The Journal of Universal Rejection

The Journal of Universal Rejection

Billing themselves as “the most prestigious journal (judged by acceptance rate),” the Journal of Universal Rejection is founded upon the principle of rejection. They solicit submissions of all types and deny all, claiming a 0% acceptance rate. Their archive of back issues begins at March 2009 and goes through December 2010, with each publication empty (except the final one, which was lost through a server crash and is only presumed empty).

As composers, we must become inured to rejection. Failure isn’t just something to accept, but rather is something that we should seek. The only way for an artist to continually create work that avoids failure is to create work that never truly succeeds. And when we present our works to the outside world, even the most successful among us will find that these works appeal to only a very limited number of people. In a world where classical music of all sorts accounts for a mere 2% of all recording sales and experimental music sales are a small fragment of that, rejection is a simple fact of life for composers.

With this in mind, I found something heartening about the certainty promised by the Journal of Universal Rejection. I could propose an article without wondering whether the results were a fair commentary on my shortcomings. If everyone meets the same fate, then I could court rejection and enjoy it. As the Journal website suggests, “Merely submitting to it may be considered a badge of honor.”

With the assistance of an online generator of Postmodern jargon (hosted at my alma mater, the University of Chicago), I crafted an abstract for a proposed study. I won’t replicate the wording of it here, because it actually sounded impressively academic and if I did you might think that I had worked to create such well-obfuscated writing. I just went to that link, chose from a few drop-down menus, and voilà, an article proposal on normative values. I then sent this abstract in as my submission, accompanied by the following note: “I have pasted below an abstract for an article that I hope you will reject forthwith. The fact that it was created utilizing an online postmodern sentence generator should ease your decision to reject the following.”

As the hours passed, I found myself worrying that since I hadn’t truly created an original idea, perhaps they wouldn’t consider my idea worthy of rejection. Yes, I worried that the Journal of Universal Rejection wouldn’t reject me. I’m not sure what that says about my general state of mind, but it surely can’t be good. Fortunately, later that day, I received an email with a very personal note denying my submission. My favorite part of the note was where the editor told me that he had “lost precious sleep” over the decision. This struck me as most exceptional since I had sent it in the morning and it was rejected in early afternoon. Perhaps I interrupted a nap?

NewMusicBox provides a space for those engaged with new music to communicate their experiences and ideas in their own words. Articles and commentary posted here reflect the viewpoints of their individual authors; their appearance on NewMusicBox does not imply endorsement by New Music USA.

2 thoughts on “The Journal of Universal Rejection

  1. donalfonso

    more rejection please
    I have, on more occasions than I care to admit, submitted scores to musical organizations that have (to date) simply been ignored. Most orchestras, opera companies, chamber groups, etc. have no process for the review of new work — and a standard rejection policy would be a step forward. I remember a conversation I once had with a singer about auditions. “You show up and sing your arias,” she said. “They say ‘thank you,’ and you never hear from them again. And you never find out why.” I replied, “Yes, but at least you know that they heard you.”


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Conversation and respectful debate is vital to the NewMusicBox community. However, please remember to keep comments constructive and on-topic. Avoid personal attacks and defamatory language. We reserve the right to remove any comment that the community reports as abusive or that the staff determines is inappropriate.