/lit/ - Literature

>>21348115
i believe in you anon. you're gonna make it fren. you can do it

>>18562828
But where else can you go? Anywhere else the ratio is worse, short of making actual scholar-frens. And I don't want to do grad school just to network. I already have a job and frens. Just not frens who read books.

>>17422656
kek
>>17422833
checked. the ampersand kind of looks like a capital L, kind of, sort of,
>>17422839
i've had this idea since day one. my homeboards are /x/ and /lit/. i would love to do an /x/ edition soon.
everytime i bring anything to /x/ though, nobody cares, which makes sense. maybe they'll be intrigued by /hyperlit/. i'll aim for a spooky summer this year. or maybe circa halloween.
>>17422902
got a batch late lastnight. stoked to read it. thanks my dude.
>>17422970
yeah my man. we haven't had a screenplay submission yet. i was considering writing one myself for practice or experience. i'd love to see your work. thanks.
>>17423643
you can have the submission you submitted back. i plan to commandeer the title and future of the story so that we can bring it to an end after 3 parts instead of leaving readers hanging off of Volume 1. not sure how you construed an attempt to threaten or dox you from some comment about cummy wummies but i've seen you meltdown over much less so its not a surprise. if you agree to let me publish Volume 2, and you agree to write and submit Volume 3 (completing it), then i won't have to hijack your #LORE and conclude BrOoKs bVrGvRpVnK on my own.
>>17424852
it happens in Lit Quarterly threads as well, though maybe for different reasons. anons i guess became upset that TLQ began accepting submissions outside of /lit/.
this guy is upset because i wouldn't let him just take over as Editor-in-Chief and use his clipart for 004's cover.
>>17425000
C H E C K E D
Trips of Fortitude
>>17425776
i ordered and read Call of the Arcade when it was free online. it is poorly written and terribly constructed. i wrote the obit and all of its criticisms of Gardner's work still stand. to actually review it would be an exercise in masochism. you've outed yourself as having bad taste.
besides, these threads are for the organization of ideas and for orienting productivity; &amp hasn't earned a single dollar yet, but when it does, i'll take out an advertisement, yes.

>>17386805
2015 called and wants its talking points back
>>17386829
Ditto for 2003
>>17386891
Based

>>16554975
I'll be your friend anon. Agnostic btw.

So the bad people get their just due? Any books on this?