Writers do not relish rejections. That is supposedly the sentiment one has when volumes of work lay there in front of your eyes waiting to be placed somewhere. Placed somewhere? Absolutely not, that cannot be an appropriate approach to the hours you have spent, while preventing anyone from stepping into your world of words.
A reclusive figure becomes almost a disgusting character. Society does not recognize you when you step out in that dishevelled look; different kinds of emotions and imaginations inflict enough suffering on the previously known character.
It’s an odd predicament for writers, and their tale of woes can become a rather gloomy piece of literature. We usually concentrate on what the writers compose, but their struggles and confrontations with realities of life are rarely discussed. Being critical of a piece of literature is easy, but that should start after comprehending the social settings and struggles of a writer.
When we say, “Art demonstrates the realities of life” it does not have to be, merely a cliche, but readers should explore the truth behind each writing and composition. While this is one aspect of understanding literature, the writer should also care not to concentrate only on the personal accounts of life and make it a unidimensional narrative, which does not provide the scope for discussion.
Stories, how well they may have been composed, or how exemplary a piece of Art is, will face some sort of resentment and rejection due to perception problems. Any literature and Art, that has transgressed the stubborn boundaries of society have been ostracised and the creator of such Art have been banished. Much later, in the future, somehow, they have shown resilience and emerged from the darkness of collective consciousness to make an impact in the creative world.
It is a common fallacy to trash any creative effort that challenges the usual etiquette of daily life. Rejections are harsh and also unforgiving. A creative individual may have to live in oblivion due to such frivolous disapproval, without actually reading the real sentiments of creativity.
Although we realize that such behaviour is not only unjustified but usually initiated by pseudo-connoisseurs or critics who have managed to create an impact on the literary and artistic world due to their entertainingly vitriolic reviews.
Maybe, the moralistic drama has to be one of the most unscrupulous critiques (so as one would like to portray in all seriousness with the help of some jargon to impress their followers) that can not only develop an erroneous perception about creativity but also curtail the future of a creative individual.
Due to this fear of rejection and criticism, there is a propensity to create tedious work, which is more in tune with the usual. There are numerous platforms to share creativity, but they lack newness. The identical works prove to be algorithmic winners. The phenomenon will continue to satisfy for a brief period and will be forgotten. They do not possess the capability to re-emerge from oblivion to create an impact in the future. Instant gratification in creativity may be an entertaining circus across social media and other creative platforms, but the applause will temporary and forgotten sooner.
The truth is, rejection hurts. One has to endure them and try creating more work in such struggling moments to be more daring with the imaginations, to come up with even more substantial work. I believe rejections help the writer/artist to introspect and push the boundaries even further. The only outcome of that resilience can be better work, without compromising on quality and effort. Through the barriers of rejection, creativity will emerge stronger, embellished with the heroism.