/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19834698]

Will we ever see the likes of Cormac McCarthy again?

I'm serious. Guys who worked part-time and focused on their writing and reading in the hope it may pay off some time down the line, seem to be a dwindling minority. We already know objectively that the majority of new writers today are women and that more and more non-whites are being promoted for reasons of diversity etc (a rapidly decreasing white population also makes it hyper competitive among whites to be the one they pick to publish).

With house prices, rents, wage deflation, gender relations etc being the way they are, I can't see how a writer like McCarthy, or a Kerouac, Steinbeck, Faulkner, Frost, Melville (i.e. writers who essentially NEETed or worked minimal hours for many years) can exist knowing as they do that by doing that they are today essentially condemning themselves to poverty and to obscurity either way. I don't mean to suggest that financial ambitions were or should be considered as primary motivations in writing, but it sure helps to know that if you do publish something that it may lead to a decent income (if only short-term), and potentially teaching positions etc.

[Anonymous No.19834714]

>>19834698
He looks like Barneyfag

[Anonymous No.19834807]

>>19834698
>muh non-whites, muh whites!
You literally see the world like a Jew.

[Anonymous No.19834814]

>>19834698
Working full-time and read every day and try to write every day and a white male over 30. I do appreciate all the charts of book recommendations /lit/'s put together and I'll do my best if the lord's willing. Part-time would be nice. I have a colleague that works part-time in the lab and goes to divinity school.
I think the resources are out there to provide a new vision for literary fiction in the 21st century. After talking to some anons here it seems a lot of people are holding their breath in astonishment at what the future holds and how we should be thinking about what comes next. Perhaps we could discuss the concepts that deserve to be overturned, what replaces them and literary techniques that align with those perspectives. That all is complicated and unfamiliar to me, developing style that way with a regard to a new perspective of the world, but would eventually be worth it.

[Anonymous No.19834820]

>>19834814
What does part-time mean exactly? You leave work at like 2pm?

[Anonymous No.19834835]

>>19834714
LOL

[Anonymous No.19834837]

>>19834820
No, I work 8-5, but I know someone that works 20 hours a week and I don't know his full schedule. sometimes hes there half the day and sometimes I don't see him at all. I think that is what OP means by part-time because this guy spends the rest of his week studying theology and writing.

[Anonymous No.19834848]

>>19834837
>I work 8-5
Jesus, that's part-time? That'd be full time in my country.

[Anonymous No.19834851]

>>19834848
Could be only a few days a week.

[Anonymous No.19834857]

>>19834848
I meant that I don't work part-time. I wake up, read four 2 hours, read another hour at lunch, work full-time then go home and try to write.

[Anonymous No.19834861]

>>19834848
No, he is saying he works 8-5, but has a coworker who works part-time for 20 hours per week, you esl monkey.
Im esl too btw.

[Anonymous No.19835138]

>>19834698
I doubt it, there were a lot of factors that no longer exist even beyond what you mentioned:
— His first book was cold-mailed to the publisher. That's done. Now you need an (((agent)))
— Straight white male, writing entirely about straight white males. That's done. We need diverse authors and stories.
— Edited and mentored by Albert Erskine. That's done. Editors now are all DMV ladies.

[Anonymous No.19835187]

>>19834698
Kill yourself, OP. How much far right propaganda have you consumed?

[Anonymous No.19835210]

>>19835187
Take your anti-anxiety medication, calm down, and explain which of his points you think are wrong.

[Anonymous No.19835222]

>>19835210
Literally every single point (YOU) make is based on pure assumption, hearsay, and ideology.

[Anonymous No.19835240]

>>19835222
You're just upset he's right.

[Anonymous No.19835249]

>>19835210
>and more non-whites are being promoted for reasons of diversity etc
Only the leftist ones are being promoted.

[Anonymous No.19835256]

>>19835240
How would (YOU) know that? Do you work in publishing? You are consuming media and then forming opinions based on your stunted ideology.
Writers who create anything of lasting value have always had to compete with the shit. Do you think Blood Meridian was some big hit when it was first published? Ulysses? On the Road? Slop written to make money has existed almost as long as "literary fiction' has.

[Anonymous No.19835260]

>>19834698
It’s not by accident that we rarely hear about slumdog millionaires that rise to prominence from poverty through literature.

The amount of time/money it takes to contribute something canonical seems absurd considering that real buying power measured through wages took a sharp deviation from rates of productivity in the 80s. If you didn’t come from money or are not extremely lucky to have been raised by professors, bought crypto early, gamble, then good luck. Seems like it’s very unlikely you’ll ever publish, let alone be read.

It’s almost as if our economic system wasn’t designed to facilitate self-actualization unless it’s immediately marketable and profitable to do so. It’s almost as if the increasingly rigid class system we have here is only exacerbated by the “woke” culture pushing for more representation without actually speaking to the material reasons why representation by marginalia has been historically hidden and thus do lip service to class-blind liberals and only work to maintain neoliberal status quo.

