Submissions

Eleven-ThirtyEight accepts submissions in two categories: op-eds (800-1500 words) and Feature Articles (1500 words and above). Multi-part series are possible in either category, but if we’ve never published you before it’s better to start out pitching us standalone work.

What We’re Looking For

While our focus generally leans toward Legends and canon publishing, topics pertaining to all elements of the Star Wars franchise and its fandom are acceptable. The less we’ve covered a given area, in fact, the more we’re interested. Far and away the most important factor in deciding what we publish is tone—pieces should focus on the “big picture” of SW, in a way that’s open-minded and rational. “Negative” pieces are the exception, but aren’t out of the question as long as they’re fair, and respectful of other perspectives. Before making contact, interested writers are strongly encouraged to read our About the Site page closely and browse some of our existing articles for a better idea of the type of content we do here.

What We’re Not Looking For

  • List/Countdown articles
  • “Versus” articles
  • Pure retrospectives, with rare exceptions—“forward-looking” is a key term
  • Attacks on vaguely-defined fandom strawmen—“fandalorians”, “purists”, etc.
  • Personal attacks on living people, no matter how much The Clone Wars (or its cancellation) pissed you off
  • Misogyny in any form—if you wrote an article about Fake Geek Girls, kindly shove it up your ass

How To Submit

Please do not send us full articles right off the bat—this site is operated by devoted hobbyists and we only have so much time for these things. Pitches should be sent to the Editor-in-Chief at cooper at eleven-thirtyeight dot com (you can also PM CooperTFN at the Jedi Council Forums if you’re a member there) and should consist of four things:

  • “Eleven-ThirtyEight” in the subject line
  • a short paragraph explaining the premise of the piece, and, crucially, the points and/or conclusions you intend to make—if you’re not making any, why does the piece need to exist?
  • the intended length of the piece, roughly
  • a plausible first and last name you wish to be credited as—you may use a pseudonym, but things like “John Doe” and “DarthVoluminous2000” will not be permitted

The above should be understood as a first step; the EIC may accept or reject a pitch as presented, or may suggest alterations to fit a certain tone (or to better align with other site content). For the time being, the EIC will respond personally to all pitches one way or another, but this may change as volume demands.

Lastly, note that we have a fixed schedule and open spots can appear intermittently; the time between the conception of a piece and its publication is typically 2-4 weeks, but there are exceptions on both ends. On the plus side, this means that deadlines are generally very flexible. We look forward to hearing from you.

2 comments

  1. JPD says:

    Do you consider (for publication), vaguely academic analyses, deconstructions, investigations and explorations of the saga and/or single films from a cinematic studies-type P.O.V, or even a ancient mythology / modern mythology approach?

    (I am a professional filmmaker, a writer/director with an award-winning short and a first feature film (also an award-winner, and film festival favorite, which was picked up for distribution in the US and Canada; I have also worked — i.e.. as a paying job — as a film critic for a major metropolitan newspaper.)

    • Mike Cooper Mike Cooper says:

      We don’t typically do analysis for its own sake, but I’m open to it as a vehicle for advancing some sort of larger idea—“what X tells us about Y, and why that’s important”. As a recent example, this piece began life as a critical analysis of a short story. I was interested in what it was about the story that made Abigail want to delve that deeply into it, and it turned out that we had a difference of opinion that I really found interesting, so that became the skeleton of the article, while still allowing her to break it down critically.

      In other words, what I look for up front is a clear and interesting thesis statement—what’s driving your analysis? What do you want people to take away from it? If you have good answers for that than I’m interested. Relevance is also a factor; I tend to view the original trilogy as analyzed to death already but new takes on the sequels are strongly encouraged.

Chime In