printing press idea

[digital gutenberg No.14856167]

Hello /lit/, I'm getting pretty fed up of the current literary landscape being dominated by post-mfa graduates and their obsessions with identity politics. I know a lot of you feel the same way. I was thinking of starting a publishing press which published books we would be more into, more based on the aesthetics of literature and so on.

it could be organised online but would have physical copies printed of course. I was thinking if there was enough people interested we could all donate into a patreon or a gofundme and work to set it up (i.e. a website, printing costs).

I would, of course, need to get a group together, a group of misfits who have a passion for prose and a good eye for literary aesthetics. as we could do everything online geographical location is not an issue.

would people be interested in helping this idea become something? and I'm obviously not talking about something like the /lit/ quarterly, I mean publishing actual novels and marketing them properly.

[Anonymous No.14856180]

The biggest problem would be the delusion you have to face. Most people here aren't good probably you too so immediately blame a boogeyman. Start your own press or whatever but be prepared to accept that it will be a vanity project unless you're willing to seek the good stuff instead of making a statement. Offensive doesn't mean good. Sorry if its hard to understand fellas I'm still learning English and have recently only been able to read at a middle grade level. Danke

[digital gutenberg No.14856222]

>>14856180

I appreciate your thoughts. I've been traditionally published myself so I think I am pretty qualified to discern what's good and what's not. I would only let people get involved if I thought they were of the same calibre.

[digital gutenberg No.14856483]

Come on guys, surely more people are interested in something like this than just me???

[Anonymous No.14856722]

>>14856167
I just don't understand the appeal of writing more books when there are so many to read in the first place.

[Not op No.14856750]

>>14856167
Why should i join you? I could easily self publish on amazon

[Anonymous No.14857018]

I'm an amateur bookbinder and I've done a lot of armchair philosophy on the subject. Basically the history of publishing starts at Gutenberg and ends with the internet. At this point, literature has entirely transcended the physical book-object and exists as a platonic ideal floating in binary space. During this interval, the clear and obvious trend in form was away from individual quality and towards mass produced quantities of novels: culminating in the Harlequin Romance and Hard-boiled Thriller paperbacks of the fifties.

With the computer this trend has, however, reached its limit point. Any written text, any information, can be potentially infinitely replicated with the push of a button and a few lines of code. Literature has completely transcended physicality, and now it has to contend with the form possibilities of cyber-space. This means twitter-famous renegades, insta-poets, instantaneous collaborative novels (/lit/ has already pioneered several of these), visual youtube essays, embedded novels-within-novels and incredible potential for non-linearity. The reason that the "literary landscape" is full of gate-keeping credentialists is because "literature" as such belongs in a museum or private collection of curios, the whole world has moved on, and these flaccid and mentally insecure 'post-mfa graduates' are the only ones who haven't gotten the message.

The modern homme de lettres is making snappy comments on twitter, writing op-eds on medium, anonymously self-promoting on 4chan and redddit, and pulling groupies through instagram. Anyone with an ounce of skill and self-awareness is not going to want to have their legacy associated with this website or the pet projects you involve yourself in to avoid actually sitting down and writing something.

/lit/ has a digital printing press. It's called 4channel.org/lit, and for years it has been producing industrial quantities of trashy writing interspersed with hate speech and the occasional gem. You aren't going to improve on it.

[Anonymous No.14857190]

>>14857018
Rupi Kaur confirmed for greatest poet of our generation

[Anonymous No.14857296]

>>14856222
It takes a while to write a good novel anon.

[digital gutenberg No.14858006]

>>14857018

Interesting take on things, but what if we just went back to telling a story for the sake of telling the story, like the power was cut and we were all huddled round a candle. or how they did before the internet, before electricity. let's just tell a story and make it a damn good one.

[Anonymous No.14858033]

I've wanted things like this to appear for years. I'm currently writing a book (whatever that means) about some right-wing movements in the 1920s who ran their own journals, printing houses, etc. They'd pool resources to translate important things and create a guaranteed audience for their ideas. The more I read about them, the more I wish I had the same kind of collegiality and camaraderie.

