Do You Want to Write for SAPIENS?

>> CHIP: Hi, welcome. We’ll just wait a few moments here to let people come on into the room.

Wonderful, we’ll go ahead and get started. My name is Chip Colwell, a SAPIENS anthropology magazine, part of Wenner-Gren Foundation. We’re part with the Chicago public press. I’m an archaeologist anthropologist who started writing in the anthropology publication about 15 years ago and had the seed idea of what would become SAPIENS and brought it to fruition.

Even as I have worked as an editor at the magazine and have helped oversee the project I also continued my career as an academic. And so, hopefully I can help all of you navigate these two worlds and talk a bit about how to bridge them, how to bring your academic work into the public as well as I found through the years the ways in which public scholarship can actually improve your academic work as well.

Throughout our time together here I’ll have the Q & A open. So if you have any questions or comments feel free to drop those in at any point. And I will do my best to answer them as we go or at the end depending on where we’re at.

So, I would just encourage everyone in their comments and in their attendance to be present and engaged, helpful and respectful. Indeed, I’m really excited to have you all here. Because you all belong here to be part of this space.

There is going to be a participatory aspect. It is a little challenging with this kind of Q & A feature that we have but we’re going to try to make that work where I’m inviting you to work on some of your, work on a pitch, a draft pitch and we’ll see if we can bring those together as a group.

So, the pitch is a fundamental part of writing for the public. Most magazines and often newspapers require you to provide a kind of proposal of what it is that you would like to publish on, what it is you like to write.

A pitch is a kind of abstract. When thinking about it in academic terms it is kind of a proposal in very brief terms of what it is that you would like to write so that an editor, editorial team can very quickly assess whether or not your proposal, what you would like to pursue, is a good fit with them.

There are essentially two forms of public writing that are popular in science communication that most anthropologist will be doing. The first is an essay. And an essay is a narrative, it is a piece of writing that is going to take the reader on a journey of discovery.

So, you’re going from point A, to point B to point C. There’s a beginning, middle and end. There’s an arc to it. There’s often a protagonist. Something that often gets in the way of the protagonist reaching its goal and something at the end.

Op-eds is an opinion piece that identifies a problem in the world and proposals a solution. It is kind of the anthropologist banging a fist on the table saying this is a kind of crisis or this is an issue that needs to be confronted and I have a way to suggest society the problem whatever it is might be moving forward.

Most often with popular writing the essay requires a pitch. So, in only a few major venues will you be submitting the actual draft of an essay. An op-ed is about 50/50. About 50% of major venues will ask for a pitch and the other half will ask for the actual draft. So, that will be up to you to figure out depending where it is you want to pitch or write for whether in fact the pitch is actually required.

I want to point all of you to this resource at the Open Notebook, which is a digital magazine for journalists. It is kind of the insider world of journalist writing about journalist writing and science journalism in particular.

This is a pitch database. As you can see from the screenshot you can essentially search for a lot of different kinds of journals and magazines and newspapers and you can see what actual successful pitches look like.

So, you can find pitches to most major newspapers and magazines and most of these are going to provide you an example of what it takes to actually get published in these different venues. So, be sure to check that out.

Of course at SAPIENS because in part we want to help all of you in training and gaining some of those skills and writing for the public, and in part to be efficient ourselves, we also have a pitch process.

So, you can go to SAPIENS.org/write and see or writer guidelines.

Today I’m going to be focusing on SAPIENS as a kind of example of some case studies for you to consider but really even though you might find some variation what a pitch looks like across different magazines and newspapers there’s basically one standard PROEF and that’s what I’m going to be talking about.

So, SAPIENS uses this but so does most other major magazines and newspapers in the English speaking world.

So, at SAPIENS we are a bit unique in the sense that we are a platform for anthropologist who want to write for broad general publics. And we understand that for many of you this might be the very first time that you’re actually tackling writing for the public.

