/lit/ - Literature

>>14336536
What? If anything, this is a self-deprecating comment that implies my work wasn't good enough while I was around, but after growing 200 years in seniority it might end up being not great, not good, but "pretty good".
>>14336556
I was playing the meta-4chan game. I was willing to accept that to be my final comment and having the thread die, and to me, seeing that as the final comment of crushed hope amuses me. And thanks, anon.

>>14336342
I don't see why we can't have both technical mastery and innovative expressions of unique experiences.
>>14336404
Will do. It's just hard because so few agents are accepting anything poetry-related at all vs. other manuscripts.

>>14336230
Sure, imagery and diction are very important, but all these things are important. I don't accept that meter and rhyme and matters of form must be sacrificed for the functions of theme and imagery. When it can be helped, these elements should all work, to help each other and build up the poem as a whole. That poem in particular, Dayseizer, is a very imagery-filled poem.

>>14335989
I disagree. Even if you don't think that one fits the bill, or, the other four, I have 61 other ones, and I don't know what standard you're comparing them to, but compared to the top-selling instapoetry garbage that sells like hotcakes it's definitely much better. Balls to you and balls to your team.

>>14335935
It saves me a syllable so it works with the structure I set for that poem. I'm not trying to sound fancy.

You sound like a shitty, bitter editor.

Wait, disregard that. I suck cocks.

>>14335879
Regardless of how good she was or wasn't, I contend that trying to emulate Keats is much, much harder than trying to emulate Dickinson.

>>14335856
I'm not dismissing her. I was half kidding, but I'd certainly be much, much more impressed with her if she did incorporate rhyme and meter in her work.
>It's possible you might be both.
And it's possible you might be both: 1) a moron, and 2) a loser.
>and then put up poems you wrote when you were 8 years old
I've only put up one poem from when I was 8, and it's good.
>It's sad and cringeworthy.
projection
>Delete your posts and end your life.
you first

>>14335856
I'm not dismissing her. I was half kidding, but I'd certainly be much, much more impressed with her if she did incorporate rhyme and meter in her work.
>It's possible you might be both.
And it's possible you might be both: 1) a more, and 2) a loser.
>and then put up poems you wrote when you were 8 years old
I've only put up one poem from when I was 8, and it's good.
>It's sad and cringeworthy.
projection
>Delete your posts and end your life.
you first

>>14335839
>You probably think contemporary poets haven't already mastered and then dispensed with formalism in their unpublished volumes.
Correct. The supermajority of them definitely have not.
>unpublished volumes.
oh, work no one's even seen? What are you even talking about? In terms of books that actually exist and are out there, I contend that no, they definitely have not "mastered and dispensed" of rhyme and meter, not even close.
>Have you read Dan Schneider?
Nope.

>>14335797
>>14335821
Pardon my typos and sloppiness and such. I just woke up.

>>14335797
...but most aren't and most of that quality is overlooked just so their mediocre or shit voices can be shoehorned in their for "diversity's sake"
>white man privilege
kek

but, anyway, yeah, like this same discereptive isn't to also be found in prose, or in fucking any realm of any modern creative industry. They've literally become biased against whites, males, straights, Christians, etc. for their opposites, instead of treating everyone equally like they should.
>>14334981
But you as an individual might have a certain experience about whatever, rock-climbing, cooking seafood, playing hide-and-seek with a cousin who'd later pass away, camping one weekend and being attacked by a bear or, perhaps, in a hopefully novel and relevant way, being a disabled minority, that no one else has ever quite put the same spin on in a poem before.
>>14335031
this guy knows
>>14335137
hahahaha

She couldn't rhyme, She had mediocre Meter, many Poems were Quite similar thematically, and she'd Randomly capitalized Words for No reason. So influential. I will say that writing over 1500 poems within a lifetime is quite an impressive benchmark in terms of barebones prolificness, though.

Keats was one of the greatest of all time, definitely, and he did it all by 25.

