penny for your notes

Sylvia Plath: There certainly isn’t enough genuine talent for us to take notice.

Rudyard Kipling: I’m sorry Mr. Kipling, but you just don’t know how to use the English language.

Emily Dickinson: [Your poems] are quite as remarkable for defects as for beauties and are generally devoid of true poetical qualities.

Ernest Hemingway (on The Torrents of Spring): It would be extremely rotten taste, to say nothing of being horribly cruel, should we want to publish it.

Dr. Seuss: Too different from other juveniles on the market to warrant its selling.

The Diary of Anne Frank: The girl doesn’t, it seems to me, have a special perception or feeling which would lift that book above the ‘curiosity’ level.

Richard Bach (on Jonathan Livingston Seagull): will never make it as a paperback. (Over 7.25 million copies sold)

H.G. Wells (on The War of the Worlds): An endless nightmare. I do not believe it would “take”…I think the verdict would be ‘Oh don’t read that horrid book’. And (on The Time Machine): It is not interesting enough for the general reader and not thorough enough for the scientific reader.

Edgar Allan Poe: Readers in this country have a decided and strong preference for works in which a single and connected story occupies the entire volume.

Herman Melville (on Moby Dick): 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…

Jack London: [Your book is] forbidding and depressing.

William Faulkner: If the book had a plot and structure, we might suggest shortening and revisions, but it is so diffuse that I don’t think this would be of any use. My chief objection is that you don’t have any story to tell. And two years later: Good God, I can’t publish this!

Stephen King (on Carrie): We are not interested in science fiction which deals with negative utopias. They do not sell.

Joseph Heller (on Catch–22): I haven’t really the foggiest idea about what the man is trying to say… Apparently the author intends it to be funny – possibly even satire – but it is really not funny on any intellectual level … From your long publishing experience you will know that it is less disastrous to turn down a work of genius than to turn down talented mediocrities.

George Orwell (on Animal Farm): It is impossible to sell animal stories in the USA.

Oscar Wilde (on Lady Windermere’s Fan): My dear sir, I have read your manuscript. Oh, my dear sir.

Vladimir Nabokov (on Lolita): … overwhelmingly nauseating, even to an enlightened Freudian … the whole thing is an unsure cross between hideous reality and improbable fantasy. It often becomes a wild neurotic daydream … I recommend that it be buried under a stone for a thousand years.

The Tale of Peter Rabbit was turned down so many times, Beatrix Potter initially self-published it.

Lust for Life by Irving Stone was rejected 16 times, but found a publisher and went on to sell about 25 million copies.

John Grisham’s first novel was rejected 25 times.

Jack Canfield and Mark Victor Hansen (Chicken Soup for the Soul) received 134 rejections.

Robert Pirsig (Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance) received 121 rejections.

Gertrude Stein spent 22 years submitting before getting a single poem accepted.

Judy Blume, beloved by children everywhere, received rejections for two straight years.

A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L’Engle received 26 rejections.

Frank Herbert’s Dune was rejected 20 times.

Carrie by Stephen King received 30 rejections.

The Diary of Anne Frank received 16 rejections.

Harry Potter and The Philosopher’s Stone by J.K. Rolling was rejected 12 times.

A sunny day spread. 📒☕️✨

190607 // chasing the moon 🌙

-

-

-

instagram: gloss.paradox

100 DAYS OF PRODUCTIVITY [46/100] 7.6.19 - two eggs

Valentina Remenar on Instagram

so it’s 4am and you’ve had three cups of coffee but you’ve only written two sentences. you look at the prompt and find it has ceased to make sense. “how the fuck am i gonna turn this into a 17-page paper” you ask. 

never fear! your friendly neighborhood college fuckup is here with an answer. buckle down and get another cup of coffee; you’re in this for the long haul. (literally. this post got long because i’m apparently incapable of writing short posts, but i also pulled a 3.9 cGPA using this method so i’d say it’s worth the read.)

first, a cheat: email your professor and ask if you can use subheaders. subheaders eliminate the need for smooth transitions between portions of your argument and also create a ton of white space, which can help you reach page count. 

second, a tip: don’t be afraid to meet with your prof. this essay probably isn’t a take-home exam; it’s likely that your prof set this paper to give you a chance to learn and write about something you enjoy. shoot your prof an email saying “hey, this is what i’m thinking, this is what i’m struggling with, can i meet with you to talk it out?” 9 times out of 10, your prof will say yes. if they say no, talk to another prof in the same discipline. otherwise talk to your uni writing center or a friend of yours. worse come to worst, shoot me a message.

what you’re gonna do now is outline the fuck out of your paper to procrastinate actually writing it. 

step 1: take apart the prompt. it’ll be asking for a few different things; mark these things with different cues: brackets, underlining, different colored pens, whatever. this structures your response.

if you don’t know your thesis yet, that’s fine! let it develop naturally as you conduct your research and plan your argument. you can change it as you go - that’s the point of researching the topic. no one will know what your first draft thesis was.

step 2: look at the dismembered prompt. write bullets with brief explanations for how you’ll attack each part of the prompt. these can be detailed or as vague as “look up that one reading and use it as a counter argument.” then figure out the best way to organize the bullets. if nothing makes sense, that’s fine too. you can write each chunk of your argument and structure it later.

these bullets make good subheaders. js.

step 3: under each bullet from step 2, list out what info and evidence you need for that aspect of your argument. don’t worry about details yet; focus on structure. write these bullets as though you’re talking to a friend about what your argument is and why is works. let it be stupid. let it be simple. say shit like “freud was a bitch and i can prove it.” 

step 4: now that you have a rough draft of your outline, go back and fill in the details. remember, you’re still outlining! you’re basically redoing step 3 with the bullets you made in step 3. this is the part where i take the most time and put in the most effort.

i tend to reach page/word count easily if my outline is half the length the paper needs to be, so i keep outlining until i reach that point. this ratio might be different for you. if you can figure out your ratio, it can tell you if you need to look for more info or if you’re good to go.

make a note of what you’re citing but don’t worry about actual citations. i like using gdocs because you can easily paste a link to your source in a comment. this way, the sources don’t clutter up your doc or artificially inflate your page or word count.

be silly! be stupid! use swear words and memes and internet lingo. you’re just outlining right now; you don’t need to sound smart and professional. you should be focusing on what you want to say, not how to say it.

by the end of this process, my outline is basically my paper in bulletpoint format, without any fancy jargon or quotes or cited evidence, and usually not in complete sentences. i’ve essentially tricked myself into writing my paper by saying “i’m just outlining, it doesn’t really matter.” it’s also less daunting to write the rest of the paper when you know you already have 9 pages done instead of 0.

step 5: write the damn thing! open a fresh doc for your paper and view it side-by-side with your outline. now you get to make your bullets sound pretentious and academic. insert quotes and other evidence. turn “freud was a bitch” into “freud knowingly perpetuated several falsehoods for the sake of his personal gain, thereby undoing decades of progress in the field of psychology.” 

don’t worry about citations right now, though! do what you did in your outline and insert the citations as comments at the points where they need to be. creating citations will interrupt your flow.

step 6: once your paper is done, go back and add citations! this can take up to an hour depending on how many sources you have, so budget your time appropriately. 

the softest saturdays <3

i’m ready for take off ✈️