Dumbshit guidelines

January 27th, 2009 / 7:10 pm sam pink—

max perkins

January 27th, 2009 / 7:18 pm Jimmy Chen—

thank you pink. i updated post.

January 27th, 2009 / 7:19 pm jereme—

this is good.

submission guidelines are humorous to me. a journal wants to distinguish themselves fromt he pack but fail miserably most of the time.

this is a great example.

actually the apt submission guidelines reminds me of approval guidelines for H/P/A/V and Warez Bulletin Board Systems of the early 90’s.

young dorks being arrogant, elitist and witty.

January 27th, 2009 / 7:20 pm jereme—

samantha pink

January 27th, 2009 / 7:45 pm pr—

This was very funny. Mean monday of tuesday! I have read many a submission guideline that made me want to never ever submit to the place. This would have been one of them, if I had heard of them. Now I know.

January 27th, 2009 / 8:19 pm Justin Taylor—

>>A journal that does not accept simultaneous submissions is like a needy boyfriend/girlfriend who won’t let you surf online porn and look for racist cartoons.<<

This is the funniest thing I’ve read today.

Got to say, though, this doesn’t really seem that obnoxious to me, as guidelines go. I mean the snark parts are a little yawnable, but really, what are they saying that puts you out so much? It seems like the basic message is they’re open to considering almost anything.

January 27th, 2009 / 8:24 pm Matt—

Very well played. Submission guidelines have more rules and preferentials than internet dating sites.

January 27th, 2009 / 8:27 pm Jimmy Chen—

it just seemed that their attitude, and the way they conveyed it, was very self-satisfied. true, they are fairly open, it’s just their manner which set me off.

it should be 1) submit 2) read 3) reject or accept. the whole manifesto/aesthetic schpeel somehow demeans the enterprise for me…

January 27th, 2009 / 8:29 pm Justin Taylor—

gotcha. that’s fair enough, i guess.

January 27th, 2009 / 8:38 pm jereme—

i concur with jimmy.

i am kind of surprised justin wasn’t put off by it?

January 27th, 2009 / 4:47 pm pr—

full disclosure- for a while , I didn’t submit to pideldyboz because of thier “want a pony” thing. But I read them, anyway. And then my positive feelings for their work outweighed my “want a pony” irritation.

January 27th, 2009 / 5:18 pm darby—

I read a guideline for somewhere that said no stories with talking animals and I thought it was a ridiculous constraint. Like they aren’t open to the possibility that it might serve in any myriad of contexts. I like this post and agree. Constraints and bad jokes in any form only hinder people from submitting, which in turn hinders an editor’s ability to discover something. Even the word count thing. That’s my new peeve. Why restrict it? An editor should reject it if it’s too long or doesn’t work or for whatever reason. I can’t say how many times I’ve written a story and not sent because I’m just outside a word count limit. This all happened because of flash fiction, that stories under 1000 words suddenly have some kind of specialness to them, or stories under 500 or 50 or something. Everyone wants to distinguish themselves by finding a new number, when all its doing is hindering a journal’s ability to comb everything out there.

January 27th, 2009 / 5:30 pm aaron—

reading this in my bathrobe… fuck those guys. apt.

thank you jimmy for giving voice to legion submitters who read this kind of arrogant, elitist crap yet cannot expound upon the feelings it stirs in us in as hilarious a way as you have here. and thank you again HTML Giant for funneling digital-sunshine through my Box O’ Loneliness and into my gravy-clogged heart.

fuck off pie.

January 27th, 2009 / 5:41 pm jereme—

maybe they read EEE EEE EEE

January 27th, 2009 / 6:01 pm ben—

would it be bad to start a journal with height/weight requirements for the writers? pics? because i want to start one to meet cute people.

January 27th, 2009 / 6:03 pm barry—

hell, these are pretty agreable as opposed to some i’ve seen. making ridiculous demands about shit that dont matter. sure these suck a little but they get way way way way way fucking stupider in other places.

January 27th, 2009 / 6:05 pm barry—

this is a good idea. you should take it a step further and say the photo has to be of them touching some part of their exposed skin between their neck and kneecaps. and they can only submit on wednesdays and sundays. between 4 and 6pm.

