Anyway, it never occurred to me that maybe the Times had seen my piece, liked the idea, but wanted it to be written by a writer with an actual name, and thus asked Zama to write on the same topic. I was talking to my creative writing professor today, though, and she suggested that unsettling scenario (saying it came from years of writers' paranoia and insecurity). I dismissed her idea after our phone conversation, but when I got the rejection email (which I saw after I had hung up the phone with her), I began to suspect that maybe there was a kernel of truth in what she said. Because the rejection e-mail took care to say that they get lots of "unsolicited submissions" and that they get most of their essays from their unsolicited submissions--or did they mean most of their essays' ideas?! The more I think of it, the more I work myself up into a righteous and/or indignant fury and/or resignation that they thought my idea was good but thought some other guy could write a better piece on it.

For the record--I think my piece was better. But I admit that his piece is probably more along the lines of what the column normally prints/looks for. Anyway, "First Comes Marriage, Then Comes Love" came before "First Comes Marriage," if anyone ever asks you. New goal: one day be published in the Times, preferably in the Modern Love column.