The April Reader Issue 1 Release Thread!

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673115]

At long last, It is our great pleasure to announce Issue 1 of the April Reader is ready for release. Unlike the joke edition released on the 31st, this release is the real thing. 40 jam-packed pages of the best user-submitted and copyright-free writing the net has to offer. A warm welcome to all authors who have submitted to the publication, and special thanks to our readers. As always, reader feedback is welcomed if not encouraged

Website and download link: http://theaprilreader.org/
Publication IRC Channel: #TAR on irc.freenode.net

Interested authors can submit their poetry and prose for publication next issue by e-mailing us at [e-mail] (formerly [e-mail]) .ODT attachment is the preferred submission format

[Anonymous No.1673122]

looks pretty decent edithurrs

BUT WHERES THE CREAM FILLING?

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1673127]

IRC software:

http://www.mirc.com
http://xchat.org

Chat in your web-browser:

http://webchat.freenode.net

[Anonymous No.1673135]

not bad. You guys are still doing anonymous crediting? What gives?

[Anonymous No.1673136]

Is this the magazine formerly known as WAAZ?

[Anonymous No.1673138]

>>1673122

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673140]

>>1673135
More like testing anonymous posting really

>>1673122
>cream filling
wait wat

Tarman is the unofficial TAR mascot, by the way

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673141]

>>1673136
Yeah, we were What an Awful Zine prior. Name Changed as a result of a greenoval thread

[Anonymous No.1673143]

>trollface on first page
the fuck?

[Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg No.1673145]

>>1673135
We never decided we would cease this practice, yet.
We even said we would do it for this issue on multiple occasions.

>>1673143
Damn you found one of the easter eggs fast.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673191]

Just a note for any authors who were expecting their work to be published but it was not: With the change to anonymous crediting, TAR staff emailed notice of the change around to submitters asking for publication confirmation in light of these changes. Rather than risk angry authors, TAR staff has decided not to publish material where the author did not reply positively to this email.

Also, a number of pieces have been given "soft rejections". That is, while we think your work has promise it is not up to snuff at the moment. We will be emailing authors given soft rejections and providing them with line-edits of their work for them to improve their piece

Apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused

[Anonymous No.1673218]

>When I think of the word "zine", the...

grammatical errors in the first sentence? This will be a fun read.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673220]

>>1673218
hehe, I knew we should have rephrased the intro. The stories themselves are pretty good- not to mention the copyright free essays at the end are a real treat

[Anonymous No.1673222]

>>1673145
>>1673143
Son of a bitch, can't unsee.

[Anonymous No.1673224]

>>1673222
>>1673222
>>1673222
>>1673222
>>1673222
FFFFFFFFFF

[Anonymous No.1673335]

What is this?

need backstory

[Anonymous No.1673355]

>>1673335
It's an online publication comprised solely - at this time - of anonymous submissions from /lit/ and 4chan. We had another one before but it was really shitty and stopped. We all hope this one will be successful.

Read the links on the TAR page.

[Anonymous No.1673359]

HEY GUYS. I HAVE A REALLY FUCKING BIG COMPLAINT.

YOU CENTERED ALL THE POETRY.
I WILL NEVER SUBMIT ANYTHING TO YOU IF YOU CONTINUE THIS BULLSHIT.

CENTERED POETRY IS A JOKE.
YOU SHOULDN'T CHANGE THE FORM OF WORKS SUBMITTED TO YOU.

JESUS FUCK.

[Anonymous No.1673361]

I see the quality pride is all posturing.

[Anonymous No.1673369]

>>1673361
It'll get better, guy. First issue and all. Chin up.

But this:

>>1673359
>>1673359
I agree and I am pissed!

[T.J.Bacchus No.1673373]

You could do like the newspapers do with crosswords; Credit the authors in the magazine following the one their stories were posted in.

This keeps the readers "Bias-free" in the case of recurring writers, but it still allows the authors to gain credit for their work. You could even extend it so they won't be credited until 2 issues on, depending on the time between issues.

[Anonymous No.1673381]

>>1673373

[T.J.Bacchus No.1673383]

One more thing, am I the only one who finds the font a little annoying? The difference between heights really throws me off.

[Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg No.1673445]

>>1673359
>>1673369
Calm down guys, seriously. I won't be centering poetry next issue. Thanks for the feedback. But not changing the form at all? I see your point, and I mostly agree, but I think you're taking art too seriously bro.

>>1673383
I did notice this, being the one who had to look at it the most, but I didn't think it was a flaw that warranted a change. If other take issue with the font I'll endeavor to change it. I actually decided to keep it because I got some good feedback in the past.

[Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg No.1673447]

>>1673361
Want to actually tell us what you didn't like so we can maybe improve?

Also discuss the actual content. I've heard plenty of how the zine sucks. Even though I have bias I still think it's better than ZWG though...

[Anonymous No.1673456]

Wasn't there going to be a Kindle (or at least ereader-friendly) version at some point? I like to do my reading on a tablet if it goes over 10 pages or so, and formatting-heavy PDFs aren't too pretty after an automated conversion. If you don't know how to ePub and Mobi, plenty of us do, so just ask.

Also, one more vote for continued anonymity.

[Anonymous No.1673473]

"Blue": I'm intrigued, but not hooked. The story needs characters.

To the author of "Nostalgia": *fistbump*

"Back when we won both the battle and the war": Good stuff.

It would be nice if we could fill the zine without resorting to public-domain material. Is it going on a monthly schedule? If so, I could probably polish up a draft in time for the next deadline.

[Anonymous No.1673489]

I had high hopes for this, but it seems to have turned out of one those zines that is mocked in the preface.

- Editorial camaraderie and wankery, along with logistical and administrative information almost takes up as much space as the solitary piece of original fiction

- Orthographic and grammatical mistakes manage to escape the triumvirate of editors

- Why does a journal made up of one piece of fiction, half a dozen poems, a couple of essays (one of which appears to have been authored by an editor) and a boatload of copy and pasted material NEED three editors?

- Half of the actual content is copy and pasted essays...

- Why aren't the editors anonymous? I understand the need to identify yourselves on the boards but why use your nicks to do that?

The whole thing seems rushed, unprofessional and a thin cloak for some mediocre editors to get some sort of recognition. Nevertheless, I applaud the effort and ethos.

[Anonymous No.1673514]

>>1673489

Is there any work in the Zine that you liked?

[Anonymous No.1673516]

the poetry isn't too bad

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1673528]

>>1673489
>Editorial camaraderie and wankery
Point taken.
>Orthographic and grammatical mistakes
See the answer to your next concern.
>Why does a journal . . . NEED three editors
TBH, there is really one editor, and that is Prole. Luco does the pdf creation and design (using Adobe's software). I handle the Internet servers.
>Half of the actual content is copy and pasted essays
The amount of this type of content will vary depending on the volume of submitted work. If you have issues with why a certain copyright-free essay was selected this will help to make sure that more appropriate essays are included in future issues, if at all.
>Why aren't the editors anonymous
I think you answer your own question:
>I understand the need to identify yourselves

I'm glad you have voiced your opinions. Without this kind of input we could never hope to improve and make changes that are wanted.

I think the whole idea of the editors listening to, and implementing, changes based on the concerns and critiques of the reader is not only something that is repeatedly mentioned throughout the "editorial camaraderie and wankery," but the whole idea behind the name of this publication.

[Anonymous No.1673561]

I'm posting from my phone so haven't yet had the chance to read the zine.

Have the editors credited themselves? And not used 'anonymous' on the zine?

Oh dem double standards

[Anonymous No.1673573]

>>1673561
They're credited by pseudonym and trip.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!Y1EuuCjZi2N No.1673574]

>>1673561
>>1673561
This is me btw

[Anonymous No.1673584]

>>1673514
I strived to make sure that my comments weren't personal opinions about the works within, and I hope that they didn't come across that way. I didn't particularly like any of it (other than the Chomsky essay, which I've already read) but that is not a reflection on the way the zine is ran or organised but rather on my personal tastes.

>>1673528
Yes, of course, taking into account feedback is paramount for any community driven publication, and as I said, I like that ethos. As far as 'editorial camaraderie and wankery' goes, I was referring to the rather self-indulgent prefatory note and the whole notion of the three of you identifying yourselves using nicks. For what reason does someone whose role is it is to administrate a server need to identify themselves in an official capacity with regards to the magazine when addressing criticisms with the actual content of it or solicitation of works? Personally, I would have gone for a trips like 'Editor', 'Designer' and 'Webmaster'.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those 'militant anonymity' advocates who makes it his mission to sage the posts of tripfags. I just think that in the context of a publication based on anonymous contributions that it would be better suited.