January 27th, 2009 / 6:51 pm Ryan Call—

i believe that one with the no talking animals is subtropics?

January 27th, 2009 / 7:21 pm donkeypuncher—

barry, your comments are getting way way way way way stupider.

January 27th, 2009 / 7:27 pm darby—

no, the subtropics has an interesting one…

• A preponderance of the stories coming our way are written in first-person present tense; we are starting to grow weary of this perspective. Please keep this in mind.
• We are skeptical of the second person, though willing to be persuaded.

January 27th, 2009 / 7:32 pm darby—

oh, you’re right, it was subtropics. For some reason I was thinking of a different place though. I think the ‘talking animals’ thing has become a common way to say no magic realism or something. Anyway.

January 27th, 2009 / 7:50 pm Dave Clapper—

I dunno, Darby. In our case, it would specifically be because the talking animal stories we get are almost universally cute talking animal stories, real Chicken Soup for the Pet Owner stuff. Of course, if they’re submitting stuff like that, they’ve never read us and wouldn’t read the guidelines anyway.

January 28th, 2009 / 12:07 am barry—

shit talk really doesnt count when you pretend to be donkeypuncher.

either way, you’re right. i get dumber by the day, by the minute.

but really, when were my comments ever “smarter”

January 27th, 2009 / 8:07 pm barry—

shit talk really doesnt count when you pretend to be donkeypuncher.

either way, you’re right. i get dumber by the day, by the minute.

but really, when were my comments ever “smarter”

January 28th, 2009 / 12:46 am barry—

SECRET MISSIONS
for PR

“can i help you?” the unicon said. the martian did not have regular hands.
“ride my fine white back to the castle”
“here?”
her bosoms heaved.

January 27th, 2009 / 8:50 pm pr—

Why was he so green? Layla Lee was sweeping up the OK Corral.

“Tom? It is the president. My son has been kidnapped.”

January 27th, 2009 / 10:53 pm Jonny Darko—

excellent use of a reference to an aging porn star.

January 28th, 2009 / 12:22 am ael—

it would take a lot to persuade Subtropics on 2nd person.

I think they would be more willing to be persuaded on talking animals than on the 2nd person.

January 28th, 2009 / 12:45 am darby—

I’m going to write a story where animals talk in 2nd person and send it to subtropics

January 28th, 2009 / 2:21 am jereme—

angry unicorn rides 4 lyfe

January 28th, 2009 / 10:05 am David Erlewine—

I had an epic story about a talking guinea pig years ago. I think “Parting Gifts” took it but it won’t even come up in a search. Holy shit was that guinea pig funny as hell. Cute too. A talking guinea pig! I need to find some of that brilliance now in my writing, really tap into it.

January 28th, 2009 / 11:18 pm J—

I’m pretty sick of first person present as well. Maybe I’m crazy but it feels like whenever I pick up a lit rag it’s overwhelmingly present.

January 28th, 2009 / 11:24 pm J—

“crumple up the paper and shove it up my ass.”

soz the japanese beat you

January 29th, 2009 / 3:37 am conor—

does it count if my person character talks for my animal character in second person to the same person character who addresses the world as a first person…and speaks for the goddamn donkey?

January 29th, 2009 / 3:05 pm Randolph—

Sorry we don’t tailor our submission guidelines toward the goal of satisfying the humorless and angry. To make amends, we have mailed a fresh fuck off pie. Keep an eye out for it.

Thanks for reading, though. The only reason we keep working on apt is because we like to read and we like to encourage others to do the same.

January 29th, 2009 / 3:10 pm barry—

randolph. i dont mind the guidelines actually. in my mind they are only partially assholish. but im sure you know which parts those are already.

January 29th, 2009 / 3:55 pm Jereme Dean—

JImmy actually has a pretty good sense of humor.

January 29th, 2009 / 5:21 pm Carissa Halston—

Oh my.

Let me begin by saying that I’m the contributing editor for apt, but I’m foremost a writer. As such, I am among the leagues of those who comb the internet, wading through pages of submission guidelines when trying to decide where to send a literary piece.

