When I first received this email, I thought my work was being mildly insulted. The 'Thanks but no thanks' bit brings flashbacks of W.W. Norton. Next, he made my work sound like I'd just barfed on a page and sent it in for consideration. Then comes the mandatory and often insincere 'Good luck!' and a couple of lines that sort of sound like, "Well, you try hard, so you'll probably find somebody somewhere dumb enough to publish your crap eventually! Why don't you try submitting your work to places that accept stuff like you write...you know, crappy stuff?" Perhaps I should send him my rejection collection…

But a couple of things didn't sit right with this interpretation. Our rejectinator thanked me, wished me good luck, offered encouragement and suggestions and then offered best wishes again! I mean, you can always expect a insincere thanks or good luck, but three times? Maybe he felt bad for his curt opening… But no, when I reread that first sentence I notice that he isn't actually insulting my work. He's insulting his readers, basically saying 'Our readers are too dumb to appreciate your work.' Bob Marshall, now THAT's a way to reject somebody! This man is brilliant. If he isn't already the man behind the rejection letter workshops, then he ought to be!

My Rebuttal: There's no present quite as nice as a big fat rejection on your birthday. "Congratulations to you on your 26th birthday. Even after all these years, you're still unwanted." I particularly like how he used the sentence "Far, far too much loosely written, extraneous information for our readers" to convey his point. I mean, he uses the word far twice, then says loosely written AND extraneous information and it isn't a complete sentence either. Not that I'm a stickler for complete sentences in emails, but I can't think of a far, far too much more loosely written and extraneous way of conveying that point! Overall, though, I'd have to say that I was pleased with this rejection letter. Not only did the email come back the very next day, but it was personally written and offered comments on why my piece was rejected (helpful) and with suggestions (appreciated, but painfully unhelpful - why, I guess I never actually thought of sending my stuff to people who might actually want to publish it! Thanks!) and encouragement. Though the whole thing comes off as a bit cantankerous, that's what one expects of an editor. Better than most, maybe this year I'll be lucky enough to have Santa stuff my stockings with more Macleans' rejections! God bless us, everyone!