There are a few presses that cater to right-wing stuff, like Arktos and Telos. Both have somewhat shabby quality control. I would be down with something more like Jacobite, more ambiguous, something that embodies Kulturkritik without having to obey mainstream shibboleths but without being a propaganda organ for some subset of internet neo-Nazism.

Quality control is the big problem. Lots of well-intentioned and even precocious people on /lit/, but also a lot of duds or people who are simply too young and inchoate to contribute, need a few more years to put their shit together. You'd have to sift for talent, but you need talented people to do that, and how to sift those in the first place is a problem.

[Anonymous No.14858098]

>>14856167
i already plan on doing this. i bought a very expensive printer that should be able to print a few hundred copies a month, the hard part will be the covers. i may just end up doing hard covers with a leather spine, but i want to be able to do some comfy pulpy paperbacks too eventually.

[Anonymous No.14858186]

>>14858006
That's oral tradition, not literature. It still happens around campfires across the world and there is zero barrier of entry.

[Anonymous No.14858195]

>>14858033
I'd be very interested in reading this book once you are done with it, anon

[Arbaz Siddiqui No.14858331]

We could certain share our line of thoughts, either through many digital platforms or just creating a site where we could contribute our piece, Creating videos about any of our 'Literary Gravitas' perhaps?

[digital gutenberg No.14858333]

>>14858033

sounds like a neat project. though this one wouldn't necessarily be "right-wing" or "reactionary" just a diversion from what's currently trendy in literature.

alright boys,

can you post emails so I can get in touch with anyone who would consider themselves an interested party

I'm thinking we could collaborate on a google doc to get the preliminary stuff streamlined amongst us.

[Anonymous No.14858404]

>>14858333
>this one wouldn't necessarily be "right-wing" or "reactionary"
dropped

[Anonymous No.14858449]

>>14858333
Can you start by making a Discord?

[Anonymous No.14858461]

>>14856167
OP, this sounds like a great idea.

[Anonymous No.14858471]

>>14857018
You're a faggot.

[Anonymous No.14858477]

>>14856167
op this sounds like a great idea

[Anonymous No.14858556]

>>14858333
Interested, but still dubious.
Willing to edit, if you require a pedant.
[e-mail]

[digital gutenberg No.14858673]

>>14858449

that might be easier than doing an email chain, does someone want to make a discord for us and then add us to it? I'm not familiar with the app.

[Anonymous No.14858732]

>>14858673
https://discord.gg/HE3Afy

[Anonymous No.14858743]

>>14857018
>Basically the history of publishing starts at Gutenberg and ends with the internet.
History doesn't end. That's like saying that the history of oral literature ended when writing was invented.
>At this point, literature has entirely transcended the physical book-object and exists as a platonic ideal floating in binary space.
God fucking damn it, can't pseuds stop calling every thing that's not necessarily bound to one single physical object a "Platonic ideal"? We get it, you read an intro to philosophy, but this has literally nothing to do with Plato.
>During this interval, the clear and obvious trend in form was away from individual quality and towards mass produced quantities of novels: culminating in the Harlequin Romance and Hard-boiled Thriller paperbacks of the fifties.
The traditional individuality of a book was erased the moment the printing press was invented.
>Literature has completely transcended physicality
Computers are physical, just like paper and ink, just like voice.
>instantaneous collaborative novels (/lit/ has already pioneered several of these),
Collaborative writing on the internet has already existed at least ten years ago. And let's not forget the dadaist "exquisite corpse". In that regard, you really come off as an uninformed moron when you call TLOTIAT "pioneering".
>The reason that the "literary landscape" is full of gate-keeping credentialists is because "literature" as such belongs in a museum or private collection of curios, the whole world has moved on, and these flaccid and mentally insecure 'post-mfa graduates' are the only ones who haven't gotten the message.
Contrary to your nonsense, the printed book remains an ideal, THE stamp of approval, for these supposedly new tendencies. Both /lit/ and Rupi Kaur want their diarrheatic writing to be printed on paper and bound, and although the launching pad is on the internet, the old-timey book remains the end-goal of every writer.
New tech in practice offers very few new techniques, of the stuff you've listed that would be non-linearity. Yet, nobody has actually utilised that successfully, because human beings experience time in a linear fashion and literary texts have to resemble that experience, or they will become difficult experimental works - and therefore necessarily marginal.
Your last two paragraphs I can more or less agree with, but until that point it was pseudry in magnitudes that I haven't seen in weeks.

