
Why you should aim for 100 rejections a year - nathell
http://lithub.com/why-you-should-aim-for-100-rejections-a-year/
======
verisimilidude
I like the general idea here, about channeling rejections into motivation and
progress. That applies to much of life. But when it comes to the publishing
industry, I can't help but feel the author is advocating yesterday's game.
Striving for rejections is fine, but are authors of her mind striving for the
right rejections? The most productive rejections?

Most publishing houses have a "slush pile" of submitted manuscripts that's
always enormous and largely neglected. Usually it's junior staff, interns or
fresh grads, who are tasked with "processing the pile" whenever they get a
scrap of free time, which is rare. And when they do get around to your
manuscript, they'll often just skim the proposal and maybe read a paragraph or
two before throwing it into a "review" or "reject" pile. Every time I've seen
this scene, it's usually a hundred in "reject" for every one in "review". What
is a rejection like this really worth? You've spent maybe years of your life
on this manuscript and some kid rejected it in under a minute.

IMO, at this point, it's better to seek rejections directly from the market
via online self-publishing. Instead of just putting together endless
submissions, e-publishing puts the focus on the things that will make you
successful regardless: writing for a real audience, soliciting feedback and
building community, working on self-promotion, etc. If you do eventually want
to go through a traditional publisher, then "I sold 500 copies on Amazon" is
going to speak a lot louder than "I assure you people will love my flowery
prose".

~~~
geerlingguy
> IMO, at this point, it's better to seek rejections directly from the market
> via online self-publishing.

I was going to write exactly this. I looked into publishing my book in a
traditional manner and found the entire ordeal strange and messy.

Instead, I put a cover image and description on LeanPub, found there were 50+
people interested in it (just posting it on my Twitter account and emailing a
couple people I knew), and decided to write an intro and a chapter or two to
test the waters.

Two years and 8,000 sales later, I'm glad I didn't stake my idea of being a
successful writer (or my motivation) on getting a random editor at an
institution that would like to suck out 50+% of my potential profits.

Nowadays, no matter what the type of writing, you can test the waters by self-
publishing. The upside is any success you have can result in real
dollars/income instead of a stressful and tenuous relationship with a
traditional publisher!

Ironically, after my book started becoming successful, I had reps from the
major tech publishers start asking if I would like to relicense the book to
them in exchange for their marketing, while simultaneously giving up about 40%
of the profit margin I currently enjoy.

~~~
cm3
Given the online channels and on-demand-print, why would anyone release via a
record label or book publisher? What's the advantage? Is it professional
representation/management?

~~~
geerlingguy
I think some of the traditional reasons are editing support, marketing
support, and the idea of being on real-world bookstore shelves.

For the first two, it's just a matter of whether you want to/can put in the
time to hire out your own editor, do your own marketing, etc.

For the last, it comes down to vanity. For tech books especially (but for many
other types as well), the world has moved on beyond brick-and-mortar book
sales, and the audience you cut off by excluding bookstore relationships is
very small.

Every time I've done a rational comparison of 'should I keep self-publishing
or should I go to a publisher?' I find that for money (not that we're talking
'quit-your-job' levels for 98% of writers), for stress management, and for
personal brand building, there is no upside to using a publisher.

~~~
cm3
Agreed, having good editors is highly valuable.

------
pstuart
By making a game out of rejection a man conquers fear:
[http://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/01/16/37723901...](http://www.npr.org/sections/health-
shots/2015/01/16/377239011/by-making-a-game-out-of-rejection-a-man-conquers-
fear)

------
wiradikusuma
But how do you avoid from becoming skeptical, like, "Why bother focusing on
quality, if it's going to waste anyway. Maybe I should keep throwing shit
(quantity) and see which ones stick."? So you end up producing mediocrity and
leaning towards luck.

~~~
BlackjackCF
I think the idea behind it is that with every rejection, you'd hopefully try
to improve a little or start on a new project. Eventually you'd learn
something new.

The other thing is to conquer the fear of rejection. There are a lot of people
who get stuck not submitting stuff simply because they're afraid of getting
rejected. But not trying is as good as a rejection.

~~~
Throwaway23412
I remember a recent submission that made an unintuitive argument: quantity =
quality. If you focus on quality from the beginning, you spend too much time
in analysis paralysis and get less feedback on your progress. If you focus on
quantity from the beginning, you get more feedback the more you produce. It's
better to learn what not to do.

~~~
CPLX
Indeed. As the apocryphal Stalin quote goes, quantity has a quality all its
own.

------
CiPHPerCoder
I'm on a 20-consecutive-month talk rejection streak from various tech
conferences in both the PHP and information security communities.

The more you face rejection, the less it stings. But this is a double-edged
sword: It's still very difficult to muster up the effort to try again. Not
because of pain avoidance, but because it feels like a waste of time.

Trying to game this might be a perverse way to break this cycle, but I
couldn't do it. Good luck to anyone else who tries.

~~~
geerlingguy
Have you tried local Meetup communities/user groups? A lot of times, the
larger conferences want to see that you've had at least nominal experience
with basic public speaking and/or creating a logical presentation (as a
baseline).

Just having that won't necessarily get your talks accepted... but it helps.

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
While that's probably good advice for someone starting out, I've spoken
several times at Security B-Sides and at a few tech events in downtown
Orlando.

