/lit/ - Literature

>>11378381
cont.

>Houses get swarmed with GARBAGE 16-21 year olds who think they're either Tolkien or Faulkner when in reality they're Tommy Wiseau
>because no one reads lit magazines anymore much less lit fucking websites these tiny little "Publishing houses" employ only one or two people, who can barely even afford to keep their website domain name paid for--much less sift through larger and slushier slush piles than history has ever seen; the internet making every dumbass with a laptop a potential submission
>No offices, no revenue, no print run, no marketing; just a domain name and a twitter account with five hundred followers
>Takes months to send a form rejection on work that they wouldn't have even paid you for in the first place, and that wouldn't even be read by anyone even if they published AND paid you
>Good luck out there if you're writing is actually good despite all this, faggot

What can we do, /lit/?

>>11378381
Move to New York if you want to live off your writing. Otherwise just write and be willing to die in obscurity.

If you build it. They will come.

just be yourself

>>11378395
I did my graduate work in an entirely different field at Columbia and lived there for four years. It was more of the same, except better dressed and with cocaine. If you're not writing sub 1000 word flash fiction for consumption on a tablet or mobile device over your morning subway commute, you had better already be a well-known author with a hundred thousand followers and a blue checkmark

>so much established shit lit
>become haulking critic of the people
>bash the shit lit creators on their tiny skull
>profit

I've essentially resigned myself to working my day job and writing only for myself, so to speak. When I die, I'll leave behind a collection of manuscripts and illustrations stacked to the roof in my tiny apartment for my brother to either archive or use as firewood. Is that the /lit/ lifestyle?

>>11378437
Tried this, wrote as a critic for a decent sized website. "The people" are the morons devouring and propping up all that shit lit. "The people" love that shit lit. You will only ever be a writer's-critic this way, and good luck with that. Better off writing your own non-shit lit and keeping your day job

>working in a dead medium and expecting reward
What's next anon? Are you going to start composing string quartets and complain the kids prefer Dua Lipa? Get really good at making horseshoes and moan that everybody drives a car?

>>11378466
>posting on a forum for literature about how no one should write literature
Even if I grant you that the point you're trying to make is about the printed medium and not the craft of writing to save your retarded delivery, you'd still be wide of the mark. The industry isn't dead--the Paris review still has massive readership. The New Yorker still has massive readership. The thread is about how to fix it with respect to the obvious and unaddressed issues that the addition of a digital medium to the industry has introduced, not about hand-waving and posting sick burns you unabridged faggot

>>11378454
Then there is no way out of this black pit. A writer can only be a public writer if they are championed by the people. If the people are all illiterate drones that can't tell shit from sublime then we are all DOOOOOMED! Good writing should be like sugar on the tongue every line. It should flow like poetry and wrap its genitles around my brain. It shouldn't be easy. And it shouldn't be cliché. And it certainly shouldn't fucking be replicatable. Off with their heads! Lol nevermind. The world can read now, so it's no longer a holy ground.

>>11378507
What point are you trying to make here, Tao?

>>11378498
>The industry isn't dead
If it makes you feel better, tell that to yourself. There's nothing wrong with horseshoes, some horseshoes are beautiful. We can talk all day about horseshoes, 19th century Russian horseshoes, late Medieval horseshoes, English horseshoes of the restoration period etc. But horseshoes as a serious artform are over and have been for a long time. As over as the symphony or bebop

>>11378523
>literature is a dead art form

>>11378512
> Inclusivity decreases
>readership numbers increase
>also, quality of content increases
>only in the extreme ends
>majority of bell curve is far from the end
>the people herald Harry Potter as a work of art
>also dickens was a faggot

>>11378507
*holds up spork*

Anyhow. Who gives a shit. If you're good enough they'll be suckling your ashened titties fighting over your limbs and barking about what grand metaphor your were building, arguing about the syntax, and trying to tie it to a holocaust analogy. Only the dead deserve recognition.

>>11378563
>If its good enough, it will find its market
Just be yourself, right anon?

>>11378538
Hey I'm sure something new will come along to fill the gap, right now some genius is probably making a brilliant montage of emojis filled with searing insights into the human condition. But that Tolstoy-Shakespeare-Dante stuff? Don't kid yourself.

>>11378381
>experience to get a job, a job to get experience.

I hate to say it, but isn’t one answer hustling your way through an MFA and sucking industry cock for networking?

If, on /lit/, good or proper literature is necessarily difficult or, at least, required an effort from the reader (and I don’t disagree with this), then I don’t see any other way to publication and reknown, if these are the goals. Someone like Rupi Kaur is, from the publisher’s perspective, a phenomenal success, and she established a fanbase herself through persistent “work” and capitalizing on controversy and shrewdly reading the cultural barometer. But a massive part of her “appeal” is that her “poetry” requires no work to “get”. You read it to agree with it and feel that someone is speaking your own unexpressed sentiments.

