Post History
You can certainly look at it from the market perspective. What one editor rejects another may accept. What 100 editors reject, the 101st editor may accept. But you can also look at it from the per...
Answer
#4: Attribution notice removed
by
System
·
2020-01-03T20:41:49Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/21353 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#3: Attribution notice added
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:07:56Z (over 4 years ago)
Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/21353 License name: CC BY-SA 3.0 License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/
#2: Initial revision
by
System
·
2019-12-08T05:07:56Z (over 4 years ago)
You can certainly look at it from the market perspective. What one editor rejects another may accept. What 100 editors reject, the 101st editor may accept. But you can also look at it from the perspective of your own ability to make it better. The passage of time allows us to see work in a new light. Reading it over after a rejection, you may find: 1. That it still seems fine to you 2. That you can see problems with it but don't immediately see how to fix them 3. That it has problems and you can immediately see how to fix them In the first case, send it out again. In the third case, revise and send it out again. The second case is the tricky one. You can send it out, get a critique to see if it helps you come up with a fix, stick it in a drawer and pull it out in six months, or sit down and rework it until you figure out what the problem is and how to fix it. Personally, my rule is, if I can't see a flaw, send it out. If I can, don't send it out till I figure out how to fix it.
#1: Imported from external source
by
System
·
2016-03-16T15:43:08Z (about 8 years ago)
Original score: 2