Critical Mick

Reviews Free of Rules.

Reviews by the Clown that All Other Critics Want to Strangle with a Black Turtleneck

Uncommon and Great

What does it take to create a new magazine? The Editors of Greatest Uncommon Denominator inform unruly reviewer Critical Mick about GUD's special bucket. Email interview, March. '07.

Critical Mick: Heya! Who all am I talking to? Who are the people who decide what is the Greatest Uncommon Denominator?

eds: Well, there's Sal Coraccio, Sue Miller, and Kaolin Fire, for starters. Then there's Julia Bernd and Debbie Moorhouse. And then there's Mike Coombes. Where? We're not at liberty to say. But suffice it to say he's still spreading the GUD.

eds con't: We rotate editorship; Kaolin was, as he put it, Chief Instigator, for Issue 0. That means he slushed everything that came through until his issue was full. Sue's done the same for Issue 1, and Sal's in the process of doing Issue 2. We do take each other's opinions into account, but each editor has sole discretion for what eventually goes in an issue.

CM: What is there to it besides slushing? Run me through the process that a story/poem/artwork goes through from submission to final publication.

eds: Are you sure you don't want to break that up into more questions? I mean, we make it as simple as we can, but it's an insane undertaking nonetheless.

eds: No?

eds: Okay.

eds: Someone interested in submitting has to create an account, then fill out a form for each submission they'd like to make. Their submission is screened for egret porn; if it contains any, it goes into a special chum bucket in the database.

eds: Submissions then find themselves in the slush pile. Any of our editors can go in, vote, and make internal comments, but for the most part it's the job of the Chief Instigator of the issue.

eds: When the Chief Instigator is 99.9% certain they want something, they move it up into the “long list”; which is like a short list, but with more hedging.

eds: While a piece is long listed, we can play with its positioning in a virtual “issue” with other long listed items. And we start paying more attention to how much it's going to cost us, too. Eventually, if the stars are well aligned, we'll send the contributor an acceptance letter.

eds: The contributor then comes back to the site, fills in and/or verifies their details; we send them a contract (through DocuSign); or if that fails, we figure something else out--like a regular fax--or egrets. Egrets make great postal carriers.

eds: Anyway, once we have a signed and countersigned contract, we send the contributor money in whatever method they requested (as best we can). This has, to date, included PayPal, check, and sneaking a few bills inside an actual copy of the magazine. And I think we're going to have to do some e-gold this time around. Ah, the perils of foreign contributors.

eds: Meanwhile—hah, you thought that was the end of it? Our crack copyeditors hash, rehash, and dehash every accepted submission. They fact check, converse with the respective contributors; and then submit brutally annotated docs to the Chief Instigator for review. The copyeditors are Julia, for Issue 0, and both Julia and Debbie for Issue 1. They're just flat-out amazing.

eds: The Chief Instigator collates all of that data, processes it, and turns it into untracked final texts for Sue to work her magic on.

eds: Sue, with her publishing hat on, turns all of that data into one PDF; you don't want to know about that process, nor how many egrets we had to kill—I mean, er, no animals were harmed in the production of GUD. Not really. Harmed. Suffice it to say, 200 or so pages of content go in, and one PDF comes out.

eds: The PDF gets involved with some crafty PHP for slicing and dicing on the site; it's cunked into author-sized bites and we send each individual story or artwork as PDF to each contributor for approval. If it's good, it's gold. The approved file is the low-res version that we'll sell on the site. We just do the low-res version for now, because the next stage is final proofing.

eds: We get a lot of eyes involved in final proofing. How, exactly, is a trade secret. If you've got some secrets you'd like to trade, we might consider—but I digress.

eds: Once the proof is proofed, Sue replaces the images with hi-res ones, fiddles about with the cover; and that gets sent to the printer. The lo-res version gets involved with some crafty PHP for slicing and dicing on the site, and that pretty much sums it up, I think. Maybe next issue we can discuss marketing and distribution, neh?

eds: Eh.

eds: Uh, Mick?

CM: Hmm? What?

eds: Were you asleep?

CM: Was I what? No, of course not! You said something—wait. Did you say something about egret porn?

eds: I don't know what you're talking about.

CM: You said something about egret porn.

eds: My lawyers assure me that I did not.

CM: Okay, then. Fine. What does GUD rhyme with? How is GUD pronounced?

eds: GUD is good. GUD is also apparenly God, in scandinavia; and a dangerous militant group in France.

eds: Consider yourself warned.

CM: Does the mag have a special philosophy or aim?

eds: We want to up the stakes and spread beauty. We want to show genre folks the beauty of language; we want lit folks to broaden their acceptance of ideas. You know, break down the walls of the ghettos while at the same time maintaining some sense of propriety. We want to build a better world, where egrets—ah, fuck. Can we strike that last line?

eds: Fuck.