I certainly don’t feel that Kaur’s work has almost any literary value, but is there a lesson there for /lit/ in knowing the times and effectively selling yourself?

I mean, Joyce wallowed in obscurity most of his career... his early work was championed by fucking Yeats and he still had a hard time publishing. Even with a solidly literary reputation he relied on handouts and the amazing generosity of Sylvia Beach. And even then.....

Where is our Sylvia Beach?

>>11378567
Who else you gunna be, anon?

>>11378573
Just stop saying Rupi Kaur and we can all forget about it alright! I think we all at least glanced at milk and honey. I think we all know what caliber of content it was... Let her flame die out it requires no more gasoline.

>>11378603
Rupi Kaur
Rupi Kaur
RUPI KAUR

>>11378603
Fuck off, bro. I agree that the content is shite, but I invoked our dear /lit/-sister because she is a prominent example of someone who broke the typical mould for any writer “making it” these days. She’ll not last, but she managed something.

>>11378573
>Where is our Sylvia Beach?
I can see serious literature slipping into the same place as opera. I love opera, but when I go I'm the youngest person there by decades. It's obvious the whole thing can only keep going due to generous public subsidy, and it's only a matter of time before some populist government cuts that subsidy. And then we'll be in the hands of eccentric billionaires who want their second wives to sing Violetta. I can't see a future which makes me sad.

>>11378619

I get it. But I won't measure the success of a writer (funnily enough, one who can't write) by books sold or any other category that doesn't involve actual WRITING. Popular? Yes. Successful? Fuck no.

>>11378573
While this is a fine perspective on the industry, as an artist I can't justify betraying my work to suck cock. I would rather write for myself instead of write for a crowd of jerk lipped normies and ad-men. This means, like plenty of great writers you've heard of and plenty more you never will, I will write and die in obscurity and whatever happens to my literary archive afterward can suck my titanic, indifferent, indisputably literarily meritous ballsack. Fuck agents, fuck marketing, fuck normies, fuck publishers and fuck the industry. Time I spend not hammering my prose to fellate any of those entities is time I wasn't forging literature and that's unforgivable. I'm beyond caring, work my day job, and if at some happy point before I die I see some swath of my work in print or I meet Sylvia Beach--what a nice day that will be. Until then, I'll work for death and only care what the people who I respect have to say about my writing.

>>11378648
Fair enough... I agree with you. But OP’s suggestion for a thread topic had to do with publishing, right?

>>11378648
>>11378666
This exchange is exactly what I was looking for in the thread. People talking about what the industry even is. How do we measure success, and once we measure it--is it even desirable anymore? Of course not. So on and so forth--onward to coping mechanisms and literary astral projection to escape this shitty condition. Thanks lads keep bickering and fuck Rupee

>>11378666
I suppose it did. And I've already been through that loop though ITT. Publishing is a business. Unique or risky work just doesn't make the cut. Cliché ridden and traditional story sells. Publishers are the devil shoveling 100% Grade C pure unadulterated first-rate second-hand garbage into the mouth of the public. It's what "we" want. It's what "we" need.

>>11378698
Agreed.

My dream would be to have a couple friends in the same city with whom I could write and shre writing and critique each other. Forget about publication and try to improve my own craft. I’ve almost had this at times.... I used to be involved with a weekly poetry reading in one city, but it decayed into almost purely slam stuff. I did write for a while with a couple uni friends, but life and studies take over eventually. It’s tough to find people who want to commit to the craft.

>>11378654
If it means something, that's exactly the kind of attitude I think authors should have. It's not about success or anything like it. It's about crafting something beautiful. I'd even say it's not about numbers of fans either, but the quality of fans. 100 die hard fans who will read your work over and over, and will enthusiastically recommend your work to anyone who reads will always be better than 100,000 "fans" who just read you once or twice and then forget you ever existed.

>>11378573
I know Joyce got so worked up about his poetry manuscript, "chamber music" that he cast it into a firepit in a fit of rage. His family fished it out. But I'm sure it's never easy for anyone. Nor should it be. Meh.

Think your escaping and you keep running into yourself, the shortest way home is the longest way round.

>>11378714
Totally.

I know the idea has been floated several times on /lit/ in the past, but the folk here who care and do read and do write should be an ideal basis for somethign like that, though we’re spread apart. Trouble is it takes commitment and I sure don’t have the time for it these days. Had I the time, I would love to be part, and help to curate/edit such a project. But PhD writing and having kids and all. I typically don’t think that commitment and /lit/ go together too well, but I am encouraged by the summer reading groups here that manage to sustain themselves. Had we world enough and time...

