I've been submitting short stories to magazines/anthologies/etc. over the past year and a bit, and I thought it might be fun and interesting to post some of the things I have seen on various publishers' "DO NOT WANT" lists. I've made over a hundred submissions, so I've reviewed the submission guidelines for a lot of places. I don't know if these are the most common types of stories they don't want; I just know I've seen these ones at least twice or thrice, and often many more times than that: NO stories about magic schools (people are still trying to do these?) NO vampires or werewolves, especially teenage ones (see above comment) NO talking animals NO stories about writers/writing NO stories written in the format of a list NO stories written from the perspective of an inanimate object NO zombies! (aw, come on) NO pandemic stories NO stories about a character who somehow becomes part of a marginalized group and learns what it means to be marginalized NO fan fiction (goes without saying, really) NO stories where the main character dies at the end NO stories that rely on a twist ending (I love twists and write lots of stories like these!) NO gratuitous sex or violence that isn't integral to the story (fair enough) NO stories written by heterosexual, white males (the majority of these publications do offer submission windows where this group of people are allowed to submit along with everyone else) and of course, NO content that could be "triggering," ie. self-harm, abuse, anything bad happening to children, etc. (understandable) Fellow submitters, what are some other items you have frequently seen on publishers' DO NOT WANT lists?
OH and of course, pretty much every single one now mentions: NO stories written in full or in part by any kind of generative AI. Human-written stories only (good!) When submitting, you now have to swear that no generative AI was involved, and if their tools detect any generative AI usage, you are banned for life for submitting to them (and they'll probably tell all their friends). But please don't turn this into an AI-related thread hehe.
Genuinely, though, while publications have every right to make these kinds of restrictions, I have every right to have no interest in reading them (and I don't!). Now excuse me while I go and read more stories about hetero zombie werewolf anti-vaxxers who cut themselves.
I'm not inclined to submit work to publications that give preference to specified categories of people. even if (maybe especially if) I fit into the category. No talking animals? Okay. How about telepathic ones?
I think it's a smart move for publishers to offer potential submitters some info on what they're sick of or what their not interested in at the moment. I rarely see lists like this outside of genre publications. Or, at least, the list would be different if coming from straight literary magazines and journals. All these list do is encourage new stories outside of cliches and tropes. I get it, but the no zombies just gets me. I will say I did sell a zombie story to a literary journal not usually or ever taking stories like that. I heard about a change in fiction editors. And, well, it worked out. But so many of the genre mags don't want zombie stories. And I do love writing zombie stories. I also sold a story about writers writing. I guess I can check off two on the list. There are a few more of mine that break those rules. The truth of it is this is what these publications are being indicted with. They are basically saying, "Show us what else you can do." And as short story writers we can do so much. I can check of a few on the list, but I'm also writing beyond what shows up on lists like this. And those are probably the short stories that stand a better chance right now. The great thing about short stories is that we can write so many of them. I write and submit a lot of short stories. And I guess it's kind of helpful to know what a publisher is not looking for or interested in. I like to spend time reading publications. I think that's the best way to get a feel for what these places are looking for. But I guess I'm pro-lists.
Oh, great call out! Yes, this is an important distinction which I neglected to mention in the original post. I am submitting almost exclusively to genre magazines/publishers. And yeah, I can only imagine how many copycat submissions of popular tropes/characters/settings they must receive to make them write these lists. I do disagree with some of them because they're missing out on stories where a writer might've had an interesting and original take on a tired genre trope. And quite a few of the things publishers are saying they don't want, readers do want !
This is partly why I do not and probably never will publish traditionally. There are too many restrictions. I want my art to be completely free and from my mind in its purest form (with editing). I read the restrictions on a science fiction magazine and I just sighed. No way I will ever be able to fit into that narrow-minded box. No child deaths? Pft, I will kill as many children as I please in my stories! Also, no white heterosexual males? Isn't that a legal case for discrimination?
Not for the publications that feature POC and LGBTQ writers. Gotta stick to the white dude publications.
i know its not a type of story.... but i just encountered 3 of these in a row just now: "NO simultaneous submissions" (if I see another one of these, I'll quit x2 )
So that pretty much eliminates 99.99% of short stories, right? No shit. "I don't always drink beer, but when I do, I drink Dos Equis and kill the main character." Is that how that commercial went?
Just make sure the zombie virus was a pandemic that affected the rabbit magic school and work in a twist where people are the real monsters. Oh, and kill some kids, too. Very important.
rabid rabbits that have been resurrected due to a zombie pandemic that only affects talking animals and a magic wizarding school is nearby (plot twist: its Hogwarts). so the wizard kids fight the zombie bunnies and then everyone dies. (someone work in some teen vamps/werewolves/pirates in there)
Then all the people bitten by the rabbits rise as vampire wererabbits, who set to sea as pirates, robbing only ships that are carrying carrots.
I'd suggest some of those lists are tongue in cheek. It must be head-wrecking to leaf through page after page of Harry Potter knock-offs. If your wizard school is a must, make it fresh at least. What about the tendency for Canadian publications to limit submissions to Canadian authors, eliminating the portions of the world that don't finish sentences in eh. What about us, eh? I don't have difficulty with publications looking to support marginalised and traditionally unrepresented authors, though delineations towards this objective aren't always as simple as skin colour or sexual identity. I'm also suspicious of publishing houses' motivations betimes, maybe not always as pure as presented. The publication's preferences can be helpful determining whether or not there's point in submitting to that publication, as well as reading some of what they've previously published. I've come across a few gems doing this, as well as stories that left me entirely unmoved. Thankfully, given my own pecadillos, the position of the white, heterosexual male is still strong in this publishing world.
But, presumably, the writer is allowed to identify as whatever sexuality, race or sex they want? It reminds me of the "women in tech" event that was overrun with lots of men who identified as non-binary for the day. So any straight, white men out there, I support you standing up to racism and sexism by identifying as something else while you submit your stories.
It seems childish to do it the exclusionary way instead of the exclusive way. i.e. I think it's professional, and a better signal towards good intentions, to name the groups who can submit stories rather than the ones who can't. And it wouldn't take that much more text either, given L+ and PoC banners. But that exposes their mindset anyway, so it's for the better as far as any incipient submissions go.
That is how I've seen it phrased, though. "Submissions are limited to people living in Canada/UK & Ireland/who identify as non-binary/who have/haven't used AI/queer/BIPOC. Some of the publications even specify in their titles the communities for which they cater. I've never seen it phrased as exclusion. There's a lot of journals out there and some have considered it's better to be the leading queer periodical rather than just another generic mag jockeying for position. Maybe? Anyway, Farmers Weekly keeps turning down my surrealist effort about a sentient, talking tractor called Bob. (I know it's not the sane thing, but maybe close enough to make a point?)
Reading the initial post in the thread is a game of "Which of these things is not like the others?" You have a list of prohibited subject matters, and then one that—is not that.
Maybe, but I've seen most of this particular list on a publisher's website. In fact, I may have posted most of it here myself in the past. It's not tongue in cheek.
