If I was an editor, I wouldn’t want to explain my decision to a writer if I rejected their work. Somehow, I get why editors generally do this. A decision may fit the editor’s criteria for rejecting a piece, but a decision can also be quite subtle and lucid rather than fully defined. There’s just this sense that a piece is not quite right. So, the editor passes on it after due consideration and an explanation should not be forthcoming from a subtle sense of uncertainty over a piece. How could you define it? So, writers should be assured that sometimes there are not explanations for rejecting a piece — the feeling just wasn’t right. Anyone should be able to ascertain this through their own decisions over selecting or rejecting things where, sometimes, the feeling is the basis for the decision and it just didn’t feel right. I know I do.
After a long break, his writing boss gave him a conundrum to work out and think a lot about. A conundrum, he queried? This is easy, he thought. The conundrum was this: he may tell someone to avoid the latest and then tell them to watch a meaningful, but praise by default. Then, the man who supposedly said that disappeared. What happened to him? Did he actually say it? Who was he? He was a bit tired after four weeks on holiday, but the topic was so edgy he wrote a whole essay on that, and went on holiday again, after losing his computer.
More over, some thoughts about my writing: When I write non-fiction articles I must be careful about writing about real issues, which can be treated sensitively or tactfully, no matter my point of view. Thinking about how my point of view is going to be received by the reader so I try to write the point of view as palatably and effectively as possible.
In this summary, of an article I wrote for Challenge Weekly in 2005, New Zealand Marist Brother Richard Dunleavy who had been in Rome for 13 years, explained how Pope Benedict XVI would fulfil his role as Pope. “I believe he is really ‘conservationist’ in regard to the truths of the Church as updated and described at Vatican II. His bases are natural law, scripture and authentic tradition,” said Brother Richard. Pope’s Benedict’s “depth of understanding of post-modern culture means that he will always be seeking to communicate with the secular world, especially in Europe, but never at the expense of the truths as he sees them.” Pope Benedict has since moved on as Pope, making way for the current Pope, Pope Francis.
Maybe a writer expects the piece won’t be that good — and that’s what I thought about a review I did six-and-a-half years ago, a review I forgot existed, but discovered when I did some digging around in my filing cabinet. Alas, it was better than I thought, and if I may, much better than I thought!