>>11378712
I've written hundreds of poems. I enjoy the act. There's something about exploring "the house of possibilities", it isn't for catharsis or a longing to be heard. It's a deeply meditative look at yourself. I guess I enjoy that part of it.

>>11378738
4chan is a collection of contrarian wankers who love to talk shit and bitch. If we band together within the confines of /lit/ we'll never actually get anything done. We'd need to form a separate group to handle something like that, away from 4chan. It's like how Katawa Shoujo got made. Only a handful of people actually from /a/ worked on the game, and they certainly didn't keep /a/ constantly in the loop during the creation of it.

>>11378750
Agreed. But that sounds like the sort of thing I imagine.

>>11378750
Peanuts to giants. Creation isn't the problem. How'd the game devs handle that one?

>>11378763
>>11378765
It's also worth pointing out that if you do, in fact, feature neat, objectively good literature and poetry, you can potentially use social media to build an audience pretty quickly, if you manage to pair your content with the right attitude towards others on the platforms.

Think of Fluland. It was just one guy who turned out to be a /pol/ shitter, but he had good taste in stories and poetry, and he presented himself in a way that drew interest. Fluland probably could have been really big if it hadn't self-destructed. So it's possible to gain an audience, even these days.

Can one of you writers toiling in obscurity post something for me to read???

>>11378866
Why? I don't need you to validate my writing on a Tibetan bell-forging forum and you shouldn't need to validate yourself by hopefully comparing your own fan fiction favorably to my work. Go to the critique general if you want to masturbate.

>>11378881
Well, I'd like to read something written by a member of the community who's actually serious about writing and self-possessed enough to be submitting their work instead of asking for peer review from a bunch of anonymous 19 year olds

>>11378866
This did end up in a very small journal, and then in a chapbook with other poems. i wrote it while drunk on Dylan Thomas. i hope the formatting works... ive had poor luck here before.

Down to the dead, the mankind of his falling
to the earth through a forest of rust,
clay-ward descent through a darkened telling
to pull her hand from the dust

of mankind clay in the rusted darkness
of earth in her trembling hand
held in his hand, drawn out of the forest,
the dusty death of man.

Slowing to stop, the earth in its burning
in the birth of its rusting disease
of mankind telling the ended turning:
the dusty death of trees

burnt in the hand of the rust of the earth
as turning slows to falling
and stops the dusted death of birth
to grow mankind in the telling.

just end it now

>>11379038
Right, but by that token, posting it here for you to read is giving you exactly what you just said you don't want. Because I am actually serious about writing and submitting for publication, not asking for peer review from an anonymous 19 year old.
>t. OP

>>11379396
Fall
Rust
Earth
Clay
Earth
Rust
Rusting clay
Claying
Earth fall
Falling
Rusting rusty clay
Rust falling
Through earthy clay earth
Rust
Earthy death
Death by clay rusting
Earth fall
Death.

>>11379428
Holy shit mate.... you're right!

>Tin house
>Glimmer Train
>not taking in literal nobodies
the fuck you on about?

>>11378381
I worked at a literary magazine. Here's the real problem: everyone wants to be published, nobody wants to read. That's it.

Our publication, which actually prints copies, has a tiny readership, but we get flooded with submissions. If everyone who submitted to us bought just one copy of our publication, we'd be a multi-million dollar business. But because authors care more about achieving personal fame than actually participating in literary culture, we depend on art grants from the city to keep us afloat.

You are the problem, /lit/. Do you own a single zine? Have you read a single literary magazine cover to cover? Have you ever been to an independent bookstore? A release party? No. I didn't think so. But I bet you've submitted your inane, toneless short story about suicide to dozens of publications you've never once heard of. You have no right to complain. Publishing houses don't owe you parasites shit.

>>11379396
I'm not sure i'd publish this

>>11379439
Based

>>11379439
You make a fair point but lose me at the end where you resort to jerking yourself off.

I stopped reading magazines specifically because I realized it had been years since I read anything worth reading in any of them. If I am the problem for submitting to you, you are as much the problem for publishing absolute tripe and refusing to continue to uphold one of your most important duties as a publisher: MARKETING ME as an artist. You and your ilk have become content to turn into glorified bankers, acting only to give loans out to established authors who write popular bullshit, because it's easy and low effort. And because you publish bullshit, you lose people like me who used to participate in the literary community. Then you have the gall to take six months to read my novella and form reject me, and then call ME a parasite? I'm not an 18 year old kid, I'm a 30 year old man with a real job in a fucking industry that doesn't float on its own self-assured posturing--with multiple publications under my belt despite that. I'm not writing tripe, you have allowed the industry to corps and now you blame me for deciding to stop reading the wet garbage you publish and shelf my own manuscripts if not for the insult of going through your poor excuse of a "process," then just for the relief of knowing my work won't appear alongside the fucking inexcusable drivel you would print on either side of it.

