/lit/ - Literature

>>16536354
are you black?

>>16536358
what gave it away?

>>16536381
There are charts

>>16536398
that's 20th century, I am however asking for contemporary or 21st century lit.

>>16536398

>>16536354
Why don't black people embrace they natural hair instead of wearing wigs/weaves all the time. Seriously y'all just look like low-caste indians with straight herr

>>16536407
My bad this is about as late as I've got it's still 21st tho

>>16536407
I have this actually

What's left of the publishing industry is 98% given over to the industrial production of pulp shit for actual retards, like romance novels or YA fiction written by literal teenagers or knockoffs of knockoffs of Tom Clancy knockoffs. The process is so efficient that it might as well be mechanical, with sub-industries and para-industries devoted to it, like how YA authors are all young wealthy teenagers who want to be "influencers" so they get their parents to hire them agents and "brand managers" to tell them how to become a presence on Youtube and Instagram and sell a book to their captive audience, which will then make them an established author so they can segue into more traditional venues, where they will hire different sorts of agents who are better at manipulating those venues, and so on.

If that 98% of the market is structured like a capitalist industrialist nightmare, he other 2% is structured like a corrupt, stagnant guild, nepotistically dominated by a handful of people who all know each other. They play with some of the same PR whoring "influencer" tactics but they do it with more money on the line. There is so much back scratching and favor exchanging, you frankly wouldn't want to break into this market, unless you are already one of these parasites and you think this is how a normal high society/intelligentsia works. Then maybe you could be immune to the sickening miasma of corruption and incest that pervades it. But then you wouldn't be asking your question.

The 98% is purely sales based. You should not go into it unless you have the same ambitions as someone who would self-publish fart erotica on Amazon despite not having a fart fetish as long as it turned a profit. The 2% you would have to be evil, grotesque, and twisted up inside to want to be a part of, and it's almost as bad as the 98%, except instead of churning out prolefeed to housemoms and boomer dads by recombining perennial tropes, it churns out luxury, Platinum-class prolefeed to rich people, the kind who pay for their sons to have sexual reassignment surgeries, and buy $15,000 cars for $85,000. The 2% is unbelievably disproportionately Jewish, yes this matters and yes you will find doors closed to you if you aren't Jewish and well-connected yourself, with the rest being composed of token minority marionettes who can be trotted out to dance for various made-up causes.

Do you want these drug-addicted, miserable decadents as your friends, colleagues, readers? Then stop seeing the industry they sleazily control as a legitimate one. They are a cabal, they are a legal mafia. Ignore them, ignore the temptation of getting "rich" (easily controlled) and doing percs with their tranny sons and daughters, and strike out on your own.

My advice, go read about what a real intelligentsia and writing/reading public looked like mid-century and earlier, before its corruption. The contrast will sicken you so much you won't want to be associated with today's reverse-engineered husk.

If you want 21st century check out Wizard of the Crow.

>>16536413
They have a colonized mindset that tells them their natural hair is inferior to European-style hair.

>>16536354
The female mind is not fit to comprehend literature. I would recommend picking up another interest. The naïve interest is cute in a childish way though.

>>16536451
Shut up misogynist

have you read Baby Alex? It's really good.

>>16536437
bery based

>>16536413
seethe harder

>>16536549
You’re the new /lit/ mama

>>16536623
How could you even read some of these books? Pachinko was dry and bloodless. Quichotte and 1Q84 were masturbations. Underground Railroad was Twitter's definition of good writing. Normal People is equivalent to young adult fiction. Really a low bar here.

>>16536429
You should honestly add Guns Germs and Steel as it's seriously influenced the way people my age (late 20s) view the world for better or worse.

>>16536354
>>16536549
*jaw drops to floor, eyes pop out of sockets accompanied by trumpets, heart beats out of chest, awooga awooga sound effect, pulls chain on train whistle that has appeared next to head as steam blows out, slams fists on table, rattling any plates, bowls or silverware, whistles loudly, fireworks shoot from top of head, pants loudly as tongue hangs out of mouth, wipes comically large bead of sweat from forehead, clears throat, straightens tie, combs hair* Ahem, you look very lovely.

