Attention all Editors!

I'm now officially very suspicious. How does one determine what is the difference between a coincidence and borrowing in the writing world? One of the major reasons why I switched to freelancing from past work was because I found that many columnists left much to be desired. They were not creative and imaginative enough. One of my strengths is to draw on history and apply them to contemporary settings. I don't mean plucking historical events and pasting them on the present in any adhoc and careless manner so prevalent these days, but in a thoughtful way that respects the past and present.

It's a few articles and queries I send out that get unceremonioulsy rejected. At least I get the "very well-written" or "great idea" and "but does not fit our needs at this time" bit. However, something odd is going on. Last year I sent in a solid and timely piece about Canadian politics to the 'National Post' only to be told that 'it could not be used.' Yet, a couple of days later (2 max) an article with the exact same premise and content was published. My wife and I chalked it up to coincidence. "There are no big or little coincidences. Just coincidences!" Ah, that Seinfeld.

Anyway, as my wife, the educator, has pointed out "imagine if you had the resources what you could do!" Hey, I hang on to every piece of encouragement. Ever since I began to blog many of my posts have been linked to other blogs under various "check this out" and "best of the blogs" monikers. It's a way of measuring your work.

I also have been doing some radio work and this brings me to my next bit of suspicion. I called in to a radio sports show to correct some soccer stats and provide fresh one concerning the Italy/France match. Next thing I know, they are running with it. The stats I used were the sort I have always wondered why they were not used more. I guess it just needed to be put out there. Again, all this does is it shows relevance.

More intriguing is when I opened the sports pages and read a piece about the game this morning. There it was. A journalist from the 'London Telegraph' describing Italian soccer as an uneasy mix between 'beauty and Machiavelli.' I was floored. I wrote the EXACT same comparison on this blog (Italia versus La France). I have been reading about soccer for decades and have never heard anyone begin to describe Italy in this way. Why now? Why not in 2002 or 1998? They always had that split personality. I write about it and suddenly POOF! These are just some selections I have printed. The post is getting too long as it is.

Personally, I have many similar analogies and metaphors I have used for years. At the very least, I have never seen the Montreal Gazette come remotely close to being as creative when it comes to such descriptions about the Azzurri.

Probably just a coincidence but odd nonetheless.