>>14334847
>His book is selling well because his poems are INFINITELY

I disagree. Lol, dude can't even rhyme and he has no sense of meter, and all his poems are the same stream of conscience gimmick. Some of it good stuff, but not great.
>the reason they are getting published, first and foremost, is better their poetry is again miles better than yours
simply false. Like I alluded before, maybe 5% of them are better than me, but certainly not the ones that are selling the best. Ironically, those are some of the worst.
>I pray to God you never get published
Pray hard, because it's probably gonna happen, I'm sorry to tell you.
>I mean that sincerely it’s like saying you want to be the next Michael Phelps
Haha, no it's not. I'm not saying I will be anywhere in the same league as Shakespeare, just that I aiming for my work to have the same sort of universality in it.
>it’s such an astonishingly unlikely scenario that I can already say without even knowing you that it’s statistically impossible.
Writing a solid poem that could be enjoyed in its current time as well in the future by most people because it relates to the human condition and doesn't lean on divisive identity politics or woke virtue signaling is "statistically impossible"? I disagree.
>It’s statistically impossible to even be in the top 200 best writers nowadays.
I disagree. Especially for nowadays, because most of the new ones suck and don't even try.
>The best you can do is sell out now and try to buy your soul back in your 40s.
Never. I'm going to be exception to this rule or die trying.
>is absolutely foolhardy.
Game on.
>>14334883
>I mean he isn’t a good poet by any measure
I disagree.
>but if you think women or minorities have anything to contribute either, you’re wrong.
I also disagree. I have nothing against woman or minority writers, I just am against the idea of a poet being a woman or a minority or some other SJW checkbox to be the only reason why anyone would ever buy their work.
>FUNDAMENTALLY going to be the same
lol, funny, but you're wrong. Yes, many basic universal things will be true, but there's enough difference in individuality for who people who are the same sex, same race, same class, same zip code to lead exceptionally different enough lives.
>I know this because I’ve spent time with these people
The modern digital era is making more and more people homogeneous to a certain degree, but they're all still vastly different people. I'm not saying they're all work buying a book from, but they're definitely different enough from each other.
>>14334957
^this
>have different experiences--that haven't been published before
And, again, I have nothing inherently agains this, but I just want the poetry to be good, no matter who it's coming from, good enough to be on the same shelf (literally and figuratively) of the great poets and writers who've come before,

>>14334663
>maybe this particular project won't realises this balance, that's a lifeswork, but it's a start

Exactly. It's a start, and I won't be satisfied until it's at least a real published book and I've sold 5,000 copies of it as my starting goal. It doesn't have to move mountains or start a zeitgeist, (although that'd be awesome), but I do want it to be published with an ISBN and catalogued in the Library of Congress and to sell at least 5,000 copies.
>Deleuze's books cover font.
Never heard of him. I just played around with fonts and I wanted it to pop out nice, so I played around with different colors and layerings.
>I don't see the expression of any great spirit in its full dazzling display of awe

Drop me a throwaway contact and, if I can trust you as one anon to another, I'll send you an advance reader copy of my full manuscript and you can see all it is I have to offer.


Same offer extends to any other curious anon out there. Drop me a throwaway email and I'll send you the (name-censored for privacy) manuscript via my throwaway email.

>That’s the thing though, you’re currently sitting on a fence, and on one side is “success” and on the other is “integrity”

A battle I've been fighting all my life. I've been trying to have my cake and eat it too. I of course want to keep my integrity, and would even be willing to lose everything for it or die for it, but I of course want success, not just for myself, but to spread excellence and goodness and cheer to the world. It's a tough struggle.

>>14334618
>as good as Emily Dickinson

kek, that shouldn't be too hard

>or Keats.

that's much, much harder

>>14334620
The photo is from someone's cooking blog I'm allowed to use, although I bumped up the contrast and softened the focus. Otherwise, it's never been used for anything before. You're probably thinking of a different cover/picture. Many of these things look very similar.
>spirit, an ideal in which he follows religiously
Sure I do. I have several.

>Op read said Religion and Art as well as Wagner's On Poetry and Composition

Will do.

>>14334635
Like I said, I want both. Just like work by Shakespeare. It was for everyone and every time. High class, low class, the emotions, the intellect, for humor, for drama, for romance, for violence, or the stock, for the novel, for the significant, for the superficial, for the past, for the present, and for the future.

