/lit/ - Literature

You don't have to say the sky is above anything. It's kind of implied.

Breathtaking. Literally the only things I would change:

>Our eyes both blue oceans of adventure in all there is.
Ending on a preposition is a bit weak.

>The clouds driffted apart and a low and behold
>driffted
>a low

But yeah. Great stuff.

I'm a cold person so this all annoys me.

This is so overwrought and purple. Keep it simple, stupid.

i'm on this board 24/7 and that's probably the decent thing i've read here. got more?

I never could figure why that lizard is trying to hide two of his feets, one successfully. Perhaps he forgets that his front limbs also have feets. Silly lizard.

Anyway OP, I'm afraid that I didn't like your work. I was put off by "mennace" (spellcheck ffs).

>infinite majesty beseeched our very eyes through the light filled gobbets of rain drops crying from the sky.

WTF? You're not getting paid by the word. gobbets of raindrops is a terrible image. The sky doesn't cry and why the fuck "very eyes"? Are you a time traveller from the shitty age?

>I feel like shes mine, but sometimes I don't.

Make your mind up. Shit or get off the fucking pot.

>I feel the warming star inside her aswell as the pure substance of myself wet on top and caught drifting away to wonderland where I think I've done something achievable in my life.

Don't really know where to start, other than to say that doing something acheivable is a tautology (you've done it, so obviously it's acheivable), and not very impressive anyway. You aren't saying what you think you're saying in this passage. And the thing about the star inside her, just nope.

>sorrow sadden pleas of humility.

Genuinely not sure what the fuck you're trying to say here.

Basically, you like the chick. We get it. But this is toss, mate, sorry.

>But then I feel it in her the brilliant body of being that I can call my other own

Damn...that's pretty good...

experimental, richly textured with images, and authentic.

I like it. 9/10

trying. way. too. hard.

>>1987023
>>1987029
troll

>>1987038
There is such a thing as being too poetic with descriptions. Am I reading a poem or a story? I can't tell.

I'm impressed. There are some images and expressions here that give Pynchon or McCarthy a run for their money. Fix the typos though. That shit is unprofessional and makes it seem like you don't give a fuck. Seriously.

cut out like 1 out of every 3 adjectives and you might have something worth publishing

>>1987016
me too. jusy a bunch of fluffy fluff.

>>1987029
>Make your mind up. Shit or get off the fucking pot.

I bet you hated reading Hamlet.

Your advice is shit.

>>1987053

>Pynchon or McCarthy

Oh hi there, OP.

Do you have more OP?

>>1987067
>I don't agree, so it must be samefag.

Sigh. I figured at least /lit/ wouldn't have you tools.

Overall, B+, but I'd fail you out of principle for all those fucking typos.

>>1987001
moar???

What a load of horse shit. Really, really, embarrassingly bad.

>clouds driffted apart
Cliche.

>a rainbow of all its infinite majesty
Cliche.

>rain drops crying from the sky
Cliche.

>Our eyes both blue oceans
Cliche.

>I feel like shes mine, but sometimes I don't.
Stupid.

>brilliant body of being
Ridiculous.

I'm going to stop here. Honestly, just god awful.

OP where did you run off to?

If OP's not samefagging and people think this is good, my confidence just shot up a mile.

There is so much samefag from OP in this thread. Good lord. Get out.

>>1987087
Wow, such stunning and incisive analysis. Do you do children's parties?

Sometimes things are "cliche" for a reason. Archetypes are cliche, but without them a story would fail. And no, I'm not OP.

>>1987092
Care to post your stuff?
The samefag accusations are a little silly.
For once /lit/ gets okay writing and the first thing other writers do is pounce on it asap.

>>1987094
Wow, such clever and original sarcasm. Fuck off.

>>1987100
>I have nothing to say, so have some horse laugh fallacy.

Yawn.

I'm not sure I get all the lavish praise in this thread, but it is a solid piece of prose, albeit crammed with spelling and grammar mistakes. Fortunately those can be rectified pretty easily.

good stuff

Somthing else for you if your up for it, thanks for the critisism I deserved some of it.

I left the room slightly agitated and confused as to what just happened and then I remembered that I could be going crazy. Surely this was not how I treated my patients was it? As mere money making tools for my pleasure instead of troubled souls to be soothed? Is it my fault now that she thinks she's insane? Or is she really insane?No, a young beautiful women as sweet in her nature as sugar itself could not have the mind of a psychopath. Maybe perhaps this girl is not as innocent as she seems, perhaps an unforutunate occurence with the wrong critic led to her troubled state. The food taster who bit the bloody apple, greedy in revel, gorging its juices, not thinking for a moment in his frenzied mind to stop at the very first sign of slight decolouration to suggest its unreadiness, its trembling soul protesting with every voracious taste as if it were to drink the corrupted milk that so resembled her rippling face, crying for the end. Sickening are these conclusions, yet highly plausible in such circumstances which are notedly not so different from others to have firmly experianced such ideas cowardly expressed in such loose articulation.

