/lit/ - Literature

what the fuck is this

>and they are walking home with a cigarette in both of their hands

>>3875772
>Welcome to Hell
>Population 666

Pretty clever.

>>3875792
> Sorry guys, hell is full. Sure we have room, but we have consistency to maintain.

>>3875786
I think there are two paragraphs in that entire thing that don't mention lighting a cigarette, buying cigarettes, or going to the store to purchase cigarettes.

now that's fucked up

>mom killed herself
>better go to the skate park

>>3875772
I can't read the blue part with the red arrows pointing towards it.

What does it say?

>>3875838
>Writing this book was really fun I enjoyed it. i also think Mr. Kelly is the best teacher ever. I think Mr. Kelly thinks I need to see a councillor.

>cuts their chests open
>takes out their intestines

Where are intestines located again?

>>3875865
would have been more brutal if he cut their heads open and pulled out their intestines

i don't get what these threads have to do with self-publishing.

if anything, use self-publishing but distinguish your work by creating an elite group that verifies and edits the work. soon the group will gain a reptuation and people will begin to read books that have been approved.

>>3875876
I think it has to do with that schlock being self published

>>3875911
yeah but schlock being self published was a really obvious outcome of self publishing

it's like pointing to a shitty website as proof that websites are bad.

>>3875914
but self publishing is indicative of bad writing.

It means no real publisher would touch it.

>>3875876
it has less to do with self-publishing and more to do with making fun of bad writing and thus reassuring ourselves that we are better than someone, even if we decided to self-publish. in summation: it's a defense mechanism.

So Ray went crazy AFTER he spent two years in the dark praying to Satan?

>>3875932
or it means the person opted out of even trying to send it to a publisher. or the book wasn't marketable.

>>3875941
no, I'm pretty sure it has to do with pointing out that everyone who self publishes is an idiot who can't write-- especially the people on /lit/ who self publish.

>>3875948
nah, the other anon's post seems more likely.

>>3875772
>You're cold and heartless and when I can get to you I will kill you in the most horrid way you could imagine

What the fuck is this?

Jesus Christ.
Can any of you guys think of any self-published books out there that don't suck? Or are the good self-published authors smart enough to distinguish their work by making their own small publishing company and "publishing" it on that? I know that's what I'd do.

>>3876000
>Or are the good self-published authors smart enough to distinguish their work by making their own small publishing company and "publishing" it on that?

Nope. It's pretty easy to see through that ruse when a little bit of Google searching proves that the dummy publisher has only published one thing. I think that's what Gloria Tesch tried to do.

And there is no such thing as a self-published book that doesn't suck, because if it didn't suck a real publisher would have picked it up.

in other countries we have this weird hybrid system where the writer pays much of the bill to publish the novel and the publisher gives it a look for stupid writing mistakes like there were in OP and makes sure it reaches the major retailers. in turn, most of the profit goes to the writer in case his book sells -- but he foots the bill if it doesn't.

>>3876006
>because if it didn't suck a real publisher would have picked it up

That eventually happens in some cases.

>>3876006
>And there is no such thing as a self-published book that doesn't suck, because if it didn't suck a real publisher would have picked it up.

Weird mentality you're trying (hard) to push, but w/e.

>>3876017
So what's the title of your self published book and how much money did you spend to get it published?

>>3876040
It's you who has the weird bias, not me. I haven't self-published, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it.

>>3876053
if you don't think there's anything wrong with self publishing you obviously haven't seen the sort of stuff that gets self published.

>>3876040
Admittedly there are quite a few bad self-published books, but it's unfair to say that any manuscript that is rejected by large publishers must be bad. Consider how much of a "risk" it is to publish an unknown author these days. Also, the market plays a role in what gets published to. For example, would all of the erotic fiction filling the shelves today even exist if their authors hadn't jumped on the 50 shades bandwagon? And on that note, you can't tell me books like Twilight get published because it's an amazing, glowing model of what every manuscript should be like.
TL;DR some published books suck, some self published books probably didn't even get a chance

>>3876006
There are people who still believe likelihood of being published is determined by a book's quality?

>>3875826
It's like The Stranger.

>>3875948
The scale is open ended.

How many pages does this story have? In three pages the main character went crazy and went on two killing sprees. I don't think this story could possibly be any longer than fifty pages.

>>3875865
I guess it's technically possible to cut someone's chest open and pull out their intestines, but it seems like the disemboweler is just making things needlessly complicated for themselves.

>>3875772
>go's

>>3875772
But that's a problem of proof-reading, not self-publishing.

Are you jealous that even someone that can't proof-read worth a damn managed to write a book and you can't?

>>3876924
*can't proof read nor write

>captcha: there tolding

>>3876924
Typos are not the only problem with that piece.