Get bent you fucking absolute animal

>>11379477
fucking based. wow.

>>11379439
>>11379477
Also I fucking outlined everything you posted, in the OP. Do all publishing houses hire eimployees with zero reading comprehension or does it just seem that way to me, because I have developed a focused hatred of you faggots for fancying yourselves anything other than somehow more over-pompous salesmen than regular salesmen?

>>11379477
Cmon man lemme read that work

>>11379529
Fine dammit. I think I drunk posted this page on /lit/ a few months back anyway

>>11379529
>>11379553
Happy?

>>11379553
>>11379564

I'd be on your side if you weren't trying so hard to be the Cormac McCarthy of the Atlantic.

>>11379573
I'll take that as a compliment, for one, and for two I don't really give a shit if you like it or not anon.

>>11379573
Also Cormac was trying at least as hard as you find fault with to ameliorate Melville in the desert but that's different right? Thanks for the ego boost by comparison though I suppose--like I said

>>11379582

>compliment

kek

>I don't give a shit if you like my work!
>Publishing is trash and no one likes me waaaaaa!

double kek

>>11379596
>he's mad he got called out for being a hypocritical tart and can't act like I'm just a bad writer to bandage his ego
I'm surprised you don't still work as a slush pile lackey for whatever shitty house you used to m8

>>11378866
Alone in my room
oblivious to the fact that
my self amused doom and gloom towards the will of others
should've been my modus operandi
from the beginning.
This wasted epiphany
stings me in laughter and sorrow
through the looking glass taunting me.

Imagining
resolute resignation to my sweetest nothings lying lifeless in the mist as my solitary star still beckons me on.
The unceasing cascade still temps me
to forge a crown
from this flash in eternity
I call my here and now.

>>11378381
We can fix it by creating an alternative market outside of the one that exists. I suggest you self-publish our own work on kindle direct, and let /lit/ see if it's any good or not. I'll start: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01MZB9I6S

>>11380398
Self publishing is a meme though

>>11380398
This. All of the OP's complaints about the modern literary industry are valid, but self-publishing goes too far in the other direction. A lot of modern gatekeepers are garbage, but you need SOME gatekeepers. You need editors and publishers with good taste who know great work when they see it, and who believe in it enough to promote it.

>>11380427
This is the mentality which keeps the publishing industry strong, and continuing to pump out garbage. But I guess it's easier to say "meme" than actually try to change something you hate

>>11380435
The point is that publishing houses have stopped marketing authors because they can rely on social media to do that for them, which means marketable writing is whatever the dude with the most twitter followers writes. Self publishing doesn't fix this, it's just a brand new slush pile that's bigger than every other slush pile and has no editor

>>11380431
This.

>>11379477
A lot of publications are out of touch. This is because, by and large, SJWs have taken over the arts. Just look at what those freaks did to the Hugo Awards. I have nothing to do with that identity politics bullshit.
>MARKETING ME
>you have the gall to take six months to read my novella
I don't think you understand just how insurmountable the slush pile is. Yes, it takes a long time to get to your story, because we have a thousand things to read. Which brings me back to my main point: everyone wants to be published, no one wants to read. We can't market you because we've got the next issue to worry about and hundreds of Twilight knock-offs to reject.
>acting only to give out loans to established authors
because nobody fucking reads. If that hack J K Rowling or Chuck Palahanuik submitted one of their trashy stories to us, we would publish them simply because it would mean selling copies. We don't like it either, but we need to get you idiot non-readers to pick up a fucking book somehow. And this is the only way. Don't like it? BUY MORE FUCKING MAGAZINES. Then we wouldn't have to publish trash or grovel for art funds.

>>11378381
>>If you aren't already established, you can get right fucked
how can you be estalished if the system won't let you establish???

>>11380569
My honest issue is that I simply don't typically find things I enjoy when I do browse through magazines and websites. The one magazine I check regularly is PANK, and even there I don't always enjoy what I read.

Also, let's be honest, /lit/ is garbage at contemporary literature. I include myself in this accusation. There's so much writing to read by people who have died that we forget about the writers who are still alive.