[Anonymous No.19835306]

>>19835256
The changing demographics of publishing, and the demographics of authors they're trying to push, are not a trade secret. Quite the opposite.

[Anonymous No.19835317]

Ostensibly “right wingers” are so close to class consciousness and it physically hurts me that ideological bounds will probably preclude them fully understanding their position.

[Anonymous No.19835333]

>>19835306
It's businesses trying to capitalise on all sectors of the market. Some sectors are more in vogue than others, so businesses focus a lot of attention and material on said sectors until something else becomes more popular. That's what is always was and always will be.

[Anonymous No.19835368]

>>19834807
Jews are some of the smartest and most accomplished people

[Anonymous No.19835374]

>>19835333
Not sure if you're still the same anon, but if you are, do you find it interesting that you just switched from "how do you know it's ideological" over to insisting that you know for sure it's economic?

[Anonymous No.19835389]

>>19835317
Ironically you're just outlining your own ideological bounds.

[Anonymous No.19835411]

>>19835374
How is it not economic? If publishing houses didn't make profit from their products they would go bankrupt. They are not charities, anon. Additionally, Capitalism with a capital C encourages unmitigated profit margins, contextually signifying that a business will always do what it can to maximise profits. If their market research shows Rupi Kaur is going to sell approx. 1,000,000 copies of her latest poetry collection, why would they instead choose John Smith's 700 page doorstopper that only 5% of the reading population will be educated enough to A) understand and B) enjoy? Every time a business puts out a new product they are taking a risk. Why bother taking the risk on something that would barely sell anyway?

[Anonymous No.19835471]

>>19835389
Class has invariably transcended race, nation, culture, and history. Jews have not.

[Anonymous No.19835482]

>>19835471
all of those things have sometimes transcended each other

[Anonymous No.19835484]

>>19834698
Are the great storytellers are working for television nowadays. If Dostoyevsky were alive to die he would be a showrunner working for HBO, or the russian equivalent at least.

[Anonymous No.19835715]

>>19835138
Half the cast in any of his novels are mexican

[Anonymous No.19835725]

>>19835715
Zero of his protagonists are.

[Anonymous No.19835738]

>>19835368
You have that backwards.

[Anonymous No.19835987]

>>19835249
>>19835389
>>19835482
glownagger detected, your disinformation campaign will simply be more effective if you stick to /pol/

[Anonymous No.19836061]

>>19835484
This. Novels are a dead medium. Videos and podcasts are the new zeitgeist, and there are plenty of talented Neet types working in that space

[Anonymous No.19836109]

>>19835411
>>19835333
You have (perhaps unwittingly) linked the declining quality of media in the West to our demographic changes. Since one person can only consume so much media, the market has to get dumber in accordance with the flood of brown people, regardless of how much money they have.
Save great literature by getting rid of stupid third-world subhumans in your country ASAP.

[Anonymous No.19836159]

>>19836109
>declining quality of media in the West
There is more top quality literature being produced now than at any point in history. It has never been easier to get published and find an audience

[Anonymous No.19836165]

>>19836109
not that anon, but it has more to do with changing market theories than demo changes. They figured out in the late 90s that white women with children make 80+% of purchasins decisions. So it's easier to market to a dumb housewife again(like the 50s, but lamer) than to the husband or son. This means they want to see 'safe' minorities(ugly women that don't threaten the pretty white woman lead) and less female sexiness in general.

[Anonymous No.19836191]

>>19834698
I think they could plausibly exist, but like him they wouldn't be known about until later. There could even be some of their books circulating now.
I do generally agree that it's getting less likely though, and I have no idea what literature will look like this century.

[Anonymous No.19836249]

>>19836165
Again, one person can only consume so much media, and can only spend so much money on it. The declining quality of media is explicitly NOT just a function of capitalism, but of the population itself. This guy
>>19836159
is correct in the sense that capitalistic technological advancements allow people to find produce and find what they want easier. The problem is that most people want trash, because most people have trash culture.

[Anonymous No.19836336]

>>19834698
It's possible, but seems less likely in America for a variety of reasons. Novels have faced strong competition from films in the past. However, television and streaming services have also limited the commercial appeal of more serious kinds of cinema. And music has its own problems, but there are enough old recordings to capture interest. The political culture in America is very corrosive, of course. Certain types seem hellbent on ruining their countries rather than cultivating what artistic possibilities remain.

I would suggest that an aspiring writer of fiction (or poetry) should make sure they have steady job prospects first and foremost. Anything that pays well and doesn't lead to insanity. Writing can be improved over time with a little bit of practice and a fair amount of reading. It's also probably best to avoid making any overt anti-liberal statements, if you want to elude the "enlightened" ones.

[Anonymous No.19836349]

>>19834857
>then go home and try to write