>>16536381
only blacks post other blacks unironically

"Literature" after Ww1 isn't a thing.
Only books worth reading after 1914 are non fiction.

>>16536911
>non fiction.
no such thing

>>16536900
I was forced to read it for ap world history in hs. It's shit and plus I didn't make the chart

>>16536933
Whether it's shit or not it's essential to understanding modern thought.
Isn't the point of reading to better educate your mind and that involves challenging your beliefs. I'm far from Christian but I still read the Bible.

>>16536549
>side zippers and laces

>>16537017
Hell no. Its metaphysical axioms are horrid. We shouldn't be forcing material historicisms down everyone's throats to appease old dried up vag neolib spinstresses. It's just a horrid argument for capitalism, globalism and redistribution. He's not at all qualified to speak on the subject and why the news has a jerk off for this demographic writing books that we're all forced to pretend is grand (privileged white boys with a completely unrelated bachelor's) is bordering on cultural enmity.
He will not educate your mind at all better. Anyone with a small working sense of metaphysics can see off any conclusion they run into before they do. Materialism as a single variable historicism is absolutely pathetic and again, just like that Sapiens author, they are wrong and just spouting out some long form analogy of the political ideas of established neoliberalism. They're not insightful and they're definitely wrong.
An example of where material historicism in environment being the material factor fails is in the development of degrees of philosophy or math that is necessary to get the technological advances. This is true regardless of where you live. Also, not race, but biology in general can determine some slight differences. It's less but obviously if you're predisposed to having a farming community over a local tribe that is still hunter-gathering, they're not going to get the technology. Even more primative, if you don't have a creation narrative, or ethics, or afterlife theory, you don't even get tools. I'm not even deep-diving it. It's horrid disgusting neoliberal garbage and it's a terrible embarrassment it's ever been said. Nobody would get away w saying stupid shit like that on this board.

>>16536354
Lit meme triliogy
Infinite Jest
Ulysses
Gravity's Rainbow

>>16536549
Why would that upset me though?

Word of advice: you best be working on that booty in de gym if you want a pharaonic swag lord to pour a 40 ova yo' ass anytime soon

>>16536354
Austerlitz by W.G. Sebald

>>16536549
>>16536354

SAUCE!

>>16538138
agree

>>16536354
Look at books shortlisted/longlisted for Pulitzers etc and start from there. Don't ask /lit/ for contemporary reading because most of lit doesn't read contemporary books and circle jerk with old books and old philosophies and the old western canon. If you abide by lit's reading list you'll be very behind in terms of modern day reading and contemporary ideas. This place is also quite sexist/racist at times so your reading will be limited to an extent. T

For contemporary reading I recommend you to check out Zadie Smith, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, Ben Lerner, Ottessa Moshfegh, Teju Cole, Olga Nawoja Tokarczuk, Brandon Taylor , Tao Lin, Chris Kraus, Sayaka Murata, Karl Ove Knausgård, Elena Ferrante, Colum McCann, Ishmael Reed, Ali Smith. These are a good start.

>>16536623
This is the best post in this thread OP

>>16540765
this chart reeks of goodreads and reddit

>>16536549
ewww those boots are horrible

>>16536873
Entirely agree; I found Pachinko particularly boring.

>>16538138
Excellent post in a quality thread.

I think the basic issue is that while English literature used to be dominated by an Anglo elite, this is simply no longer the case (especially as that class of landless gentry and fallen aristocracy that produced the old intelligentsia has now largely disappeared, swallowed up into a bloated, Americanised middle class).

>>16536354
That said, I really recommend David Mitchell (cloud atlas, etc.) and John Lanchester (Capital). Also, I'm sure this will get plenty of hate, but despite the execrable adaptation of The Handmaid's Tale and its recent cash-grab sequel, Margaret Atwood is an excellent writer. I particularly enjoyed The Year of The Flood.

>>16536437
Perhaps /lit/ should start its own publishing house. Get together a group of editors, take submissions, see if there's anything good, self-publish under the /lit/ brand. Could be an interesting project. Man, I think we could actually do this.

I want to nibble on her nibbles like a toddler and melt into her like ghost, like a dream. By which I mean: yes, nothing is better for you than coffee.