Constructive Rejection Iteration
Turn each informed rejection into a better submission and another attempt
- Difficulty
- Moderate
- Time to result
- ~months to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 98%
McFarlane treated rejection letters as an iterative training system rather than a final verdict. He sent samples repeatedly to every editor who could assign work, bypassing the single submission editor because the individual editors ultimately made hiring decisions. When someone took the time to reply, he treated the criticism as valuable evidence, revised his work, and sent a new batch. In his description, the number of mistakes gradually fell from roughly 20 to 18, 16, 15, and eventually about six. The method combines broad access to decision-makers, careful extraction of informed criticism, targeted revision, and another attempt. Persistence is therefore not mere repetition: each cycle must reduce identifiable weaknesses until enthusiasm plus improving competence earns a trial opportunity.
Origin
McFarlane developed the method while sending roughly 700 sample packages during four years of college before receiving his first Marvel assignment.
Core principles
- 01A detailed rejection contains evidence that silence does not
- 02Improvement comes from removing specific mistakes one batch at a time
- 03Reach the people who can actually authorize the opportunity
- 04Persistence works best when each attempt is measurably better
How to run it
- 1
Map the decision-makers
Identify everyone who can directly authorize the opportunity. Do not assume a central submission channel is the only useful route.
Pro tip McFarlane sent samples to all 16 Marvel editors rather than relying only on the submission editor.
Watch out Keep outreach relevant and professional rather than indiscriminately spamming people.
- 2
Submit a complete batch
Put the current version of the work in front of the decision-makers. Treat it as a real test of present skill, not a promise of future potential.
Pro tip Use the same batch broadly enough to expose recurring feedback.
Watch out Do not wait for perfection before gathering external evidence.
- 3
Extract informed criticism
Record the concrete shortcomings named by people who respond. Give weight to feedback from reviewers who invested time in explaining the rejection.
Pro tip Look for the same weakness appearing in more than one response.
Watch out Silence reveals less about the work than a specific critique.
- 4
Remove mistakes
Revise the next batch to eliminate the clearest recurring errors. Aim for a lower mistake count rather than an abstract feeling of improvement.
Pro tip Work on a small set of visible weaknesses per cycle.
Watch out Do not repeat identical submissions and call it persistence.
- 5
Resubmit and repeat
Send the improved batch back into the market and collect the next round of evidence. Continue while the work is improving and the downside remains acceptable.
Pro tip Use a bounded runway, as McFarlane did during college, to sustain the process.
Watch out Persistence and delusion can look similar when no learning occurs.
In the wild
During college, McFarlane continually sent samples to editors across comic-book companies. The people who replied identified weaknesses, so he revised the next batch and sent it again. He describes reducing a notional 20 mistakes to 18, then 16, 15, and eventually about six. Three weeks before graduation, Marvel gave him his first pages.
→ Repeated feedback-driven improvement produced his first professional comic-book assignment.
Common mistakes
Repeating without improving
Sending the same flawed work again creates volume but does not reduce the reasons for rejection.
Stopping at the gatekeeper
A central intake function may filter submissions, while the people who can assign work sit elsewhere.
Confusing persistence with proof
A high attempt count is not evidence of progress unless the work or response changes.
Is it for you?
Best for
People entering a selective field where qualified reviewers occasionally explain why the work falls short.
Not ideal for
Situations where repeated attempts carry severe downside or reviewers provide no usable signal.
From the transcript
“So I would send it to all 16 editors.”
“Everything they put in those letters was constructive criticism.”
“So where I was making 20 mistakes, eventually it got down to 18 and then 16 and then 15.”
From the episode
#639: Todd McFarlane, Legendary Comic Book Artist — How to Make Iconic Art, Reinvent Spider-Man, Live Life on Your Own Terms, and Meet Every Deadline