Also, even with one actual editor, who, let's face it didn't have a lot to proofread, how did some of the mistakes get past him?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!Y1EuuCjZi2N No.1673585]

>>1673573
>>1673573
And why can't the authors be credited?

[Anonymous No.1673598]

>>1673561
>>1673574
That's my major concern too (other than the shoddy design, bad layout and myriad spelling mistakes which were overlooked). Sadly, it's something that irreparable, since these guys, supposedly making a case for anonymity (as opined in one of their essays), have decided to credit themselves at every possible opportunity both in the .pdf and on the boards what is a less than mediocre copy and paste job.

[Anonymous No.1673599]

>>1673585
There's a brief piece about it in the issue. tl;dr quotes:

> This zine is very small at the moment. We’ll probably be lucky if over 100 people read this zine. You won’t get your writing career off the ground here, nor will you require any substantual fame.

> I tink [sic] people often forget that the individual works they produce are more potent than some image they are creating by tying them all together with a name as the string.

> A more personal reason for me is to try and create a mindet less focused on egos and name dropping
and competition, but one void of bias. A place where a work can be critiqued solely on its merits. A place
where ultimately, the words on the page are held in higher reguard than the person behind them.

[Anonymous No.1673603]

>>1673561
>>1673574
That's my major concern too (other than the shoddy design, bad layout and myriad spelling mistakes which were overlooked). Sadly, it's something that is irreparable, since these guys, supposedly making a case for anonymity (as opined in one of their essays), have decided to credit themselves at every possible opportunity both in the .pdf and on the boards for what is a less than mediocre copy and paste job.

[Anonymous No.1673609]

>>1673528
you really have someone whose job it is to create the design and layout? and here i was thinking that you were just a bunch of clueless writers who didnt know anything about that kind of thing (in which case it would have been excusable) but yeah, that guy needs to be replaced asap :/

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1673626]

>>1673584
I understand now exactly what you are arguing, and I must say, that you make a very good case. I think I mostly agree with you and will push for these changes myself.

>>1673603
I like the design. I don't understand the criticism of the design. I think it is just as simple as it needs to be, and it is certainly readable to my eyes. Would you mind explaining what you mean by your critique?

[Anonymous No.1673630]

I'd like to see more prose. Maybe one piece as long as 'Blue' and a couple of pieces half that size or so.

I like it though.

[Anonymous No.1673738]

zine is fucking good. keep things anonymous. even the editors should be anonymous. looking forward to submitting something once i get off my ass.

[Anonymous No.1673745]

>>1673738

Seconded.

Kindle version is needed though and the poetry needs to be shown properly. Also, spellcheck.

Good job though.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!Y1EuuCjZi2N No.1673812]

So authors can't use a name, but editors can?
Why

[Anonymous No.1673822]

>>1673812

Well, it sounds like the editors are dropping the names now.

Why do you care anyway? You've already said you aren't submitting anything?

[Anonymous No.1673835]

>>1673822

He's caught up with the psuedo-celebrity of having a name. It stems from having such a boring real life. Do yourself a favor, don't even bother responding.

[Anonymous No.1673837]

>>1673812
crybaby namewhore faggot

[Anonymous No.1673844]

>>1673812
Have you read the justification for author anonymity in the zine? Can you apply its logic to the editors?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, STFU.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1673848]

not contributing my stuff until the anonymity issue is fixed.

[Anonymous No.1673855]

>>1673848

Only a tripfag would call anonymity an "issue".

[Anonymous No.1673858]

>>1673848

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Anonymous No.1673860]

Only trying to help, but the introduction has a number of typos and errors.

Including:

"Vainly, he ZWG fumbled"
"That is the bottom line" lacking a full stop.

Additionally, "the publication does
not even label itself a zine" seems to be at odds with your later statement that The zine will only be as good as its readers and contributors can make it."

I love some of the pieces here, but perhaps another few minutes spent checking for mistakes would not be amiss.

I am also against the decision to not credit authors.

Good luck, though.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673899]

>go to sleep with ~15 reply thread
>wake up this morning
>200 replies SHITSTORMSABREWING
Nostalgia so hard
---------
So from what I can see, we have three main complaints:
A) Poetry is centered
B) Anonymous crediting is controversial
C) Preface is wankery

I agree with the poetry, Anonymous crediting will be something all three editors will have to decide on, and I wrote the preface and yes it is pretty wankish. The small pool of submissions is a result of higher submission standards.

Anyone interested in having their material in the next issue can email us at [e-mail]

[Anonymous No.1673915]

>>1673899

It's only tripfags and the odd anon complaining about anonymity, or a tripfag dropping trip, which isn't unusual.

You also need a Kindle version. And you need to spellcheck. And the editors also need to drop trips from the publication. Just call yourself The Editors or something. No trips in the zine.

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1673924]

who allowed "Hungering Evening" in there

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1673942]

>>1673822
>>1673822
i don't vote for the american president but i care about the election system.

>>1673835
>>1673835
>>1673837
>>1673837
samefag mad as fuck

>>1673844
>>1673844
also samefag
but the justification seems to be that:
the zine is small
so? why does this mean people can't have a pseudonym for their writing? and yes, the zine is small, all the reason the editors don't need a name

the second justification
> I tink [sic] people often forget that the individual works they produce are more potent than some image they are creating by tying them all together with a name as the string.
people associate quality to a name, i'd rather read the works of x, y, z writer for the zine than writer a, b or c

the last justification is to make a place where 'the words on the page are held in higher reguard than the person behind them.'
then why do they need to use a trip to identify themselves if they want their editing work to speak for itself?


>>1673899
>>1673899
i think the anon crediting is controversial because you also decided to credit yourselves as editors.
i'd rather everyone was credited for thier work.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673952]

>>1673915
Actually we were going to release an .epub yesterday... but when we looked at the file when it was exported it was so garbled we didn't bother. In the future, sure.

I find it a little funny that such a fuss was kicked up over Editor identification (we are only credited maybe once or twice in the entire publication by name)- but if this is what the general public wants, we'll change the publication to suit their tastes

>>1673924
I take it you're not a fan on that one stag. I let it in, seemed decent to me

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673958]

Also, am I the only one who thought the addition of copyright-free material at the end was a nice addition?

[Anonymous No.1673960]

>>1673942

>i'd rather everyone was credited for thier work.

Oh, really? Well, most people don't want to be credited. The Editors didn't just force this on us you know. The works that were published weren't stolen or gained under false pretenses. Just fuck off.

[Anonymous No.1673964]

>>1673958

No, I liked it too.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673965]

Also, am I the only one who thought the addition of copyright-free material at the end was nice?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1673966]

>Thank you to those who submitted your work, especially those who graciously
accepted to become anonymous in the spirit of 4chan and this zine

not the editors though right?
what the fuck

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1673967]

>>1673965
>copyright-free material
what does that mean

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673971]

>>1673964
Haha, okay my efforts are rewarded. If anyone wants to suggest non-copyright material we should publish, we'd be happy to oblige

[Anonymous No.1673972]

>>1673967

You are a dog.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1673973]

>>1673960
>>1673960
those who want to be credited should be able to
and shit like this


Editors
Prole !XDERDXUpqQ
Wildweasal !FvTu.n1ohA
Luco !/.tVpzN9Q

followed by this contradictory statement
Thank you to those who submitted your work, especially those who GRACIOUSLY ACCEPTED TO BECOME ANONYMOUS IN THE SPIRIT OF 4CHAN AND THIS ZINE.

gee i wonder when the editors going to address my posts

[Anonymous No.1673976]

>>1673971

Something esoteric, mystical. Maybe Alistair Crowley or something. Something on Eastern philosophy.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1673979]

>>1673967
This means we have included written material from people like Noam Chomsky and Kim-Jong-IL in the document and won't get sued for it because their work has either copyright-expired or wasn't copyrighted at all.

(Last section of the zine is devoted to this. We even have some neat weblinks at the bottom of each piece)

[Anonymous No.1673980]

>>1673973

The editors have already said they are dropping the trips from the zine. I assume they only included them so that you would know who you were talking to in these threads, although it isn't really needed.

