Publishing a Physical Review Letter in Napoleon's dictionary

My recent submission to the journal, named Physical Review Letters (PRL), has received a letter of rejection and is the cause for this note.

When the credential of a creator and the quality of its judgment mismatch vastly, there arise discouragement and perplexity. Here, any reasonable and futuristic person would generate some amount of inspiration or temptation to compare the root of his present failure with the determinant of his past success. But if the quotient between them gains a satisfactory value, it further leaves him unsatisfied.

Now one desires to attain the strength of nerve and calmness of head to deal with it. He would eventually achieve them in the mood of accepting the past as well as in the spirit of moving on with it. He would then perhaps search for a mean - may be few words of support or some flame of hope - to resist his impulse of blaming the others for his failure. 

Suppose, he finally earns the aspiration to rather improve his grade of quality and to learn the elements for this failure.  This is an experience good for his future, and that is good, but what about this past? No one has taught him how to go back and fix it. Only his adviser once said "What is done can not be undone, but you can try to undo it". He is not sure though what his adviser meant by that.

This is perhaps the unprinted law of injustice nature has written for us. The word ‘impossible’ might not be there in Napoleon's dictionary, but he does not carry Napoleon's dictionary.