[further comments redacted; interview continues…]

CM: So, getting back on topic, you just said "fuck" an awful lot. Are there any dirty words inside GUD?

eds: We tend to favor a clean line for our language, but some roughness is necessary here and there. We definitely won't turn our noses up at a fuck or two, but at the same time there has to be an art to it. Dirty art seems to have a certain attraction.

CM: What about pictures of naked people?

eds:Sometimes. But strictly no egrets. I repeat, no egrets.

CM: These rumors of egret porn are really, really persistent. Fess up! Or is GUD’s strength some other, equally underground, type of content?

eds: Do you really want to talk with our lawyers again? Here, let me get you some ice for that eye while you think about it.

CM: Thanks for the ice. I have to admit, I didn't see that left hook coming. Tell me—where did GUD come from?

eds: Our past is steeped in mystery—we find three to five minutes to be about best; more and it starts to get pretty bitter. A little bit of milk and honey can help it go down, though. Those were the days...

eds: Ah, it's time? Fine, then. Actually, no, I think it's best that we leave it at that. Milk or honey?

CM: No, no thanks. So what sets GUD apart?

eds: What sets GUD apart is its foundational desire for the whole package. We don’t just want a cool story, we want a cool story that is written in a way that is artfully expressed. And we don’t want simply deft wielding of literary tools, solid historical or mythical references, agile use of timing, and the subtle nuance of just-right—we want all that plus the good story, be it poetry, fiction, or visual art. And we want it presented in a package you'll want to keep around.

CM: The genres in this mag range from spec fic to historical to humorous to academic. How did you decide which stories to accept?

eds: The decision of what stories to include is largely a function of which editor is the instigator at the time—mostly because if he or she hates a thing, based on some obscure personal preference, it’s going to be gone before anyone else sees it. Generally, however, we are of one mind in our search for the complete package—good story, fine execution, beautiful plumage. At some point, as the collection of stories for that issue reaches mid-mass, the editors begin to get a feel for a theme, or a lack of one—too much horror, not enough robotics; “"What, we have four time-travelling jilted-lover zombie stories?—and no poetry?!”" It happens.

CM: How many submissions were narrowed down for the current issue?

eds: To get to Issue 0, we boiled down a bubbling mass of half a thousand (or so) submissions—some were very hard to turn down, some were equally difficult to read past the first paragraph.

CM: The proof, as they say, is in the pudding; what sort of pudding would you say you wound up with?

eds: I'd say it's largely blood pudding; blood, sweat, tears, that lot. But there's a good amount of bread pudding to sop it up with. And kugel, for dessert.

CM: Delicious! And where could this literary/genre pudding be purchased?

eds: GUD is primarily available on our website, gudmagazine.com. It can also be found at some of the more reputable third-party magazine outlets and, oddly enough, it has been discovered in the moist underbrush of wetland marshes, with the pages stuck together.

CM: They aren't being sold in those marshes, are they?

eds: You don't have that much money.

CM: Do you have backgrounds in magazine publishing?

eds: Yes, three of the four founding members, Sue, Kaolin, and Mike, had experience with the now-defunct NFG magazine as editors, web designer, typesetter, etc. Sal’s background, up until GUD, was mercifully free from the dark taint, ahem—glow—that publishing a magazine leaves.

eds: Debbie, who joined GUD after her story "Sundown" appeared in Issue 0, was Submissions Manager at NFG for a while there, and she's finding it hard to keep from organising GUD's slushpile. She's also worked at Strange Horizons, and currently reads slush for ASIM and helps out occasionally at new start-up Murky Depths. She also dreams of starting her own webzine...one day. And Julia is yet another refugee from NFG.

CM: Yes, yes, what were you saying about Julia?

eds: Ahem. Well. Julia also works for Night Train. Which, in case anyone was wondering, will be busting back into existence any day now.

CM: Really?

eds: Really.

CM: I used to drink Night Train in college.

eds: No you didn't.

CM: I did.

eds: If we just nod our heads and smile sarcastically, will you move onto the next question?

CM: Absolutely!

eds: [sarcastic nodding at this self-proclaimed critic's ignorance that Night Train is a feeder magazine for the yearly BASS.]

CM: Is GUD a paying market?

eds: Yes, we are a semi-pro market, meaning we pay a minimum of $5.00 per piece, or $.03/word for longer pieces, first rights, or minimum $2.00 per piece, $.01/word for reprints. For the right to reproduce artwork, we pay $12.00 per piece for photography, art, or comics; more for covers. We do not currently pay in herring.

eds: One of the more interesting aspects of GUD is that we have a system where profits on a piece are shared with the contributor. The details for this "dibs" arrangement are on the site, but it is the real deal and we’re very excited about it.

CM: Is GUD accepting submissions for future issues?

eds: Yes, absolutely–we are accepting submissions for the third issue, Issue Two. Confused? Good.

eds: We don't have reading periods; we consider all submissions on a rolling basis. Sometimes an editor will pluck something out for a future issue past the current reading period, though we try to discourage that. Hopefully the fistfights will become fewer as we pick up our production schedule.