[Anonymous No.14858766]

>>14858743
You are retarded. Nobody reads collaborative writing on the internet except fanfic faggots, and these will never be read by scholars 50 years from now. Getting published traditionally is the only way to have any sort of legacy, as schools and universities will only read print books. Name one online-only literary work that has potential of becoming a classic. That's right, you can't.

[Anonymous No.14858783]

>>14858766
So you agree with me in every regard?

[Anonymous No.14858809]

OP, why are you starting a post regarding literary aesthetics while you choose not to use proper capitalization in the beginning of your sentences?

[Anonymous No.14858826]

>>14858809
sir im preh-tie-shurr you've already an(sir)ed yew-er own quest-ion (the ion seeks to meta-stabilize! will it ever? or will it float!?)

[Anonymous No.14858828]

>>14858809
not OP, but you're not supposed to capitalize because it lets people know you're not a filthy phoneposting nigger. you can basically tell that a person's opinions are worthless if their post has capital letters in it for grammar's sake.

[Anonymous No.14858830]

>>14858826
based

[Anonymous No.14858900]

>>14857018
>Basically the history of publishing starts at Gutenberg and ends with the internet
you are wrong: both are merely vehicles (mediums) or arbitrary content/intent. it transends, it evolves, it goes beyond

>With the computer this trend has, however, reached its limit point.
you underestimate. just imagine the possibilities of the visual novel that we haven't reached yet

>Anyone with an ounce of skill and self-awareness is not going to want to have their legacy associated with this website
check out this retard. its easy to look at people like Warhol, the velvet underground, the situationists, the NY no-wave scene as avant-geniuses, but keep in mind that in their era, they were regarded as bottom of barrel artists, why bother with "fine art"?

>/lit/ has a digital printing press. It's called 4channel.org/lit, and for years it has been producing industrial quantities of trashy writing interspersed with hate speech and the occasional gem
this is a correct take

>You aren't going to improve on it.
it depends on what you are trying to improve

[digital gutenberg No.14858970]

the discord is hopping with activity and cool ideas, if anyone else thinks they would be interested in it, you should definitely join

[Anonymous No.14858989]

yeah sure publish my neet anthem novel faggot

[Anonymous No.14859035]

>>14858989
sure thing. as long as you finish it and submit it, we'll take a look to consider it

[digital gutenberg No.14859048]

>>14858989

sorry, we plan on only publishing good writers, so that probably rules you out

[Anonymous No.14859099]

>>14858743
>History doesn't end. That's like saying that the history of oral literature ended when writing was invented.
It did though. Oral tradition is entirely different from literature, and in societies where writing is introduced oral tradition generally dies out almost immediately.

>We get it, you read an intro to philosophy, but this has literally nothing to do with Plato.
Platonically blow me

>The traditional individuality of a book was erased the moment the printing press was invented.
It was a process. Books written in the early 20th century are of entirely different quality than ones done today. Use of tools such as lithograph and woodcut also provided a variety of image qualities and mediums that vanished with offset printing. Books pre-Heidelberg and of obviously different quality than books post-Heidelberg. Then you have the Limited Editions Club which even today holds the gold-standard for publishing. It was a long process to get where we are today even if the trend is obvious.

>Contrary to your nonsense, the printed book remains an ideal, THE stamp of approval, for these supposedly new tendencies
Obviously, which is why I'm able to make money as a bookbinder. HOWEVER it exists as a fetish and a commodity, NOT as the most efficient way to transmit information, which is what printed books were for several hundred years. This fact is at odds with the public perception of books sure, but eventually public attitudes will fall in line with reality. Monasteries continued producing illuminated manuscripts for years after Gutenberg, but it's still obvious looking back that Gutenberg killed the illuminated manuscript.