And so, we try to be really clear about our expectations we want to be first clear that we are writing for public audiences, not for other anthropologists. That topically we are focusing on anthropology. That we offer an honorarium and then we have a collaborative editorial process. Meaning multiple editors you’ll be working with to get your piece to fruition.

So, what to expect. What would it actually look like to write for us but again for most other major newspapers and magazines as well.

So, first, the very first step is to submit the pitch. This is the summary or idea for a piece within a particular publication category and story type. The editorial team will review the pitch. If it is accepted the editor will typically ask for the first draft within about 4 weeks. It might depend on whether or not what you’re writing about is tied to a specific news event. Something that you’re writing right now and needs to get out quickly.

For some newspapers I’ve written for, for some magazines the editors have sometimes requested something quickly within 24/48 hours. So if it is really topical you might be pressed to turn things around very quickly. Otherwise 4 weeks is probably what you’ll be looking at.

So, once you submit your draft you’re going to be working with an editor that’s often called a developmental editor, an acquisition editor. They’re the ones that will be going through multiple rounds of edit with you to get it to near final draft, to get it to real good shape. Sometimes this could be a draft or two and that’s bit.

Other times it could be a dozen drafts. Really once your piece is accepted the editor will work with you as hard as they can to get it to a point where everyone is happy with it.

Once you have that kind of final draft ready typically editors continue to review it. At SAPIENS I’m the 1 that will review it. At others they’ll be other kind of senior editors typically.

And in some journalistic jargon that’s called the top edit typically. You’re looking at high level finding any kind of last minute issues.

Then additionally your piece will be copy edited and fact checked. At that point an editor will provide request for annotated draft for that fact checking. Resources that can affirm facts stated in your draft.

So, once all of that is done you will then get typically a kind of final draft that you sign off of. At most major English language newspapers and magazines the title, the teaser, the sentence or two that might attract readers, images and captions, all of those are selected by the editorial team.

And at SAPIENS we invite the direct feedback from the writers but at other publications you may not have much, if any, say in those kind of framing elements of the piece.

This is really because most editors have a very, very good understanding of their audience and what it is that will get someone to actually come in and read your piece. They understand the angle, the audience and how to frame it and so that’s why they take care of those kinds of developments for those pieces.

So, then once it’s published you will be notified and at that point your work is not quite done because what’s the point of publishing something if no one reads it? So, at that point in the publication process you can still do a lot of work in terms of sharing the piece with your networks, promoting on social media and other places where you might be able to get more readers to your piece.

At SAPIENS we publish within those kind of bigger genres of essays and op-eds a range of other kind of pieces. We also do poetry and book excerpts. We do multimedia pieces including videos, illustrated essays and photo essays.

Typically these will be distinguished in their tone, in their overall approach as well as their length. So, at SAPIENS most of our essays are targeted to around 1500 words. Whereas most op-eds are targeted around 650 words.

One thing is really important at SAPIENS but pretty much anywhere is to have a very clear vision for what kind of piece it is that you’re writing before you pitch.

So, the pitch itself should reflect what it is that you’re trying to accomplish with the piece. So, if you’re trying to write an opinion piece with a very strong perspective, you know, anthropologist banging the fist on the table. You don’t want to give the sense of a narrative essay, right? And vice versa, if you have the opposite viewpoint or intention you really just want those to align.

So, if it is an opinion piece the pitch itself should reflect that it is going to be an opinion piece. If it is meant to be an essay the pitch itself should be almost like a mini essay itself.

At SAPIENS we are asking ourselves a few questions as we review the pitch. The first is, is this grounded in anthropological insights? What we mean by that is is this grounded in recent research? In anthropological theories or methods? Not enough that the anthropologist is writing it but the piece itself needs to bring in those insights to make it clear for the readers.

