The other day, I promised to publish my personal essay on EzineArticles.com (in addition to Associated Content), and to provide the link.

Unfortunately, EzineArticles.com refused to published the article, claiming it's libelous. I assume they mean libelous against Mars candy, but I can't really see why they think it's libelous.

I've blogged about the definition of libel before, but to sum up here, libel is written material that is falsely defamatory. That means that if you can prove that what you wrote is TRUE, it's not libel. Another defense is if the material is clearly written as your opinion.

I think EzineArticles.com is complaining about my opening sentence, which reads:

The other day I received an email from PETA: They have discovered that the Mars candy company is testing on animals, and are using their usual brilliant marketing approach to make sure everyone else knows it, too.

Personally, I don't think that can be considered libelous, as I'm simply stating what the email from PETA says, which is easy enough to prove.

The only other mention of Mars is when I mentioned emailing the company, daring them to watch PETA's video on animal testing.

EzineArticles.com gave me the choice of revising the articles so that they could publish it, but I opted not to, for two reasons:

1) I don't feel it's libelous, and

2) The parts they presumably want me to change are the point for writing the entire essay, and I think by changing them I would risk compromising the essay's message.

Sadly, what this means is that for right now, Associated Content is the only website running my essay. I'm sorry that I wasn't able to keep my promise, but I intend to keep trying to publish the essay elsewhere — I'll let you know if anything comes of it!

Labels: personal essays, rejection

I received a rejection letter today from Orchid, where I had submitted one of my short stories. Although it was just a form letter, it was the nicest form rejection letter I've ever received. Here's an excerpt:

Your story was carefully read. We're sorry to report that your story does not meet our needs at this time. We're writers, too, and understand the disappointment of rejection. Please keep in mind that we're all in good company. The average story is rejected 25 or more times before being accepted.

The letter goes on to list rejections of now-famous works.

This form letter was more encouraging than many of the scribbled personal notes I've received in rejection letters. Way to go, Orchid, for rejecting the work without rejecting the author!

Labels: fiction writing, rejection

Rejection is one of the topics that gets revisited frequently in writer's forums and blog threads. With that in mind, I found this NPR story, about some of the famous writers rejected by Alfred A. Knopf, very interesting. The radio spot mentions now-classic works such as George Orwell's Animal Farm ("impossible to sell animal stories in the U.S.A.") and Jack Kerouac's On the Road ("a badly misdirected talent" and "huge, sprawling, and inconclusive novel"). Sylvia Plath and Anne Frank (submitted by relatives or friends, I'm guessing?) are also mentioned as being among Knopf's rejects.

(As a side note, something I found interesting about this little radio spot is that apparently, against all rules of English pronunciation, "Knopf" is not pronounced with a silent "k". In fact, none of the letters in this publisher's name are silent. Repeat after me: "Kin-op-ffffff.")

Stories like these are always encouraging to writers, because it helps us weather those rejection notices some of us receive by the dozens. Maybe we're not the next George Orwell or Jack Kerouac — but if these literary geniuses received such scathing rejection notices, maybe the form rejections we receive don't necessarily reflect on our writing abilities, after all.

Labels: other writers, rejection