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1673982]

When will you retards understand that no one on lit can write worth a shit and no one wants to read your 4th grade reading level "zine" everything in there lacks originality and has been taken or "inspired" from some other famous prick

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1673985]

>>1673982
I thought u retired

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1673984]

>>1673979
>>1673979
you going to address any of my points or just ignore them?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1673987]

>>1673982
>>1673982

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1673988]

cool it w/ the asperger's and adhd combo brownbutt

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1673989]

>>1673985
i come out of retirement when people are stupid

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1673998]

>>1673988
>>1673988
it's okay stag i still care about who you are, even if these guys don't

[Stagolee !0Pey/QLK3E No.1674001]

>>1673998
prole's replied to like all of my q's

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674004]

>>1673998
>>1674001
guys shut the fuck up stop fighting the enemy is anonymous not each other ok

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674005]

>>1673976
Sounds good to me, I was actually considering have Crowley in place of the except from the book of dreams and ghosts. Prehaps next time, unless I manage to find some conspiratorial as fuck alien hunter on the net who writes manifestos

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674007]

>>1674001
>>1674001
yeah but i'm raisding valid points he know he can't argue against because he's obviously a fucking idiot who's assmad that i called him out for his double standards

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674011]

>>1674005
>>1674005
you're really going to act like such a baby?
jesus christ answer the legitimate concerns i raised, you're a disgrace

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674013]

well i guess prole doesn't want to answer any of my questions :(

1/?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674017]

2/?

[Anonymous No.1674022]

>>1674013
Replace Dawkins with Hitchens and it'd be perfect.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674018]

3/?

[Anonymous No.1674025]

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674024]

4/?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674029]

>>1674007
>>1674011
wait what
>gigantic ongoing anonymous v. trip rant
>"oh I'll just ignore it"
>OH GAWD MURDER MURDER MURDER
Welp, I think I'll just ignore it Policy is anonymous crediting currently, we'll change the editor crediting to be less hypocritical. I do not believe you are the type of person to actually submit work, so I'm not particularly taking you very seriously

>>1674001
*obligatory reply to stagolee*

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674032]

5/?

[Anonymous No.1674034]

>>1674024
Bieber is Canadian.

[Anonymous No.1674035]

>>1674034
feelin dumb

[Anonymous No.1674040]

Brownbear I really think yo need to leave your house. Go outside. Now.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674041]

>>1674024
>>1674018
>>1674017
>>1674013

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674037]

>>1674029
>>1674029
so you won't address my legitimate concerns because you can't be bothered reading my post?

by addressing the editoral crediting do you mean becoming anonymous "IN THE SPIRIT OF 4CHAN AND THE ZINE" or not?

6/?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674048]

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674045]

7/?

[Anonymous No.1674050]

>>1674037

I think it's more a case of no one on this board caring about any concern you may have about anything at all, because we all hate you. You know everyone hates you, right? Why don't you make a greentext thread and stay in it.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674049]

8/?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674053]

>>1674050

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674054]

9/?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674056]

>>1674050
>>1674050
MAD AS FUCK BRO

10/?

[Anonymous No.1674061]

So, what, like 5% (and I bet half of that 5$ are people whose work appeared in it) of this thread has been in praise of the zine? I think that it can safely and almost unanimously be branded a complete failure given the gaping flaws. Yet the editors, especially this self-gratifying 'Prole' guy (although why he gratifies himself with such a bad operation, terrible writing and bad editing feels the need to gratify himself, I do not know), seem to be ignoring ALL of the issues and just responding with vague 'it's ok guys we're listening to u!!! we count on ur feedback!!!' type replies.

I'd say it's beyond repair, and any improvements would be futile due to the overwhelming volume of shit that has drowned the publication. If another journal is going to be released here ever, then it definitely shouldn't be by these idiots. They've done a discredit to /lit/.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674062]

11/?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674064]

>>1674037
hmm, I think I've answered your pressing complaints and you're just trying to force them by spamming. Personally, I think anonymous crediting is going to harm us when we try to expand beyond 4chan, but it is policy for now and we're sticking to it.

>>1674040
>>1674050
More or less. Man this thread is going troll fast

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674071]

>>1674061

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674069]

>>1674061
>>1674061
you are a God.

12/?

[Anonymous No.1674073]

>>1674061

moanmoansagesagedonothingnothing

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674077]

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674079]

13/?

[Anonymous No.1674084]

>>1674029
Have been quietly watching from the sidelines with distaste for the way the 'editors' handled this, but this has encouraged me to post.

Are you serious?
>we take your feedback seriously
>ignored pretty much every single piece of criticism in the thread

Jesus, your server guy managed to address the issues relating to your job better than you did. I'm glad you decided to publish everything anonymously, because it would be embarrassing as fuck for anyone to have their real name appear in this shit. (Not 'cos of the quality of the works within, but because the whole concept and people materializing it are morons)

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674086]

>>1674061
oh lawl, TROLLS EVERYWHERE. This kind of backlash is pretty common in zine threads- typically what happens is the first people to latch on skim the thing for what they don't like and report back. To my knowledge, very few actually read it at this point.

Usually, we start getting general zine talk a day or so after this dies down

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674082]

14/?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674092]

>>1674084

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674089]

15/?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674095]

>>1674092
>>1674092
OREO SAGE IT BRO

16/?

[Anonymous No.1674099]

>>1674086
Not that guy, but someone else who previously posted, saying that it wasn't that bad and that it could use improvements which would be possible because of the good attitude of the editors. But HOLY SHIT at your attitude dude. You haven't actually addressed any issues, and as crude as that guys way of explaining it is, I think I'm now inclined to change my mind and agree. :/

Pic related, its probably what pole looks like irl

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674104]

>>1674095
nah man proles feigned indifference to getting assraped is hallaaaaarious

[Anonymous No.1674105]

Can anyone talk about some of the actual work. The editors are most likely discussing the concerns over things states earlier, so how about the actual pieces. Anyone like any?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674101]

>>1674095
>>1674095
17/?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674111]

18/?

[Anonymous No.1674112]

>>1674105
I liked the short fiction and that short poem about vaginas lol, but seriously, that doesn't cancel out the terrible attitude of the staff nor the bad quality of the rest of the design and bad editing (seriously, the intro was written by EDITORS was riddled with mistakes, yet its their job to edit...).

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674113]

19/?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674118]

if you want to write a zine prole go make one for /fa/ or something

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674119]

>>1674105
>>1674105
storey 'blue was okay'
poems were alright, didn't like 'nostalgia'
essays were shittily formatted as was the thing on the whole

20/?

[Zed !RW2kCRRAXg No.1674123]

>>1674113
fukkin saved

[Anonymous No.1674124]

Tripfags are so fucking childish

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674125]

>>1674118
>>1674118
oreo sage this thread you cretin
<3

21/?

[Anonymous No.1674128]

>>1674037
>>1674032
>>1674024
>>1674018
>>1674017
>>1674013
There's some image macro concerning your best and our worst, it has a picture of john holmes on the left and some black guy with a tiny dick on the right. Your rhetorical abilities seem contingent on your opponents ignorance. Being not at all ignorant of these things, you just look retarded. Not just retarded intellectually, but you're even more of a deterrent to progress by being a retard to society. How does it feel to be dually retarded?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674130]

>>1674125
>bob marley
ive been trolled

[Anonymous No.1674134]

>>1674128
Oh look, Prole finally dropped his trip.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674132]

>>1674124
>>1674124
stop samefagging prole

22/?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674143]

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674142]

>>1674128
>>1674128
>doesn't know what a sagebomb is
sup prole?


cool story bro

>>1674130
>>1674130
pic related oreo
23/?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674147]

24/?

[Anonymous No.1674150]

ok im not one of these guys trying to bomb your thread. but i think with the resounding amount of negative comments that you should just kinda give up trying this in the future. it was a nice experiment but people obviously dont like it, so why bother arguing with everyone about it

also english isnt my first language and some of the mistakes you made in the preface even annoyed me lol

[Anonymous No.1674153]

>Anonymous imageboard
>Anonymous submissions to imageboard zine
>Tripfag MAD

anti-sage bump

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674157]

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674160]

>>1674150
>>1674150
Pedro does not approve of your shitty editing!

[Anonymous No.1674163]

>>1674150

>people obviously dont like it

Brownbear is not a person. He's a gelatinous blob who sits on lit 100+ hours per week with the sole intention of "beating" Anonymous.

[Anonymous No.1674166]

Well, I've read most of it (still need to read Blue). I'm going to toss up a review of each piece later today.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674165]

>>1674163
>>1674163
>hasn't read the thread
how's life prole?

>>1674153
>>1674153

mad as fuck

26/?

[Anonymous No.1674170]

>>1674163
well im not him and i dont like it and there are at least like fifteen people before hand who dont, and no one coming to sing its praise (correct expression?) except for the editors themselves

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674174]

>>1674166
>>1674166
Blue was one of the better ones

27/?

