/lit/ - Literature

who cares

>>19418443
asking who cares about the state of literature on /lit/
classic

The most renowned writer in the world is a conservative straight white male who writes experimental literary fiction about the south. How do you people reconcile this fact with your victim complex?

>>19418458
everything is in decline it's not just books

>>19418443
I do
that's why I made the thread
do I have to explain everything

>>19418484
lmao who are you talking about?

>>19418532
Corncob, newfag.

>>19418440
By promoting smaller publishers who publish specific subgenres. Specialists.
For example, Kyoani makes good cute anime and that is pretty much it.
It is because authors all go for the money as well. They don't pick a publisher because they like the stuff they published, they pick 'em cuz they've got a big cock.

And there aren't enough publishers to choose from because there is not enough profit to be had in those small niches.

>>19418564
>By promoting smaller publishers who publish specific subgenres
This is honestly what happens. Small independent presses usually have a few editors that specialize.

>>19418484
>>19418559
Sounds like something you pulled from your ass.

>>19418559
Yeah that's what I thought. McCarthy is definitely not the most renowned writer in the world. He's not even the most renowned literary fiction writer in the world.

>>19418589
REKT

>>19418589
>Cormac McCarthy is the greatest living novelist. It’s actually strange that he and Houellebecq aren’t compared more often since both write from a similar worldview about similar topics. Neither is necessarily conservative but both represent well the “cultural pessimism” portion of the Right. And only by grasping why McCarthy is the superior writer can we see the proper way this slice of conservatism should be integrated into the larger canon.

>>19418602
>quoting some teenager's post on /lit/ as if it has any significance

>>19418564
meoshit is low brow though

>>19418484
>>19418559
Faulkner's dead

>>19418576
It's all about the groupings.
When you first start scouring some art forum or booru you look at individual pieces, then tags, then artists that in turn consistently give you what you want.
What publishers need to become are those tags. But the money pool isn't big enough for that and publishers end up with very general genres to try and pump money.

>>19418609
I aspire to be a moe author so you can shut your dirty whore mouth.

>>19418606
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/cormac-mccarthys-conservative-pessimism/
I was quoting a conservative pundit, but you can make up whatever you want.

>>19418440
Quality literature is never the result of a discrete process, and even less so are they result of the institutions which turn those works from manuscripts to purchasable print copies

At the very most the former role of traditional publishing avenues was to provide a platform for authors to distribute their work so it could be judged by the world at large.

>>19418615
>conservative pundit
I have more respect for teenager's on /lit/.

>>19418615
that does not lend it any credibility either

>>19418632
we're not talking about a "discrete process" for creating quality literature. we're talking about a heuristic method for finding it.

>>19418615
>right-wing pundit thinks a right-wing author is the best
>therefore the establishment in publishing isn't cripplingly leftist

>>19418440
>replace traditional publishing?
This idea that we have to abandon and replace things (school, government, now publishing) with something new comes from retards who haven't recognized that it's the physical (((people))) running these institutions that are the problem.

>>19418644
I see I misread the OP, my apologies

>>19418440
the gatekeeping is only because literature publishing is in decline, so everyone has to fight to make sure they and their kids have jobs/checks. notice how that's not a problem in specific genres that have sales growth like bonnet rippers or urban fiction, they'll take any manuscript worth its salt

>>19418658
total platitude. people adopt and perpetuate systems. ideally you change or fix both but it's more expedient to start with the latter.

>>19418440
I researched that picture a bit back when it was originally posted. It was funny to me that a published author was seething so hard over a 2-star review that he took to Twitter to cope:
>I'm so sorry I've created something! Shallow and stupid? I was writing genre fiction oN pURpOsE!
What a faggot.