That this is rounded in anthropology itself. We also want to ensure that all of our pieces have a clear and compelling message at its core. This is perhaps one of the most difficult things for almost any writer really. I was going to say new writers but really any writer in public genre is can you distill your message into even just a sentence or two and have a lot of clarity around what that message is and be able to articulate that to the editor and also to the reader.

Does the piece, does the pitch have a clear storytelling essay or compelling argument. In the essay we really want to see that you demonstrated, that you have the capacity to tell a really good story or if this is an op-ed, do you have the capacity to make a really good argument?

We also want to make sure that the author is well prepared to tell the story or make the argument. For one thing I’m really passionate about personally is climate change but I’ve never published academically on this, never got a grant on this, never presented at a conference at it. No actual expertise in that area.

Whereas I worked for many decades now with Native American communities in the U.S. south west. So, if I was going to make, develop an op-ed around Native American history and culture I’ve written books, received grants and so on, I’m well prepared to make that argument. We want to see that connection between what your expertise is and your story or argument that you’re offering to tell.

We also want to look at whether or not this is a timely story or argument. Is this adding new view points or diverse view points to diverse conversations.

So, typically we want pieces that are speaking to the moment now. This question of relevancy can be quite nebulous. What’s relevant to 1 person could be irrelevant to another. In order for popular new stories to take hold they have to speak at least to some community, to something happening right now that people are even thinking about, arguing about or contemplating something on the news or something at stake for our world today.

So it is that timely story, it is that timeliness around the story or argument that is the final piece of the puzzle for us. And we really do understand that for so many of the anthropologist pitching us that this is probably going to be a new process for them, which is why we do workshops like this and why the editorial team is really dedicated to working closely with you in partnership.

That is something that distinguishes SAPIENS vs if you want to pitch The Guardian or some other kind of major magazine. Most of them expect you to have those writing chops and experience in place.

Whereas for us we really want to support you in this process so you can develop those skills in the craft of public writing itself.

So, moving into the pitch itself. What is the pitch actually look like? I’m going to give you a formula for you to develop your own pitch and to encourage you to really try to stick with this.

This is really a formulaic process at the end of day and the more you deviate from it, the more you kind of maybe try to get creative with it or maybe the more that you try to find your own voice in the pitch itself the further away you’re probably going to get from hitting that target that the editorial team is looking for in a pitch.

So, I’m going to give you, it is a three-part formula. For each part here I’m going to give you an example of what this looks like and then give you a few minutes to draft your own and to work on this. Then for those who are interested you can share in the Q & A and I’ll give some feedback on that draft.

I totally understand that this truly is just like a quick, very, very quick draft so really no pressure, no expectations, just as part of the process for me to be able to provide some feedback to you as you try to learn how to do this.

So, the very first part of the formula is to open with a brief story. This is important because it can demonstrate that you have that storytelling ability. It is simply a way to bring in the editors themselves.

The second paragraph is you’re going to say what it is that you want to write. So, you’re going to state it very clearly in a sentence or two. This is your key message or what it is that you want the reader to walk away with. And who you are if that’s not obvious in the opening story.

Then part 3 is what is your narrative, who are the characters and why your story matters right now. This is your chance to try to spell out in very plain, straight forward marriage the arc of your narrative. What kind of characters you’re going to have and why this matters? Why is it relevant to your story?

I should say this pitch formula is really for an essay. Although it can work for an op-ed as well. Most of what we’re getting at SAPIENS are essay pitches and so I wanted to focus on that here today.

Okay. So, paragraph 1, nail the opening with a story. This is a real example that I’m using here with permission of the anthropologist who worked on this with us.

You can see here his first attempt at trying to get started on the essay and the essay pitch.

So, this is what he initially drafted. Incarceration is supposed to be a punishment. It has actually attained such a dominant position as the principle form of punishment throughout the world that it is hard to imagine alternatives to it. What happens then when recurrent incarceration makes life outside so difficult that prison stops being a punishment and becomes a protection against life’s hardships instead?