[Anonymous No.1674177]

>>1674165
Not prole, read the whole thread. Comment about you stands. U MAD?

anti-sage bump

[Anonymous No.1674180]

>>1674174
That's a useful image. Got any more like it?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674181]

>>1674170
>>1674170
thats my boooooooooooy!

28/?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674187]

>>1674150
Hmm, we have spammers and trolls right now but I don't really think this is representative of our audience. Issue 2 is still set to be made

>>1674153
More or less, this. In an hour, the thread will probably have died down and we can have reasonable discussion

>>1674166
That'd be nice :3

[Anonymous No.1674196]

>>1674187

>More or less, this. In an hour, the thread will probably have died down and we can have reasonable discussion

>Implying Bronbaer ever leaves /lit/

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674195]

>>1674180
>>1674180
sure thing

>>1674177
>>1674177
calmer than you madski

29/?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674202]

>>1674196
>>1674196
thats not very polite is it?

30/?

[Anonymous No.1674207]

>>1674202

What's impolite about it?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674215]

>>1674196
Well if he doesn't, he'll get eventually banned for sagebombing. Fear not folks, TAR will prevail

tarman always related

[Anonymous No.1674218]

>>1674215

Well I hope you're reporting. It's the only way a janitor will ever see anything happening on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.1674220]

>>1674218

while you're at it, report the other two off-topic tripfag threads on page 0

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674219]

>>1674215
>>1674215
i'll eventually get banned huh?

OH GEE WHAT EVER WILL I DO

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674223]

>>1674207
>>1674207
it said i never leave /lit/ when im going out for drinks with these two girls later

31/?

[Anonymous No.1674224]

>>1674219

Post reported for ban evasion

[Anonymous No.1674229]

>>1674223

Doubtful. What hours will you not be here?

[Anonymous No.1674230]

The negativity in this thread is pathetic. Someones trying to actually do something here. It's not perfect but for a first try it's okay. Why are all so fucking bitter?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674231]

>>1674224
>>1674224
spoil sport

this is one of my fav images

32/?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674236]

>>1674187
You delusional son of a bitch i'm not trolling i honestly think your zine is absolute shit and you should leave

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674247]

>>1674230
the funny thing is that this isnt his first try its like his 67th and it still sucks

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674254]

>>1674229
>>1674229
rearranged it to next saturday actally
will be probably from the hours of 7pm/8pm - the early morning as we're going for drinks and clubbing

33/?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674258]

>>1674230
A wise anon on here once summed up the /lit/ experience nicely:

"Don't ever, EVER submit your work to a room full of bored people looking to criticize something for their own enjoyment- especially ones who regularly attack professional authors"

that post kind of stuck with me. Of course TAR is going to continue circulating, but the truth is 4chan isn't too good at being constructive

[Anonymous No.1674259]

>>1674247

Considering the level of support shown in the second half of this thread, I'm surprised anything was even started.

Seriously. You faggots aren't even going to contribute, you just waste away spamming meaningless bullshit. Grow up.

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674260]

>>1674258
and you arent too good at making zines

[Anonymous No.1674263]

Earlier I posted a constructive reply. No editor (these, remember, are editors whose raison d'etre is apparently to serve us and to correct the journal as we the masses see fit. . .) addressed ANY of my points and now you're labelling people who disagree with you as trolls.

Further to this, how can't you see that the reason these two tripfags are spamming you is because you didn't actually address any criticism.

And you wonder why this happens to your threads?

For shame.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674262]

34/?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674265]

>>1674263
>>1674263
anon has spoken
and he speaks well

35/?
i have about 3k images btw.

[Anonymous No.1674271]

>>1674258
the first half of this thread is mostly constructive, your webmaster guy answered a couple replies but you didnt address any and you wonder why no one else will post constructive criticism

and if you think its just a couple angry tripfags you're mistaken. im just a normal /lit/ter who doesnt post too frequently but this whole ignorance of your induced me to post

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674277]

>>1674259
>>1674259
you don't realise we want our actual concerns addressed.

>>1674271
>>1674271
let's see if prole replies to this

36.?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674278]

>>1674263
Most likely, that would be because editors have to sleep. Link me to the post and I'll get back to you

And I have responded to the trips, and so far they've just gotten madder and are trying to forcefully reverse anonymous crediting. When the other editors wake up in the evening, we'll have a serious discussion on whether the zine goes full-out anon or starts crediting authors, in the meantime we're not going to be a bunch of pushovers

[Anonymous No.1674284]

>>1674271

I looked over the thread and I don't see any unanswered questions. The shitstorm starts when BrownBear decides to push for author recognition, despite the fact that the reasons for anonymity had been discussed in tow threads prior to this, plus they had been outlined in the zine, plus they have been said in this thread again, before and after his comments.

You're all just acting like little kiddies.

[Anonymous No.1674285]

>>1674278
You're an editor of a journal which prides itself on having an editorial team who listen. Refer to your colleagues reply here >>1673528

So as the editor, why aren't you addressing each and every piece of constructive criticism (and there are at least ten posts worth). It isn't hard to find. Did you really not read any of your own thread?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674286]

>>1674278
>>1674278
you haven't addressed any points, read the thread!

37/?

[Anonymous No.1674287]

>>1674284
>editor of some shitty childish zine calls people who dont like it 'trolls' eve nwhen they post decent criticism
>we're the ones acting like kids

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674288]

>>1674271
I was sleeping, and from the looks of things the other editors handled the questions well. When I woke up, the thread was already in the anonymous crediting argument. If you want a answer for a specific question, please link me to the post or ask me again

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674291]

>>1674284
>>1674284
stop dropping trip prole!

37/?

[oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U No.1674294]

>>1674288
you're the only editor in this thread dipshit
>>1674287
fukkin saved

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1674296]

>>1674288
sorry about your thread

brownbear has a huge inferiority complex because he's the ugliest tripfag

[Anonymous No.1674300]

Since everybody is being buttmad about buttmadness and other buttmadderies, I'll quietly and no doubt pointlessly put in my opinion.

Read the fucking zine. Hungering Evening, A Feminist Poem, Back when we won both the war and the battle, and My War on Sound are good. They're quirky and entertaining. shit you'd expect from 4chan users. Its the first issue, hardly anyone of you fucks submitted your stuff and now you're complaining about how you want to have your name credited in a zine that you apparently all despise?

Did any of you read ZWG or are you all newfags? Most (if not all) writers for ZWG wrote with a pseudonym and it affected nothing beyond everyone getting a collective Josef K. hardon. Anonymous authorship is good and mentally challenged shut-ins like Brownbear and Tybrax aren't worth parroting.

Having a zine is a good thing. This issue isn't spectacular but its the first and still worth reading through, so kudos to Editors. No one can say having a community effort in place is bad for /lit/, especially considering the terrible fucking quality of 8/10 threads now. Write some shit, submit it, and stop taking it so seriously.

Props to the editors.

[Anonymous No.1674304]

>>1674291
>>1674287

That's not Prole. That's me. And I think if anyone should be accused of samefagging and dropping trip it's you. When you weren't satisfied with the answer given about anonymity, you pushed and pushed, saying you hadn't been heard when you had. Then all of a sudden all of these haters pop up, staright after you. Coincidence?

I don't see any serious posts that haven't been answered.

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1674305]

>>1674296
>brownbear
>inferiority complex

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1674307]

>>1674305
well it manifests itself as a superiority complex

but this is going way over your heads, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.1674308]

>>1674300

Seconded. Well put.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674312]

>>1674285
Hmm, when I first got on I replied to the major complaints I'd noticed (See: >>1673899). Outside of that, I trusted the other editors to have dealt with things

>>1674291
Haven't dropped trip once

>>1674296
lol, its okay. But lets not make this a trip drama thread more than it already is

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674311]

>>1674288
>>1674288
read the thread and answer all the questions we asked before and after you came back

>>1674296
>>1674296
mad as fuck fattass

>>1674300
>>1674300
read it, it was bad
>newfags
STOPPED READING THERE BRO

>>1674304
>>1674304
okay prole we get the point ofc it's not you, wink wink, nudge nudge

>>1674305
>>1674305
iknowrite?

38/?

[None !WvWWh.l.CE No.1674315]

>>1674300
>>1674308
never seen a worse samefag effort, ever.

and why would i want to waste my time on 4chan user art? its like a step down from even deviantart

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1674318]

>>1674311
>>1674311
>mad as fuck
trite /b/ meme

average brownbear post

>fatass
130lbs is obese?

i'm big and beautiful!