I think if the OP proves anything it's that anybody, even someone with a severe mental disability, can manage to write a book and sell it on the internet.

>>3876945
True, hence >>3876929

But really there's no problem with self-publishing qua self-publishing.

>OP posts the funniest self published trash in weeks
>instead of laughing everyone gets uppity and defends vanity presses

can't you just have fun, /lit/?

>>3876929
>dat double negative

Look who's talking.

>>3876959
Nobody is getting "uppity." This thread has been done about five times by now. The idea that bad self-published writing is proof that self-publishing is inherently bad is faulty logic.

>>3876964
Don't be wreckt OP

>>3876973
>The idea that bad self-published writing is proof that self-publishing is inherently bad is faulty logic.

I for one certainly wouldn't go to a vanity press looking for good writing, just like I wouldn't go to a fast food joint looking for healthy food, or a used car lot looking for new cars.

I've actually read some decent self-published stuff from Amazon. Worldmart was pretty cool.

>>3876973
Publishing houses provide a valuable service to authors. They help authors with the proof reading, the editing, the flow of the story, they make sure that the book actually goes to book stores where people can buy the book, and oh yeah: they pay the author money.

And they provide a valuable service to readers as well by successfully filtering out stuff like the OP's story and making sure that you'll never see it on a shelf in Barns and Noble. Do publishing houses have a perfect record when it comes to publishing quality stuff? No. But it's better than having no filter at all.

What contemporary publishing houses value craft/art/good writing over marketability?

>>3876998
No one said publishers are inherently bad. The problem is saying self-publishing is inherently bad.

>>3877019
Small presses and university presses mostly. NYRB and things like that.

>>3877026
And I'm saying that self-publishing doesn't have any sort of quality safeguard unlike traditional publishing, so naturally it's going to attract the very lowest of the low.

>>3875772
>Welcome to Hell Population 666

>>3877063
That still doesn't mean it's inherently bad, rather that it's a young industry and hasn't developed it's own filter nor gained enough support or confidence from established writers.

>>3877091
and it's unlikely to ever gain support or confidence when it's going to be the preferred method of publishing among those who can't spell properly or be bothered to capitalize the start of every sentence.

>>3877132
You're still just getting hung up on the retards. A site with a rating system and self-enforced tagging is all it would take to keep the shit in the virtual slush bin. Hell, all you'd have to do is make a site with a $5-10/m subscription fee and you'd immediately cut out all the teenagers whose mothers won't lend their credit card to, and will immediately turn off anyone who's not serious.

And I highly doubt you're qualified to speak on the potential actions of established writers.

>>3877176
>A site with a rating system and self-enforced tagging is all it would take to keep the shit in the virtual slush bin.
I would say that every vanity press website has a rating system and charges the authors money to be published. It doesn't stop anything.

>grandmother dies
>mother commits suicide
>brother cuts off his own head? I think?
>WE DIED BECAUSE OF YOU

meanwhile the people that Ray did murder don't haunt him

>starting a story with the main character waking up

>>3877618
not a kafka man eh

>>3877645
Kafka does it well though. Waking up is the only possible way his stories could start. Rather than writing a 2 paragraph wake up scene only for the character to go do something completely unrelated. Waking up is also metaphorical for how Kafka's characters don't have any say in their misfortunes, they just wake up to them.

The title is a Lamb of God song.

>>3876053

Obviously there is though, because if a book was actually good a different publisher would publish it.

>>3877645
Kafka didn't self publish

>making fun of 14 year olds while putting off your own patrician masterpiece until tomorrow

>>3876069

Books like Twilight are published because they appeal to a wide audience of adolescent girls. If publishers won't publish your book what they are doing is saying that your book won't make enough profit to pay for their time. Which means that people won't want to read/pay for your book.

>Ray realized he was having a flashback from being traumatized.

my sides

>>3877683
/lit/ - home of the haters

lol. OP likely knows somebody who self-publishes so he goes out of his way to discredit it any chance he gets. Seriously, who would care this much?

I discovered my English teacher on a crowdfunding website for publishing books. His short stories were fucking horrible and I always thought this guy was patrician. He had no talent at all, it was arrogant drivel written in first person. He managed to publish a book thanks to that website though.

>>3877718
This. Y'all are some insecure fags

>>3877721
I'm afraid to research any of my professors for this exact reason. I'll probably have to wait until I graduate.

>>3877735
it was a high school teacher though

>>3877718
The only people I know who self publish are people on /lit/.

>>3876109
I think Mersault didn't cry as much.

I thought emo kids had raccoon eyes because of mascara, but it's really because of "all the rage inside"

>>3876063
I'll take the shit stories that people make if it means good self published stuff gets through.

>As the head is rolling around in the crib Ray grabs the head and starts to shake it and play with it.