>>1987099
I don't mean anything by the accusations. I just wasn't expecting so many romantics. It is overly descriptive, either way. Maybe some people like that, I really don't and would never do it. I don't write much (just started), I only have ideas and fragments of a story.

>>1987093
>>1987092
>they don't know how to samefag check

titteringladies.jpg

you are such a fucking douchebag and im not OP either. seriously you suck. god wat an asshole, you have no real criticism but you still want to criticize get off yr highhorse you little shit, this is why I hate anonymity you would never make such a dumb, thoughtless criticism to someone irl.

The samefagging in this thread is HILARIOUS. Especially since the OP is still around trying to attack people with legitimate criticisms.

Ahh /lit/. This place really makes me laugh more than any other board. Never change.

>>1987110
I liked the first one better. The tone seems a little different for some reason.

>The food taster who bit the bloody apple, greedy in revel, gorging its juices, not thinking for a moment in his frenzied mind to stop at the very first sign of slight decolouration to suggest its unreadiness, its trembling soul protesting with every voracious taste as if it were to drink the corrupted milk that so resembled her rippling face, crying for the end.

That is some inspired prose though.

>>1987114
To add, this is the first time I read a /lit/ user's work, so to think that most of the other 'look at my work' threads are worse than this....

this:
>>1987118
is for you:
>>1987087
you pretentious cyberbully cunt. if you're not already an unhappy person I'm sure you'll become one.

>>1987122
Christ, learn to samefag check.

>>1987110
>your up for it

Yeah...........
There's no way people are enjoying your shit, and artificially hyping up your shit is just making our reaction worse.

>>1987128
babby's first creative writing class and doesn't want anyone to say anything negative about his work

>>1987110
>money making tools for my pleasure instead of troubled souls to be soothed

You have quite the gift of alliteration. It makes the overall rhythm and tone of your piece exquisite.

>>1987065

If this prick had written Hamlet it would be

Sometimes I want to kill myself, sometimes I don't. Their are slinging arrows of courageious fortune inside my bosom, as I stand and watch the gobbetting, tortured rain of Denmark draining down the wall like my soul is draining down the dank and swabbering pain of nothingness.

It's just shit.

>>1987122
I think you're mistaking samefagging for people actually giving a shit like you. IMO accusing an entire thread of samefagging is not really trying.

>>1987127
This is pretty good work though. As one anon said, it's experimental, kind of Pynchon-esque, but it works. Hell, I'd read a novel or two in this style if the story was good.

>>1987139
thanks

>>1987136
I already said I'm not OP would you shut the fuck up?

>>1987139
Well THAT was shit. OP's posts have (so far at least) exuded a lot of honest emotion and a facility with language I frankly admire.

>>1987001
googled this expecting it to plaigarism...needless to say, I was surprised...well done

Do you have anything for sale OP?

>She is sitting right next to me laughing, smiling and acting all strange trying to spook me out or get a rise within me but she must not realise that I have never felt such love for something in my life and all of a sudden in those moments of bleack despair I find solitude in her and she willingly accepts my sorrow sadden pleas of humility.
Cut this into two or three sentences, fix the typos, and you have an outstanding close to a first paragraph.

>>1987164
Nope

the people who say they dont like op's work should post some of their own

>>1987169
:[

>>1987164
troll thread confirmed

>>1987169
Why are you so fucking quiet in this thread?
Anyways, post more please.
I really dig it so far.

>>1987171

Joke's on you I'm Thomas Pynchon and OP sucks.

>>1987001
8.5/10

>>1987110
9/10

>>1987177
Call me a troll, but I would honestly rather read OP than Pynchon. At least OP has spunk and verve and shit, even his spelling is piss poor.

>think I'm a good writer
>post stuff on /lit/
>get torn apart
>come back to /lit/ a few days later, still not fully recovered
>see this thread
>writing I don't care for
>everyone and their mother likes it
>suddenly feel like the lowest person on the planet

...

>>1987181

I don't know about spunk and verve, but Gravity's Rainbow definitely had shit.

do you write fantasy OP?

It's okay. For me it's way too over-descriptive, and it gets a bit purple really. Some people like the descriptiveness, but personally I'd say lose about half of your adjectives, because, after a while, you end up writing pages and pages on about 2 seconds of action, and for me that just gets boring. Not every single noun needs an adjective, and not every single verb needs an adverb. I'm no expert writer by any means, but I'd say you definitely have potential.