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674324]

>>1674300
>>1674300

[Anonymous No.1674327]

>>1674300
The problem is not with the anonymity in my opinion, but in the fact that the editors felt the need to devote themselves so much space in order to inflate their self-worth. On top of this, at the last minute issuing an order that everything must be published anonymously yet still keeping their own trips and even attaching them to the end of the journal.

The whole thing is pathetic (not including the quality, which, is terrible [not referring to the submissions, many of which I liked, but instead to the half assed copy and pasted shit]).

On top of this, people are rapt at the fact that someone calling themselves an editor can let through so many mistakes, especially in their own work. It just smacks of the kind of zine that the editor mocks in his own introduction.

A journal is not necessarily a disservice to the board, but it certainly is when it's ran by ego-mad editors who can't even edit properly, and who will just call everyone who disagrees with them a 'troll'.

The editors look like they have honestly tried their hardest, and I salute them for that. It's just a shame that their 'hardest' is a few poems, one piece of short fiction and 20+ pages of copy and pasted stock content.

[Anonymous No.1674343]

>>1674327

How bout the 2 essays?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674351]

>>1674327
You mean the intro. Yeah, I've already said its wankery- at the time, I just got nostalgic about the old zine. It'll be revised

>not referring to the submissions, many of which I liked, but instead to the half assed copy and pasted shit
>implying the submissions were good, but you're zeroing in on the non-copyright content
If you want us to post better stuff in that section, suggest a link to it.

>On top of this, people are rapt at the fact that someone calling themselves an editor can let through so many mistakes, especially in their own work. It just smacks of the kind of zine that the editor mocks in his own introduction.
Again, that is just the introduction. Go ahead and ignore it to get to tthe atcual reading

>A journal is not necessarily a disservice to the board, but it certainly is when it's ran by ego-mad editors who can't even edit properly, and who will just call everyone who disagrees with them a 'troll'.
YOur_opinion_man.jpg

>The editors look like they have honestly tried their hardest, and I salute them for that. It's just a shame that their 'hardest' is a few poems, one piece of short fiction and 20+ pages of copy and pasted stock content.
Smaller submission count is what you get when you ask for high quality guidelines. That is just inevitable.

[Anonymous No.1674352]

>>1674343
One of them is written by one of the editors, and that further reinforces his/her point about the staff needlessly inserting themselves and encroaching on the whole anonymity thing.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674360]

>>1674352
I note about that:
We realized that the intro did not mention a thing about anonymous crediting, so we decided to write a blurb on it. Realizing it was too big for the intro, we moved it over into being an essay.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674359]

>>1674318
>>1674318
your fat around your jawline tubby

okay prole pelase reply to these posts

>>1673942
>>1673973
>>1673860
>>1673812
>>1673609
>>1673603
>>1673599
>>1673584
>>1673489
>>1673561

also general questions about WHY you chose to credit yourselves under your names and trips
WHY you devoted so much space to that crediting whilst forcing anonymity on everyone else.

please also address this point
>>1674327
>>1674327

also layout sucks fucking ass, this font is shit, the centred poetry is shit, the way the essays are laid out are shit

39/?

[Anonymous No.1674367]

>>1674315

Actually, retard, that>>1674308 is >>1674304

Don't try and act like you know anything. We've all suffered you enough to know how truly worthless an individual you are.

[Anonymous No.1674372]

>>1674351
I counted at least five obvious errors in the rest of the zine that any editor worth his or her salt should have fixed.

And personally, I don't want any trademark free shit, if I wanted that I'd google for it. I'd read a /lit/ zine to read work by the people of this board.

Oh, and 'high quality' guidelines are bullshit when its based on the whim and taste of three guys (two of whom, I understand, aren't even involved in the content of the journal?) and meant to be a zine aimed at the entire community.

No offence, but you strike me as some over eager community college freshman who doesn't know much about how publications are run. That's fine, we were all (or still all are) at that stage at one point... it's just that most of us didn't attempt to launch a board-wide zine and then insult people who had honest concerns about the way it was being run.

[Anonymous No.1674376]

>>1674359

There's not a single thing there that they said they wouldn't be reviewing. You're just stirring shit, you don't care about anything other than posting your trip everywhere.

[Anonymous No.1674377]

I've just submitted a few poems. I'd just like you to know I support your efforts here. Thanks.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1674380]

n1 will read when I have a chance

LET'S ALL DO OUR BEST!!!!!! *JAPANESE REVERSE FIST POUND*

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674379]

>>1674376
>>1674376
not a thing they said they would be reviewing either

also prole please answer this part of this gentlemans post

>>1674327
>>1674327
>On top of this, at the last minute issuing an order that everything must be published anonymously yet still keeping their own trips and even attaching them to the end of the journal.

you seem to have missed it earlier, i don't know how.

40/?

[Anonymous No.1674381]

> Excitedly download, flip to fiction section.
> Read typo in first damn sentence.
> Delete.

[Anonymous No.1674386]

>>1674376
My post is among those that he quoted and I'm not stirring any shit, it'd be really nice if some editor or whatever would answer me legitimately instead of e-fighting with everyone. I did come into this with an open mind but it's quickly been closed by the immaturity of the pole tripfag.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674387]

>>1674359
Brownbear, we are not going to be crediting authors. We did this we felt it would set us apart from the competition, and let author work be judged by its own merit rather than just author reputation. I gave you a brief answer as >>1674029

In regards to crediting editor names, this was really just a last minute-thing we had not particularly figured would draw rage. In the future, we are either going to go full anonymous or drop the anonymous posting clause.

>>1674372
Well, I am sorry but this is just something you have to deal with.

>>1674376
This

>>1674377
:3

Also, I have to go to work in ~15 minutes, so I'll take any last suggestions and be gone for most of the day.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1674393]

itt; a four-eyed dyke chastises an honest hard working literati and feels good about it

:(

[Anonymous No.1674398]

>>1674387

Stick with anonymous. You can't seriously let BrownBear influence you in any way.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674407]

>>1674381
Yeah, this is dogging us straight from the beginning. We're probably going to have to just re-release with the intro cut

>>1674393
More like anons and a few trips questioning an editor. I'm not trying to pretend this issue doesn't have things we can't improve on

[Anonymous No.1674408]

>>1674387
>Well, I am sorry but this is just something you have to deal with.


Oh, I don't want you to fix it. I couldn't give a shit about this sub-bar high school writing club shit. I'm just enumerating the reasons why you look like an asshole and why most of the people who've read this thread wont ever be coming back to read one of your zines again.

[The Master !oKVZQzhloE No.1674415]

>1 fiction prose piece

>6 poems


Oh lordy.

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1674416]

>>1674407
i was defending you

you're the literati

guess who the dyke was!

[Anonymous No.1674419]

>>1674408

>I couldn't give a shit

I dunno, man. You sure do sound pretty butthurt...

[Anonymous No.1674422]

>>1674416

BROWNBEAR

[Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva No.1674426]

>>1674422
hehe

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674425]

>>1674398
>>1674398
hating because of my name!

>>1674387
>>1674387
credit the authors who want to be credited like any serious publication would do.

about time you talked about your little credit to yourselves
only took 200 posts!

also get better content, less public domain shit spamming it up, only /lit/ stuff.
learn to fucking proof read
sort the shitty layout/font out

zine sucked and you're a fucking child

>Well, I am sorry but this is just something you have to deal with.
so you refuse to listen to feedback?
great

>This
you never said you WOULD be addressing it either

41/?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674430]

>>1674416
I know, but people are going to be upset if we portray this as some kind of good versus evil scenario. I appreciate the help, but lets not incite anyone further

>>1674415
This is the result of the heightened submission requirements. I suspect that if we'd lowered them we'd be taking tons of flak for poor quality. This is the lesser of two evils

[Anonymous No.1674439]

>>1674419
I'm not a man and I'm not butthurt, I just have a few hours to kill before work so I thought I'd point out to the guy the reasons that he's taking flak (which for some reason, he couldn't see on his own). Although he seems immune to even the highest level of constructive criticism, so he'll probably just go ahead and release another self-indulgent piece of pretentious wankery anyway.

[Anonymous No.1674441]

>>1674425
>>1674425

I don't think you have the right to call anyone a child after your behaviour in this thread. All of your points are old anyway. They've been addressed. They realise the mistakes and are going to take steps to fix them. Fuck off.

[Anonymous No.1674455]

Now from monitoring this thread. I know many of the folks here are a bit tired of all this spamming. This is getting us nowhere. I'll chime in a bit.

I wrote one of the works for the issue. After reading the thread. I'm still going to be submitting work and working closer with editors on problems and suggestions. You should note that all considerations in this thread being taken into account. Many area's of improvement including design and evaluation of the work are all considered. There will be a second issue.