Traditional publishing

>>19418726
no point in shitting on something purely for being campy, but conflating "realism" with "coherent storytelling" is something brainlets tend to do

>>19418440
There is no necessary contradiction between gatekeeping and making money. Publishers can gatekeep against things that won't make them money, or they can gatekeep against things that they don't consider artistically worthy of publishing. Really, most publishers think of themselves as doing the latter. But I think that some indeed succeed in picking the good stuff, though those are certainly not the massive publishers that churn out hundreds of books a year.
Do keep in mind that Dan Brown selling a lot has little to do with the success of some dedicated publisher of contemporary Japanese poetry and critical editions of medieval epics. Sure, the publisher of D. Brown has more money to promote the books, etc. but if you're not a sheep that only comes to know of new books through adverts and Twitter, you'll find the sort of books you need.

>>19418726
lmao, that's indeed pathetic

>>19418696
Your comment is utter nonsense. Try again.

>>19418696
>>19418806
Don't worry--you're both retarded.

>>19418559
mccarthy sucks though, unironically. "whoa it sounds like the Bible so it must be deep n epic"

just take the wheel Jesus, I can't bear it anymore.

>>19418443
die faggot

>>19418440
>traditional publishing has two primary functions. gatekeeping, and generating profits
No, it has one: generating profits. Gatekeeping only exists to select for books and authors who can generate profits. This includes serious literary fiction, for which there is a market. The profit motive is built in because, in order to survive, publishers need to publish books that actually sell.

>the profit motive wins out (as it usually does) and we are left with trash factories spitting out YA and Dan Brownesque fiction nonstop.
Yes. And?

>self-publishing is clearly not a solution as that would leave the common reader with an infinite supply of even worse shit to sift through.
The only reason self-publishing is worth anything, apart from paying authors more royalties, is the fact that it removes almost all gatekeeping. This means you get many low quality books, but it also means high quality but unprofitable books can be self-published.

>if the goal is to promote and distribute quality literature
If anyone wanted to publish their quality literature without concern for profit, the internet allows them to do this. Publishing no longer has a cost. But the fact is that most authors understandably want compensation for their work, so they go to a publisher or they self-publish.

>what then should replace traditional publishing?
True self-publishing via a decentralised publishing and payment system. But for now the bloodsuckers and middlemen and platform owners will take their share of your book sales, thanks very much.

>>19418559
He wasn't a conservative

>>19420256
>True self-publishing via a decentralised publishing and payment system. But for now the bloodsuckers and middlemen and platform owners will take their share of your book sales, thanks very much.
oh god, fuck off. just put some crypto dogwhistles in and be done with it. you internet nerds are unsufferable.
You have no idea the amount of work it goes into editing, diagramming, formatting a publishable book. That, of course, thinking of an e-book. If you are are producing a real book, the there's even more work necessary to make an even decent edition. And there's simply not many people who can make actual good, durable, pleasing real editions.
So, lots of people will have to put on work to have a fine edition of a book printed. That's why publishing houses and printers are companies.
Your decentralized wetdreams won't solve this issue because a great deal of coordination between the parties is necessary to have the final product.
We all know also that writers - especially the kind that self-publish - are incapable of properly editing their own work. So you'll end up with the latrine that is the self-publishing market today.
It won't go away, this model. You need publishing companies. Your best bet in fact is to found your own.

>>19418440
Self-publishing is a meme. Asking authors to also be part-time savvy businessmen is a pretty silly demand desu. Can you imagine Stephen King splitting his time up between writing his newest book and researching the newest Amazon 'SEO Hacks'?

>>19418440
Small presses, for the happy few

>>19418440
Gatekeeping is only good if the gatekeepers are elitist. Not that it matters as no one should be reading anything published today anyway.

>>19420304
>You have no idea the amount of work it goes into editing, diagramming, formatting a publishable book. That, of course, thinking of an e-book.
None of which is done by the "self-publishing" platforms themselves. So what's your point? Stop seething over nothing. It is completely pointless and unnecessary (for individual authors and publishing houses alike) to have a small number of centralised platforms each taking their cut of everything sold instead of a decentralised system, protocol, standard (call it what you like) for publishing and selling e-books. The digital middlemen add very little value, and need to be cut out.

>>19420304
i agree with you, but still think authors' cut is too small.