CM: What are the submission guidelines?

eds: The sub guides are listed on our site and it would take up the rest of this page and the next. Everything is done electronically at GUD, so we require one piece per submission (while we do allow more than one thing to be submitted at time). The upside for the artist is that most responses are had within days versus months. http://www.gudmagazine.com/subs/submit.php

CM: What’s the best way to go about promoting a new magazine?

eds: I wish we knew for sure! The standard way is a multi-pronged attack that includes acquiring good book reviews, advertising in target-related magazines, frequenting poetry readings, wandering city streets yelling "The World Is Doomed, Buy GUD NOW!" Lately, it is also fashionable and effective to "friend" through MySpace. Word of mouth is the most obvious avenue for the budget-limited semi-pro magazine and the best way to do that is–any way possible. We’ve even been known to do interviews. An appearance on Oprah is also very good we hear, so we would like to do that soon. Our people are calling her people, though we have been informed that we should use a telephone because there is supposedly no way for a person to be heard through a television set. We may try our Egrets.

CM: Many people dream of being an editor. Reality Check time! What blows about being an ed?

eds: There’s certainly an upside to being an editor, though what sucks about it is a small, but powerful, list. First, it is never fun snuffing out a dream, even if, at best, it’s someone’s small step in a larger journey with plenty of sunny paths. Most people write and submit with the hope it will be accepted (yes, some will deny this)—it is our job to crush that hope. To crush it into the ground and move on to the next hole.… The novelty of that wears off surprisingly quickly.

eds: Second, we read A LOT of "slush"; the trick is to learn to establish worth without reading every word. If a thing isn’t worthy, it shows up quickly, and that is good. The better stuff takes longer because then yes, we’re looking for finery with a fine eye, and in this case GUD—is bad. The upside is that the better writers tend to take rejection in stride because they understand the larger picture, that a single magazine rejection isn’t necessarily a reflection of their worth as a writer. That aside, just the quantity is tough enough, as we see 250-300 entries per month. Those two things are the main areas of suckage–merciless crushing and the crush of submissions. Balance is achieved.

eds: And it's not just about being an editor. GUD is a small business, and that means we all have to wear a lot of hats—and some of those hats are funny looking, and some are heavy, and some are just a damned nuisance. We manage our books, write our own software to glue various systems together, do editing, layout, mailing, public relations, advertising. And of course, we're spending our own money trying to make this all happen.

CM: What resources would you recommend to aspiring writers?

eds: Ah, what a delicious fortune cookie I’ve just eaten… Always a difficult question—let’s assume you mean a writer that wants to be published and therefore read by a larger audience. There is a perhaps critical balance between a person’s gift—what they have in themselves—and what can be learned from external influences. For this reason, I will say the main resource is oneself. Secondly, it is important to read to refine and compare one's innate skill with what has been previously published and deemed "good". Some writers have a longer journey than others.

eds: The other half is knowing what markets are available; for this, duotrope, Ralans, or The Writers Market are good choices among many. Ultimately, the best resource is the writer themself–one should understand why one does what one does and to do so, one must look inward…damn, I’ve gotten vanilla flavoured crumbs everywhere… ahh, there is my feathered friend to clean me up…

eds: Okay, Bert. Thank you. The third half—yes, writing is difficult, it has many more than two halves—the third half is developing a critical eye. The best way to do that is to put your works up for critique, and to critique others. There are a multitude of sites/groups that cater to this, including Critters, Imaginaries, critique circle, absolutewrite, and backspace. http://www.speclit.org tries to have a comprehensive set of resources for both writers and readers.

eds: And accepting rejection. It's not really a half, but it's important to accept rejection and move on. Or even better, reject rejection—just don't reject the editor that sent it to you. Burning bridges is never a good move. The import thing is to continue writing, and continue submitting.

CM: What resources would you recommend to aspiring readers?

eds: GUD Magazine, naturally. I would also recommend learning at least a second language, Japanese for example, so that one can fully appreciate any language. To that end, another valuable resource is Umberto Eco’s "Semiotics and the Philosophy of Language". I have read this book and my brain is now the size of a piano.

CM: Anything I have not mentioned that you would like to bring up?

eds: Would you just quit it with the egret porn? Really! We'll never get on Oprah with that kind of publicity.

CM: Many thanks, GUD people!

eds: Fine, be that way!

GUD is available wherevever quality egret porn is sold. No! Ha ha! There's no such thing as egret porn. Seriously! GUD is got at http://gudmagazine.com

Yo! This interview transcript and all content on the DFA Guide site are copyright 2007 Mick Halpin. All links to other sites and documents are copyright to whatever source wrote something cool enough for Mick to give it a referral. Try to claim them as your own work and bad karma will catch up with you, baby. Believe it.

Irate, huh? Managed to piss off another one? Direct your hatemail to mick @ mickhalpin dot com.

This Page Was Last Updated On 21 March, 2007.