction should be a bleak and soul-destroying gaze into the absolute depths of human suffering.

Far from it.

As in all things, I believe in balance. Sometimes I’ll want to be reassured and reminded that things can work out for the best, that there is good in people. Sometimes I’ll want to try and work out why people behave in the terrible ways they sometimes do.

Fiction can and should tackle both these extremes and everything in between.

Fiction should – no matter if it does it by subtext, by text, even by accident – make us think. Even if that thought is merely, “This is/isn’t how I want to live my life”

If it doesn’t do that and if it doesn’t strike a balance, then I wonder, what the point would be of it at all.


*For what its worth I think her first four or five books utterly revolutionised the crime fiction scene and were in and of themselves very good examples of the new genre. After that, well, I found the series lost its rhythms. But clearly hundreds of thousands of readers disagree. And mu opinion's just one drop in the ocean.
**There was originally a joke here that was based on the fact my brain was tired and utterly misremembered the plot of Hamlet. Which just goes to show that even your beardy hero slips up every once in a while***
***There was also a third foot note which is the one Ray Banks refers to.