I, too, am irritated by certain submission guidelines, but let’s focus on the task at hand.

“We accept unsolicited submissions via e-mail. If we’ve solicited your work, you shouldn’t be reading this. Get to work.”

‘A very stern way to start off. I don’t want to ‘get to work.’ I want to surf online porn and look for racist cartoons. Then, when I’m half-drunk and existential, I’ll submit.’

I will admit that this is a stern way to begin. This is actually from the first version of our submission guidelines, prior to our first issue, which was the last time we specifically solicited one piece of work from a writer. I can understand why it’s off-putting and agree that it should more than likely be rewritten or removed.

That said, why should porn and racist cartoons stand in the way of your being half-drunk? The correlation is beyond me, but that is likely my own shortcoming.

“We do not accept simultaneous submissions. We do not accept previously published work.”

‘Somehow I’m not surprised. A journal that does not accept simultaneous submissions is like a needy boyfriend/girlfriend who won’t let you surf online porn and look for racist cartoons. They want to have the choice of rejecting without being rejected.’

The reason we don’t take simultaneous submissions is because we have a minimum number of contributors we’d prefer to have in each issue. Once that’s established, we start building the pages. Despite this notice, we’ve still had contributors notify us that a piece has been accepted elsewhere. And that’s fine. But we mention it here, in the submission guidelines, to avoid being late with the issue’s release or having to juggle things last minute.

Regarding the previously published notice, the point of having any piece published anywhere, be it a print journal, an online magazine, or a handstitched journal made from on the photocopy machine at Kinko’s, is that it’s being presented as a fresh idea or story. This is obviously only our preference, but because we publish on the internet, we don’t see the point of having the same piece available through several different sites. If you’re going to seek another venue, why not pursue print? That would actually be a more notable accomplishment.

“To submit, send your writing in the body of an e-mail or as an attachment (.doc or .rtf both acceptable). Plain text (ASCII) is preferred as the computer hates getting sick; sitting in its bathrobe all day and eating soup makes it feel useless. Please include a bio stating your name, where we can find any previous publications of yours and your favorite kind of pie. New rule: Please tell us how you found our site.”

‘Mmm…I suppose the little shot of humor didn’t hurt, though the only thing I want to imagine in my bathrobe is me – surfing online porn and looking for racist cartoons. And is there such a thing as a bio that doesn’t include the writer’s name? Is there such a thing as fuck off pie?’

We’ve received atrocious bios. There are people who send submissions with only their first name and no other text. You’d be surprised.

Also, there is a thing as fuck off pie. It tastes very much like tired jokes about online porn and racist cartoons.

“Word count should not exceed 5,000 words unless we are serializing a longer piece.”

‘This is perhaps the only thing I agree with. A writer who expects that kind of devotion – a reader to stare at a screen over 5,000 words – is like a needy boyfriend/girlfriend who won’t let you surf online porn and look for racist cartoons.’

Skipping this for obvious reasons.

“We accept any genre of writing unless it’s poorly written. If you’re wondering whether or not we’ll accept a certain poem or interview or rant, send it anyway. We’ll likely read it. We like reading.”

‘Now that’s just smug and stupid. What editor has published a piece they deem ‘poorly written’? A poorly written story may involve this: a computer getting sick, sitting in its bathrobe all day and eating soup and being made to feel useless. Or, a story about a bunch of guys who started an online journal to feel self-important.’

I do find it funny that you’re complaining about what we won’t accept (see: previous publications, simultaneous publications) as well as what we will accept.

I will admit that the word “accept” should possibly be switched to something else which conveys that we will read, but not necessarily publish, any genre of writing. Forgive the unclear meaning.

“We will edit your work if needed, however, if the mistakes are so glaring that it’s obvious you’ve not proofread it beforehand, we will laugh and then delete your submission.”

‘Is this online literature or 6th grade English? So what you gonna do with my extra comma, shitface? You, gonna, spank, me? You know, “Trimalchio in West Egg” was the original title for The Great Gatsby, until his editor Max Perkins intervened. It’s a good thing Max didn’t laugh.’

This, again, is too cavalier. The end might need to be rewritten.