The rejection reason I'm always offered (when I actually receive one) is a
watered-down remix of the following:

    
    
      Your talk idea was excellent and highly rated! But we have
      previously obligated ourselves to representing the big name
      projects in the community, so we're instead going to give
      this spot to someone who wants to talk about a trivial
      improvement to Drupal or something only relevant to WordPress
      freelancers. Also, we already have an all-day security
      training and our judges toss cryptography in the same general
      category, so we consider it redundant.
    

(This is obviously editorialized.)

There's been a lot of talk about fixing a persistent cultural problem in the
PHP community, where it's always the same speakers at every PHP event. And
conference organizers pay lip service to wanting to do something about it. But
then they turn around and invite the same people to do the same talks/training
and then block off entire categories from being spoken about by anyone else.

That's the part that actually annoys me: "We're working on this problem, but
not really."

As far as infosec conferences go, I've had schedule conflicts with everything
except DEFCON and Black Hat, so being rejected there is probably just, "You're
aiming too high. Try again in 10 years when you have real skills."

(That being said, my DEFCON Crypto & Privacy Village talk hasn't been rejected
yet, so 20 months might end up being my high score.)

~~~
CiPHPerCoder
Follow-up: Looks like I'm heading onward towards 21 months, and counting.

------
blakesterz
In his On Writing Book, Stephen King has a section or maybe even a chapter on
this rejection stuff. I think he said that there was one rejection in
particular that made all the difference for him because it came back with
ideas and encouragement.I think he also did something where he kept all his
rejections as well. It's always interesting to see how famous authors handled
being rejected way back when they were getting started.

~~~
cm3
If only job interviews would also result in real feedback. These days,
probably due to anti-discrimination laws, you never get a reason. It's always
just "thanks for your time". That's all. You're left guessing what went wrong
and likely end up not focusing on what was the real cause which you do realize
and want to self-improve.

~~~
koralatov
I couldn't agree more. I'd kill for some useful, thoughtful feedback. That
said, I'd kill for even a form rejection most of the time; nowadays, it seems
never letting you know is the new form rejection.

~~~
cm3
Only happened to me once, but zero response is bad, yes. However, it's not
much worse than the neutral "thanks, bye" you get all the time. It's hard to
stay motivated when all the interviews go well, or so you think, until the
final thank-you email.

~~~
a3n
"Thanks, bye" frees your mind from having to wonder about that position. It's
closure. If you don't get feedback, you can still do a bit of post mortem; you
may not come to the same conclusion that the hiring org would have, but you
will gain some insight into yourself.

~~~
cm3
Because the occasions where I didn't get any closing responses have been with
places that seemed to be unprofessional in the hiring process, I actually had
an easier time dismissing those, especially after learning more about some of
the from ex-employees.

------
costcopizza
I don't know about straight quantity. There's definitely a balance.

For example: my roommate and I both write songs in our free time. He goes for
quantity (around 6 songs a month), me quality (1-ish song a month).

I'll spend a week just trying to get a transition to a chorus or bridge. His
songs often don't even have choruses or bridges.

It would drive me crazy having a bunch of half-baked songs (or stories) that
are almost there but are missing the next step. At some point you will have to
put the hammer down and think "hey this idea is strong and deserves a strong
conclusion/climax/chorus/whatever art form" rather than quickly moving on.

However if you're just starting out, significantly lean quantity as your
earliest works aren't likely worth the time.

------
iokevins
I wish the article included an image of this desk : )

"While procrastinating on writing my MFA thesis, I found an ancient wooden
desk on the street, pulled it into my apartment, and started shellacking it
with hard-earned rejection slips. It became my writing desk."

------
EGreg
I will say it more accurately:

The first step to success is making it safe to fail.

~~~
collyw
Which is far easier if you are wealthy.

~~~
chasing
But entirely possible even if you're not!

------
known
Rejection massively reduces the IQ
[http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2051](http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn2051)

------
gentleteblor
I've gotten more than a hundred rejections in a year (140+), and i gotta say,
it was terrible.

Having said that, i think this is generally good advice.

Looking back, there are a lot of similarities to the common "failed startup"
experience. I worked on the novel for five years (got plenty of feedback along
the way) but getting it picked up (traction?) was a bust.

And it wasn't "safe to fail" as someone mentioned up above. It hurt,
emotionally, physically (90 hr weeks).

Lesson learned. I try to be comfortable with failure now, it's not a friend or
anything, but it'll stop by, a lot.

------
benten10
I found this one incredibly interesting, but for mostly tangential reason:
relationships. I have mostly concentrated on trying to find reasonably
likeable, kind, successful, and attractive partners. But because of that I
have had a lot less variety of experience with different kinds of people.
Perhaps a better strategy is to date a lot by uhh, focusing less on 'quality',
so that 'relationship skills' are learned better?

What do you people think?

~~~
devishard
I read an article recently about a British statistician who used statistical
strategies in her dating life (I can't remember her name, so having trouble
Googling the article...). She recommended dating 30 people casually before
even considering dating seriously. That way you get a feel for what kind of
people are available in your dating pool. After dating 30 people, if you meet
someone who is better than any of the first 30 then you know they're a close-
to-optimal partner for you.

~~~
joncrocks
Sounds like an implementation of the standard 'solution' to the secretary
problem -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem)

~~~
mohsinr
In that case one has to be lucky to meet 'after' the initial phase is complete
so that they have chance to be selected.

------
dmourati
After just checking my email, I've got 99 left to go this year!