>>11380569
>we publish trash
>the only way to fix that is for YOU to BUY MORE TRASH
If your slush pile is sooooo large and so hard to sift through you gators should be able to pull some proper work out of it like it was your job description. The absolute gall of you faggots. I wonder if you understand how deeply I, as an unironic hermitic auteur who writes fiction, non fiction, makes music, and works as an architect and professor, absolutely hate you and your kind. All of you cocksure salesman and pompous gatekeepers can burn, and the light of the fire would dance in my eyes with such reckless abandon you wouldn't believe. Like you would not fucking believe.

>>11378381
>write great books
>do cool shit and have weird adventures.
>commit suicide
theyll get published eventually, no one wants to read about some boring Murifag, m8

>>11380569
>we publish trash
>the only way to fix that is for YOU to BUY MORE TRASH
If your slush pile is sooooo large and so hard to sift through you fags should be able to pull some proper work out of it like it was your job description. The absolute gall of you faggots. I wonder if you understand how deeply I, as an unironic hermitic auteur who writes fiction, non fiction, makes music, and works as an architect and professor, absolutely hate you and your kind. All of you cocksure salesman and pompous gatekeepers can burn, and the light of the fire would dance in my eyes with such reckless abandon you wouldn't believe. Like you would not fucking believe.

>>11380569
>we need to get you idiot non readers to pick up a book
Dumbass my entire tiny house is basically a library, I read all day every day. I don't have any of your shitty books in it because you publish awful books. The problem isn't nobody reading, it's awful businesses like yours crawling twitter for the highest subscriber count among your submissions trying desperately to sell something instead of finding something worth selling. You should be looking for good writers and marketing them, not looking for writers who market themselves to make your next shitty issue easier, and then complain that all the intellectuals refuse to read your awful bloody rags

>>11380620
>the only way to fix that is for YOU to BUY MORE TRASH
No, the only way to fix is if the average Joe bought magazines that don't have trashy authors like J K Rowling in them. But that's never going to happen.

So here we are. Digging through crappy authors, who don't read yet want to be the next big authorial superstar, in search of good prose, which we do publish, only to be read by no one. And then you complain.

The only reason we don't publish trash is because we have an arts grant from the city. That's it. Without that grant we'd be bankrupt or we'd be forced to have a business plan that caters to morons.
>>11380646
You don't even know what zine I work for. You're just mad. And in your rage-induced stupor you've created some kind of Harper Collins strawman. You seriously think I'm crawling twitter to figure out who to publish?

>>11380684
No but I do think you're incredibly dissociated from the individuals whose work you're trying to profit from. And you're demonstrating that ITT handily. I don't much care which shitmag you publish for, and you're damn right I'm mad that you have the nerve to come in here and say that authors are the problem when there are innumerable others just like me who write better than i do and still get dicked around by the system. And you come in here acting like I owe you an apology for not paying you for the privilege

>>11380684
>b-but we don't publish bad writing
>y-you just don't read all of the absolute Joyces in every issue because you're a dick
Fucking
Kek
Bro

>>11378393
>What can we do, /lit/?
nothing, this is a fucking board of elitists teens and twentysomethings, people that literally dont know shit about how industries of any kind work these days
and you are asking them how to "fix" an industry that was always a fucked up place for anyone trying to get in
basically you are bothered by the fact that to be famous its quite useful to be famous
stop reading lit, start watching youtube and netflix and reality shows, fuck the written word, its not good for shit now days

>>11378714
never in a hundred years will a hundred people read your shit

>>11380709
>how do i into marquesian coffee-farming board rhetoric
You are a meme. Quit writing.

>>11380718
i dont write, havent written shit thats not for academic purposes since before i finished high school
why the fuck would i write some shit nobody would wanna read

>>11380730
That would be this threads underlying question, nice work anon. So when you're in other threads what do you shitpost about if you don't write

>>11380738
>That would be this threads underlying question
yea, and the answer is you shouldnt write
i dont shitpost, i very rarely comment on how fucking hideous this place is, and mostly just lurk threads based on the thumbnail
in all my time on this board i learned maybe 2 interesting things, and the charts were sometimes useful

>>11380753
So why break your benevolent silence my friendly fren? I hope you didn't fall for a meme chart

>>11380753
cause the tone of this thread was too outrageously elitist and unaware that i felt like it

>>11380709
>Stop doing
>Start consuming
>It's all futile
>Just pay someone else to do it
I wonder (((who))) could be behind this post

>>11378381
So, you engage in something that gives you joy but has a contemporary incarnation that is spirit crushing? Welcome to the real world. For a 30 year old adult professor, architect, musician, and published author (lmao!) you sure do whine a lot.

There is no saving the industry. Our cultural moment has defined it to be something you don't like. You seem to be the one disturbed. And yes, good stuff does get printed today. After all, OP, we are to believe that you produce pearls and have been printed, no?

