/lit/ - Literature

I think so but I think it requires a shift in what is written and how. It requires an almost covert sense of cover and willingness to leave behind the snobbery or romantic literary fiction or whatever it is and most people aren’t willing to do that.

>>17648944
Please don't tell me you write for others. You'll find no satisfaction that way. The goal is to try to reach your own standards (which ought to be very high), and hope other people discover and enjoy your work later.

>>17648959
Also, don’t write in English or in America if you can avoid it.

if you want to challenge the main ideological current, you're going to have to be extremely careful not to be misinterpreted. most of your work will be placation

if you want to write something truly morally aberrant (which is what I expect you're alluding to) you deserve the howling mob and whatever else comes your way

>>17648944
What happens on Twitter does not happen in your book, so don't post on Twitter or have an account.

>>17648944
Yes, if you want to make a point. If that is your goal, you can write however you want, for whomever you want, whenever you want and wherever you want.
Writing commercially? Yeah, that sucks.

>>17648944
Don't use twitter, don't cave in to twitter mobs. Simple as that. Some YA writers have done this and still manage to publish their book, why not you, who will certainly aim towards an audience that rely much less on twitter than the typical audience of YA novels does?

>>17648944
>Serious question: is there any point to writing in today's political and social climate?

You can fly under the radar in certain ways.

Probably not. If you do your either going to have to join the politics circlejerk or walk on eggshells.

>>17648944
Just don't have any social media presence. Or go all the way and pull a Pynchon.

https://youtu.be/kvCgpyNSm90

It's literally that easy. These people can't defend themselves, and they only succeed through the cowardice of their victims.

>>17650238
>It's literally that easy.

Not really. It's not even clear what "hypothesis" Tarantino is rejecting. It looks like he's just flat-out refusing to address the question rather than justifying his character/film.

>>17650238
Tarantino became ultra famous 30 years ago so it's not really the same situation

>>17648944
>twitter mobs
Is there any evidence that there are actual "people" behind these mobs and not just botnets? I've never seen any Normans raging at an irrelevant literally-who author for "racism" in a book on twitter.

>waah waaah i'm being persecuted
No, you're not. You're a brainwashed young incel who spends too much time on 4chan looking at /pol/-tier screencaps.

>>17650392
Of course, bro.