Speakeasy was founded in January 2021 with the goal of building intellectual bridges and deepening mutual understanding. We publish work on culture, politics and fiction. Speakeasy does not take any political stands and aims to transcend simplistic binaries such as Left/Right or Liberal/Conservative. We are more interested in providing compelling and thoughtful pieces with the aim of enhancing, rather than sullying, public discourse.
Our readership are largely university-educated urbanites looking for coherent and digestible stories. No need to use the most indecipherable academic jargon to get your point across.
Specifically, we are looking for the following:
- Deeply moving personal pieces
- Nuanced and balanced perspectives
- Writing that is anchored in understanding, humility, charity, and fairness
- A willingness to bare-all – to be transparent and emotionally truthful: these works tend to resonate the most with our audience
- Humour and fiction articles (self-deprecation is strongly encouraged)
- Focused on ideas, rather than individuals – we are not interested in character assassination as much as grappling with deeper issues these individuals represent (*e.g. avoid a targeted attack on public figures such as Jordan Peterson to provide analysis on his perspective of freedom of speech, post-modernism, academic culture, etc.)
Conversely, we aren’t interested in: hyperpartisan, hyperbolic, or hyper-sensationalized pieces. There are plenty of platforms out there that are profiting off stoking controversy; however, that is not our aim at Speakeasy. To be clear, that does not mean we wish to ignore controversial subjects. Rest assured, we don’t. Rather, we are hungry for contributions that are anchored in fairness and thoughtfulness – which advance dialogue instead of denigrate it.
We’re here to extend olive branches, not burn bridges.
Anonymous Contributors/Unnamed Sources
We are open to anonymous submissions if we believe there are reasonable grounds – retribution, whistleblowing, re-victimization – that a contributor will experience such outcomes. Moreover, for deeply personal pieces (e.g. depression, suicide, sexual assault) we are happy to accommodate writers so long as we can do a robust verification process of the story itself.
We are more hesitant about relying/incorporating unnamed sources. Nevertheless, if we can be assured that
Given our youth, at the moment we are not in a financial position to be able to provide proper monetary compensation for writers. However, as a standing policy agreed upon by the executive committee, once profitability is achieved, all authors will be retroactively compensated for works submitted. The breakdown will be $50 CAD for regular pieces and $75-$100 for features.
* Depending on one’s commitment and contributions – over the long run – we are open to incorporating people with equity stakes.
If a significant factual error has been made in a piece, we will do our utmost to correct it in the most expedient manner. Moreover, if the article has already been promoted and read widely, we will append a permanent correction notice at the bottom of the article.
A core part of the editorial review process includes fact-checking and reviewing all substantive argument-based claims made in pieces. We may require contributors to double-check sources or find more authoritative ones in the event that a specific one is unsatisfactory.
* This is not a major feature of personal or fictional submissions, although hyperlinks are still welcomed and encouraged here.
Letter To The Editors/Comments
We regularly monitor our group inbox, email@example.com. If you wish to connect with us, we welcome all feedback – positive, neutral, or negative. In the likely event you strongly discourage how we’ve approached a subject, we also have an email just for you: firstname.lastname@example.org. We have yet to receive our first note for the latter, so we’d be happy for you to be our inaugural submission.
* If you would simply, like to engage with the author – either send us an email or leave your thoughts in the comment section below the piece. We ask that comments are kept relatively civil, or they will be removed.
At times it may be necessary to overhaul the structure, language, and style of submissions to best reflect Speakeasy’s mission and flavour. The aim of such editorial efforts is to improve readability as well as concision for a broad audience likely unaware of the nuances of a given subject.
* Writers will always be allowed to review and approve/reject changes prior to publication.
Citations: We ask that you use reputable sources and interpret them appropriately when incorporating them into pieces.
Hyperlinks: Please refrain from using APA/MLA/Chicago or any other academic style of referencing seen below:
Jack Kerouac, The Dharma Bums (New York: Viking Press, 1958), 128.
* Instead, we prefer hyperlinked sources like this.
Length: Pitches should be anywhere from 1,000 – 3,000 words. There is no hard upper boundary on submissions so if people wish to explore a complex issue in greater detail or serialize an essay/story – we are happy to accommodate that. As Blaise Pascal famously wrote, “I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.” More often than not, coherent and pithy writing is more demanding than rambling long-form.
Quotations: Double quotations should be used for direct quoting of a source. Commas, periods, question marks, and other punctuation go inside the double-quotes.
* If a quote, runs longer than two sentences or three lines, center it off from the body text.
Spelling: Submissions may be in American or Canadian English; however, upon publication, the latter will be used.
Underline/Italics/Bolding: For personal pieces, feel free to bold, underline, and italicize what you see fit. We don’t want to editorialize your voice – but please don’t go overboard!
* Publications, books, movies, and TV names should be italicized (e.g. The New York Times).
The Editorial Board