Rejection of article: personal account

[damyanti]

Hi
This is regarding the rejection of the article on Post-Natal Depression for a public request by client Bree.

This is the reason given for the rejection:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We could not accept your content, "Post-natal Depression: Causes, Symptoms and Cure"

Please note that we do not generally accept personal narratives/accounts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I respect the CC guidelines on not having personal accounts, I was only following customer notes when I added the personal angle.

The customer from the Aussie magazine says:
"The style of our magazine is light, practical and personal."

To inject this personal tone, I added the personal angle in the first two paras, and mentioned it in the last para. I write regularly for magazines, and have noted that they like a personal angle in the introduction.

Keeping this in mind, can this article be approved as is?

Or should I take away the personal angle and make it a cut-and-dried internet-style article?

Could I submit both versions so you could compare?

Do let me know about how to resubmit.

Thanks,
Damyanti

[Ed]

When a publication describes themselves as personal, they usually mean personable - conversational/informal. When a customer requires personal accounts, he or she will ask for that. Please read the blog post about why personal accounts are generally not accepted. http://www.constant-content.com/blog/?p=90

Thanks,
Ed

[damyanti]

Ed,
I removed the personal angle, and now the reason for the second rejection is :"redundancy, clarity/organization, and word choice", though the article is unchanged other than the removal of the "personal angle".

You guys are sure good for a girl's morale, lols. Anything that stays longer than two days in the queue gets rejected.

Sigh, wish I could get into editor's heads! Just kidding.

[Ed]

I'd rather consider an article for a day or two before rejecting it outright. Sometimes I'm tired and need to sleep on it, other times, maybe I just need to look at an article again in order to get a fresh perspective and weigh it against other submissions by the same author. I'm sure you'd rather I take my time than make a split-second decision that may not be warranted.

It's typically good practice to reread an article completely after it has been rejected and make any improvements that can be made. Authors should not depend solely upon editorial rejections; it is, after all, your work, and a day or two can make a world of difference in how you see your article. Please consider that I sometimes see 100 articles a day, which means that authors should take responsibility for submitting their best work and see rejections as opportunities to make improvements.

I don't want you to feel that I'm berating you - I just do feel like your last two submissions had issues that I'm not used to you making. I know you're open to making changes and take pride in your work, so I thought you'd rather revise.

Thanks,
Ed

[damyanti]

Hi Ed
You know I was just kidding:)

I know I can depend on you to try and be fair and square 100 % of the time.

I try and learn from the rejections here, and that learning is one of the things that lets me make good money when I write for magazines. I defend CC on other forums, and feel it is a good place for writers. You are a very big reason for CC's success, and I am sure you know that.

I am going to work on the "smooth dresser" article and resubmit, cos I know what to change. Hopefully it will get accepted the second time.

For the Post Natal depression article, I had a reputed editor in my writer's group look over it the first time it got rejected, and I made changes according to her suggestions. I get her to see all my rejected stuff, and though I rarely resubmit and get accepted, I learn from the experience.I guess I am jinxed at resubmissions lol. I simply don't know what to do with that "Post-natal depression" article to make it work so I guess I will just bin it.

I suppose I will submit new articles and see if you like them.....and Ed, I'd still reaaaaally love to look inside that head of yours! :)

[Ed]

Nothing in there to see!

I think where I had the most issues with the post-natal depression article was in the descriptions of the emotions. Other authors had this problem, too - both male and female authors, which I found interesting (though not necessarily surprising). For example, I felt that you were trying to say (short version): Many women may feel down after the birth of a child, but if a woman's feelings of fear, despair, sadness (etc) are severe and last longer than usual, she may be diagnosed with post-natal depression.

In the introduction of your article, it seems that you sort of dance around the subject instead of coming to the point. There isn't a clear contrast between the descriptions of women who simply feel "down" and the women who experience post-natal depression. For example, you stress how natural it may be to feel these emotions, but kind of take the long route in explaining why post-natal depression is different. Bear in mind - this was late at night when I was considering your article and almost 12 hours have passed since I've seen it, so I could be off the mark relying on memory.

Maybe shelve it for a few days or a week or two, but you might pull it out later to see that the solutions are clear.

Thanks,
Ed

[damyanti]

Thanks, Ed, for your explanation of the issues, I think I can see some light already:). Will shelf it for now, and have a look at it again after a few weeks.

Submitting another article today, not to any request. Let us see how it goes.I know I should not take rejections personally, but I guess we writers are a mega-sensitive bunch lols.....

Hopefully I get back my run of acceptances again! *crosses fingers, arms, legs, eyes!*

[damyanti]

Well, the new article I submitted got accepted, so now I am hoping I am submitting "on par" articles:) Just submitted another one today, hopefully it works.