Great question. In terms of this topic very clear. But this is far too academic for most public publications. There’s nothing bringing you into this? There’s nothing showing you what’s at stake, no emotion to it.

So, consider instead this alternative that he redrafted as a better opening that actually is framed around a story.

When I met Gerry a year ago. He had been released from Mexico City’s eastern penitentiary after finishing his fourth conviction for armed robbery. He lived in the rubble of a house that had been partially destroyed by an earthquake. He scrapped a living through scavenging, menial work, and petty theft.

He was not older than 40, but his bones, his jaw in particular, ached because of his life long addiction to meth, a habit he had acquired…

So, here hopefully you can see we still have that same question. It is the kicker question, this is the heart of it all. But now we have a real person, a real story with something deeply at stake for them and gives us a sense not only of, you know, the reality of this question as it plays out in people’s lives.

We’re also seeing the author’s ability to tell the story. So, this kind of opening is exactly what you want to do for an essay. You want to take your big question, your 30000-foot question that hopefully you’re researching or you’re basing your piece on but take it down to earth. You’re 10 feet off the ground looking at Gerry’s life or focusing on whatever it is you want to focus on.

Okay, I’m going to give everyone now 3 minutes to work on a brief story. So, I’d encourage you to open up a Word document or wherever you want to write and just draft something really quickly. Then as you’re comfortable with it please do share it in the Q & A function. And I’ll try to give some brief feedback to give a sense of how it is looking.

So, I’m going to go on mute here and go ahead and get that started. Let’s see if you all can just draft something quick and straight forward and we can go from there. All right, happy writing.

>> CHIP: All right great, let’s come back together. And I see we already have one paragraph here shared. So, Samantha, thank you so much for offering this. And I’mma read it here.

Maybe field work just isn’t for you. You should work on expanding your lab experience so you can get a position there. This statement and many more like it have been said to me in my short 3.5-year career in the field as an archaeological field technician in CRM and academic settings.

This statement is not about my work ethic, skill or attitude at work. It’s supposed to be a well meaning comment related to my disability. My disability is invisible but must be disclosed for a safe work environment.

So, Samantha, this is a really strong opening and I sense that there’s a lot at stake with this, right? For you personally but can also imagine this being immediately understood by a lot of readers as having a lot of stake for a lot of people and a lot of different work environments.

And has all different kinds of implications for diversity and creating safe work environments within archaeology and then its implications, right, for how it is that we understand the past and how it is that heritage is managed.

So, I really like how you show there’s a lot at stake here. I think my recommendation would be to just layout the scene a bit more to show it a bit more of the storytelling element. That first quote kind of gives the sense of a story that is there. But then it very quickly transitions into explanation P

.

So, I think for this first paragraph you really want to create a bit more of a sense of a scene. A bit more of a protagonist and things like that. Maybe in this case keep that first quote but tell us more about the scene itself. Was this a hot day out in the field and you’re covered in dirt and you just maybe made, you know, a really important discovery but still you’re getting this disheartening advice.

Or does this place, is the statement in an office and you’re feeling you’re getting lectured to? So you have this internal turmoil but you weren’t able to say anything because maybe it is your boss, right? Totally making all of that up. Trying to give you a sense of setting a scene a bit more so you can help the reader understand a bit more around how these kinds of comments are happening and your internal experience of them.

So, I know everyone is just doing this very quickly but hopefully that feedback gives a sense of how it is you might approach that opening but with a deeper sense of storytelling.

Okay, let’s look at another one here. Magdalena, thank you for offering this to read it here. This is prison, but it’s better than dying in the streets, dOR REUS confided to me when I visited her in the long-term care facility she had just been admitted. What happens when people experience care facilities as coercive and unsafe? This piece shows readers the terrible choices dOR REUS and other older adults must face. Institutionalizing and giving up their rights or ending their days as hless

Really powerful, you immediately get a sense of what’s at stake. The gravity of the situation. I think it is easy to imagine how common of a kind of crisis this must be.