>New tech in practice offers very few new techniques, of the stuff you've listed that would be non-linearity
This website couldn't have existed pre-internet. You might not think of it as literature, but it's something and it's new.
>nobody has actually utilised that successfully
Wikipedia is successful and non-linear. Borges successfully wrote a non-linear story years before the internet became a thing. Palindromes exist.
S A T O R
A R E P O
T E N E T
O P E R A
R O T A S
Can be read for example in any direction. Much of Arabic calligraphy is also somewhat non-linear, as is art.

>>14858900
Poor reading comprehension.
>check out this retard. its easy to look at people like Warhol, the velvet underground, the situationists, the NY no-wave scene as avant-geniuses, but keep in mind that in their era, they were regarded as bottom of barrel artists, why bother with "fine art"?
Those are all bottom of the barrel artists.

[Anonymous No.14859181]

>>14857018
Snappy comments on twitter isnt a book you bernie voting undergrad. People do still read books, ebooks or otherwise, and people recognize good books. All OP is saying is he thinks there's a market for books based on merit, no the color of your skin or whether you've got a vagina or not.

Quite frankly I dont look at publishers, but I will say since I returned to the US 3 years ago, IF I can find a barnes and noble everything in it is identity politics or manga. If there was a publisher that promised not to publish based on politics I could definitely see myself clicking that link first.

Not saying stormfagging white larping fascisto-drama, just well written books. Doesnt matter who wrote it.

[Anonymous No.14859205]

>>14859035
>>14859048
yeah, way to be on board assholes, hey second poster, idk how good a writer i am but i know im better than you. hey other nonsensitive faggot, i have a novel. i dont give a shit what you do with it. do you want to read it?

[Anonymous No.14859250]

>>14859099
>Those are all bottom of the barrel artists.
ah, sorry. i was under the mis-assumption that i was talking to someone with a good-taste/individualized-opinion, instead of sheep

regardless, d.h. lawrence, joyce's ulysses, allen ginsberg, the sade, and so many others were banned for explicit/incorrect content when they were active; as in they were "underground"

[Anonymous No.14859261]

>>14859205
im the first poster. i was being sarcastic but if you send something in i will treat it as seriously as any other text i read. maybe that would have been more clear if i was more sassy but hopefully you get my point now

[Anonymous No.14859272]

>>14859261
though i will add that we dont have an email rn

[Anonymous No.14859283]

>>14859261
Hop in the discord, we need all the manpower we can get

[Anonymous No.14859292]

>>14859261
well if you give me an email i can send you a kpf

[Anonymous No.14859345]

JANNIE TRANNIES DONT FALL FOR IT MODS DONT THEURE FUCKING MODS JANNIE TRANNIES THEY ARE RETAAAAREEEDDEDDDDD

[Anonymous No.14859346]

>>14859292
[e-mail]

^if anyone would like to submit: at the current moment we are soliciting anything

ps this email account is tentative; and i do not necessarily officially represent the group in any official capacity, though i will forward your stuff to them at some point in time

[Anonymous No.14859535]

>>14859346

Send short stories and poetry and essays please

[Anonymous No.14859560]

I think the printing press idea is pretty old. Didn't read the post btw

[Anonymous No.14859563]

>>14859099
>in societies where writing is introduced oral tradition generally dies out almost immediately.
If you knew anything about India you would know this is false.

[Anonymous No.14859599]

>>14858828
Literally the opposite way around

[Anonymous No.14859623]

There are plenty of presses, most of them smaller, sure, that are publishing interesting work that isn’t precedented on identity politics.

Not trying to be esoteric, but if you can’t recognize them then I wouldn’t trust your discernment into what’s good or how the publishing world works. It’s insular and more difficult to get multiple copies of a good-looking bound book than you might think.