Really, I sympathize. I do. Literature doesn't enjoy the same cultural position it once did and literary fiction even less so. I disagree with the other anon that literature is dead. It's just not as prestigious as it once was. There is no fix for this as we live in a very different world than when literature was the premiere art. I used to cry about it too. No longer. To lament it is to indulge in self-pitying, self-righteous, and morbid reflection. Which, coincidentally, brings me back around to the OP...

If you're enjoying some success, however modest, keep doing what you're doing and build on it. Is underneath all of this anger the fact that the world isn't begging for the next drop of ink from your pen? Is success not coming fast enough for you? Because as much as you may make the target of your items the publishing industry you really seem to be saying "there's too much milk for my cream to rise!".

>>11380768
and there we go a literal fucking antisemite

>>11380765
>you're all elitist
Sounds a lot like
>I'm humbler than you
And you're too much of a hotheaded protagonist to understand that I see. Underage I wager.

>>11380303
no reaction worse than no reaction

>>11378381
sounds like to me OP is a shit writer.Quantity never equals quality. Get your shit together, write something good, then see how your opinion of the publishing industry will change

>>11380775
you do realise calling someone out for virtue signaling is literally not an argument, and also is expecting people either be infantile or disingenuous, both of which you cant fucking know
so dont fucking do it

the tone of the thread, and many posts is that what you are making is some 'art' thats being fucked over by some 'industry'
i literally think that giving any value to something because its 'art' in the sense(purity, worth on its own, speaks to some universal truth, is unencumbered by the current affairs...) displayed in this thread is elitist

>>11380773
>what you published are pearls
No dumbass I'm perpetually ashamed of my work because that is the quandary and it's independent of my loathing for the industry that's too far up its own ass to actually be in the conversation. For all your targeted arm-folding and derisive snorting about the fact that I chose to bitch on an anonymous forum for bitching about this specific thing I would hazard to guess that when you're not projecting you would do well to be worried the worst things you see in me others see in you as well. Don't lecture me on pity. I don't want your pity, I wanted a tiny little spot to throw some of my thoughts on the industry out and see how they fared in an environment like this--which I did and I got. If you don't like my thread quit bumping it or take a moment to try contextualizing some of the shit you're reading in here instead of thumbing your nose at what little you have to build an image of whose sitting behind my keyboard

Thanks.

>>11380790
And I think that the way you're talking about art is so esoteric that only you can proeprly apply your amorphous classification of it to any given thing, which is elitist. But go on accusing other people of being elitist please

>>11380790
the thing in this thread also is that there is the constant implication that people should want to read your shit
they probably shouldnt want to

>>11380797
ive given a pretty clear list of implied values that 'art' i can see defended in this thread usually possess for a person defending it
i can give more, but if you dont get it by now you are probably not getting it on purpose

it cant be applied to fridges, people, labour, history, the battle of waterloo or the characters in my name, so no it cant be applied to anything

>>11380798
I don't think I am entitled to anyone reading my shit anon. Let me try and put it to you a different way. Suppose a hypothetical author who did write something good; all of the issues laid out in the OP apply and are still there to be talk about right or wrong. I supplied some vague sense of who I am in place of that hypothetical because there are two outcomes without doing so:
1. Anons brush the thread off assuming I'm self inserting anyway or
2. Anons brush the thread off assuming I'm a shit writer who thinks he's a genius.

Both cases are independent of the problems expressed in the OP, a fact you have to concede unless you're prepared to assume the benevolence of the entire industry or at the very least deny that any of that is even remotely close to generally true.

Instead plenty of you bootlickers and probable redditors are more than happy to turn the lens on me and my work personally, than to accept that information for what it was used for: some modest bulwark to the topic at hand. Either way I lose because calling me elitist is easier and makes you feel better than considering that neither of those two above options apply.

So in short, you're a fag I guess

>>11380804
Are you actually suggesting that you've supplied a wholistic definition of art in this thread?

>>11380792
>It's my party and I can cry if I want to! Leave!

Yeah, with that much booty blastage I guess I hit close to home. And I said self-pity. You get no pity from me. Sympathy isn't pity.

I do accept that people see bad things in me. It doesn't disturb me. My goal in life isn't to please people or write something that causes them to suck my cock. I still write. I've come to some acceptance about the industry, writing, and myself, OP.

