Month: March 2019

Rotten Reviews and Rejections

Happy Sunday, everyone! I hope you’re all having a great weekend so far. As usual, I’m spending mine working. (I’m still trying to find work/life balance as a freelancer.) However, I have also been spending it reading a book I got a couple weeks ago called Pushcart’s Complete Rotten Reviews & Rejections, edited by Bill Henderson and Andre Bernard. I’ve been getting such a kick out of it that I had to share it with all of you, yet I don’t want to do one of my typical book reviews. Instead, I want to go through a couple of these “rotten” reviews and rejections which I think that struggling writers would get a kick out of and find encouragement in.

First, I’ll explain what Rotten Reviews & Rejections is about. As the title suggests, it’s a collection of some of the harsher rejections and reviews of popular works–some of the “reviews” are of the writers themselves! This book takes reviews and rejections from as far back as 411 B.C.E. (seriously) to its publication in 1998. There also notes on famous writers’ rejections and struggles, commentary on the art of reviewing, and writers’ remarks on negative reviews and rejections.

Now that you know roughly what the book contains, I want to dive into the first rotten review/rejection. I’ll start with what I consider to be the most absurd:

…a copyeditor’s despair, a propounder of endless riddles.

Atlantic Monthly on Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language (1962)

I want you to take a careful look at the subject of the Atlantic Monthly‘s critique, Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English Language. I have never paid attention to reviews of dictionaries before unless I had an odd experience with that dictionary. Even then, the negative reviews have more pertained to incorrect spelling or definitions, missing words, etc. To find such a negative review of a dictionary which does not have to do with egregious errors took me by complete surprise. The lesson? All books get negative reviews, even ones as commonplace as dictionaries.

The next review really does not pull any punches:

…unmanly, sickening, vicious (though not exactly what is called ‘improper’), and tedious.

Athenaeum on The Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar Wilde

Well, at least they called it “not exactly what is called ‘improper'”. That’s something, right? It’s not the most negative or vicious review I have seen, but it’s not exactly rosy, either. The Picture of Dorian Gray is counted among Oscar Wilde’s best works. This clash between the review and the novel’s future success proves that no matter how bad a review seems when you read it, it won’t necessarily dictate the fate of your work. There are many, many other readers out there, and if they like your writing, they’ll make sure that you succeed. (Fun fact: the editor of Lippincott’s Monthly Magazine, in which The Picture of Dorian Gray was first published, feared so much that the story was indecent that he deleted roughly five hundred words from it before publication without Oscar Wilde’s knowledge. British book reviewers still took offense with the novel.)

Image retrieved from Amazon

Of course, before we get to the rotten reviews, we have to get through the rotten rejections. I’ve shown you some rotten rejections of famous works before, but those are only the tip of the iceberg. Fortunately, rejections nowadays are usually just generic form letters, so the personal insults are limited. Just be glad that you haven’t received a rejection like this one:

You’re welcome to le Carre–he hasn’t got any future.

Rejection for The Spy Who Came in from the Cold by John le Carre

Ouch. I have to admit, I’m not sure if this would make me want to crawl into a hole and never come out or prove the publisher/editor wrong. As you might have guessed, le Carre seems to have gone with the latter. It doesn’t seem likely that rejections will get so personal as to be this painful in the modern age, but the next time that you feel the sting of a rejection form letter, remember that le Carre didn’t these harsh words get in his way, so you shouldn’t let one or even one hundred rejection letters get in your way, either.

I get a little too much of a giggle from the last rotten rejection/review I’ll be discussing in this post, although it might have to do more with the novel than the actual rejection:

We regret to say that our united opinion is entirely against the book as we do not think it would be at all suitable for the Juvenile Market in [England.] It is very long, rather old-fashioned, and in our opinion not deserving of the reputation which is seems to enjoy.

Rejection of Moby-Dick by Herman Melville

I am not a big fan of Moby-Dick. It’s ironic since my own published essay was written on a chapter of Moby-Dick, but the novel just never caught my interest or kept me engaged. Perhaps it was the excessive talk of whaling. (While this wasn’t the reason why I originally disliked the book, I now cringe at the mention of the title because I had ancestors on the Essex, which served as inspiration for Moby-Dick. If you don’t know why that makes me cringe, check out the Wikipedia article.)

Regardless of my own opinions of the novel, it is still considered a classic and a Great American Novel. Its origins, however, include a rather rotten rejection and mixed reception when it finally was published. How novels become “classics” is a great mystery to most. That’s why you can’t just let a rejection–or a thousand–tear you down. Revisit your work, improve it however you can, and try again. Eventually, you’ll find that editor, publisher, or agent who has just been waiting for work like yours. Who knows, your multi-rejection novel or poetry collection might just become a modern classic.

The best way to handle rejections and negative reviews is to take them in, digest them, and determine if you can use the feedback to improve upon that or future works. However, sometimes you will come across rejections and reviews which are just spiteful and unproductive–in one word, rotten. You need to remember that every writer gets them at some point in their career. All you can do is take a deep breath, put the rejection or review aside, and move on with your life. Don’t feed the trolls; feed your writing.

