Third instalment. And this is about a piece of science writing that’ll never see the light of day: an editor killed it. This shouldn’t be taken as a knock against the publication or the editor (if you can deduce their identity), since it was a vital learning opportunity for me.
The idea for this story came out of an interview I conducted with a physicist for a different story. They made an offhand remark that intrigued me. Science journalists are encouraged to ask their sources “what’s new/cool/exciting in your field?” as a way to find story ideas. That’s worked for me several times.
So, I’d come across an idea. I found an online science magazine whose remit easily tied in to the theme of my piece. The editor was amenable, approved of my plan & source list, and asked if I could write them an opinion piece.
I mentioned in my last article that opinion pieces are a good starting point for new writers. I was hoping for a feature, but figured it would work out the same. I started lining up sources to interview. As soon as I got my first draft in the problems started.
I’d been trying to write a feature. You know the kind of great stories that are expansive, reflective and nuanced? Doesn’t work when your editor is expecting an opinion piece.
Opinion pieces have two things: an Outrage(TM) and a hot-take solution. The writer has to be Outraged(TM) at something/someone, and that emotion fuels their story. It doesn’t have to be wild raging at an injustice, it can in fact be a mild displeasure. And you have to propose a solution. I call it a hot-take because it doesn’t need to be brilliant, popular or even correct. Your goal with the Op-Ed is to provoke discussion in other people, not necessarily showcase your own cleverness.
I was able to reflect upon this after the fact. I went through several rounds of edits and rewrites. My original idea may have worked as a feature, or maybe it was too broad to ever succeed. It involved interviewing scientists in 4 or 5 countries; I was making both data-driven and “human interest” arguments. It was the first time I’d worked with the editor, so I didn’t pick up on the warnings they were about to kill my piece.
Got the verdict while I was at a large conference, so I moped when I should have been at my professional A-game. A killed article is going to sting, even when they pay you some of the agreed-upon fee.
***
But here’s my main bit of advice: I continued pitching to that magazine and editor. Despite the hurt to my pride. Not all my future pitches were successful, but I was able to adjust my pitches based on the article that failed. Tighter scope. Built-in Outrage(TM). Throw in some hot-takes. Later I got a popular, well-edited article published with them.
When you’re starting out as a science writer, a lot of your pitches will be ignored or rejected. That doesn’t mean you’re forbidden from pitching to that editor again…as long as you learn from your mistakes and incorporate feedback the editor gives into your next attempt.
Stay tuned for the fourth instalment: my first feature article.
St Andrews Lynx's Blog 