The ones in the woodwork should submit their work. Anyone worried about the anonymity is someone who takes themselves too seriously. If a work becomes popular, people will find out who the author was anyway. If your worried about your pride, then that is your business. It requires me to not attribute even this post because that would be hypocritical, but that gives it up to the post being accused of dropping trip.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674462]

>>1674425
>200 posts
Actually, my first post since waking up: >>1673899. also, check >>1673528

>also get better content
obviously we're trying to get that
>less public domain shit
sorry, but no
>only /lit/ stuff.
if we want a lot of content, we need to expand beyond /lit/. So no
>sort the shitty layout/font out
we have agreed to reformat the poetry section. If you want to suggest font, we're open to suggestions

>zine sucked and you're a fucking child
this is exactly the kind of immature thing that is causing me to discredit your posts.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674459]

>>1674441
>>1674441
the proile trip ignored all criticism and dismissed the people who gave it as trolls.
mature as fuck.

[Anonymous No.1674478]

>>1674455

I think this says it all. I didn't contribute to this issue, but I have submitted works for the next and will continue to do so, without feeling the need for a name. This thing is supposed to be about the work. You're all being really unsupportive, I'm surprised Prole even replied to you as much as he/she has.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1674486]

>>1674462
>>1674462
>sorry but no
care to expand?
>if we want a lot of content, we need to expand beyond /lit/. So no
feel free to expand upon /lit/ what i meant, and no it was no clear, was that it should be user generated content, not public domain stuff

>we have agreed to reformat the poetry section. If you want to suggest font, we're open to suggestions
comic sans MS
nah but seriously, something better suited to a something like this, Trojan maybe

>this is exactly the kind of immature thing that is causing me to discredit your posts.
it's posts like that that actually got you to reply to my posts

42/?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1674503]

>>1674486
hmm, we'll take the font suggestions into account. The Copyright-free material is going to continue because I think it has potential, because it is a small part of the publication, and because there are really no downsides to having it included

And with that, I'm off to real life. Weasel should be up in another ~4 hours? Possibly? Who knows

Ciao folks

[Anonymous No.1674920]

I really like My Voyage and Hungering Evening. Wasn't too thrilled about Blue, but we'll see where it goes.

>>1673373
I quite like this idea of crediting in later issues. That sort of solves the whole "don't know who that is/I hate this guy, won't read it" thing while addressing the guys/gals who want to get their name around. And for people that want to remain anon they can just say so.

As for the editing, it could use some work. There were quite a few typos throughout the issue.

[Anonymous No.1675327]

Wait, /lit/ had a project? The Fuck?

Well at any rate I'm glad to have it. I've sent you some of my short stories, OP. Hope it makes the cut

[Anonymous No.1675353]

>>1675327

This is the right attitude to have.

I hope your stories make the cut, anon.

[Anonymous No.1675370]

People taking action, making moves, making the world a little closer to the dream.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1675458]

>>1675370
pic related

>>1675327
Thanks, I'll take a look at it in just a sec

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1675654]

>>1674315
>and why would i want to waste my time on 4chan user art? its like a step down from even deviantart
Here are the reasons:
1. You have the option to publish your work anonymously. This is not possible with deviantart.
2. Although your work is published anonymously, there is no way that anyone can stop you (or Brownbear) from coming on to /lit/ and saying: "Hey guys, I wrote this work titled ... that is in TAR. What do you all think of it?"
3. Deviantart is full of creators. 4chan is full of critics. If I really wanted to improve my writing, who do you think I would submit my work to?

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1675660]

>>1675654
>"Hey guys, I wrote this work titled ... that is in TAR. What do you all think of it?"
Yeah but I mean dude, it's not like there'd be any proof

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1675697]

>>1675660
I'm assuming that people would not ask for opinions on things that they did not write.

This is also the reason behind our copyright policy (i.e. the author always retains ownership of what they submitted).

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1675704]

>>1675697
Here is a hypothetical situation for you Wildweasel. Suppose Brownbear posts a discussion thread about his article in the magazine (if he were to submit it). Now I don't know if you are aware of this, but there are one or two people on /lit/ who would like to do harm to Brownbear and stop him from having good threads. So, conceivably, those one or two might, just for example here, contend that THEY wrote such an article. Are you following me so far? What would poor Brownbear do in such a situation to claim his anonymously submitted work as his own?

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1675725]

>>1675704
I would advise him to not let those people derail the thread and continue to ask for criticism on his work.

If you really want to go down this hypothetical road, we can, and there are real solutions to these potential---although unlikely---problems, but I don't think you are asking the right question.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1675728]

>>1675725
you could have just said he needs to make more friends around here but whatever

[The Master !oKVZQzhloE No.1675731]

I think you will lose a number of potentially great writers due to this anonymity shtick you're so hellbent on.

[Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B No.1675732]

I wrote all of the stories that people said they liked in this thread. No shit.

[Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg No.1675740]

>>1675731
If you actually listened to anything we've said, we aren't hellbent on it at all. We've said repeatedly it was a test to see if it would work, and we would drop it if problems arose. And problems are everywhere, so we're discussing where to go with this right now.

[Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ No.1675744]

>>1675732
>ctrl-f
>wibble
>no results found
>wobble
>no results found

oh you!

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1675746]

>>1675728
I'm a friend of Brownbear, aren't you?

>>1675731
see:
>>1675740

>>1675732
I don't believe you, but at this point it doesn't matter if I believe you or not. Let me know if what I believe actually matters at any point, and we will handle it.

[Anonymous No.1675747]

guys get some art up in this piece shit's monochromatic as a motherfuck

[The Master !oKVZQzhloE No.1675753]

>>1675740

Well I would then hope and expect to see the next issue chock full of author credits.

And was this Fiction/Poetry ratio a one time thing?

[Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg No.1675757]

>>1675753
Most definitely. You might not realise but we only had 2 weeks to put this together. We got a dismal amount of submissions and we had to refuse a lot of them leaving us with not much choice. We could have delayed release and in retrospect we probably should have but again I say we pushed it out because this issue was more of a test to gauge reaction and see how we could improve. I assure people we've listened to every criticism in this thread, even the troll ones to some extent.

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1675769]

>>1675753
>Well I would then hope and expect to see the next issue chock full of author credits
Do you mean in the actual publication or in the /lit/ threads?
If the former, I will not rule the possibility of that out, and if the latter, that would actually be a good thing because it would inspire further discussion and criticism about the specific works that appear in the publication.

>And was this Fiction/Poetry ratio a one time thing?
The short answer is yes. The long answer involves an explanation as to how TAR is dependent on submitted works, so while we can suggest that more prose fiction gets submitted, we cannot force people to submit that instead of what they truly desire to submit (if that is indeed poetry).

[Anonymous No.1675887]

It's frightening how often this image is appropriate in these parts

[Anonymous No.1675956]

HEY TRIPFAGS
THE ZINE IS FINE
TRIPFAGS ARE THE ONLY ONES COMPLAINING ABOUT ANONYMITY. I WONDER WHY
START YOUR OWN ZINE, TRIPFAGS. CALL IT THE ZINE FOR PEOPLE WHO CONSTANTLY NEED DICK IN THE BUM OTHERWISE THEY SHRIVEL AWAY FROM NEGLECT. ALL THE TRIPFAGS WILL READ IT AND NOONE ELSE WILL.

[Anonymous No.1676553]

Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc
Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg
The Master !oKVZQzhloE
Deep&Edgy !pSkjEcB9sQ
Behemoth !!Twl3DmqEY/B
Prole !XDERDXUpqQ
Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!Y1EuuCjZi2N
!WvWWh.l.CE
oreo !!peQoYBwPn7U
Fabulous !!GXZe+d0RTva


too bad I can't do anything about it

[Anonymous No.1676573]

So when's issue 2 out? First of next month?

[Anonymous No.1676579]

>>1675956
Clearly didn't read the thread.

[Anonymous No.1676606]

>>1676579
What do you mean?

[Anonymous No.1676849]

trying to be helpful. here is a list of (possible?) changes as suggested in the thread so far:
- improved pdf design formatting
- .mobi file type download option
- better editing to filter out spelling/grammatical errors
- removal of non-user written content
- attaching names to pieces that are submitted
- a better fiction to poetry ratio

did i miss anything?

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1676858]

>>1676849
>>1676849
different font

[Anonymous No.1676866]

>>1676849
I think you guys should do a bit of marketing. Make a blog, twitter, whatever. It costs next to nothing and can make the difference between 100 readers and 100,000.

