/lit/ - Literature

>mfw I just learned that Bishop Berkeley is actually pronounced Bishop Barkeley

>>6475066
IJ at the top

>not from /lit/
>reading the end of this thread
>mfw pic related

>>4115811

>no Gogol
>no Kafka

>>3919231

I want to discuss authorship in wake of the Internet and online culture.

I ask as I have seen this picture to the left posted around a fair bit online. I did not make it but the character in the first frame is one I drew. That drawing came from another existing MS Paint drawing I found on 4chan. So this picture emerged from a template someone did, me adapting it and then someone else taking the idea further. I have also seen variations on this picture taking it further.

Similarly elsewhere you find this breakdown everywhere. Hark! A Vagrant's Kate Beaton recently posted about a t-shirt she found of Grumpy Cat with the words 'I had fun once, it was awful' on it. She said it was strange as that phrase originated in a comic of hers that was screencapped, then merged with another existing meme to form a new one. A lot of webcomic artists have seen that people have taken parts of their work and adapted them or taken them out of context, it is hard to see where authorship is.

You can also look at Slender Man which emerged entirely from the speculation of people on forums, posted Youtube videos etc. You get the show Community which took a phrase someone said in a email to them and turning it into a show catchphrase. Fanfiction and the original work merging.

What do you think of authorship in wake of all this? Will it influence literature? Who can be said to be the true author of memes and similar things?

>>3463589
>I assume mostly everything in fantasy is Mary Sue, one way or another.

>mfw I have to re-read books I had read years ago as I have only developed the critical capabilities to fully appreciate them lately.

I remember when I first got into reading I read Dubliners and found it dull and boring. Re-read it now and despite finding some stories still a little lacklustre there are plenty there which are very well-written and enjoyable.

Any books which upon re-reading them you changed your opinion on them?

>Should you believe empirical proof or experience?

>>2768565

>>2762830

>>2751748

I understand the need for 'poeticism' you've gotta make sure when you write, you write something that makes the reader go "Heh, I like the sound of that" and you've definitely got that idea in your writing.

But I think you're trying to make your whole story this incredibly written piece of creative art. It's alright to be a little poetic, but take a break from it and instead of trying to dazzle the reader try to connect with him.

> The sun set the west aflame with pink and orange fire as darkness peaked over the hills checking if it was safe to come out of hiding

> I heard children playing and laughing with juvenile innocence

>reform our beast like ways

> the sun was still making its pilgrimage downwards

These were all fairly good (except for maybe the last one, a pilgrimage is a holy journey not a sun setting) but you've used them in what would be the same page.

I want to read a story, not a collection of metaphors and similes ya know?

>>2377101

>>2335027

>>2032892

You can't really prove any of this. I'm doubting the aristocratic hero and Nietzsche connection too.

Wait a minute.....

>>2027774

>>1981118
>Muhammad

As Jerry squatted on the public toilet he looked at the various pieces of graffiti drawn onto the cubicle wall. Among all the etchings and scribblings made by bored visitors of the Hotel Crapper one in particular caught his eye.

He leaned forwards to be able to read it fully and took in the whole sentence.

"You poopa my party."

>>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*