I’d like to develop some kind of scale to show what a reader can expect from a zine I author, in terms of their reading experience and perception of the effort and care that went into a given zine. For example, was it hand-lettered in one sitting with a few grayscale images pasted in, or does it have extensive digital design work (and digital font, possibly allowing denser legible text)? Does it represent significant research and/or creative writing, or is it something quicker (like a short quick blog post)? I’d like to create all kinds of zines, and I think having language for different kinds of approaches could help people know that when I share I’ve made a new zine, it might look different from my zines they’ve seen in the past. I think these are all great forms of zine to have in the world, though, so I don’t want to use language that treats one level of time/effort/etc. as inherently higher “quality” or better, than another.

I liked the idea of “trash games” that Stephanie Boluk and Patrick LeMieux shared at a past workshop for the Scholars’ Lab—the idea was to create more quick, probably crappy art/games, as a way to enjoy making things, make more things, expand your game design knowledge in ways that could ultimately contribute to non-“trash games” as well. I like the “make more bad art” idea I saw on a laptop sticker somewhere.

I’m a bit uncomfortable with using “trash” to describe this kind of zine (assuming I make some), given classist/racist/gross applications to people and cultures it’s been part of. I also don’t think such games, zines, other art actually are trash—they’re worth sharing, preserving, discussing, and I don’t want people unfamiliar with the term to assume otherwise. I do dig how a term like “trash zines” could be freeing in terms of lowering a mental barrier—just sketch a thing! Don’t worry if the writing is legible to others! Include arrows when you realize you ned to move chunks of text elsewhere! And maybe you just have some personal creative enjoyment, which is enough in itself. But it might also help you get comfortable with sharing or polishing a zine?

I’ve been thinking of “initial rise” for Zine Bakery homemade first-draft zines, but that depends on my running bread puns. I also think initial draft is not the same as deliberately crappy zine sketching in spirit or outcome. Regardless of what terms I end up using, I think developing a list of features I sometimes include in zines I make could help in how I describe them—things like what kind of research went into a zine, amount of time spent on art and layout, maybe other kinds of media formats I think a given zine approximates (e.g. journal articles vs. quick blog post).

Ideas for other ways to refer to this kind of “do bad art quick” than as “trash art”/trash games/trash zines? Let me know! (e.g. on Bluesky; check out my friendly academic/DHy guide to Bluesky if you aren’t on yet!)