So, I think similar to my comments with Samantha, I think Magdalena you’re off to a really good start. Think about setting this more of a scene. Think of this more in cinematic terms. What are the textures of the place, the emotional stakes as well as the kind of policy stakes and I think that will help bring an editor in and then a reader in and show to the editor that you have noticed important details, you are able to relay them in bright compelling language.

And that’s going to help the storytelling element of your piece very much.

Okay, let’s do one more here. So, Chelsy, thanks for sharing this. The secret door to the 15th century alchemist’s lab KRAEckD open with a twist of a book on a shelf. Inside Prague’s oldest house, the lab was discovered in the great flood of 2002. Amongst the artifacts discovered was a manuscript with ancient potions and he will EUcksers served to emperors and religious leaders of the time.

The manuscript did not end up in the hands of museums or local officials but rather Catholic monks in the hills of Bohemia. Locked away from public eyes how did this important artifact get locked away from public eyes.

All right, I love some of the colorful language you bring here. This points to that cinematic storytelling. The door creaking open. You really get the sense of the kind of mystery and the kind of adventure, I think, behind this.

And I think there’s a lot here. So, the storytelling is strong here. I think one thing I would ask is kind of why tell the story now? So, this seems like this was discovered in 2002, so it’s been what, 22 years? Is it just something you happen to discover recently or is there some new twist in the story that you’re going to be able to present?

And, you know, how also does whatever’s the latest news about this, how is this relating to that bigger question that you end on for what it means to who gets to control the dissemination of knowledge.

This is probably a very quick draft for you, but I would love to hear just a little bit more about that. Right now it seems a little vague. Are we thinking about dissemination of knowledge the way we think about that on the internet? Or more in a legal sense of who gets to control what?

So, I think drawing a straighter line between this specific story and that bigger question could be really helpful.

Okay, for the sake of time let’s keep moving forward. I appreciate everyone for their feedback and in fact I can while you’re writing the next paragraph I will try to type up some answers here.

So, continue to look in the Q & A if you’ve submitted a draft opening paragraph.

Let’s move onto paragraph 2. So, what you want to write and who you are. So, this is from the first draft of our colleague in his attempt to write a pitch for a public piece.

So, he says, continuing on from last one, from the last paragraph. My interest is in asking questions about the abolitionist critique of the industrial prison complex system and its claims to deterrence when my research shows that many former prisoners adeptly navigate that system to their advantage for survival.

In this article I hope to explore the ways in which questions about structural reforms too often avoid root causes such as addition, mental illness, poverty, et cetera.

My academic research has been published in journal A, journal B, and journal C… as an academic paragraph this is great. It uses some jargon, that is helpful, right? The abolitionist movement and complex prison system familiar to many academics.

However for a public piece this is too explanatory and a bit too thick. So, this is what our colleague did in his revised paragraph 2.

In this 2000-word essay, I take readers on a journey to show how Gerry’s life story is deeply entangled with the failure of Mexico’s prison system and the modern prison system more broadly.

This story is based on part of a year-long investigation about the social effects of incarceration in Mexico city. I am currently a doctoral candidate in anthropology at X University and previously worked as a community organizer…

So, you can see here what our colleague is doing is really tightly establishing his bona fide. Why it is that he can bring such a unique perspective to the story. That he’s going to be taking the reader on a story and it is going to be a journey about the prison system but this is based on a year long investigation. That this person is a doctoral candidate, they’re pursuing academic work but also a community organizer and policy advocate.

So, they’ll bring in multiple layers of perspectives, plus bringing in his academic credentials he’s bringing in his op-eds and they have some experience writing popular pieces.

We want to step back from that academic language and showing your academic credentials and instead you’re trying to show the editor your ability to write this particular piece based on your particular experience or expertise and talk about what it is that is going to make this particular popular piece so accessible and so well grounded in your own knowledge and perspective.

