>Recently, I moaned about a tiny, badly cut-out rejction slip I received. I didn’t mention the name of the magazine, which I happen to like and with the editors of which I have occasionally corresponded. We’re not into burning bridges here, after all. But it didn’t surprise me entirely when said editor contacted me because he recognized his magazine’s “work” and also was aware, after checking, that I’d recently had a piece rejected.
To his credit, and my relief, he wasn’t upset about the comment and actually asked for suggestions as to how their standard rejection could be improved. My basic answer is that bigger is better and I don’t particularly care what the rejection slip says. If I’m not getting personal comments, the printed “no thank you” isn’t something I’m going to study for very long. But I understand that cost is a factor and so is time. A full page rejection slip seems unnecessary. There isn’t that much to say, after all, and folding it to fit in the SASE is a waste of time. So I concluded, and suggested, that the ideal size would be one-third of a page: big enough to be taken seriously and to include personal comments if warranted, but without requiring folding to fit in the standard envelope. Paper weight is a factor too; I don’t need card stock, but something heavier than cheap photocopy paper would be nice.
So, thanks for listening and taking my moment of ill-humor seriously.