/lit/ - Literature

>>21349079
>was it worth it?
Sure. You spent your life doing what you loved because you loved doing it. How could that literally ever be a waste? People who care about money will call it a waste because they view that (and everything) from the framework of a cost-benefit analysis. If you just kind of refuse to participate in any of the gay profiteering surrounding the thing you love and just kind of do the thing you loved doing instead... again, how could that possibly ever be a waste or not "worth" it? Either way, you don't give a shit—you're dead.

>>21349102
Oh I didn't realize you don't think your own morals and meanings were important to you. and why write if you didn't care what happens after your death? writing is usually something, when done well, palpably transcends time in its influence.
also, if you spent time trying to publish, you obviously want to be heard, you wouldn't find that to be unappealing, your voice twisted and ruined? very strange response, but i suppose that reveals your lack of commitment to your own beliefs and work, if you are yourself a writer.

This is Louis-Ferdinand Céline except he wasn't recognized posthumously like a faggot, he was the real deal and in real-time. Read Céline, le traducteur d'émotions en écrit, the trail blazer, inveterate enemy of homosexual meanderings about descriptions of walls, fruits, jackets and other homosexual infatuations.

>>21349079
if you're writing to become popular you should find a different medium

>>21349183
the first negative response takes only money into consideration, the second negative response takes only popularity into consideration.
so surprising that no one on this board is capable of reading.
obviously the issue is not notoriety in this scenario, nor is getting paid. if you can't see the problem i have presented, i weep for the ghosts you call up when reading the dead. they must be torn to shreds through your asinine cognitive filters.

>>21349142
how is celine misinterpreted?

i like AI art.

>>21349194
yes, some models can be coaxed into making very impressive scenes.

>>21349140
>and why write if you didn't care what happens after your death?
Because you love writing, purely for the sake of writing. Because, knowing that structures built up around writing—publishing, marketing, agents—are ultimately extraneous to writing itself, you strive with conscious effort to eschew too much engagement with the publishing establishment in favor of writing and honing your craft. Under this philosophy, you can still attempt to get published, but you get to remain detached from the outcomes. Nobody's work gets published unmolested. I would rather not see it, if my work is to be published after my childless death.

>>21349204
Fucked up on the number of fingers though

>>21349217
i'm sorry, but your philosophy of literature is pitifully inchoate, and is of no service in the sort of literary discussion i am attempting to have. please, go and waste people's time elsewhere.
to think that a man would ever write without having those he writes *for* in mind, even himself, what an utterly hollow and narcissistic vanity that drives him. to not be concerned that the works one has bled for are universally misinterpreted, and used for purposed anathema to one's own principles, it's as though you have taken on the hat of the writer because it is some fashionable deed. you are a mannequin, and i don't think that writing as an art suits you in any sense. i specifically state in this scenario the author's intent to have his voice heard. because you ceaselessly ignore this aspect, you refuse to even engage with the dilemma presented, instead projecting your own juvenile pursuits onto it as if they have any bearing in this discussion. please, just go away.

>>21349269
yes, but that's the final frontier. it will eventually be assumed that all novel visual art of high quality was genned by some model or another. i find it amusing that our hands are an evolutionary marvel, and the parallel between our development from misshapen articulation to tool of finesse and that of these machines is at least metaphorically similar.

>>21349301
Where are you getting these from

>>21349290
>instead projecting your own juvenile pursuits onto it as if they have any bearing in this discussion
Oh, should I take up yours instead? My mistake!

>>21349336
no, you should go away. we don't share enough perspective to have a substantive discussion.
>>21349319
Midjourney. it's the current best text to image model i've found by far, and i was literally involved with the release (in a very minute way) of Stable Diffusion. The only issue, really, is that it's somewhat expensive, about 30 dollars a month, bit worth it if you want what is easily the best visual service on the map and can tolerate a discord based service.

>>21349290
Okay, fine, to give a less shitposty response:
>inchoate
>narcissistic vanity
>some fashionable deed
>you are a mannequin
At least buy me a drink before you try to fuck me. I embrace paradox and contradiction as facts of the human condition rather than anything that needs to be eradicated. Does a difference in personal philosophy threaten you that much? None of what you've said, ironically, even addresses the simple joy of writing for writing's sake. Can you tell me how that could ever be narcissistic? I see it as the complete antithesis of narcissism — separating myself as "The Artist" from the equation as much as I can. My point, which directly addresses the topic you've raised (if straying from the arbitrarily constraints of that very specific scenario), is that contemporary success isn't anything an artist needs to care much about. If you care that much that your works are published without being extensively edited, destroy them. If you work for the sake of the work alone, it is otherwise immaterial whether or not you're published during your life.

Write for the sake of the writing. If you don't get published before you die, you can destroy your work if you are worried about your work being edited by people whose purposes you worked against in life. What I'm trying to say is that if you hone in on the act and craft of writing itself, the rest starts to matter less. You can for happily because YOU are happy and proud of the work you have done.