With that I’m going to give everyone another 3 minutes here. Again, while you do that I’m going to be answering some of these questions in the Q & A. All right, good writing again.

>> CHIP: Okay great. Does anyone want to offer what they’ve written here in the Q & A? Okay, great.

So, let’s turn to Joyce. Joyce thank you for sending this in. Joyce writes having reached 88 I realize that this is very late stage of life is different and has riches I had never thought of. Talking to friends I find they are on are recognizing this. Now’s wondering if we need to share our new understanding of the idea of a fourth age.

So, yes, so, I think there’s some hints of some really good elements to the second paragraph. I’d love to hear a bit more, you know, really good starting point and I see Kristen for the next one has done this. Is use this familiar. In this X word essay. In the magazine they say we only publish whatever X number of words essay that you put that.

In this X number word essay I will write what. I will take, who are you and why are you submitting this. A bit more details and experience you have in writing is useful.

So, let’s look at Kristen’s. Thank you Kristen’s. In this 2000-word article I break down the organization, benefits and subsequent challenges of teaching archaeology at the K-12 level. I am the director of an STEAM program for a major nonprofit, where I oversaw the design and implementation of the national curriculum in archaeology and anthropology for elementary and middle school students.

I also have a PhD in curriculum and instruction with a focus on out of school learning, including presenting at both the grassroots and academic level.

Finally, I have published chapters regarding education management in both mainstream and academic presses, as well as different publications on ST PHEchL education, equity and anthropology.

Kristen, I’m getting a good sense on your expertise. What it is that you’re working on and it is very convincing. I think if anything I might just suggest tightening this up a little bit.

You, I think, just saying that you have the PhD, you have some grassroots experience, and that you’ve published a bit and kind of tighten that up just a little it about would probably be a bit more impactful but otherwise I think overall that’s a really good example of a second paragraph.

So, let’s move onto the third paragraph. Again, I’ll try to type up some answers while you’re working on the third paragraph. Here is, again, the third paragraph that we have from our colleague.

And he wrote academics care deeply about these questions as they can point to further questions that can be researched about dismantling or remaking the industrial prison complex.

My contribution to these debates will evaluate their currency in the particular crim I believe justice system of Mexico, as a case study. Anthropologist specifically can contribute to this distinctive conversation.

So, this is a very kind of inward looking paragraph that talks about why this matters because it does. But it matters in this framing to anthropologist, right? Questions will lead to more questions. So the research can be done. And this is kind of the case study where an anthropologist can do the work for themselves. So, important but not going to be convincing to many editors.

Instead consider this. The essay will begin with Gerry’s story, pulling the reader into the terrible choices he faces. The larger question of why someone would prefer to be in prison.

I will then pull back and explore how the growing abolitionist movement has repeatedly described how prisons do not serve their stated purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation or even incapacitation.

I will return back to Gerry’s life story to show how prisons not only fail to achieve their stated purposes. They also disable people from living outside their walls. I will close with key questions that policy makers and the public alike must face if prison reforms are to be meaningful and real.

Hopefully you get a sense here how in the second version our colleague has done really a masterful job of talking through kind of in a straight forward way the structure of the essay, right? You get the sense of a beginning, middle and an end.

But all of this is entwined with really big policy issues that have huge implications for societies. So, that is the kind of ideal third paragraph where you are giving a sense of the arc of your essay. We have the beginning, middle and age, a sense of who the characters are but also a sense why that matters.

I’ll give you another 3 minutes here to work on this closing that shows the arc of your story and also why it matters right now.

>> CHIP: Okay. Again, if anyone wanted to provide what they’ve written here I’ll be happy to take a look. Okay, Joyce continues.

Our society fears aging probably unjustifiably. But because of that fear we are losing the wisdom and contribution older people can make and that fear can be a self-fulfilling prophecy leading to depression in middle years. Understanding the real pleasure of later years is valuable to us at all stages of our lives I think is probably what was intended there.