[Anonymous No.14859693]

>>14859099
>Oral tradition is entirely different from literature,
Open a book on literary theory and genres.
>in societies where writing is introduced oral tradition generally dies out almost immediately.
Not true; again, a book on literary genres might be useful to you, since you don't seem to know what oral literature entails.
>Books written in the early 20th century are of entirely different quality than ones done today. Use of tools such as lithograph and woodcut also provided a variety of image qualities and mediums that vanished with offset printing. Books pre-Heidelberg and of obviously different quality than books post-Heidelberg. Then you have the Limited Editions Club which even today holds the gold-standard for publishing. It was a long process to get where we are today even if the trend is obvious.
To state that some notable individuality of a book exists when they're all printed in the same way in thousands of copies, regardless of their expensiveness and design and illustrations, is an idea that quite baffles me.
>HOWEVER it exists as a fetish and a commodity, NOT as the most efficient way to transmit information,
The point of literature and reading isn't necessary efficient transmission of information, but partaking in a particular, rather unusual activity and going through a particular experience. Looking at the death and then, contradictory to your ideas and their hopeful progressive look into the future, the revival of the vinyl as a medium for music shows how this isn't a nice one-way street.
>This website couldn't have existed pre-internet. You might not think of it as literature, but it's something and it's new.
We're not talking about "something", but about literature.
>Wikipedia is successful and non-linear.
A non-fictional text, so again not literature, irrelevant.
>Borges successfully wrote a non-linear story years before the internet became a thing.
Which one? I hope you're not talking about The Library of Babel. Also, you know, Borges is Borges, Instagram poets are not Borges...
>Palindromes exist.
Ah, that neat but artistically worthless example that gets repeated all the time because it is a marginal, strange construction that cannot be a fruitful ground for further artistic creation.
>Much of Arabic calligraphy is also somewhat non-linear, as is art.
Again - not literature. Of course we perceive visual art differently from literature, Jesus, do I have to refer you to Lessing?

[Anonymous No.14859728]

>>14859693
hey f4m, nothing wrong with instagram poets; it is entirely possible that it is merely the case that there is an underground circle of them who produce amazing work, but you merely do not know they exist

[Anonymous No.14859744]

>>14856167
Sure. Go for it! We believe in you or whatever.

[Anonymous No.14859758]

I tried writing for the quarterly, and it was denied. Perhaps it was shit. I can accept that. Although, I do think there is simply a difference in taste I have with most of you that I will never be able to bridge. The quarterly is a nice start(and pays well too), but there is simply no reader base for it besides a few on this board. Whether we like it or not, we are dependent on a general audience for success. There is no escape from it. Our contrarian identity would never let success grow from this place knowingly. Crabs in a bucket dooms this site.

[Anonymous No.14859830]

>>14857018
>> I'm an amateur bookbinder and I've done a lot of armchair philosophy on the subject.
What is it with you fags and your insistent need to qualify every vapid statement you make. Anyone can say anything on the internet. When you can't think of a qualification for yourself then you just start every statement with, "In my opinion" no matter how obviously subjective the statement you are about is. Like, you feel the need to let us know in advance that you haven't taken enough zero gravity grave dancing courses yet to share your feeling on how to let us know the effects of Angola's GDP growth affected how Spain felt about Japan's auto manufacturing in the 80's. What is the fucking point. Just type: PRINT IS DEAD BRO BURNIE UR BUST 2020 and fuck off. It's not even as if anything you have to say has any substance beyond that when all your saying is that there's no reason for books to exist now that we have Twiter and Instagram. Why bother to bind books in the first place when you don't understand what they are for and how they are used? You don't even know how to think.

[Anonymous No.14859835]

>>14859830
the guy you're replying to seems pretty stupid, but please remember to take your meds

[Anonymous No.14859859]

>>14859835
As an expert in posting shit on the internet, and an avid masturbationist. I regret to inform you that they don't make pills for this yet.

[Anonymous No.14859863]

>>14859830
if i was an editor, i would change "PRINT IS DEAD BRO BURNIE UR BUST 2020" to "BURNEE ERR BUSTT", but i appreciate the "BRO BURNIE" usge

[Anonymous No.14859900]

>>14859693
>Open a book on literary theory and genres.
Recommend one to me.