>>11380817
Alright anon. Whatever you say fren

>>11380813
fuck no, i am supplying a description of what i see to be valued as better than the products of the current industry, and that is by the defenders of it called art
pointing by that to a wider struggle between 'art' of that sort and 'money', 'sheeple', 'the industry' depending on which self professed 'artist' you ask is its enemy

>>11380826
Then it sounds like we are in agreement

>>11380817
On second thought I don't believe you. Also you're parroting what I said earlier in the thread which is why I suggested that you're more like me than perhaps you would be comfortable admitting; here>>11378654

>>11380808
i dont even bother with the fact that you made up some shit about yourself, it doesnt matter, even without that you are still talking about some industry that is fucking up artists
all the while admitting that something that is inherent in it being and industry, that is "fame" is a good goal for this "artist"
there is no fame without some kind of "industry", the fact that today its a social media thing, and in the 20s it was knowing a dude in paris or new york doesnt fucking matter
the fact that its an industry, that produces fame, through making a name for an author doesnt bother you, you are bothered by the fact its not working well for people you think are writing real art, and that is something echoed in other posts in the thread more clearly(for instance the one that literally talks about EVIL SJW who FUCKED UP YOUR THING)
you hate that YOU arent famous, and wanting to be famous is wanting people to read your shit, feeling entitled to it, and feeling as if it has been taken from you
you literally ask people to help you dismantle the industry because you want an industry that works for you

>>11380826
about what are we in agreement?

>>11380840
I am comfortable with it. I can accept that people see me in ways I may not like or agree with. This is also why I can sympathize with you and your sentiment. I have lived it. I think the difference between you and I, right now, is acceptance. I accept the world around me as it is and continue my work anyway. I dont tell myself narratives that make me seem like a misunderstood genius or tossed aside gem. That would draw me back into the loop of caring what the industry is.

>>11380847
>he is assuming I conflatefame with the end goal of writing
Oh that makes a lot of sense as to why I couldn't figure out where all your misguided animosity and grandstanding was coming from. The rest of your position here is just festering in your misunderstanding of another persons motivations. That's... not a good trait for a writer all things considered anon

>>11380860
>I dont tell myself narratives that make me seem like a misunderstood genius or tossed aside gem
Neither do I anon, which is why again i don't think you're fully grasping the reason for my continued reiterating of the similarity between us. You can keep demanding that we are different because you are a zen comic book character and I am not, but it's a superficial distinction at best and a childish one at worst. I can write for myself and "accept" it--whatever that may mean in a given context, and still carry disgust for the industry that exists outside of my writing to take advantage of entirely other people who share my passions and themselves lose time and energy and mana fighting it. Don't you see that? I think your idea of yourself as a monk weathering the chaos of my storm is comical for this reason, is what I am saying. But then you can pick the metaphor apart to skirt the point again also, which is my fault for resorting to it and away we go

>>11380694
>individuals whose work you're trying to profit from.
How many times do I have to say we have a city grant? We're not making money. It's a non-profit publication. Any money we make goes back into the zine.

I'd say authors like you are a dime a dozen, but you're not. You're less than a dime a dozen. You're so common, you're fucking Zimbabwe bucks.

>>11380877
And to think you bashed on me for charicature! Anyways, accepting something doesn't mean I celebrate it or deny it has problems. That I even have to talk about acceptance means I'm dealing with something I don't like.

And those other people are making a choice to be "exploited". They are willingly engaging with the industry. I think it bizarre how you paint them as having no agency or free will in the matter. Which, again, is why it seems that you are frustrated that the whorish industry just hasn't picked you to enter between her thighs.

>>11380862
i am not a writer, and wont be one, and i am not conflating shit
what is your goal of writing?

>>11380888
The only voice of experience itt gets routinely dismissed lmao!

>>11380888
Earlier in the thread you bitched about being a multi million dollar business if all your submissions bought a copy of the shitty final product you made them wait six months to get form rejected from, and now you hand wave about being a non-profit. Youre a non-profit because you don't have a choice. Youre a non-profit because no one reads the tripe you print three copies of annually. You're not a good person, Anon. The reason respectable people don't read your publication is right under your nose if you'll stop thumbing it at me for long enough to look down.

The real irony here is that magazines like yours are even more common than authors like me.

>>11380905
To write something that was worth being written. I'm not allowed to hate self-assured gatekeepers of what "worth" means while spending my life educating my own notion of it, like this fag-->>11380888 thought? Kek

>>11380901
You realize I made the same joke about you bashing me for caricature right? How many levels of self awareness are you on anon? You keep missing the point which again makes you seem determined to convince yourself that you're meaningfully different from whatever you think I am

>>11380917
cool write it, and save it in a folder then

>>11380930
What do you think I've been doing for the last seven years? Want to compare dick sizes too?

>>11380928
I've talked about every point you brought up and shared how I deal with it. I'm not better than you. Probably worse. Or maybe we're even the same person. I have no more passion for this thread. God speed, you based lunatic.

>>11380940
I've yet to be convinced that 4chan is anything other than me and a team of state funded bots so... I probably am you yeah.

