/lit/ - Literature

>>2481225
how the fuck do i into tumblr

how would one go about joining this fine literary society?

I like the tag line there under the title, but the content is very flavorless and contrived. Generally speaking, the best way for a 'collective' like this to take off, should that be your intention, is to be very discerning with the content you post. Otherwise you lose credibility/readers who can just go to other sites with more consistent writing.

>>2481244
submit by going to the main page of our blog, then clicking the little cog in the upper left corner, then the little arrow up there.

>>2481256
I humbly disagree. I think we've got a lot to offer. We're innovators. Sorry if you're behind the curve.

>>2481273
I forgive you. I have a bad habit of misinterpreting progressive people such as yourselves as banal and unimaginative.

I'm glad you surmounted astronomical odds and actually found four people who feel the same way as you.

>After numerous rejections from The New Yorker and Granta Magazines, along with the various publishers we’ve tried going to with larger collections of our work, we’ve realized that the literary community is hopelessly behind the times. Put simply, we’re trailblazers, and our innovative efforts are unrecognized by the very community we aspire to be a part of.

10/10, I raged very hard. Dem delusions of grandeur, especially when it's founded on such mediocre bilge that you haven't even bothered to copyedit.

Followed.

Interesting concept.

>>2481286
Damn right we're interesting; we're the most interesting thing going on in the dead field of literature today.

>>2481281
Delusions? Mediocre? Methinks thou arts jealous of our unparalleled acumen with our use of the written word. I'm a third cousin of DFW, it runs in my blood. And, by the transitive property, it runs in all of our blood.

>>2481281

I actually thought this kinds cool. Mainly because I read it ironically, but perhaps irony is too "hipster" to be recognised any longer...

>>2481306
12/10 this time.
Want to be incredibly angry but can't keep from laughing

>>2481316

This is >>2481310
That actually ruined it for me

to clarify things first off, I wrote these posts (figured I'd make a trip just to maintain authorial control):

>>2481306
>>2481273
>>2481225

Anyways, >>2481310, I don't know what irony you're talking about. Sure, we've been bred in an ironic, postmodern, culturally saturated culture, but the words we write are all dripping with sincerity, ripped from our veins and left to drip dry on our keyboards, pouring every ounce of our intellect, heart, and soul into our work. and it SHOWS-- we're at the top of our craft, because we're not afraid to be real, unlike everyone else in this bullshit industry.

no wonder DFW and Hemingway and Plath killed themselves; this whole "irony" movement in our culture would drive any sane mind to such lengths, in a world without anything real

>>2481333
>>2481333
>>2481333
>>2481333
CANT TELL IF SARCASTIC

>>2481333
If serious, you're the fucking /lit/ equivalent of Internet Tough Guys.

I sent in shit

>>2481286
Thank you, chap. I would agree, this is quite the interesting concept, if I do take a moment to betray my modesty and compliment my own efforts. In fact, I can't get over how interesting this concept is; in the past day alone, I've churned out 14 stories, inspired by this stroke of genius; I'm simply going to taper their flow, posting them gradually, so I don't overwhelm the blog's readers--they're thematically a little dense.

there's a fine line between meta-trolling the ironic in ironic exultation of irony and /lit/ being genuinely autistic. Either way this thread is awesome.

>>2481225
>>2481225
>>2481225
>>2481225
>>2481225
>>2481225
>>2481225

hey op, fire me an email, since y'all don't have one on tumblr; I asked you a question.

>>2481348
if you are the fine artist behind asparagus, check the site. you've got potential, kid; i see a lot of my work in your own, and I think you could go somewhere with this. Keep up the good work, and you'll go places with us

>>2481349
Do you actually read anything on your shitty site? 14 stories in one day? No wonder everything on the front page is embarrassingly bad.

Hope you realize how fucking hilarious your 'WE CAN'T GET PUBLISHED BECAUSE WE'RE INNOVATIVE AND NEW' mindset is before you waste any more time (certainly no effort being put in, so that's not a worry) with this dumb shit.

I submitted my experimental prose/poetry/critique/expressionist sensate cunt DT DT DT DT DT DT DT

>>2481360
I beg to differ; all the greatest artists are prolific. I simply desire to raise the bar.