>>14334598
>on the basis of a book cover?

On the whole package. On the cover, the title, the work itself, my personal story as the author, and with my image as the author (these latter two I wish weren't factored into the equation, but they necessarily are.) I truly believe that I've got the right stuff for these five criteria.

>>14334579
We're just talking about a hook. The cover/title is what gets the foot through the door. Let's not kid ourselves, most people buy a book based on only three things: the title, the cover, and the hype they hear or read around it. Those three things are what trick a person into buying a book. The material found inside the book that the reader is left with is what makes them feel like the purchase was worthwhile or leaves them with a sense of buyer's remorse. I'm saying that my title and cover will stir enough attention get people talking about the book and get people to start buying it, but that the work inside will actually be worth the money they spent and would be worthy of not only reading, but re-reading and dissecting for higher literary merit.

>>14334568
I'm that same middle aged woman. I see a book with a pretty title and an even prettier cover. I buy it because it would look nice as decoration in my home, and I might actually read it someday, but probably not.

I deleted the pic based on the advice of an anon, but it's safe to say that my cover is quite appealing and eye-catching and people would want to buy the book or at least flip through the pages based on the cover and title alone.

>>14334573
no

>>14334561
Fight me. I'll stick to this to my grave.

>>14334542
I mean, it's a coming of age story through the medium of a book of poetry. I think that's pretty tantalizing.

>>14334514
>you’re arrogant
definitely not. If it comes across that way, it's because I've been (and still am) a self-hating, self-bashing, low-self esteem, unconfident shit all my life, but this is the one time with the one thing I've worked hard on to the point of being good enough at I can finally feel a certain level of pride in, but I'm still getting used to expressing these feelings.
>you probably aren’t notably well read
fair enough. I just don't have as much time as I'd like, but I try to read at least 12 books a year. I used to read a lot more when I was younger.
>you have an entrepreneurial attitude towards your creative endeavours
I mean...yeah, obviously. I'm trying to publish a book to be sold. But, moreover, any artist today basically has to be his own entrepreneur.
>you seem to lack aesthetic discernment, ie you believe a superficial likeness between two artistic works means they have equivalent merit

I mean, to some degree, sure, but it really varies and depends case by case

>your view of the world and your experiences are rather pedestrian

In some ways, yes, in other ways, no.

>you are extremely persistent
I'd say so, yes. When it comes to something that really matters to me and I believe in, such as this.
>All in all you seem to possess virtually every trait necessary to be a published literary figure

Oh, wow, jeez. I hope so. I feel like if my work isn't fully appreciated within my own lifetime that within 10, 50, 100, 200 years after my death, future critics may pick up the work and say "hey, this was pretty good. Shame nobody thought so at the time."
>You need to contact more like a hundred, you need to repeatedly message them,
Agreed. I just have to keep pushing and finding more people.
>you need to build a social media presence, make a twitter account, contact blogs

This I've always hated. My dream was for my work to be so good and so full of merit on its own that I wouldn't have to resort using the modern poison I hate so much. I realize that I'm living in the past with this idea and that I might as well be trying to use nothing but the telegraph to put myself out there, but it's all so alien to me and feels so phony that I've compromised on my "never use social media" values to build a necessary following. I was hoping that others would do that for me so i wouldn't have to. A personal website that I control I'm much more comfortable with, but I'm just starting to use instagram and a facebook page and will eventually branch out to twitter, tumblr, and snapchat, although I hate every second of it and will hopefully stop using them in the future, or hire some people else to coordinate all that shit for me. Cheers.
>>14334516
I just finished a manuscript of 66 poems, 130 pages long, and it's all good. What are novel ways of getting discovered, either being picked up by a literary agent or a press?

>>14334478
Lighten up, nerd.

>>14334453
I'm one of a kind.

I knew what you meant, so I played dumb, giving you the literal answer as well as the figurative one you were looking for. Aren't I generous?

>>14334422
Nowhere, because no one else has ever used it before.

Maybe a vision in your head from the future.