>>11380930
yea, but why do you want to publish it?

>>11380917
what is worth writing to you? are you the first person to ever articulate absolute truth?

>>11380947
this is an answer to this
>>11380931

>>11380915
We've won awards from the National Endowment for the Arts and our authors have won Pushcart Prizes.

During our "conversation" you've painted us as one of the big five, and now we're a publication who "prints three copies annually." This is because you are not a sane and rational person. You're so butthurt about your tripe being rejected that you'd lash out at anyone vaguely resembling an editor you could find on a Mongolian basket weaving forum.
>magazines like yours are even more common than authors like me.
Haha, sure. There are more publications than there are authors. Whatever you say.

Here's a tip for the future. Don't post your shit on a public forum. That now means you can't sell FNASR for that story, which means no publisher will touch it. And another thing: 4chan archives posts. So posting your shit as a .jpg and then deleting it means nothing.

>>11380947
Because even though we labor under the sign of our own autonomous validation we are only human beings and the thought of being published is nice. Not to be famous, but to know that someone with power I don't have sees my work in the same way I do. Because art is about communication and it takes two to tango. This can't be news to you

leeetsss start a solipsism club, the one who's most solipsist in their writing by death wins respect.

bonus if actual antichrist

>>11380959
>he's so mad that he saved a post I made for another anon's curiosity hours ago, just to act like I can never publish my story
Jokes on you, faggot. Even if you aren't LARPing, I know I'm not going to publish that novella. Blacklist that jpg and whine about me not ever getting it picked up all you want, I could care less what your parasitic endowment does with its dwindling readership and you can still blow me. How are you this mad at bein called out for being a gigantic douche? Take a good look, /lit/-- these are the gatekeepers of your dream career

>>11380972
like l'acephale except no deaths, the devotion to the cause is all we know

>>11380984
I'm in how start

The real reason why nothing will work out for most of you guys are the same reason why a virgin browing /b/ may never lose his virginity.

It's not because you guys are weak, it's because you want all the things to work out on your on way. Too busy to shape yourself.

If you have a vision, go for it. Sometimes you are the only one digging your own grave.

>>11380972
>>11380986
https://discord.gg/dDpzgPD

How does a person know if they're dreaming?

>>11381031
my eyes only witness my times. the shovel in my hand was a surprise

>>11378636
When has public subsidy by faggot governments been good for the arts? Admittedly I'm only vaguely familiar with some of the artists Obama recognized, but I believe we can safely assume they were shit. You say the populist government will cut the funding, which is also a flaw of conservatives, seeing as they are pathetically uninvolved with the arts: a central and important part of creating and conserving culture. But why would continuing such support actually help people who post on /lit/? I think we should help traditional art, but I don't think the government or any of their appointed judges are a good judges. Just look at all the faggot artiste types from Obama's art council resigning after Trump became president. They are pathetic worms, completely detached from the Zeitgeist and the people that they DON'T represent. Now if Trump could would appoint some people... but I think there are more important things for him to do, anybody on that front will have to fight their way to prominence.

>>11378654
Post it here anon

>>11380709
we just need another Fluland

>>11381299
>When has public subsidy by faggot governments been good for the arts?
Opera literally wouldn't exist if it wasn't subsidised. It's too expensive to stage and there isn't a big enough audience to sustain it. For now there are enough old school culture lovers in government, but it's only a matter of time before they are replaced. And once the chain is broken opera won't come back, because the skills will be lost

>>11381344
Oh yes, well I meant art that is pozzed, I guess it's tough to poz opera cause nobody who's a gay contemporary will write an opera. Apply my argument to literature and poetry specifically.

>>11381380
It's difficult to parse the memes and work out what your argument actually is.
Serious literature has a small and dwindling audience and will soon be unable to sustain itself financially, much like opera, ballet or visual art.
Those mediums are sustained by government subsidy and practitioners within them spend most of their time crafting proposals and funding applications for government cash. In theatre you either have to be pleb jukebox musical or you need government funding.
I can see literature soon being in a similar position, where serious novelists and poets need to apply for funding to support their work because the marketplace won't.
Whether the government choose to subsidy the 'correct' writers will be a matter of opinion. Part of the skill of being a writer (like part of the skill of being a contemporary artist or theatre director) will be getting good at getting funding applications accepted.

>>11381407
>part of the skill of being a writer will be getting good at getting funding
Nah, that's not art

>>11381420
No, but visual artists, film directors, theatre directors, opera companies, orchestras etc have had to do it for years.

>>11380959
you still dont have a fucking answer about anybody reading your magazine because is shit. or are you thinking you are really good but the "public" have the problem?.

>>11378439
Kafka did it, so it is at least one of the /lit/ lifestyles