As a published writer I'd love to submit, but I value my ideas too much to just throw them to the wind anonymously. Include names or at least pseudonyms to create continuity between issues and you will see a real community develop.

[Anonymous No.1676912]

>>1676849

I don't think the essays at the back should be dropped. They're interesting.

Also, although it's true it needs a better prose to poetry ratio, there's not much the editors can do, short of writing all the content themselves. If all the stories submitted are shit, then there won't be any stories. Simple.

If you want more prose you need to sumbit more prose.

[Anonymous No.1676917]

>>1676849

I request it written in BrownBear's blood.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677183]

>>1676917
I'm not sure if the color would be red or brown

>>1676912
Yeah, I'd personally like to keep the essays around in some way or another... but it is true that the section needs to be re-hauled lest we become a project Gutenberg knock-off. There has always been a very high ratio of poetry:fiction submitted, so I can't say that won't continue.. and I agree with you on the need to gather up more submissions

>>1676866
We briefly had a running blog for the early days of the project: http://whatanawfulzine.blogspot.com/.. It went out of date during the last few weeks prior to release, but we'll probably continue something similar in the future.

I agree that anonymous crediting is something that needs to be dealt with. The major concern on my mind is that we are losing good authors as a result- it could very easily be a factor that prevents the zine from getting quality submissions and being taken seriously. But on the other hand, it is a fairly unique policy and I'd be interested in seeing how it actually fares with the general public before prejudging it. We're still discussing whether to keep it or throw it out right now

>>1676573
Initially, we'd wanted to release on the last day of every month. But I'd be just as happy to keep consistency with our first release and publish issue 2 on the 1st of next month

[Anonymous No.1677194]

>>1677183

You should start emailing other people/companies/websites about the zine. See what they think of the anonymity. See if you can get more people to submit as anonymous. Ask for submissions from writers around the web. It can't hurt.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677211]

>>1677194
I'm not sure if companies would take us very seriously when we're just smalltime like we are now, but the idea about scouring the net in general was one we were planning to do.

At any rate, you're right that it can't hurt. There has to be at least one semiprofessional writer out there who doesn't mind the idea

[Anonymous No.1677213]

I submitted some poems yesterday or the day before. Will I have to wait until the next zine to know if I'm in? You also said you give feedback on the work. Do you email the feedback?

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677244]

>>1677213
Oh, I know you- the 8-poem fellow. Yeah, we've received you submissions and are happy to have them. Chances are a few will show up in issue 2 (although we like to spread out multiple submissions by one author over multiple issues). You were actually going to get an e-mail confirming their acceptance in a day or two, but I suppose this works as well.

We make a point of always e-mailing authors prior to publication if their work will be published, so don't worry about being left out of the loop. In regards to giving feedback, I suspect you've probably misunderstood what I was meaning.

If a submission is good enough for publishing, we give it a look-over for typos and do not give it a comprehensive line edit. If a submission is god-awful, we simply reject it and do not do anything. If a submission is borderline decent or has potential, then it may receive a line-edit (we'll email authors telling them this if this is the case). The reason for this method is simply that good line-editing is time consuming and often wasted on people who never make use of it. By avoiding line-editing every piece, we free ourselves up for time to do other things. Also, I will usually not line-edit poetry, it is virtually impossible to make something as abstract as poetry "better" in the same way as you can with prose.

[Brownbear !Wfn4kkpLag!!fEGZw8wphGR No.1677254]

my question is what makes you 3 editors worthy to judge what's good/bad?
what's your collective backgrounds in english literature

[Anonymous No.1677282]

>>1677254

These guys took it on themselves to make this zine for this community. Stop being such an ungrateful bastard. If you're so concerned, why don't you sort all this shit out yourself and make a new zine?

Christ. For all the fuss your making, you'd think that you were actually going to subit your own work, or even read it, when we all know you'll do neither as you're too busy shitting up every other thread with inane bullshit and greentext.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677286]

>>1677254
Eh, looking for poor writing isn't very hard to do to be honest. I could see a reasonable complaint being raised if editors are choosing their top 3 favorites for awards or something.

At this point,if a piece is incoherent, chronically mis-spelled, or so bland that the reader falls asleep while looking it over we won't publish it. The material that looks beyond repair we do not deal with, but most pieces get a "soft rejection" and we just give them feed-back to improve.

Also, Weasel was intending to host rejected pieces on the website. So if someone wants to judge our submission guidelines, they can look at the work that was rejected and see for themselves (Weasel still needs to host this, mind you). Additionally, readers can always just post work that was soft-rejected and raise a fuss: you'll note this hasn't happened.

So your question of credentials is pretty irrelevant

[Anonymous No.1677304]

I am preparing for when this Zine fails and the air clears long enough for me to start one.

[Anonymous No.1677322]

The thing that will keep me from EVER submitting anything to this Zine is one of the editor's comments in this thread.

>Anon says it's disrespectful to change the form of a submitted poem
>Editor says that's ridiculous and they'll pretty much do whatever they damn well please with regards to how a piece is displayed

I will not, and I expect others feel similarly, submit anything to a 'publication' which does not respect the authors, their work, or the say they have over their work.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677329]

>>1677322
Herp
>>1673445
>Calm down guys, seriously. I won't be centering poetry next issue. Thanks for the feedback.

[Anonymous No.1677330]

What an awful zine

[Anonymous No.1677337]

>>1677329
>>1677329
Nice selective quote there, faggot. I'm not talking just about centering. I'm talking about the sentences following what you quoted.

>But not changing the form at all? I see your point, and I mostly agree, but I think you're taking art too seriously bro.

>I'll change the form if I want to, you're taking your work too seriously.

[Anonymous No.1677338]

>>1677322
>>1677322

They'll only change your work with your permission. That was stated earlier on. Other than that, it should be published as you sent it.

[Anonymous No.1677360]

>>1677338
And yet for some reason all the poems were centered this issue. If they asked all the authors and they all agreed, then fine. I'm just saying that my trust for this already untrustworthy zine is low enough because of this attitude that I won't submit anything until a change is demonstrated.

[Anonymous No.1677373]

>>1677244

Yeah, that's right. I couldn't decide what to submit lol well, that's cool anyway, thanks.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677378]

>>1677330
A very reliable narrator
>pic related

>>1677337
see: >>1677338

[Anonymous No.1677386]

>>1677378
I really do hate the phrase "unreliable narrator." What narrator IS reliable? Hunh? It's fiction. None of it's real. How the fuck is it "reliable"?

[Anonymous No.1677394]

>>1677386

One that shows signs of reliability.

[Anonymous No.1677396]

>>1677386
because you can believe him in the context of the story, dumb ass

if the narrator is some kind of insane drug addict, you can't really trust his perceptions

get an education please

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677397]

>>1677360
If you are unwilling to accept the that publications are going to try and make format uniform or creative a distinctive stylistic format, you have unrealistic expectations- You could submit to any net zine and expect the same treatment. It is impractical and verges on spamming to email authors on every minor tweak the zine undergoes. I am sorry, but you're just going to have to deal with this

[Anonymous No.1677400]

>>1677378
Answer a few questions for me, Prole.

>Did you ask all the authors if it would be all right to center their poetry?
>Do you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing?
>Would you ever change the way a poem is formatted or presented in order to fit your personal stylistic desires for your Zine?
>If the answer to the first question is No, do you think that was a mistake and do you realize that it was wrong and offensive?

[Anonymous No.1677407]

>>1677396
Nonsense. Nick Carraway is no more "reliable" than Holden Caulfield is. They're both narrators weaving their fiction as they like it.

You're just repeating shit you heard others say and nodding your disproportionately large head.

[Anonymous No.1677409]

>>1677397

Not the anon you're talking to, but as a rule, poetry is left aligned. Having poetry centred is a mark of an amateur and I can't think of an example of it actually being used other than on some poor website quoting old dead poets.

Some poets may choose to do something different though. Right aligned poetry isn't uncommon.
Also, when a poet
indents a line like this
it's on purpose and should be left
like this.


If you feel something doesn't work though, just email the poet and discuss it.

[Anonymous No.1677413]

>>1677397
If this is really how it is, then feel free to disregard everything I've said. It's no skin off my nose to not be published online. I was thinking or hoping you were just messing shit up, like the typos and the ego-stuffing. But if this is 'net zine protocol then it's really not for me and I can see why they aren't taken very seriously. Just my opinion.

[Anonymous No.1677420]

>>1677409

For fucks sake.

My lines weren't indented.

Fucking 4chan. You know what I meant.

