Rejection: An Alternative to Give and Take
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Rejection: An Alternative to Give and Take |
| Creator: | Dana Angerman |
| Date(s): | May/Summer 1988 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Star Trek: TOS |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Rejection: An Alternative to Give and Take is a 1988 essay by Dana Angerman.
It was printed in On the Double #7/8 and is a direct response to Alexis Fegan Black's essay Rejection: How to Give It, How to Take It.
"Author's note: As this is America and I am the author, I will use the feminine as a generic reference to the third person as opposed to the loathsome he/she because it makes me happy to do so."
Introduction
After reading Darling Dovya's article on the skill (or lack thereof) employed on the part of zine editors when rejecting or commenting on submissions, I was very happy to see the emphasis she placed on the encouragement to new writers; Everyone was a new writer at one time or another and, hopefully, few of them received the type of rejection illustrated in Dovya's article.
After completing her observations, I seemed to have come up with an altogether different view point (meaning angle of observation) that, to my knowledge, no one has mentioned as of yet.
Some Topics Discussed
- Star Trek: TOS and fic
- dealing with criticism and feedback
- editorial standards and opinion
From the Essay
The Philosophical Tangent
As with all things creative, there are myriad layers of emotion involved, ranging from one's own psychological motivation, all the way up to Divine Inspiration (J.S. Bach dedicated every piece of music he wrote to God in thanks for his gift). As for the psychological components - which, for the sake or argument we will here assume to be the basis for most, if not all amateur writing - they can all be expressed in either a positive or a negative manner. Let me say now, before I stand accused of psychoanalysis in absentia, that I do not find insecurity or shyness or any of the so-called introverted emotions to be necessarily negative - but rather as obstacles that can either be overcome or circumvented - depending on the needs of the person..
Now that I've established the lengthy but necessary framework of given reference, let us return to the point, that being:
The Meat
Since there are these many levels of emotion in creativity of any kind, it would not be uncommon for two (or more) individuals to approach the same creation from vastly different sources, depending upon their own emotional motivation. The diversity of publications in K/S fandom illustrates this beyond a reasonable doubt. In the past ten years, we've seen everything from the numerous volumes of multiple raunchy, fuck-your-brains-out love scenes separated by 1} a shower; 2} saving the planet; or 3} wasting the evil alien life form/pirates/Klingons/all of the above (all this in only 200 pages?), to intellectual diversions of the highest order, romanticism worthy of Emily Bronte, and a very few adventurous excursions into the much feared, forbidden realm of metaphysics and/or spiritualism. All of these various and sundry aspects of K/S are fueled by the same energy - the inner workings of the writer's psyche. (Anyone who says, "Nay", either knows it's true and is afraid someone who has read their work can add 2 + 2, or doesn't know themselves, much less Kirk and Spock. Some editors would not (will not) touch any submission that bespeaks s/m, violence of any kind, death, or either Kirk or Spock with anyone but Kirk or Spock. Editor's personal preference - which, because they are the editor graduates to "Editorial Standards". But not all editorial standards.
Another editor may reject something that contains none of the above mentioned vehicles, but also contains no romantic lovey-dovey stuff. Again - Editor's personal preference and her "Editorial Standards".
All of this wonderful interpretive mumbo-jumbo comes from the same place - one's very own personal motivation for becoming involved in K/S fandom in the first place.
If an editor's own personal taste runs to the romantic (ideally), and/or downright gushy (the extreme), and a writer submits a story depicting K & S as characters with a little more range to their emotions (maybe they get in a real hairy fight - or they have other interests or worries), she may feel her characters threatened, compromised, belittled, raped, bastardized, or just plain "wrong". Hence, "You don't know K & S." Not true. You may not know her K & S.
If another editor's taste follows the more, shall we say 'risque & flamboyant' (nice, huh? It's hard to not piss people off) style of K & S encounters, and a writer, submits an in-depth character study, again It may be rejected as "wrong" - by this editor's standards.
As I've tried to illustrate by example here, this tells us that the expectations one places on the Trek universe and the characters that inhabit it are a direct result of the conscious or subconscious motivation for getting involved in fandom in the first place.
The Atta-Boy
ATTENTION NEW WRITERS: Up to this point, it may appear to you that I'm letting you completely off the hook, that I'm saying your stuff isn't all bad. Wrong. Some of it may very well be awful. But - then again... maybe not. Look inside yourself, find your own motivation for entering fandom, and then seek out those of like mind. If you find them and you have talent, even if it's not as great as others, you will find your niche and reap your rewards. If you get rejections, it will probably be for one of two reasons: either the work wasn't good enough (for whatever technical reasons that we will not go into here), or you sent it to the wrong place. But - the one per son who is not qualified to decide if your work is bad is you. You also have to know the difference between destructive and constructive criticism and be prepared to take the latter in the spirit in which it is offered. No one can write without a good editor (Homer didn't have one, and if you're read THE ILIAD, you can see he desperately needed one) and learn anything about writing. It would be a sin (no religious inference) to have a potential talent lost because an editor didn't recognize it, or a writer gave up too soon.