The combination of honesty and writing skill usually makes for a compelling read, and SLG editor Jennifer DeGuzman’s blog fits the bill. This time a bit of Googling turns up some online reactions from people whose pitches she rejected:
Item the first. This artist is upset that the letter is not signed and that it offers no constructive criticism. His friends call me an “asshole” and “douchebag,”* too, for writing on the rejection letter “We already rejected this last year.” Because I totally should have taken into account that the story and art are more developed! Maybe so, but unless we wrote to you saying, “We might reconsider this if you improve the story and art,” we are rejecting the project. Not just the current version of the project. And now I remember this submission and resubmission. Perhaps the art and story were more developed, but it still was not for us. Sorry. Keep working at it. Perhaps if I had time when the rejection had gone out, I would have told this fellow that he has good ideas but he does not yet have the skill to bring them into fruition as a publishable comic, in my opinion. But I thought it better not to offer criticism that isn’t really constructive; this project required a detailed critique for it to improve (“write better and draw better” doesn’t really help, does it?), and I do not have time to offer that, unfortunately.
Oh, and even though Top Shelf’s rejection was personal and signed, he’s still down on them because the handwriting is messy. See what I mean? We editors must be impeccable, peerless and perfect for these people.
The second example is even better!