2022-05-12: Ghost posting is now globally disabled. 2022: Due to resource constraints, /g/ and /tg/ will no longer be archived or available. Other archivers continue to archive these boards.Become a Patron!
It’s actually a bannable offense. You can purchase adspace for anything you’d like to sell, as is clearly written under the ads displayed. Please make use of this, and do nothing create threads merely to sell your product.
>>18637155If your book looks like that woman, I want to buy it
>>18637155This place desperately needs more authors. Please post your book and talk about it. Make a thread per day if you want, anything to stir up more positive conversation and less "this sucks, I'm blackpilled" type shit.Oh, and ignore the torrent of hatred coming your way. The blackpilled non-creators of this board hate anyone even trying.
>>18638034This is wrong. We have a general for aspiring/amateur writers, all are welcome to post there. Further, mentioning your book in conversation is totally possible. What is a very real problem here is unironic, hired shills who come in from discord groups to make and bump threads about F Gardner, Mike Ma, DT, MNMDR, etc. while expressly avoiding discussion of their books’ content because of how little effort is detectable in them.If you think there is such a deficit of output here, I’m afraid you’re not looking in the right places; & exists and every time a thread comes up the only people in it are the handful of contributors. I don’t believe your hopes for more creators for even a second, you’re just inattentive.anyway, OP you’ve got your answer. Good luck with your projects, but please don’t shit up the board
>>18637995that's a man, baby
>>18638078Those threads aren't even that bad, and their aren't that many of them...Compare the above to the number of doomer wojack threads, infinite jest threads, and other "is x y" threads that are non-stop here.
>>18637998>shoulder widthBegone foul degenerate, tis a true maiden!
>>18638089A lot of threads here suck, that’s not the issue.The issue is for this site to make money people need to buy ads. Coming here to advertise sans paying for it is therefore against the rules. Don’t take it up with me, it’s not my rule and I’m offering you real answers if your concern is actually reading /lit/ authors. If you just want free adspace take it up with the mods.
>>18638078He is right in that we need more writers, the writing games and various writing threads were a big part of what made this place great. But no one takes those threads seriously anymore despite their being a fantastic way to hone ones skills. You are right that we do not need authors shilling constantly.
>>18638078What a sneaky shill for F Gardner, Mike Ma, DT, MNMDR.... Well done, anon. I'm sure you'll get two cents per (You) this time.
>>18638089They really are that bad>their>...
>>18638099Go to /wg/— their are more writers there than you will be able to count desperate for readers. If it’s a matter of starting threads for lit games, do it. I’m not trying to shit on anyone who writes or wants to read the work put out here, but acting like you can’t start a thread for cotc or gothic violence makes this place bereft of creativity is a ridiculous idea
>>18638103Hey I'm pretty stoned, okay?
>>18638097Oh! In that case, I actually agree with you 100%I plan to buy ads soon, waiting on my toner refill to show up. Buying ink by the refill bottle is about 8x cheaper than buying a new cartridge
>>18638109It is not a matter of starting threads, as I said no one takes them seriously any more, effort posts in them are lost in a mess of shit posts and people complaining about such threads existing. /wg/ is just a clique. >>18638114Just ignore anyone who cares about a simple typo.
>>18638114Stop doing drugs at once, you fucking degenerate. People like you disgust me.
>>18638120It’s not about people taking things seriously or not; there are rules here, I’m simply referring OP to them and offering a justification for their existence. Whether or not /wg/ is a clique is moot. Do you want to read peoples writing or not? You don’t get a say in what people say, so get a thicker skin and force your way into the clique, or just stop bitching.
>>18638135Are you purposefully ignoring the point?
>>18638125>people like you disgust mePost face or ram a lightbulb up your ass and clench
>>18638148No I’m addressing it head on, you’re just too fucking stupid to realize it
>>18638125I only smoke sativas, it helps align the brain for constructive creativity!
>>18638156You make some good posts but do you have to call someone who doesn't quite get what you're saying fucking stupid? I mean, this place attracts all different types of minds... which is a good thing.
>>18638156No, you really are not. You seem to think I am talking about shills and are conflating shill threads with writing threads. Or you are just trolling.
>>18638152>and clenchWow, it worked. It lit up.
>>18638184Welcome to 4chan.>>18638186refer me to the point, either posted or not, and we’ll see if I addressed it. Don’t care about your hurt feelings/lack of insight, so make sense or fuck off.