>>21349204
>>21349301
>>21349385
Pretty impressive and scary at the same time

>>21349393
Literature is a means to an end, one tool of many for the purposes of achieving the ideal. This ideal is unique to every individual, and art itself is the husk left behind by that individual's journey. A byproduct of that pursuit. If your ideal is communicable, and a goal of that ideal is that of sharing it unimpeded with those other than yourself, there can be no greater tragedy than being universally misinterpreted. You take writing as some happy hobby pastime, which I find quite a quaint and insulting way to utilize what I see as a tool, a weapon, a machine. We have an infinitely different philosophy, one that will serve neither of us to quibble about. I am not threatened by your philosphy, I merely have disdain for it, and don't find your arguments convincing or realistic in light of the true iron grit of what literature stands for in my heart and mind. We have *completely* irreconcilable views of the purpose of writing, and I hardly see any reason for you to keep nipping at my heels over this. You are over there, I am over here.

>>21349413
>You take writing as some happy hobby pastime
You obviously have a very specific idea of what you think I'm saying and believe about writing. Unfortunately, very little of it is accurate. If we have nothing to talk about, okay. But it's probably not because we don't share an interest in offbeat philosophies towards writing. It's actually because you keep stuffing words and beliefs into my mouth and pretending I actually said them. What you see as lackadaisy—or a lack of commitment or however it is my words have caused your intuitive pattern-brain to go haywire—is actually a concerted and focused effort towards humility.

>>21349437
go exercise your humility elsewhere.

>>21349437
I will say, it is amusing you complain about being misinterpreted, here, as you try to communicate. Almost as if that is the true purpose of writing. Hum hum.

>>21349204
Very impressive. Have you tried ChatGPT? I wonder what this will mean for literature in the coming years.

>>21349444
A paintbrush can be used to paint a stop sign or a fresco. It has no intrinsic purpose. You could stuff it up your ass if you wanted to.

>>21349445
I have, I think it will take a bit longer for a true literary bot to come into being, not so much for the complexity of the art, but rather the relentless concern for "safety" in the communities that have the necessary talent and compute to design and train the models. In the process of keeping the models "safe", they clip it of the essential human verve of all that could be considered "harmful", when literature is eminently capable of harm in its greatest states of potency. I also worry that not enough literary figures are even involved in the art of training models, so standards are quite low. there was some amusing bloom interview where he described a world of sub-par algorithmic writing being used to satiate the illiterate masses while truly informed minds, well steeped in literature, will be bored to death by what they produce. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it takes a decade, or two even, before literature models rival even amateur authors. not to mention *music* or *poetry*. even more ambiguity reigns in those fields, and if anything, it shows the ease with which the visual art is reproduced, and even acts as a sort of hierarchical example of the depth of the medium itself.

>>21349453
and this is why you fail.
a paintbrush has the intrinsic use of painting.
why even bother to write if you can't even accept the purpose of the tool you use?

>>21349478
People have hated tendencies toward the abstract since the dawn of art. It's alright, fren. You can keep trying to prove me wrong if you want to. I am not only completely closed to the possibility of being wrong, but also to the possibility of being right.

>>21349478
Are these "intrinsic uses" in the room with us right now?

>>21349142
Im almost done with Journey to the End of the Night and I can’t wait to read everything else by him. I’m completely broke right now but as soon as I have some money again I’ll get as much of his stuff as possible

>>21349535
good luck in your literary pursuits. i apologize for being so harsh with you, perhaps i have misread you, but i do not believe so. there is plenty of room in literature itself to hold both of us, but not so in this conversation.
>>21349565
that's the path you're taking? how strange.

it's even in the name, "paint"brush.
it's almost as if you don't read, or acknowledge that words assigned to objects have meaning. you seem crippled by that sense of humour of yours.

>intrinsic use for words and language
while language may have evolved for an intrinsic, tribal usage that served an evolutionary advantage, i'm not convinced that the development of language and its integration into humanity haven't grown past its genesis however many tens/hundreds of thousands of years ago. for example, do you think "in words?" or do you just think by imagining a picture. when you're by yourself and nobody is nearby, do you think using words? if so, this would seem to be a fairly implicit proof that the function of language, if indeed it was originated to communicate with other tribe members, has grown past its origin. it seems to me that if a person can have a thought occur in their head that is expressed internally in a language, that there would also be little difference in writing down those words. this would seem to invalidate the "intrinsic use" argument with respect to language, unless you think that nobody should be okay with having thoughts. if you can have a thought purely for the love and the joy of thinking, then it seems to me that you can write purely for the love and joy of writing, and that arguments voiced in support of the idea that writing's purpose is to communicate with others is invalid. maybe there is some valid, overarching purpose which excludes some uses or others, but it seems to me more likely that language has no real, exclusive, "intrinsic" use that bears any water.

and with regards to the "paintbrush" argument viz. stuffing it up your ass... how could something wrong feel so right?

