Skip to main content

back off!

i've been absent a few days because i've been dusting off manuscripts and preparing for a couple of projects. yesterday, while doing so, i started to comb through a short story i'd written a while back, just to make sure it was perfect. i mean, i figured it was perfect, because i'd submitted it for publication some time ago, although it was [sob!] rejected.

this is when i had one of the most horrifying experiences a writer can have. it wasn't perfect at all. it wasn't even a little bit perfect. in fact, it was so un-perfect that pieces of it were difficult to follow if you didn't live in my brain, which few people do and none of them are publishers. i gnashed my teeth and wondered what the hell i was thinking and committed myself, once again, to a rule i try to stick by, but occasionally forget:

never submit anything that has only recently been completed.

i have this rule because, when i'm excited to have finished something, i usually want to find somewhere to send it right away. my best option would be to just send it to an unwitting friend and wait for them to get back to me to explain the parts that confused or irritated them, but sometimes, i'll get a big head and fire it off to a publisher because damn i'm good. and i might be good. but i'm almost never good enough when i finish something and then give it a couple of quick edits [as a brief perusal of this blog will surely reveal, since most of the posts here are "raw"].

when i'm still in that "i finished something and i am as a god" phase of self-delusion, reading through a piece is tricky. all the ideas are basically still flowing, so it's never a problem for me to make sense of what i'm saying. what i really need to do is step away from the manuscript and wait until the inspiration gets a little fuzzy. that's when i'll be able to notice things like "this sentence has no verb". or when i'll realise that my cutesy/ radical phrasing reads as semi-literate for someone who isn't already well-known for her daring style. [before you can make a habit of breaking all the rules, you do have to convince people that you understand them to begin with.]

so i spent much of last night and this morning weeding through the story and being a little scared of it, because it had so cleverly hidden its faults from me before. this is the long-term effect of editing failures: you start to doubt that you will ever be able to find all the problems and that there are always disasters hidden in your words. i'm getting anxious just thinking about all the embarrassing mistakes that are currently lurking on my computer, snickering as they play hide and seek with my over-eager eyes. damn those tricky word-fairies and their tortuous games!

so, to the editor who had to read my deeply flawed submission and who rightly rejected it, i apologise. you've probably forgotten about it amid heaps of word-fairy-tainted manuscripts you received before and since. i hang my head in shame before you.

and if you're reading this, i'm sure you've already noticed mistakes. but this is my messy space, and it always will be. i thank you for persevering with me anyway.

image source

Comments

as long as you're here, why not read more?

don't speak

you might think that it sounds dramatic, but linguistic genocide is something that happens. people in power will go to great lengths to eradicate certain languages, not just for the sheer joy of making the world a lesser place, but as a way of beating down the culture that's associated with it. language has a unique reciprocal bond with culture, and every group that has attempted to break down another has recognised that forbidding a cultural group from communicating in their own language is an extremely effective way to tear apart their culture.

there are lots [and lots and lots and lots] of examples of this sort of thing, some successful, some not, but far too many to cover in one blog post. however, i thought it was worth looking at some languages that have been the subjects of active repression, and what the political consequences of that have been.

devastation :: the native north american languages :: it should come as no surprise that the largest genocide in history [by a ma…

long division

after the united states election last year, there were the usual calls for the country to unite behind the new president. that never happens anymore, because, since george w. bush scored a victory in 2004, having launched the country into a war in iraq for no reason, the people on the losing side of a presidential election have been pretty bloody angry about it. democrats hated bush 43. republicans really hated obama. democrats really hate trump.

it didn't help that trump didn't make the typical conciliatory gestures like including a couple of members of the opposite party in his cabinet, or encouraging his party to proceed slowly with contentious legislation. barack obama arguably wasted at least two and as many as six years of his tenure as president trying to play peacemaker before he felt sufficiently safe to just say "screw you guys" and start governing around the ridiculous congress he was forced to deal with. not-giving-a-shit obama was the best president in …

losers?

just a short time ago, i waxed prosaic about trump supporters who felt betrayed by their candidate pursuing in office the exact things that he said he would. short version: i have no sympathy.

today is a bit different. in the wake of america's bombing of a syrian air strip, in response to a chemical weapons attack by the syrian government, my facebook and twitter feeds were peppered with plaintive shades of "we believed you". these are the people who heard trump say that he wanted the united states to step back and focus on defending its own. indeed, trump did say such things, over and over; america cannot be the policeman of the world. even arch-liberal cynics like me had to admit that this was a refreshing argument to hear from someone outside the paul family, and, could easily have been turned into trump's greatest argument against hillary clinton. [he chose to go another way, which also worked.]

trump also said, repeatedly, that america needed to invest heavily …