/lit/ - Literature

FUCK.

tawingfield.co.uk

Using alternate formatting doesn't make you "experimental". That's one of those terms that only idiots use to describe themselves.

>>2425672

I totally agree, I hate the word. Not least because an 'experiment' implies failure.

I only use it because people like pigeon holes they understand, and other people call it experimental, so I go along with it so I can introduce my style quickly.

>>2425661

>I try my best to avoid pretentiousness
>Ultimately I believe that in this postmodern age of 3D films and virtual bubblewrap apps

Oh shit, I'm bumping this, this is fucking hilarious.

>>2425672
Also, out of interest, what would you call it, if not experimental?

(also, for the record I have created stuff that is genuinely experimental, but it's either on my blog (where I post all my shit) or can't be put online (because you need to see it on paper (or perspex) for it to make sense))

>>2425686

I call it shit thats what

>>2425704

Okay, that's fine.
But why?

>>2425706
Experiments often fail. One must accept this and move on.

>>2425718

Well... Depends what you mean by moving on. If you mean have one crack at the lightbulb, fail, then 'move on' and leave it behind, then that seems a waste of an experiment. If an experiment fails, find out why, and figure out how to tweak it.

experimental? no. gimmicky? you bet.

anyone can take a mediocre poem and spread it all over a page, write in different fonts, etc.

the next time you're writing one of your little "experimental" things, ask yourself if the form really contributes to the content. i think you'll improve your writing quite a bit.

>>2425723
>If you mean have one crack at the lightbulb
This doesn't even make sense. There was no lightbulb before it was invented.

>>2425751
Not op , I don't think the form has to contribute to the content.

>>2425766

But if it doesn't contribute, then the ridiculous formatting distracts from the content.

>>2425659
Evening, my name's Tom, I'm 20, and I'm doing a BA in creative writing. I used to be pretty obsessed with punctuation, but 3 years ago my writing took a fairly anarchic twist. I'm into anything experimental, different or otherwise fun

>BA in creative writing?

>>2425777
Oh formatting. I was talking about sentence structure, overall form etc. But still.

Ahahahahahahaha this is mediocre as fuck.

2/10

But this has to be a joke.

>>2425785

Yeah man, it means he's special!

>>2425672

Most of the time people use it to excuse themselves from writing engaging narrative.

>>2425785

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Arts

your site is cringeworthy as fuck. have you ever actually looked at an author's site before?

>>2425659
>>2425659

I actually kind of liked the one that starts "Where little quirky shops", but if I'm honest, even that one shares the same problem as most of the rest of your work - there's no real content, and beyond the typographical fancy-pantsery, there's no real sense of poetry in the work, no scansion or even rappy flow.

Still, I'm going to be encouraging instead of a cunt (for once) and say that I see much merit in your work. I think if you keep at it for another 10 years, you'll be worth reading.

>metal cheek-loaded spikes

very good, liked that

>which make you wonder

HOW THE FUCK DO YOU KNOW WHAT I WONDER? DON'T FUCKING TELL ME WHAT I THINK, YOU CUNT.

Still, it looks pretty, and the thing about spare change underneath was cute as well. Nice work, kiddo.

OP here, enjoying some of the criticism.

So in terms of visual stylistics, I don't see my presentation as anything special, they just make sense with the style of the writing (whether that's rambling, loud, lofty etc.)

Any of you read House of Leaves? Big influence on me, here's an old interview with the author:
4:24 for the good shit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6J0JIjVKfI

(Not directly applicable to my stuff, but there's a similarity.)

>>2425906

Yeah, I'm trying to get a 'professional' to redo it, but he's taking forever. This was a shitty free thing I made myself.

>>2425919

haha, thanks a lot man, that actually means a lot to get anything positive out of a stranger on the internet.

Yeah, honestly I'm aware I'm nothing special in terms of writing, but I figure if I'm not sticking myself out there, I'm never gonna get better.

>>2425659
You're cute :3

I'm not qualified to speak on multimodal, visual poetry though, sorry. It's neat I guess?

a list of online literary journals http://pastebin.com/Tckcc0nu

a list of author blogs/sites http://pastebin.com/PmyTX8Rx

both should be useful

Tripfagging because this is the first time I'm posting in this thread.

What you need to do is work on your actual poetry first. You've got that quote on your site,
>You have to know the rules before you can break them
so follow it.

Become a better poet first, and then start playing around with visual stylistics and all that jazz.

As it stands now, there's nothing distinguishing you from the average schmuck in a mid-level creative writing course. There's no substance beneath the style. Your work doesn't even have a strong voice or any sort of tone. There's no imagery; there's a lack of poetic devices overall. The language isn't poetic - it has no definite voice, and no tone.

My advice:
1. Read more authors. From everywhere. Read novels, read epics, read shakespeare, read Plato, etc.. Diversify your exposure to literature.
2. Read the major critics. If your school offers a Critical Reading course, TAKE THAT SHIT. It'll expose you to a variety of perspectives and what poetry/literature is and how it should be approached.

By exposing yourself to more schools of thought, you will likely become more critical both as a reader and a writer, and will be able to effectively draw your own conclusions as to how poetry should be made and understood.

Tl;DR: become a better poet before you try out stylistic experiments.

>>2426021
>Plato
I meant Socrates. But you probably know what I mean.

And when I say your language
>isn't poetic
I mean that there's little distinguishing it from regular language.

But that's something you get from exposure to poets and authors.

>>2426021
Yeah I get what you mean, cheer.

So would you say something like this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/41219668/Canal-by-Night-Time
is more 'poetic' in language?

Basically, the more pretentious the layout, the more simple my language gets. And vice versa. I go on the idea that if you're challenging the reader in one way, that's enough, and challenging them in 2 ways means they usually just can't be arsed. That's how I feel when I read some things anyway...

>>2426025
>read Socrates
I must now disregard everything you say.

>>2425659
>stylistic experiments
Examples plz

>>2426041
It's certainly more poetic. You have some vivid imagery there, and I see hints of alliteration.
(Could be better, though.)
And messing with the layout doesn't really make the poem any more difficult for the reader. From my point of view, the fact that you're writing with the notion that you should give leeway to the reader is a big problem. Stop that. If you write for babbys, only babbys will read your work.

>>2426043
Well fucking shit, bitch nigger, if you don't like Socrates then just don't read Socrates. I don't give two fucks who you read, as long as it all isn't from the same literary movement/genre. Step out of your comfort zone. If not Socrates, then Homer. If not Shakespeare, then Spencer. If not The Song of Roland, then El Cid. If not Dante, then Cervantes. You get the fucking point, you needlecocked pansy-pants.

>>2426069
>Well fucking shit, bitch nigger, if you don't like Socrates then just don't read Socrates
How I meant to read Socrates whether I like him or not exactly? What work should I start with that you think is by him?

>Evening all, check the shit out of my fresh-ass new website.

Evening. I think I'll sage the shit out of your jive-ass new thread.

High schoolfag here. Spent about five minutes trying to figure out the overall meaning behind Newton's 3rd Law, but couldn't. Maybe that's the point of fragmenting it like that, but you still made me give up time with your deceivingly interesting choice of words.

>>2426208

it's about parkour