>>18638120A typo is just a typo, an ellipses is a giant red flag. An ellipses in 2021 is not an innocent mistake it is a conscious decision. The ellipses user is weak effeminate chaff signaling to be ignored, forgotten, and disrespected. The typo only adds to the fault a marginal amount. Have you ever read anything worthwhile from someone who uses an ellipses as a period? The conscious expression of a lack of confidence is rarely a valuable trait.
>>18638202I never thought of it that way. Great post.
>>18638202Even though I agree with your post, I am confident that there really isn't that many COTC or Gothic Violence threads... I mean, I see them about as often as Bronze Age Pervert who is also shilled here. That's pretty much it. Three whole authors who have shills posting here. Kind of sad, actually, you'd think for people so interested in books this place would have more influence than Karens on GoodReads who help launch the next female author into stardom because of some boring ass shit like the Glass Hotel.I heard Obama give this book a shout out so I figured, hey, I'll give it a shot... made it halfway through and just got so incredibly bored by it. Like nothing ever happens and everything is so dry.
>>18638218>Great post.It is really not. Trailing ellipses are fairly common in literature outside of the classical era and they really do not signify weakness or effeminacy.
>>18638234I found it an interesting take, I don't agree with it completely...
>>18638322It reads like the logic of an incel who larps as trad so they can pretend that the reason they are alone is just their high moral standards, not their own insecurities. An ellipsis could be used to denote the feminine, it depends on context. Authors create patterns of usage within a work, create contexts and through these they can make anything masculine or feminine. If trailing ellipses is only used for female characters for 500 pages and then suddenly a male character starts to use them, the reader will ascribe a certain feminine quality to that character even if they are unaware as to why. A single use with so little context is not enough to base a reasonable judgement on. These are the sorts of nuances which the writing games were fantastic at teaching, seeing all the different takes on a single idea and how different anons accomplished the same task, learned a great deal in those threads.
>>18638439Well, see, if that anon hadn't made fun of me for my writing... we wouldn't have seen your great post either. Interesting takes!
>>18638468LMAO I've been on 4chan since 2004, eat HIV+ homeless tranny turds you absolute midwit.
>>18638233name your favorite piece from &'s last issue; if you think it's so sad that people here supposedly don't contribute as much to literature as Karens on Goodreads (which I didn't realize was even a thing...) you'll be elated to know that some anons actually bust their ass to put out material for the rest of us here to read. you should give it a shot.as for the grifters you mentioned, and don't seem to think are such a problem, their books are available for purchase whenever you like. keeping their threads off /lit/ actually dfoesn't prevent you from consuming their work.I'm really trying to understand where your coming from: you say you want the work of true /lit/anons, but when I tell you where to find them, we move back to this attempt at trying to lessen the stigma surrounding shilling. You start to imply that there's nothing ultimately wrong with it, yet you include reference to a book that was shilled to you that you didn't end up liking. it really just sounds like instead of asking "what's wrong with this?" you're dancing around asking "why can't I do this too?"
>>18638487Perhaps we got off on the wrong foot, my intentions in my earlier replies were to encourage more writers, more authors, and more readers to interact. Hopefully, that symbiotic relationship would flourish and all the doomposters and other constant-negativity would be pushed off the board.Lots of excellent posts on this board but you really have to sort through a ton of absolute vitriol and blackpills to find it.Another reason I don't find shilling wrong is because it is a positive action. "Here, I am a creator, behold my work"Nothing wrong with that... 1 thread a day is totally fine... especially if they buy an ad and actually answer questions and interact with the posters here.
>>18638510anon, it is entirely clear that you have no problem with shilling, I know you think you're being very coy and sophisticated but your motives could not be more opaque. guess it's my own fault for continuing to engage...regardless, rules are rules. shill if you want, I'll be one of the many anons reporting you.
>>18638201I clearly made the distinction between writing threads and shill threads and also said you were correct in that we do not need shill threads. You ignored this and that is why you can not see my point, you picked your side and anyone who does not agree 100% is wrong and anything but constipulation is just failure in seeing your greatness.
>>18638472>this shill with his porn dungeon again
>>18638558state. your. point.all you're saying is that we agreed, then I missed something and now you're mad. just state your fucking point and we can discuss that-- why are you trying to have a conversation and hide all the necessary aspects of it? speak. be clear. stop telling me about how upset I made you and address the point you think I've neglected-- why is this so hard?
>>18638548Restrained shilling is fine. I mean, isn't it a GOOD thing that authors, writers, and readers can discuss books here?