>>2481355
If you wrote asparagus, I posted it. If you wrote Mr Anderson, I'm about to put it up. Otherwise, we haven't received any other messages, so try re-sending it

>>2481359
I literally remade it in 5 minutes from an /r9k/ thread yesterday.
Thanks for the kind remark anyway, I'll be sure to revisit.

>>2481370
What do you know

>>>/r9k/1738374

>this thread general
>"innovative writing"
>on tumblr
you will never, in a million years, make any money from writing. BECAUSE YOUR JUST TOO INNOVATIVE HURRRRRRRRRR please do kill yourself like plath and dfw. only difference is they had a bit of talent.

>>2481380

>>2481368
posted.

>>2481370
One of our writers actually is a frequent poster on /rk9/, so no shame in that. Art can spring forth from the unlikeliest of sources. For example: i vomited on a large map of the united states by accident last summer. instead of throwing it out, i covered it in syran wrap, framed it, encased it in glass, and hung it up in my room, calling it "America hates Leslie, my ex-girlfriend". I plan on submitting it for an exhibit my university is putting together this spring.

>>2481380
who are you to declare what can or cannot bear art, or what is or is art? you, sir, are a philistine, and i shall defecate on your porch in twenty years when the world has passed you by, and you have responded in kind.

>>2481389
you posted my anderson. neat

If you are serious, which I hope you are not, it appears as if you are all guilty of promoting yourselves in the same way that the people whom you despise also promote themselves. They do not like good literature, but still gain popularity by supplying bad literature that they themselves enjoy to the masses; you do not write good literature, but you also do not wish to appeal to the masses; the latter then being used to appeal to the crowd that likes the literature that you would like to write but all the same cannot. You do not seem to have understood that the demographic whom you are interested in cannot be attracted if the literature is not corresponding with what it is that they want; the project will thus fail unless you begin to produce good literature, in this case.

Still, I openly condemn your attempt to subject the genuine lovers of literature to the same kind of filthy tactics used to manipulate the lovers of bad literature; it equivocates them in a way that is abominable and otherwise endorsing an image of profitable business models reigning supremely over the entirety of the IQ-spectrum.

Happily, one of the key aspects of the good literature that you seek to produce is that it cannot be created specifically to appeal to anybody; that is what defines good literature.

It is for this reason impossible that your project should be successful whilst at the same time also producing of good literature, so the genuine lovers of literature will remain a pure demographic.

>>2481395

the hitler of /lit/

/lit/ler

>>2481370
>>2481377
You were drunk again weren't you.
You promised ;_;

>>2481400
Indeed. It's a shame some people can be so close-minded these days.

To >>2481395, I hope you're not a vegetarian, because you're going to spend the rest of your days eating crow while we ride our work here to the top of the literary world. We'll let you have a free copy of our inevitable Library of America collections a few decades down the line, just to rub it in. you can hold us to that too; just email us saying you're the guy who on /lit/ who had too simple a mind to read anything that wasn't dan brown, and we'll hook you up.

I thoroughly enjoyed the poem entitled Asparagus.

At the risk of providing another point of hindsighted intelligence. Relentless self agrandisement worked, I had a look.

Self indulgent.
Super Mario mushroom infused self indulgence in 3DHD.

Boring motherfuckers.

hurr the over indulged american culture.

>>2481414
>that terrible feeling when you can relate to it

>>2481410

Why don't you address what I wrote and spare me the repetitive sarcasm?

>>2481419

>>2481424
Why don't you stop being autistic, get a sense of humor and learn what hyperbole is?

woah. Just read the Anderson story

>>2481428
I've always wondered why we choose not to spell it as Hyperbowl.

>>2481436
for real. and why don't we spell epitome as epitoam?

>>2481442
or cliché as cleesh?

>>2481442
or cliché as cleech?

>>2481447
Or computer as compooter?

>>2481430
Yeah that's a pile of shit. Some guy posted it on /lit/ couple of hours ago.

>>2481428

It isn't funny. It is evident that all they want is to achieve the same material success as the people whom they deem to be 'bad writers'; stooping even to the level of attempting to apply the same method as them to achieve that success. The only real difference is that these people aspire to do it by appealing to a demographic that appreciates good literature, so if they succeed they will be able to use that to rationalize a self-indulgent and shallow life that they would otherwise loathe and criticize.