You can get a paperback copy of Rotten Reviews & Rejections on Amazon. I will also be discussing more of these reviews and rejections in future posts, so keep an eye out!

Have you ever received a particularly painful rejection or review? Know of one for a famous writer/work? Leave your stories in the comments below!


Designed by Stephanie Hoogstad circa 2011

Book Reviews: In God We Trust: Morally Responsible Investing by George P. Schwartz

We all have our own belief systems—religious, political, social, etc.—and we try to follow these beliefs in everything we do. They influence how we interact with others, the causes we support, and even where we spend our money. Yet when it comes to investment, a troublesome question arises: if we only invest in companies which share our values or avoid ones which directly violate them, will we ever be able to make a profit? The subject of today’s review, In God We Trust: Morally Responsible Investing by George P. Schwartz, shows that this practice is not only capable of turning a profit but can also help us influence the world for the better.

In God We Trust introduces readers to a concept which the author calls “Morally Responsible Investing”. Through a mixture of personal anecdotes, statistics, history, and financial and moral advice, Schwartz guides readers through the ins and outs of Morally Responsible Investing, including what it is, what it takes to partake in this investment practice, and the benefits of investing in this manner. Along the way, Schwartz shows readers his own history with Morally Responsible Investing and how the Catholic-values-based firm, Ave Maria Mutual Funds, achieved its high level of success.

Image retrieved from Amazon

Immediately I must point out that the readers who will benefit most from this book will have two very specific beliefs: pro-life and anti-pornography. In particular, Catholic investors or potential Catholic investors will find Schwartz and Kennedy’s views and approaches most helpful. However, there is no discrimination against non-Catholics in this book; so long as you are pro-life and anti-pornography and wish for your investments to reflect these beliefs, In God We Trust is for you.

The author’s religious, moral, political, and financial opinions will also be a significant turn-off for readers with more liberal views, specifically the chapters which go in-depth about abortion and pornography. As I myself am a liberal agnostic, the book often did not mesh with my own beliefs. Regardless, it was fascinating to read about a successful example of basing investments on how well a company’s morals align with one’s own. Perhaps one of the most universal concepts in this book, one which could help anyone of any belief system while investing, comes from the first page of the introduction:

When we invest in a company, we become an owner, and our investment contributes to the company’s success. Are we comfortable with what we own? Does the enterprise reflect our core beliefs? If not, what opportunities exist to invest in a manner that does reflect these beliefs?


George P. Schwartz, In God We Trust, Loc 93 of Kindle eBook

While Schwartz occasionally offers these bits of self-reflection which would be applicable when investing based on any number of morals, I must emphasize that this book is prominently about Morally Responsible Investing—which focuses on supporting “the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family”—rather than Socially Responsible Investing, which covers a wide variety of economic, political, and environmental issues. In God We Trust is most certainly a niche book, but one which its niche will find incredibly valuable.

Putting aside any religious, moral, or political differences I may have with Schwartz, In God We Trust is written very well. Despite its potentially dry subjects—investment and morality—the author maintains a personable, engaging tone throughout the book. Even when discussing the more technical aspects of how finances and investment—particularly Morally Responsible Investing—work, the writing feels as though I am having a conversation directly with Schwartz. His passion as well as his knowledge of these subjects seeps through every word, and readers are bound to feel it.

In addition to laying out the basics of Morally Responsible Investing and showing how it can be successful, Schwartz provides readers with a list of discussion questions for each chapter. These questions, while related to the subject of its corresponding chapter, are open-ended and allow for the readers to think more deeply about what they have read. With these questions, readers can learn to understand the concepts this book has shown them better as well as discuss them with other like-minded investors or potential investors.

The book is not perfect, though. It is well-researched, and this research has been carefully documented so that readers will be able to look into these subjects further. In fact, Schwartz places a list of sources after every chapter which calls for it. While I always appreciate when writers cite their sources, this constant interruption after so many chapters disrupts the flow of the overall book. For me, it proved to be quite the annoying and unnecessary distraction since the sources could have been compiled into one complete list of sources at the end of the book along with the appendices and index.

In addition to this larger disruption, I also noticed multiple incidents when words should have been hyphenated but were not. The average reader will most likely not even notice these errors. Still, as I am so detail-oriented and a stickler for proper grammar in most cases, this lack of hyphenation acted as a minor distraction during my reading.

Overall, In God We Trust by George P. Schwartz is a thought-provoking and interesting read. It clearly details what Morally Responsible Investing is while also giving insight into the author’s background and a real-life example of this investment approach working. The concepts are easy to digest, and the discussion questions make it even easier to understand and share these ideas with others. The book’s organization in regards to the resources could have been better and additional proofreading would have been helpful, but otherwise In God We Trust has been handled very professionally in its writing and publication. Catholics and others who are pro-life and anti-pornography will want to check this book out if they are interested in investment which aligns with their values. If you have more liberal views, though, you will probably want to avoid In God We Trust.

You can buy In God We Trust in print or as an eBook or in hardcover on Amazon.

Do you know of any books I should and review? E-mail me at thewritersscrapbin@gmail.com and let me know!


Designed by Stephanie Hoogstad circa 2011