So, Joyce, very well stated and very clear. I think you could improve this a bit perhaps by giving a better sense of the narrative, right? So, what is the journey, the exact journey that you’re going to be taking the reader on? What’s the beginning, the middle and the end?

I think I also would like to hear a little bit more of the anthropological insights, are you borrowing any theories, any methods, any other anthropology that might give a better sense of where you’re drawing for anthropology.

So, let’s move onto another one. I’m going to give, sorry, Kristen, just to give someone else a chance here I’m going to skip ahead to Tanushree’s paragraph here.

I will follow Sarita’s story as she manages sustaining daily life and repaying her debts. I will show the types of pressures she works under and how she manages to repay loans at high interest rates. This will be tied up with wider policy questions of what happens when credit to the poor is encouraged and invested into by large banks based in Europe and the U.S.

So, yeah, this definitely is a really good draft for a third kind of paragraph. You’re getting a little more sense of the narrative and the characters presumably, the first two, you know, I’m assuming paragraph 1 was Sarita’s story in-depth kind of in cinematic way and here is the paragraph summing it up.

I feel this has a beginning, middle but where’s the end? Is there a kind of twist or end point in terms of Sarita, does Sarita get deeper and deeper into debt for example or is Sarita able to repay it at some point, where the story ends helps the reader understand not just the beginning and middle but also what are going to be some of the takeaways of the story.

So, thank you all so much for offering those. Really helpful to hear those and see those and I just want to, in one last slide here, show you kind of the now all of this put together and the main kind of questions that editors are asking themselves when they see a pitch in a whole like this.

The very first question they’ll be asking themselves is what’s the story? You know, what’s going on? Can this person, can the writer actually tell a really good story that’s going to pull us in?

Secondly they’re going to ask why you? Why are you the person to write this?

And then so what? Why does any of this matter to the story that’s been told but also to the larger issues that our world is facing right now?

So, when you finish your pitch you should be able to convince yourself that you’ve answered these questions really well. What’s the story, why you, and so what?

If you can do this all typically in about 300 words then your chances of getting published are really good. You know, that being said there are all kinds of reasons editors accept or decline a pitch. Maybe you actually nailed the pitch but the magazine might have just accepted one very similar to it in the previous few weeks.

May they worry about, you know, it is a great piece but is it right for their audience? Does the magazine have a good sense your piece will do well with their audience? And if not maybe they’ll pass on it. All this to say that there’s lots of reasons that anthropologist are finding success in writing or not.

But figuring out this formula and developing your craft in it is the fundamental step in the publishing process. Oh sorry, one last one, which is the why now? Which is closely related to the so what?

Okay, so those are the three parts of the pitch that require practicing and figuring out how to make it work.

So, we have a few minutes left. I’m happy to answer any questions that come up. Also, feel free to reach out to me at any time. My email is Chip@SAPIENS.org. I’m happy to look at draft pitches or answer any questions.

I did see one question about the SAPIENS. I am interested in applying for the SAPIENS fellowship that closes on July 15th. One of the questions asks us to do a pitch but we can also write 200 words. What do you recommend prioritizing when we have so much little space?

Think of the story part. We have the capacity for so many good stories. If you’re finding you have more words than there’s space for, giving us a sense of your storytelling ability is helpful.

Another question here, for SAPIENS specifically, there seems to be multiple questions in the pitch submission portal. Do you suggest outlining these three paragraphs in different questions in the submission portal?

For SAPIENS I recommend putting those three paragraphs together where we ask for the pitch itself. It is great in those kind of other questions when we ask a bit were your background and why this story matters, you know, having elements of some of these paragraphs could be helpful but really what we’re looking for is a coherent pitch in and of it themselves.

With that I think our time is up but, again, please reach out to me. If you have any follow-up questions we really do want to be a resource for the community of anthropologists.