However, we’re not receiving work from F. Scott Fitzgerald, as he never gave away his work for free, nor did Max Perkins work for free. You are referring to an online journal run by two people who lose money on every issue.

But yes, we edit and yes, your extra comma will be removed. It provides easier reading, especially when there are submissions we receive which go over the 5,000 word limit. Our main goal is to provide something which will not make a reader cringe. The note is there because of the online literary magazines which do not edit a writer’s work. It’s stated as a courtesy to those writers who don’t want editing.

“We do accept sequential art (see: comics), photography, and other visual art. When submitting, please attach a jpeg to your e-mail. Jpeg should be no less than 200 dpi. We will fiddle with it and make it accessible for those with sub par connections to the internet.”

‘Oh! – you guys are such internet studs with your wifi connection! Damn those orphans emailing from the public library. Hey, how about another raid on World of Warcraft! Cause there’s nothing less nerdy than being emotionally attached to the speed by which the virtual world is funneled to your Box O’ Lonliness. Hey Comcast, can I get a WHUT WHUT?!’

Again, as a courtesy to those submitting work which they would prefer to go unaltered, we’re mentioning that the files may be reduced in size.

“We, of course, encourage you to read pre-existing issues to get a feel of the kind of work we like, but we also want original things. You will impress us by sending us something we haven’t already seen. We will impress you by genuinely appreciating your work and by posting it here for the entire literate world to see.”

‘You’ll have to increase the font size if you actually want the entire literate world to see. Small may be subtle, but it’s also difficult to see. And yes, please do bestow upon us lowly writers your approval of our work. That, next to a Peter North ‘release,’ is truly impressive.’

Isn’t approval what you’re seeking, if only in part, by submitting your work anywhere?

“Send all submissions to: submit@aforementionedproductions.com. Do not send your submissions to submissions@aforementionedproductions.com”

‘Also, don’t send submissions to any-combination-of-letters-that-is-not submit@aforementionedproductions.com because all writers are bad at distinguishing between words, being illiterate and all.’

That is your insinuation, not ours.

“That address does not exist.”

‘Yes, thank you. God also does not exist. And your penis. It’s an inflamed clit.’

By “your,” do you mean yours, specifically? If so, how does that go over? I imagine it would be delightful at parties.

“Legal blah-de-blah. We reserve first printing rights. Other than that, all other rights are held by the author. If you should reprint anything that first appeared in apt, we ask that you acknowledge that it was seen here first. We can keep your writing on our site as long as we’d like, even in archives. We reserve the right to possibly print your piece in an anthology.”

‘Fair enough. Go fuck yourself.’

Your paradoxes are stymying.

“Because we make no money publishing apt online, we do not currently pay contributors. Should we ever make the jump to print, we will (at the very least) send contributors’ copies.”

‘God bless you.’

As a non-believer, I’d appreciate if you didn’t shove your religion down my throat.

In summation, you have compiled an only partially valid list of complaints. We may remedy them in light of your thoughts. Or we may not. That said, I’m glad you enjoy the aesthetic of our publication, but I’m also glad you won’t be submitting your work. It’s not because you’ve criticized us–opposition is the only road to progression–but because I didn’t find your rant engaging, much less “brilliant,” as mentioned in the comments above my own.

Thank you for your time,

Carissa Halston
Contributing editor of apt

February 1st, 2009 / 12:19 am donkeypuncher—

true.

you’re clearly smarter than i thought.

February 1st, 2009 / 10:10 pm Amy Denver—

Can you provide more details on this?

February 20th, 2009 / 8:29 pm Jimmy Chen—

haha are you saying i need those pills?

February 20th, 2009 / 8:30 pm Jimmy Chen—

sorry, the entire post was sorta like a joke. not really serious. sorry about putting apt on the spot

March 19th, 2009 / 11:28 pm Girl—

Do you guys have a recommendation section, i’d like to suggest some stuff

December 23rd, 2009 / 12:31 pm Peter—

Not many people pay very close attention to guidelines, from what I can tell. I don’t care either way. The only reason we have guidelines at all is to stop all the emails asking the same questions.

Dumbshit guidelines

87 Comments

Archives

Meta