>>21349473
But isn't ChatGPT already better than many human writers? I asked it to "describe the physical appearance of a dead swordfish in the prose style of Vladimir Nabokov in 600 words":

>A dead swordfish lies before me, its long, sleek body now still and lifeless. The once iridescent blue and silver scales of its skin have dulled, and the sharpness of its bill has been blunted by the ravages of time and the sea. The swordfish's elongated head is crowned by its distinctive sword-like snout, which once served as a deadly weapon to slash through the water and its prey. Now, it hangs limply to one side, the once-proud symbol of the swordfish's ferocity reduced to a mere shadow of its former glory. The swordfish's powerful body is covered in a mosaic of tiny scales, each one a unique and intricate pattern of blue, silver, and black. These scales glimmered and shone in the sunlight when the swordfish was alive, but now they are dull and lifeless, bereft of the energy and vitality that once animated them. The swordfish's tail, or caudal fin, is broad and flat, and would have provided the animal with incredible speed and agility in the water. But now, it lies limp and still, no longer able to propel the swordfish through the ocean's depths. Despite its impressive size and formidable appearance, the dead swordfish is a pitiful sight. Gone are the days when it was a feared predator of the sea, a creature to be respected and admired. Now, it is nothing more than a lifeless husk, a reminder of the fleeting nature of life and the inevitability of death. As I stand here, gazing upon the dead swordfish, I am filled with a sense of sadness and loss. This magnificent creature was once a symbol of the power and beauty of the ocean, but now it is nothing more than a memory. And yet, even in death, the swordfish retains a certain grace and majesty, a reminder of the incredible wonder of the natural world.

Sure, it's not exactly Nabokov's style, or only in the vaguest sense, and it includes various platitudes, but as a result itself it's quite impressive. And I assume it hasn't yet been properly trained with regard to the literary kanon and the variablity of different prose styles. Also, as a story exploration tool it is already powerful, though with the problem you mentioned, that it tends to avoid 'negativity' or possibly provocative ideas.

>>21349671
>And I assume it hasn't yet been properly trained with regard to the literary kanon and the variablity of different prose styles
i'm sure this is something people have absolutely trained an AI on. in a sense, being able to match the great literary minds of humanity is the single best demonstration for a chatbot. it would show that the technology has mastered at least our mechanical use of language as well as we have.

>>21349623
many things to unpack here. first of all, thought for me is hard to describe, some of it is in words, to help to communicate to myself. what is it i typically seek to communicate to myself? a sort of translation of the larger scope of thought that blares at me from within. i am not personally cohesively bound to other aspects of myself, and often must reduce, or distill those thoughts into something palatable for the sake of comprehension of my feelings, desires, etc, i think this occurs in many people, if not all, so i don't know how this wouldn't interfere with your concept that it's not still being used for its intrinsic purpose of communication, the focus simply changes from two individuals communicating to a single individual communicating with themselves.
i have in no way said one *can't* write or think or what have you, without purpose. obviously we as humans are clever enough to utilize our tools outside of their intended scope, but this is an exception given to us by our ingenuity. to suggest that we have outgrown the intrinsic utility of language itself is strange, frankly, and i'm not sure what world you live in, but it does remind me of my dreams wherein people i meet do not "speak in words" but some sort of pure narrative "song" is used to transmit meaning directly and unambiguously. To reduce language to some plaything does not suit me personally, and I cannot physically object (though i can speak against it) to someone using it as some bauble in their free time to do whatever it is that isn't some form of communication (a bizarre meditative exercise, like painting a wall and scraping it down and painting it again and scraping it down and so on, or even one of those zen gardens, or when someone speaks in tongues, though that is arguably not a language at all), no, thinking taking the form of language does not inhibit its status as a communicative effort, in my mind. I am all for an artist's ideal to be an expression of love, but to love what? to love whom? and to express to whom? There is purpose to writing, there is intrinsic meaning to the pursuit of communication, and i will forever rail against those who seek to deconstruct the last bastion for *me* to engage with my fellow men, both in the present and the future. to break that, is to cast ourselves careening into a chaos of theory and folly intertwined.

>>21349689
>the last bastion for *me* to engage with my fellow men
wot is u a poof or summat innit

>>21349671
yes, this is pretty decent, and i suppose you're right that it's better than what several current authors would mill out, it's given me pause, i'll admit it, thus far that's the best demonstration i've seen of it capturing *some* other prose than just a formulaic non-fiction rendering. okay, i'll shave off three years to my prediction, but no more.
it has definitely been fed some of the literary greats, it's aware of (incomplete) details in say, Ulysses, but it often makes mistakes that suggest a lack of comprehension. One other thing I think even this demonstration lacks is an undercurrent, a subtlety or theme, something that a reader regards almost subconsciously before it bursts out, is freed in the mind. Perhaps this can be prompted, however, and it simply requires more clever work on our end to request it. I'm more impressed than I was in my use of it, and am somewhat inspired to test and prod it a little more, thanks for sharing, even if it was to disagree.