>To state that some notable individuality of a book exists when they're all printed in the same way in thousands of copies
Woodcut doesn't create exact replicas, there are variations in the ink and image which are clearly visible. In the case of the Limited Editions Club, the illustrations are often individually drawn and each book is signed by either the author or illustrator. No printing runs over 10,000 copies as well, thus the "limited edition".
But the point I was trying to make is that the overall construction of the book has drastically changed as time has gone by. If you look at old manuscripts, then compare them to old books, then compare them to new books the trend has been towards what saves time in the overall construction of the book. Folios are replaced with glue on a block of pages for example, the overall quantity of images within the text has declined, typographic embellishments have also decreased in frequency. The entire concept of what a book "is" has been changing over the last several hundred years, and the change has been gradual rather than immediate. Even typeset printing required some level of manual labour to swap out the letters, whereas modern printing only really needs somebody operating a machine. All of this changes the feasibility of mass production. Maybe the initial printing houses could print 100 books in a year, now you can print 10,000 books a year with a home printer, while a print shop can print 10,000 in a day. A computer can duplicate a file 10,000 times in a second. In all of this however, the book has to be in the right format. As the technology for printing books changes, the book itself needs to change to match this. For example, most websites more closely resemble a vertically printed scroll than discrete pages as in books, which themselves were a modification of the scroll which was generally written in various horizontally arranged fragments.

[Anonymous No.14859934]

>>14859900
>The point of literature and reading isn't necessary efficient transmission of information, but partaking in a particular, rather unusual activity and going through a particular experience. Looking at the death and then, contradictory to your ideas and their hopeful progressive look into the future, the revival of the vinyl as a medium for music shows how this isn't a nice one-way street.
Vinyl is a curio for collectors. The point isn't that things HAVE TO be this way or that, it's that the technology by which a message is presented is inevitably going to effect the way people view that message. Cue McLuhan's catchphrase "The medium is the message". Vinyl exists, but most music is experienced through digital recording. If the experience of vinyl and digital formats was identical then hipsters wouldn't collect vinyl, but it's not, which is my point. THAT BEING SAID most music is obviously produced with the understanding that it will be consumed via digital recording, just like most literature being produced is made with the implicit assumption that it will be consumed via books. ERGO a focus on things like paragraphs, digestible chapters, cliffhangers within chapters, etc. MEANWHILE the digital literature is pioneering things such as interactivity (already done with choose your own adventure novels, but never so easy to streamline the experience), hyperlinks, impeded texts, extensive footnotes (again already done but now there are more possibilities), embedded images and sound files, and so on. As books increasingly become digitized, it's inevitable that authors will break with literary tradition and incorporate these techniques into their work.

>We're not talking about "something", but about literature.
There are posts and posters on this site which could arguably be considered literature. Certainly there are exchanges which could be considered literary. My point is that the box you are currently viewing "literature" through is already obsolete, even though it may take several generations to entirely realize this.

>Which one? I hope you're not talking about The Library of Babel. Also, you know, Borges is Borges, Instagram poets are not Borges...
Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius. Print out the different sections of that story on your computer and re-arrange them a couple of times.

>Ah, that neat but artistically worthless example that gets repeated all the time because it is a marginal, strange construction that cannot be a fruitful ground for further artistic creation.
Every marginal strange construction is just that until somebody brings it into fruition. The point is that there are texts which can be read in multiple directions. In Ancient Egyptian one could write either left to right or right to left, which encoded poetical possibilities that English doesn't have. Again, the point here being that the TECHNOLOGY by which a message is conveyed contains itself the possibilities of the message. A scroll is not a codex is not a website.

[Anonymous No.14859983]

>>14859693
Pic related for example, is taken from an illuminated manuscript and bound as a codex, HOWEVER the format is like that of a scroll, with several distinct sections places adjacent to one another. Some day we'll look at PDFs, with their arbitrary page divisions, in a similar light.

>Again - not literature. Of course we perceive visual art differently from literature, Jesus, do I have to refer you to Lessing?
Literature is perfectly capable of containing and referencing art however, and often does. With the internet, it's easier to do than ever, as can be seen by the great many posts on this website in which their content is obviously contextualized by the adjoining image. Now do you read posts on this website linearly or non-linearly?

