Applying to awards confidently but strategically

+December 2024 Meeting Invite.

Happy Holidays everyone! Hope you had a nice Thanksgiving and are ready for some time off.

Here is our last event of the year!

Google Calendar Event'

Authors Meeting

Monday, December 23 · 6:00 – 7:00pm

Video call link

Resources

📕Book recommendation:
In a previous post, I mentioned Think Like Your Editor: How to Write Great Serious Nonfiction and Get It Published on the recommendation of a member. During the last meeting, another member shared that they picked it up on the recommendation, and they find it to be an extremely useful resource for those still querying. So…double recommendation!

Backstories behind science books

I’ve already mentioned the National Association of Science Writers’ Advance Copy: Backstories on books by NASW members, which group member Lynne Lamberg runs. I highly recommend sitting down and reading some to get a sense of the story behind getting a book done. It’s very grounding to see that others have achieved book goals similar to yours, and it’s extremely useful to see how they did it.

ANBIP members who have recently been featured in Advance Copy:

• Power Metal: The Race for the Resources That Will Shape the Future, by

  Vince Beiser
  .

• The Craft of Science Writing: Selections from the Open Notebook (Expanded Edition) by

  Siri Carpenter

• Defending Nature: How the Military Protects Threatened and Endangered Species and Birding for Boomers: And Everyone Else Brave Enough to Embrace the World’s Most Rewarding and Frustrating Activity and Like No Other: Earth’s Coolest One-of-a-Kind Creatures by

  Sneed B. Collard III

• Water Always Wins: Thriving in an Age of Drought and Deluge by

  Erica Gies

And there are probably a more; I only checked a few pages back. If you’re starting your book journey, read these. If you’re done, submit yours to be featured.

Thoughts: Apply a lot (but not too much)

My quality of life has really improved since I started living in a way that I have time to take opportunities when they come up (read: not having a 9-5.)

Recently, someone in one of my communities mentioned that, long ago, she was disappointed at the fact that she wasn’t winning awards—turns out she was unaware that she had to apply for them. Just in case that might be you, as well: you have to apply to win most things!

(We all make mistakes! You and I are probably making some sort of writing/career mistake right now, and we’ve definitely all done something like this in the past.)

So, please apply! Don’t take any awards for granted, either; I just apply, sometimes put something in my calendar saying “award X results by today,” but mostly I just forget about it and assume I lost as soon as I apply.

Expect nothing. Live frugally
On surprise.

—Alice Walker

Don’t feel bad when you lose most things you apply to. I do, too. All the time. I just cast out my applications like butterflies and if they return with a win, great. If they don’t, I’ve already forgotten about it.

Here’s just what I took from my Submittable history, specifically related to writing/journalism, but keep in mind most applications are via email these days, so it’s only a small portion of what I’ve tried for. Furthermore, it’s just me, and IDK if I win more or fewer things than the average person:

You’re not the perfect candidate—but you might be the best one

At the last meeting, we discussed the limits and benefits of certain qualifications for being the ideal person to write a book.

I’ve mentioned several times that you must have some reason to be the one to write it. But you will not have every reason.

The best person to write a book about dead animals (checks for things that I have, X’s for things I don’t):

✅Has an advanced degree in writing, especially nonfiction (RIP to the MS in Science Journalism program I did)

✅Has experience writing for quality outlets (I’ve got Nat Geo, PBS Newshour, Newsweek, SFGate, Politifact, Atlas Obscura…)

✅Cares about delivering a solid book to the readers that does the topic justice and informs

✅Is dedicated, willing and able to take risks, can finish big projects, isn’t embarrassed about the weird/gross topic, and can self-advocate

✅ Has developed an audience

❌Has a PhD in taphonomy or similar science

❌Has lots of real-world experience working at a slaughterhouse, rendering facility, animal rescue with a high kill rate, animal crematory and/or pet cemetery, dump, roadkill cleanup service, fur farm, with USDA-APHIS (US Department of Agriculture-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service), as a taxidermist and oddities broker, and a vet. (I have experience cleaning bones as a long-time passionate hobby, though…might count for something.)

