Editor Interview: Science Write Now

work inspired by science

Griffith Review, The Sun, AGNI, Nautilus, Aeon, and I miss Creative Nonfiction!

Some of my all-time favourite writers are Cormac McCarthy, Ted Chiang, Vladimir Nabokov, George Saunders, Anthony Doerr, Han Kang, Max Porter, Lisa Olstein, and John Steinbeck.
Some favourites that we’ve published or chatted to on the podcast include Matt Bell, Helen Marshall, Kathleen Jennings, Kris Kneen, Alicia Sometimes, Jo Anderton, James Bradley, and Simon Cleary.
I know I’ve forgotten heaps!

Too much science today is communicated only behind paywalls, through sensational bytes online, or through misinformation. We publish creative writing inspired by science — fiction, nonfiction, poetry, experimental, graphic/comic — to better contextualise science for diverse readers. Through our themed editions, we consider the many implications that a concept (such as “Extinction” or “Synergy” or “Quantum”) might have for our everyday lives and watch ideas play out through story, character, and description. We believe in access to art and science, so our magazine is free to read online. We also pay our writers.

Read a few editions to get an idea of what we like! Your work should relate to our current theme but we love being surprised (and delighted) by the many ways writers interpret that theme. Don’t feel you need to be overt about the science—use it as a jumping-off point and see what happens. We want to inspire curiosity in readers, not teach at them.

The ideal submission considers our current scientific theme in a carefully thought-out way—which might also be something unexpected! We take a lot of pride in the quality of work we publish, so make sure the piece is as polished as possible.

Too often submitters don’t stick to the theme, which is an instant ‘no’ from our end. We also don’t publish academic or straight nonfiction writing — nonfiction pieces should have a creative or personal component.

We love if you remind us if we’ve published you before! I do read the cover letters, and listing your previous, high-quality publications does make a difference (even subconsciously) to how I read your piece.

I know Rob Spillman (from the former Tin House magazine) has talked a lot about the opening pages being the most important, and from a submissions standpoint, I agree. I can usually tell within the first few pages whether a piece is right for us or not. Saying that, we do work with writers on substantial edits when we love a submission but it’s not quite working as-is.

Multiple members of our team read each submission, and I use their assessments (alongside my own) to decide which pieces to accept. I read every piece!

We do a lot of grant writing because we’re independent, shoestring, and would like to be able to pay our staff (including myself!) fairly. A lot of my day-to-day experience is mentoring our interns and volunteers in producing podcasts and newsletters, and we also run Young Writers or Emerging Writers programs where I work with writers on developing and executing a story idea. Because we only publish one edition a year, submissions are much less a part of the everyday. SWN co-founder Jessica White now heads an advisory panel of scientists, writers and artists who help inform our edition themes and content.

That depends! We do substantive and/or line edits on almost every fiction and nonfiction piece we accept.

We do!

We are funded primarily through Australian government grants which, because we are such a small entity, are only 1 to 2 years in duration. We’re pretty much always applying for grants :) We also have a growing network of donators through our free Substack newsletter, which helps us with some of our ongoing costs!

We promote on our Instagram page and through our newsletter — including shout-outs for previous writers we’ve published when they win awards or have new books coming out. We want to create a kind of family around this space of creative writing inspired by science.