Over on Pub Rants, Agent Kristin wrote an entry about a teenage girl's parent sending her a nasty e-mail, after she rejected the query. The gist of her message is: Publishing is a business, and rejections are part of the biz. She also went on to cushion the blow a bit by calling them "a badge of honor."

I said the following:

As a writer, I don't know that I'd call rejections a "badge of honor". I find it a little off-putting when writers go around bragging via link or sig that they've submitted to 100, 200, 300 (sometimes more!) agents and been rejected. That astonishes me. Think of what you're putting on the Internet, for goodness sake! I mean, would you be excited to hire an attorney who pronounced gleefully that he'd lost his last 500 cases, but he was sure his luck was about to turn? I think it's more a learning experience than a badge of honor, and the important thing is to keep improving.

That encapsulates my thoughts on the subject pretty well. I don't see any reason to hang rejections on the wall or put them on the fridge, or whatever. If the agent said something useful as applies to improving the work, then extrapolate and move on. Michele Lee wrote a response, sparked by my comment. Foremost I can't help feeling flattered that I spurred someone to blog. That's an ego stroke, even if she simply wanted to expound on the reasons why she thinks I'm wrong. I understand her points, and it's commendable that she wants to help others, but I would argue that a writer owes allegiance first and foremost to her own career, if she truly wants to succeed.

Thus, I fail to see the value of broadcasting failure. The fact of the matter is, if you make that information readily available, if you query an agent who might click the link in your sig (and Miss Snark has said she does from time to time, she even posted a warning about making sure your site / blogs are ready for primetime), what's that agent going to think when she sees you've been rejected 234 times this year? More than likely, that's going to put some prejudice in her mind; if you've been rejected 234 times this year, they don't expect you to be good, even if you are. Why create an extra hurdle to overcome? By cleaving to past rejections, you're shooting yourself in the foot, plain and simple.

Review, revise, move on. If you write because you have to, because you love it, because the people in your head will drive you crazy if you don't, it doesn't matter if 500 people reject your stuff before number 501 sees the genius. You're the only one who needs to know that and you can feel proud of your perseverance. But if you put it on your website or blog, you're just making it harder than it needs to be, and it's already an uphill battle, both ways, barefoot in the snow... you get the pic, no?

As always, this is just my opinion. That and $3.00 will get you coffee at Starbucks. What do you all think?