>>1987001
>>1987110
spongebobwallet.jpg

You've got a good thing going for you.

Don't fuck it up by not writing enough.

>>1987187
they ate it though.

>>1987185
sorry man

>>1987190
>For me it's way too over-descriptive, and it gets a bit purple really.

Since when is vibrant imagery such a bad thing? You flaunt what you've got, and judging from this thread, OP's got something to flaunt.

The rest of your crit was good though.

anyone who's getting up in OPs grill for colorful language hasn't read finnegans wake or gravitys rainbow. fuck off until you do.

Move over, Joyce.

>>1987197
I'm definitely not saying vibrant imagery is a bad thing, but in terms of story-telling and prose it can get boring if, as I said, you have pages and pages on 2 seconds of action. Unless you're moving into poetry, which is obviously a different story (ba dum ch). Maybe it's personal preference, but I like vibrant imagery when it's subtly mixed in to enhance the action, rather than the main focus of the text.

>>1987192

Not all the time!

You don't really seem to know what you're talking about, though. And to be honest, you never did.

The Kenosha Kid

>>1987005
>>1987016
>>1987029
>>1987039
>>1987049
>>1987056
>>1987060
>>1987067
>>1987087
>>1987092
>>1987093
>>1987100
>>1987114
>>1987127
>>1987133
>>1987136
>>1987139
>>1987173
>>1987185
I can almost guarantee only one or two angry bitter people made these posts.

>>1987185
I'm still convinced it's samefagging or people are sold way too easily into excessive adjectives.


Therefore, I think it's shit and I still think this thread has SOME trolls in it, no doubt.

>>1987215
The adjectives have nothing to do with it. It's the imagery. The warm star image is probably the best thing I've read on /lit/ that wasn't by a well-known author.

You remind me a little of Ian McEwan mixed with Martin Amis.

I'd say you're on their level right now.

This thread is really fucking funny. It's either one really good troll, or one exceptionally stupid 'writer'. Either way, I'm curious, so I'm about to hit up a janitor or mod on IRC to see which posts were made by the same IP.

I'm laughing so hard.

excellent work for once
sometimes lit surprises me

>MENNACE
WHY
GOD WHY
don't use complicated (i.e. latin) word if you can't spell em correctly

This is pretty stellar writing for an amateur. Or are you an amateur? Too lazy to read the thread.

>>1987240
No nuthin published

>quickly skim through the thread
>see a mix of adulation and hatred
>confused as fuck

can anyone please explain how and why they hate OP's prose? it's not Shakespeare, but damn if it isn't vivid in its own right.

2 thumbs up now where is the rest?

>beautiful, marvelous, gleams of beauty
This sounds retarded OP. Are you retarded OP?

Not exactly the kind of reading I would do on the beach or toilet, but definitely something that could warrant discussion in a university. It has a certain thickness of ideas that professors seem to get boners for.

ADJECTIVES AND SUPERLATIVES

EVERYWHERE

>>1987139
lol

"beautiful.. gleams of beauty"

and water is wet, fire is hot, night is dark and this sucks

you showed your ignorance by writing "low and behold."

>>1987032
> >But then I feel it in her the brilliant body of being that I can call my other own

Just to be pedantic....

>But I feel, in her, the brilliant body of being I can call my other own.

>>1987366
or...
>But I feel, in her, the brilliant body of being I can call my other

not bad OP, not to my taste.

>>1987349
don't you get it it's wrodplay. just like jame joyce

OP's prose was so beautiful I need never look on another thing again. As soon as this posts I will gouge my eyes out with a spoon, and I will have no regrets, for I have read

>The clouds driffted apart and a low and behold a rainbow of all its infinite majesty beseeched our very eyes through the light filled gobbets of rain drops crying from the sky

>>1987402
Seriously, though, just before I commence gouging, the beautiful gleams of beauty in OP's prose have made tears come crying down my face.

Oh, yeah, has anyone got a spoon?

This is my first time in /lit/. Is this horseshit really what you guys consider good writing?

>>1987424
No, in fact writing that is 10,000x better than this often gets criticised... sometimes even constructively. It's either OP trolling everyone or everyone trolling OP.

>Rain came down from the skies above
WOAH WOAH WOAH, BACK THE FUCK UP.
RAIN COMES FROM THE SKIES?
THE SKIES ARE ABOVE ME?
HOLY FUCKING SHIT, I NEVER KNEW.

You are the purple perp.

Jesus /lit/, is the quality of what you guys produce so low that you honestly think that this is good..?

Whoever is responsible for the hilarious trolling in this thread, I award you 10/10. Hilarious.

>>1988523

OP's back, with some after-hours bumptastic metatrolling. 4/10. Would have been higher, but I'm bored of you already.