>>18638589>why is this so hard?Because all you want to do is argue. Why do you assume everyone else is upset and has hurt feelings? You are the only one itt that seems at all angry.
>>18638597discussing books /= shillingthere are vast differences between the two activites.see, earlier we were kind of on the same page about this, and now we've completely gone back...>>18638607I explicitly told you to state your point, and forego the explanation of your own feelings.state. your. point.
>>18638615I made it, you ignored it. Your entire argument is based upon your belief that I said that not being able to start a thread for cotc makes this place bereft of creativity, which is not at all what I said and I stated it clearly. You read the first sentence and reacted and then doubled down.
>>18638636This place is better for COTC shill threads as long as it is limited to like 1 per day.
>>18638679I have no real issues with them, but we certainly do not need more. Shills should really think more about quality than quantity, a once a week effort post with good interaction will accomplish more than daily threads or spamming the board. Spamming the board only works briefly and those that do it fall flat on their face once the novelty/fun wears off, as has recently happened to Gardner with his second shill campaign, he was almost completely ignored and might as well have been.
>>18638718One of the ways I plan to shill is to show /Lit/ the ads I purchased and the results / hits / sales generated from it. Think /Lit/ would like that?What sort of things could an author discuss about their book or their process / life that would interest /Lit/?I did notice that MA guy was more successful shilling Gothic Violence and his other book than Gardner. Gardner just drops his book cover as the image and didn't even interact with anyone in the threads.
>>18637159A few persistent visionaries believe otherwise
>>18638735I would just let your ads go for awhile and see about getting an except or something in &, try and get anons to talk about you before you instigate. If you do instigate, post some excerpts and ask for critique. Are you the anon who is going all out on doing your own printing/binding?
Wow. This thread blew up.I was going to buy an ad. I can understand the desire to not have people shilling their shit all the time. But the book is published and out in the world and im just trying to get the word out.
>>18638760Friendly neighbourhood schizo, yes sir!
>>18639277This place can be harsh and mean but if you post your book with a nice photo and maybe talk about some of the themes or whatever, I'm sure people will take an interest. Congratulations on finishing your book and getting it published!
>>18639369Your posting style is very easy to spot. Best of luck.
>>18639396I'm going to be shipping out some paperback 1st editions to /Lit/ readers for review, if you drop me an email on my website, I'll write you back and get your details for shipping!
>>18639408Sure i will read it and make a thread to review it, you have put in enough effort into this to justify a blind reading. You will need to repost your website, i am sorry to say that I did not commit it to memory.
>>18637155I can see the old woman in her face
man wtf is this new captcha it's way too hard.had to refresh 4 timeswithin cell interlinked
>>18638078>hired shillsLets be honest most of them do it for free
>>18637159not one fucking cent, hiro
>>18638078>We have a general for aspiring/amateur writers,Had. The people writing in the general were purged by a bunch of pseuds. Now no one writes in /wg/
>>18641817/wg/ is a mean knife-fight.
>>18641823First it was the “animefags” but since they’ve been purged, now it’s “prosefags”. Pseuds would literally do everything in their power to not write and blame others for it. They’re the main reason why /wg/ has been dying now.
>>18641839Seems to me there are a lot of highly intelligent posters here who are incredibly blackpilled. I hope to help raise the positivity of this place.
>>18641867>intelligent posters>on /wg/Anon, stop being delusional.
>>18641877Sorry, my default state.
>>18638034I can't tell exactly what, something about the way you wright, stinks of redd*t and it bothers me so much.
>>18638152Is that your face anon?I don't think doing what you said is a good idea...
>>18639377Thanks. I appreciate the positivity
>>18637155Not really - it's a free forum for a now niche community, i.e. high literature. I think most people would actually read a living author if you post name of book, publisher, and excerpts that show prose. I'm skeptical of self-published unless it has some very good prose.Largely, keep in mind that we're becoming a more poetic society. Poetry, as a whole too, is merciless in its gradations.
>>18642496Hearing that, might not be the right place. it's a dark comedy/horror book and might not jive well with the classic lit crowd
>>18642524>American Psycho is in /lit/'s top 100>Effing Gardner is memed here all day any dayI think you'll fit right in.
>>18642496>Not really - it's a free forum for a now niche community, i.e. high literatureYou’re fucking delusional if you think this.
>>18638078Relatively new to 4Chan. Where do i find this General board for aspiring/amateur writers
>>18643123thank you, kind sir or madam