>>14859830
The point is that I've spent literally hundreds of hours pulling books apart, putting them together, restoring old manuscripts, and analyzing books from a purely material perspective. The point my post is trying to make isn't "PRINT IS DEAD", it's that for the last several hundred years the tendency in publishing is that EVERY TIME there has been a need to choose between quality and quantity (hand painted illustrations vs woodcut for example, or sewn folios vs glued paper blocks) quantity has won out in the end. HOWEVER, with the state of modern technology, we've reached a theoretical limit to mass reproduction. IF IT CAN BE DIGITIZED IT CAN BE REPRODUCED. This means that physical books are no longer the most efficient way to transmit information, and must therefore find other ways of justifying their existence. SIMULTANEOUSLY literature itself is no longer limited to what can be printed on a page. Now literature has the capacity to embed images, sounds, music, film, etc. which changes how it is presented, how it is consumed, and so on. The most popular essays written in the last five years have been published on YouTube alongside a collection of images and video clips as video essays, yet despite some of these essays having literally tens of millions of views, they have been entirely ignored by the literary establishment as "not real literature". I'M NOT MAKING A VALUE JUDGEMENT HERE ON THE MEDIUM, SIMPLY POINTING OUT THE CURRENT TREND.

>Why bother to bind books in the first place when you don't understand what they are for and how they are used? You don't even know how to think.
Books only functionally exist as luxury products, and I'm probably one of the few people alive who realizes this fact. When any book ever written can be found online, having a room full of cheap paperbacks is redundant. Books will always carry a certain cultural capital and sentimental value (as is obvious by the people like >>14859835 and yourself getting upset by my pointing out current trends), however their future is almost certainly going to be as luxury products- which is why I'm ahead of the curve by offering high quality, leather bound, decorative, tactilely inventive, etc. books at high prices.

[Anonymous No.14860029]

>>14859099
>Those are all bottom of the barrel artists.
only pleb faggots say this type of shit

[Anonymous No.14860049]

>>14860029
>t. most cultivated freshman in his liberal arts class

[Anonymous No.14860121]

>>14859983
>>14859934
>>14859900
>words words words
dilettante

[Anonymous No.14860344]

>>14856180
>Most people here aren't good probably you too so immediately blame a boogeyman
speak for yourself

[Anonymous No.14860585]

>>14859983
>>14859934
>>14859900
Are you autistic anon?

[digital gutenberg No.14861385]

still taking people of interest in the discord group linked above, if you think you have the right qualifications and are interested, join the discord and help us bring this project to fruition

[Anonymous No.14861521]

>>14858743
>New tech in practice offers very few new techniques, of the stuff you've listed that would be non-linearity. Yet, nobody has actually utilised that successfully, because human beings experience time in a linear fashion and literary texts have to resemble that experience, or they will become difficult experimental works - and therefore necessarily marginal.
good posts, im particularly interested in this comment though

what i am beginning to think is that hyper fiction / non-linear branching textons are nonsense because that form is best introduced in the context of a spatial medium where time-linearity is not an independent axis but rather, as in our own physical universe, is an embedded precept in the spatial, the space-time. so i motivate that the video game medium is more suited to this experiment.
the main argument here is that, in games that understand their ludic nature, spatial traversal and navigation are embedded and enmeshed narrative. movement in space and game time are narrative events.
in contrast, there is nothing narrative based in clicking links or looking up nested footnote number 5000 or turning a page. these acts are interruptions to the narrative because they are discrete; movement in a video game world, as far as the human player is concerned, is continuous.
(one of my interests is that when human play approaches the discretized nature of the game physics world you start getting speedrunning)

[digital gutenberg No.14862648]

BUMP

https://discord.gg/HE3Afy

join that discord, read what we have come up with so far, decide if you want to be a part of this

[digital gutenberg No.14863230]

>>14862648

digital Gutenberg bumping once again

[Anonymous No.14863244]

>>14856722

[Anonymous No.14864005]

>>14861521
How could a video game be non-linear? I get that some video games forgo plot altogether, but it seems like to be properly non-linear it would need some sort of plot or narrative arch which could be experienced in multiple directions, or simultaneously.