/lit/ - Literature

I thought you weren't going to be able to top the six page masterpiece Halloween Night and Goodnight Kiss from last week.

I was wrong.

>>4075855
>17.10$
MA PORCO DUE

>>4075855
Can't really mock it if it's mocking itself.

>>4075855
>47 pages

This has got copyright infringement written all over it.

But vanity publishers just don't give a fuck.

>>4075855
if it's so worthless why are they selling it?
It should be free.

>the joke
>your head
The whole concept is supposed to be hilariously awful. Open a thread where each sentence is decided by committee and then procede to publish the resulting shitposting.
The formula is much more apparent in Daring Do and the Endless Wastes.

>>4075883
>>4075926
the point isn't to illustrate the story is bad

the point is to illustrate self publishing is a wasteland of awful books

go away

>>4075946
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_Law

>>4075926
>mfw finnegans wake was written this way

>>4075946
Why don't you try to illustrate how the Internet is mainly full of garbage?
Or try illustrating how humankind has left a heap of futile attempts (at anything)?
Illustrate how there's more failure than success in general.

You're loosing your focus here. This wasn't a good example.

I'm (>>4075971) I just read this (>>4075960)
Nice. There's really a concept for anything.

>>4075960
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lulu%27s_Law

>Lulu's revelation, commonly referred to as Lulu's law, is an adage commonly cited as "self publishers are talentless hacks." It is derived from quotations by Charles Ponzi, an Italian con artist who took people's money promising that riches would soon follow.

>The phrase was derived from Ponzi's observation that while 99% of everything was crap, it could be noted that 100% of everything self published was certainly crap, rife with spelling errors, poor formatting, inconsistent tones, Mary Sues, clunky exposition, info dumping, and cliches.

>>4075984
Nice try OP, stop making up shit.

>>4075984
And the link goes to... nothing.
>Ponzi schemes
>Lulu (whoever she is)
I'll check back in when OP sobers up from his semen binge.

>>4075991
>>4075994
No shit the link goes to nothing, Einstein, I'm being facetious.

Just give yourself a congratulatory pat on the back. You've defended the vanity publishing industry by admitting that 99% of it is shit.

>>4076002
I'm not defending anything, just pointing out that you haven't made an actual argument and that it is unfair to disregard genres, publishers or anything based on the shitty majority.

>>4076008
If a cake is 99% burnt, I don't dig through its crispy carcass in search for the teaspoon of what's edible, I throw the whole thing out and get a different cake.

Similarly, when I see a book is self published, I move onto different book.

How's that for an actual argument?

>>4076033
You could make the same argument for science fiction, fantasy, suspense, romance, etc. but if you trashed an entire type of fiction and everything related to it than you'ld earn the ire of someone who had in fact dug through and found the pieces worth something.
And also, no individual bad example can disprove an entire genre's merit. Twilight or the Da Vinci Code shouldn't make you ignore off major publishers.

>47 pages
>15.39

>reading books from the top five

stay pleb

Quality control.

/mlp/ has written and published a novel

meanwhile /lit/ continues to pretend they understood Infinite Jest

>>4077178
thing is, there's nothing to understand. Full of hot air, like a balloon, you look under the surface and there's nothing.

>>4077646
>if i didn't understand it, there must be nothing to understand

>>4075946
>the point is to illustrate self publishing is a wasteland of awful books

Thanks, there might have been some guy someone in some corner of the world who didn't already know this.

>>4077656
/lit/ doesn't know it. They get their panties in a bunch whenever you remind them.