[Anonymous No.1677421]

>>1677407
I'll give you an example. Have you read One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest? Chief Broom is an unreliable narrator in many respects. He's mentally ill. Do you really think the ward gets flooded with fog? Do you think he can float in it? Do you think the floor really lowers at night into some horrible tech dungeon where they kill patients?

He's crazy; you have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677422]

>>1677400
>Did you ask all the authors if it would be all right to center their poetry?
Nyet
>Do you think I'm making a big deal out of nothing?
Yes. Simply because when the problem has been highlighted we are willing to solve it
>Would you ever change the way a poem is formatted or presented in order to fit your personal stylistic desires for your Zine?
Obviously
>If the answer to the first question is No, do you think that was a mistake and do you realize that it was wrong and offensive?
Since we are the people compiling the zine, it is fundamentally up to us to format it. As mentioned prior, the chances of us emailing people over every little change and getting response are very low and verges on spamming. So on a principle basis, I have no problem saying that the people who compile the document are going to have control over what it looks like. There is nothing unethical or repressive about this.

However, we do wish to accommodate persons and are very eager to make changes to fit their desires. So in cases like this, we'll just change it to fit what people want. Given time, the publication format will inevitably have to fit popular interest to some degree, so this is a non-issue

I should mention that I don't like centered poetry either, formatting is the exclusive domain of Luco right now and he is still getting familiarized. I am defending this on principle rather than out of interest for the actual policy

[Anonymous No.1677425]

>people raging about being edited

hahahahaahaha..... welcome to authorship

[Anonymous No.1677430]

>>1677420
I know what you mean. I actually have a poem or two like that. Tsk. It's unfortunate that I can't submit 'safely' to this, but I'll still try to read it to see if it gets better.

[Anonymous No.1677436]

>>1677425
It's not the editing I mind so much, but the flip attitude about it and the not asking.

[Anonymous No.1677443]

>>1677430

Your life won't be ruined over the loss of one or two peoms, bro. Be serious. If you're a good writer, it's what you do. A couple of poems is fuck all in the grad scheme of a writers life.

Also, if your poems are nicked, which I'm guessing is your fear, well, that's really annoying, but at the end of the day, so what? It's not like that's the only poem you'll ever write that's any good. Also, one poem isn't going to help anybody do anything.

[Anonymous No.1677450]

>>1677421
But, why is Chief considered more "unreliable" than Nick Carraway--just because what he writes is OBVIOUSLY not reality?

Come on. To my mind, Chief is MORE reliable than Nick, because Chief doesn't try to cover up a lie. Just because Nick lies better or more articulately doesn't make him a more reliable narrator.

The whole concept really is some stupid shit, if you think about it.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.1677451]

>>1677409
Hmm, something I wasn't aware of. We'll try this

>>1677420
Haha, yes I do. Thanks for the input

>>1677425
Heh,yes this is 4chan. So far, we have a ~100:1 posts:submission rate. /lit/ has few writer, but it has a lot of people willing to argue down to tooth and nail over policy

[Anonymous No.1677467]

I think it's pretty applaudable what you guys have attempted here and though there are a few things that need ironing out the first effort alone is admirable.

On the issue of anonymous crediting. I agree with a previous comment that you could post the credits in the following edition: meaning that the reviews that come out quickly are based on merit alone but authors still feel some credit.

Is there any system you guys have set up to help share and give feedback stronger than threads like this? Is there also some kind of system for authors to contact each other and help each other out? I think these would be really helpful

[Anonymous No.1677470]

>>1677467

An IRC was setup for this purpose.

[Anonymous No.1677471]

>>1677443
Why would I submit something to a zine that doesn't respect me as an author? I don't really get much out of it personally. It's a shitty online zine and it's Anonymous. I have no burning desire to be published, so if I did send it in it would be half-fancy and really more helpful to the zine than to me. It will fail without submissions from us.

I'm glad I didn't submit anything for this first issue. If I'd been accepted I would have been absolutely pissed about the centering. Centering is bad enough in and of itself, but it's disrespectful to do something like that, which is widely considered retarded, without asking or informing the authors. They should have said they were going to center it.

[Anonymous No.1677481]

>>1677471

I've never seen anybody so mad about centering of poems. I wonder if the poems are any good in the first place. The issue has already been taken into account and your worried about people respecting you as an author. Respect your audience first. Then start taking yourself seriously. A publication was made to put work out there.There were issue's in the first issue and they are being corrected. It's an improvement process, and it's the same with any publication.

[Anonymous No.1677487]

>>1677471

>what do I get out of it?

Well, nothing. What did you expect? It's supposed to be for the love of it.

And also, what do you think the editors get out of it? Nothing. That's what. They've already put in a lot of work just to be abused by hundreds of posts that have no intention of doing anything other than bitch.

[Anonymous No.1677492]

Change that font. For the love of god.

[Anonymous No.1677544]

the essay on music critics is a kind of awful I had yet to experience

[Anonymous No.1677552]

the poetry is so bad

especially that pathetic sinedoche bullshit like, it really ISN'T doing away with the image of angry, pasty college student atheists writing shit at 3am mentioned in the preface

[Anonymous No.1677557]

>>1677552

It's easy to be a critic. You really aren't doing away with the holier than thou faggot anon that thinks he knows everything but does fuck all image that /lit/ cultivates.

[Anonymous No.1677565]

>>1677552

But that's 4chan's main demographic. If you thought all these posts were made by 450 year old literature professors, you were sadly mistaken.

[T.J.Bacchus No.1677579]

I'd just like to put the suggestion out there again to lag the crediting of the authors as a way of allowing current texts to be judged on their merit while still allowing the authors to get credit for their work.

any comments?

[Nick Cave !rCKW8IkuCk!!BvpKjuy92an No.1677591]

Your cover is an abomination.

The whole 'vintage wallpaper' thing you've got going on really doesn't work, especially not alongside that god awful typewriter styled typeface.

The kerning in the title also looks a little off.

[Anonymous No.1677615]

>>1677591

>Nick Cave
>Talking about style

[Wildweasal !Gl2oEPzmZc No.1678261]

>>1677591
There is already work being done on the next cover by a helpful gentleman who has also been giving us advice/criticism in the IRC channel.

[Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg No.1678398]

Okay, in response to this whole poetry fiasco I feel like words have been put in my mouth. An off had comment I made has been blown way out of proportion.

I admit I was ill informed about how to go about presenting poetry and I'm onboard with fixing that. But in terms of respecting authors of course I do. I didn't change anything about the poetry I put in other than alignment. Line breaks spacing and everything else was left completely as is.

That being said I don't retract my previous comment. I think some people in this thread just need to chill out.

[Anonymous No.1678422]

>>1678398

Why? I think the anger is pretty genuine and comes from submitters realizing you don't know what you're doing.

[Anonymous No.1678510]

>>1678422
I think the most important thing to grok from the comment to which you are replying is that he has listened to the criticism and is willing to work towards improving.

Well that's how I read it, at least.

[Luco !/.tVpzN9Qg No.1678514]

>>1678422
Why do you need to get angry? You can express opinions civilly, you know.

Also I acknowledge we didn't know what we were doing, but the important thing is we're willing to address all the issues presented to us as best we can. The last thing you can say about us is that we're out of touch.

[Anonymous No.1679069]

>>1678514
I'd argue that everyone was pretty civil in the poetry discussion. I understand if you guys are a bit on edge or defensive in this thread, due to all the 'attacks' you've been getting, but most of us haven't even insulted you.

Thank you for listening to our criticisms. Just remember that the majority of us are only trying to make sure you improve this enough for everyone to enjoy it.

[Anonymous No.1679110]

If it anonymous how can you take credit for it if it is actually decent?

Doesn't leaving it anonymous leave our work susceptible to the editors who could claim the work to be theirs if it turns out to be great?

Seems very sketchy to me. In a way using a pen name is a tool for it is only a made up name constructed to protect the writer. I just don't understand why you would want to rip that away from any aspiring writer.

[Anonymous No.1679363]

Can you guys please switch to a proper typeface? The one you currently use is blatantly unsuited for any body text. It's not even a pretty typeface for headlines. Warnock, for instance, is nice for something that's readable yet has a distinct character.

http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/pdfs/WarnockPro.pdf

[Anonymous No.1679372]

>>1678514

Okay, so you're not familiar with poetry and you made a mistake. No big deal. Plentry of people have told you how to correct it though, so hopefully there'll be no problem with the next issue.

[T.J.Bacchus No.1679887]

>>1679363
see
>>1673445

Who gave good feedback on that font I'd like to know though.

[Anonymous No.1679994]

Can anyone make an epub version?

Please thnx