The “perfect person” I’ve described above doesn’t exist. At the meeting, I noted that I’m only aware of 2 morticians (one practicing and one former) who make educational content for the general public about being a mortician. There are however many morticians in the US (20,000 members of the National Funeral Directors Association), and while I’d bet a lot of them know more about mortuary science than those two content creators, they simply aren’t creating public-facing content with mass appeal. (Maybe they’re too busy doing their actual jobs—it is what it is, no shade, just an explanation of why the possibly-less-knowledgeable are sometimes the best content creators. )

Ergo, the best writer for the job is never the perfect candidate, and you might be a better candidate than you think.

Old joke:

Two people are walking down the street, one economist and one normal.

They spot a $100 bill. The normal guy says,
“Wow, a hundred dollars! We should reach down and pick it up.”

The economist says “That can’t be real money.
If it was, someone would have already picked it up.”

Are the qualifications even real?

A friend of mine runs a great job group for the Bay Area that is focused on tech. According to the discussions there (at least when I used to read it more, years ago) it’s well-known that job “requirements” are highly exaggerated. Here’s a famous example:

The theory is that recruiters exaggerate job requirements with the idea that it will improve their talent pool. I think this is a very stupid and unfair way to recruit because if you ask for 10 years of experience with something, you’ll get an over-confident narcissist with 2 years, someone who didn’t read the requirements with 3 years, and a liar with “11 years” but actually no experience. The legitimate candidate with 7 years won’t apply, and the recruiter only has terrible candidates to consider.

This system disproportionately hurts women, too, who are less likely to be conditioned to “just go for it even if you don’t qualify.” (Eventually, tech recruiters started to complain that they were betting flooded with way underqualified candidates. What did they think was gonna happen??)

That said, I haven’t witnessed that sort of BS culture in journalism, writing, and creative fields, so I wouldn’t count on getting something way outside your qualifications here. Maybe just a little.

Don’t apply to everything.

Still, there is a strategy for winning things. Your time is still limited.

I stopped looking through newsletters for freelance opportunities because my success-to-time-spent rate was too low. I recently conceptualized a painting I wanted to submit to a Wyoming arts contest before I realized Wyoming is full of insanely talented painters. (And I didn’t like my concept sketch.) I would never say to apply to everything.

Ask yourself before applying to anything:

• Is there an application fee?

• Does your project/idea/book/self match all the qualifications? Would you pick yourself?

• Can you get a sense of your competition, both in quality and quantity? Do you see the application heavily advertised and interacted with on social media?

• Did they extend the application deadline? (Sometimes, when that happens, it means they didn’t get very many candidates they liked.)

• Can you talk with someone who has won before?

• Is the prize even worth it?

• Would you fit in with previous winners?

Here are some things I wouldn’t or would apply to:

❌For the National Park Arts Foundation, I don’t think I have a good chance because those residencies are so heavily advertised, and it seems like the best candidate would be able to donate a painting or some physical, artistic object to the park. I don’t think writers are prime candidates. I also saw one that charged $120/application, and they said they got 800 applications once. That’s kind of like paying $96,000 to do it. (I did meet one science journalist who did it, though! Also, there are residencies in parks that are not through NPAF, including National Parks, BLM land, state parks, etc. I collected some of both here!)

✅I highly recommended the Poynter-Koch Fellowship when it was available (RIP). It had everything that made it a perfect fit for anyone working as a staff journalist or wanting to do so, because:

• There were a lot of positions open (I think they accepted about 50 people into each cohort?)

• The award was significant (up to $50k, although the outlet is moreso the beneficiary rather than the writer. Also, the writers got free journalism training, mentors, community, resources, etc.)

• There didn’t seem to be many applicants (there was very little advertising on social media, and the website failed to describe what people were actually applying to. The second time I advertised it to my communities, lots of people showed interest, and I’m told they had a record 300+ applications. I had to answer a lot of questions because the website was so nebulous! But even at their highest application numbers, 50/300 is 1/6, which is a very high acceptance rate for free money and free training.)

See you soon!