>>2481450
>>2481448
>>2481442
>>2481436
I couldn't agree more; our language is too rigid, too inflexible, too structured. We need to throw it out the window. All my best work seems, to most, like gibberish, but to those like myself who exist in the life of the mind, it is true art that transcends the constraints of language and syntax. The only barriers we still have to hurdle are characters and speech themselves. If anyone can do it, its us.

>>2481463
I bet you have asparagus

>>2481466

I would imagine you to be very popular with the people frequenting /x/; you should advertise your writings there.

>>2481463
The only fitting response I have for you is best said with this quote from the great Jaques derrida: “If this work seems so threatening, this is because it isn't simply eccentric or strange, but competent, rigorously argued, and carrying conviction”

Do you really think you can out-argue Derrida? Just embrace it: you wish you came up with what we're doing here first, and you hate us for that. It's ok; it's only natural to be jealous of success and innovation in one's own field. Maybe if you work at it long enough, you can come up with something that merits publication itself. I wish you the best of luck, because you'll need it.

>>2481480
I could only imagine; I feel as though we'd be a hit on any board.

This is an embarrassing sequel to what academia has always been doing, EVEN IF IT'S A JOKE.

>>2481479

This is now getting amusing, because it is not the case that I feel threatened or disturbed by what you are doing. I am an academic specializing in philosophy and do for that reason not have any current plans to publish literary works for the sake of literature itself.

Having said this, my questioning of your methods carries purely philosophical intentions. Still, it is quite interesting that you would respond to my claims about your own intentions in such a defensive manner; it is almost is you are implicitly saying that they are true.

>>2481479

Oh and, if I desired to out-argue Derrida's claims in this isolated case, all I would have to do would be to turn to his own deconstructivism and say that such a intuitive notion is going to be problematic with respect to the nature of the written and spoken language.

>>2481525
Hmm, that is some interesting revisionist history going on there, but if you'd like to believe this fiction as truth, then be my guest.

At which University are you an academic? Can we get some credentials in here, if you desire so much to flaunt them as you do?

>>2481541

Could you first point out to me in what sense I am 'flaunting my credentials'?

>>2481552
>I am an academic specializing in philosophy

>>2481556

That was simply a necessary premise to explain why I wasn't intending to publish any purely literary material in the foreseeable future; my interests lie in a entirely different field.

A further reason to argue that I have not flaunted my credentials in this conversation is because you're directly asking for me to flaunt them right now.

>>2481567
No one expected you to be publishing anything--- at least, nothing worthwhile; that much was easy to tell simply from your rudimentary and imbecilic posts on here so far. If you could write your way out of a paper bag, maybe you'd be writing for us.

>>2481574

You have systematically abandoned every point that you have attempted to make this far, so when you tell me that I am a poor writer I seem to find at least some relief in that my reasoning is superior to yours. But perhaps that is only appropriate, if it so happens that I am a genuine philosopher who, unlike yourself, actually go to greater lengths than to merely throw disconnected quotes around; your earlier attempt to reference Derrida stands out embarrassingly here.

Still, given the ironic touch on everything that you've written in this thread, you come across as strangely serious about the implicit proposal you just seemed to make. Unfortunately, I wasn't joking when I said that I had no intention of publishing any pure works of literature in the future.

>>2481466
>All my best work seems, to most, like gibberish, but to those like myself who exist in the life of the mind, it is true art that transcends the constraints of language and syntax.

All my best work is gibberish to everyone, except to me: I live in the life of the mind

FTFY

>>2481594
>>2481595
I'LL SHOW YOU THE LIFE OF THE MIND

Project Gutenburg for public domain classics if you wanna go legal

Is this better than Visceral Realism?

>>2482258
Yes. This wipes the floor with it. We defy genre or style, and create our own

>>2481595
Great minds think alike; perhaps not as great as ours, but I'm sure your mind is pretty great nonetheless.

>>2481595
I believe you are what those in this community call "butthurt", yes?

Also: We're posting new stories over the next few hours, so be sure to take a look and keep up with the breakneck speed at which we revolutionize literature at http://futureliterarygeniuses.tumblr.com/