TAR 23 RELEASED

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3426022]

>http://theaprilreader.files.wordpss.com/2013/02/tar-23.pdf

Any thoughts, /lit/?

[Anonymous No.3426027]

I'd place a hot pan on that with only a mild fear of setting it on fire

[Anonymous No.3426029]

>make another thread when the first one gets replies you don't like

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3426030]

>>3426027
Cute isn't it. An editor of ours had it knitted- I'm assuming his girlfriend did it. had something of an odyssey when we mailed it to our photographer for some opportunity camerawork

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3426031]

>>3426029
the link was bad

[Anonymous No.3426032]

why did the standards fall so low?

[Anonymous No.3426034]

>>3426022
>Any thoughts, /lit/?
Lonely together's good, the other stories aren't that interesting at first glance.

[Anonymous No.3426070]

>Gwen and the other survivors have built camps where they practise symbiosis.

haahhahahhahahahaha

[Anonymous No.3426081]

Hey I remember an Anon posting the Jellyfish poem a long long time ago. Neat.

[Anonymous No.3426398]

Marylyn Tan - Curator Wanted - 3/10
Marylyn Tan - Stilts 4/10
I feel like there's something faintly distasteful about the style of these poems - first the "slowly suffocating" and mentioning of wrists just seems like a more eloquent than normal emo poem.
Paul Olexa - Twinkling Companies 7/10
Love the way this poem uses sound.
R.C. Betritt - Trunk Road - 9/10
Very nice imagery here. Kind of reminds me of the opening of The Far Field by Roethke.
Harry Cross - Jellyfish 6/10
Nice playful tone, but kind of feels a bit frivolous or something.
based poetry - i haven't said anything in a while 5/10
The typo isn't reassuring, but it's got some thought provoking lines

[Anonymous No.3426437]

>>3426070
>symbiosis
Dumbest euphemism for sex ever.

[Anonymous No.3426669]

>>3426398
Stilts seemed somewhere closer to 6/10 from my point of view. I guess nobody likes repetition anymore . As for her earlier piece, a little voyeuristic I might admit, but the structure and pacing is very good. It would seem to me that sometimes you have to shock an audience with gore to really capture their attentions

what did you think of fiction? Some of the pieces seemed reasonable

[Anonymous No.3426745]

>>3426669
if you have to "shock" an audience just to make a point, clearly you're just a shit-tier poet

[Anonymous No.3426765]

>>3426745
Even underhand tactics are legitimate if they work

[Anonymous No.3426833]

>>3426765
If they worked nobody would be complaining about them.

"i hate my lyfe
dead babies hung on lamp posts
fetuses rott
ogether into one"

Did that shock you? Did my artistic angst cut your wrists?

[Anonymous No.3426866]

>>3426833
that post sent me to the trauma centre

[Anonymous No.3426878]

>>3426833

[Anonymous No.3426907]

[Anonymous No.3426946]

>>3426878
Has Ward seen these yet?

[Anonymous No.3427508]

I actually didn't hate some of these stories. You should take this as an enormous compliment, TAR.

[Anonymous No.3427537]

Yes!

Will read it now

[Anonymous No.3427665]

>The Night is Young
I liked it overall. The writing was sometimes a bit shaky ("partook in asinine activities", "royal flush of opportunity for example), and occasioanlly some words need to be used ("Who would guess three classy girls *LIKE YOU* were out drinking?"). Minor things, does the Jerry Springer show "hum", and is it aimed at the middle class? Jasmine's dialogue is a bit meh. Also this is obviously a British writer and the dialogue doesn't translate ("hammered", "picky"). I wouldn't use quotation marks when you've already said "I thought", not to confuse the reader. I thought the bit Anthony stood on the roof could have been written better, just seems to jump into profunidty too seen and doesn't fit the pace or tone you've created. Nice story overall, terse and well-written

[Anonymous No.3427757]

>Eternal Love, Eternal Loss
Commas seem to be misused. Some sentences don't add anything and are quite trite ("a jovial time for some, a tumutuous time for others", "which thus led to dissipated energies", "sucking on sugar induced energy drink"). I think you explain too much, without letting the story tell itself, which slows the pace and keeps pulling the reader from the narrative and then leading them back in (for example, explaing her thoughts variously while we can kind of gather them in th e story itself, and explaining that the sea "mirrors" their lives, something which is suggested in the descirption, and neednt be explained). Do tears "bellow"? Some general hick-ups ("she replied back", "instensifies harder"). Overall it's okay, not my kind of thing and it seems like the kind of romantic writing which sells to housewives and impressionable young girls etc,but it has it's good points

[Anonymous No.3427818]

>Charnley & Leonard the Blind Man
I think the dailogue gets better and more relaxed as the story progresses ("sticking this poen in my ear. I never had a poem in my ear". It's nicely written overall, and I actually liked the poem at the end.

[Anonymous No.3427865]

This is by far the worst edition I have ever seen.

Usually you have a good layout, but this edition is fucken awful in that respect.

Shit poetry as always.

Hang on, I'm going to read a short story...

Oh god so much awful.

Tell me something and tell me true, is this truly the best content you get, or are the people running this shitastic reader a bunch of primates? Wow.

[Anonymous No.3427872]

>>3427865
Can't you trolls ever post useful criticism instead of bowling in here every month saying how shit everything is?

[Anonymous No.3427884]

>>3427872
I just did!

-Bad layout (which is the only good thing TAR ever did in the past)
-Bad selection (picking narcissistic bullshit I can't and don't want to relate with--If you're going to write a poem about driving through mountains, you better put your heart and soul into, not shitting out a 5 min free verse bullshit)

[Anonymous No.3427901]

>>3427884
Okay, but that's one general criticism and a criticism of one poem.

I don't care whether you hate TAR, I'm not involved with it and only read it when I come across the threads, but faggots like you always try so hard to drag the whole idea through the dirt

[Anonymous No.3427906]

>>3427901
check your privledge femenazi.

[Anonymous No.3427917]

TAR has overstayed its welcome.

[Anonymous No.3427920]

>>3427917

[Anonymous No.3427930]

DON'T LISTEN TO ANYONE, TAR. KEEP PUBLISHING, PLEASE.

[Anonymous No.3427938]

>>3427917
>>3427920
But why?

It lets /lit/ users (msot of whom seem to want to become writers and haev their shit critiqued) see each others work in a nicely formatted way, free of charge.

It's not as if threads like this once or twice a month ruin an otherwise slow board with repetative threads

[Anonymous No.3427943]

Hey TAR, who was that guy that left you guys? Did he leave because you guys kept posting gay shit that sucked and he didn't want you to anymore?

100% of the reason I never submitted to TAR was because I would be embarrassed if my work was ever published beside the filth that you publish.

Also, I liked your little nude apollo, thought that was a nice touch. Seems like you've done away with him now for some reason.

Anyway, you guys suck, quit because you failed.

Sorry.

[Anonymous No.3427957]

>>3427943
Watch those edges brah

[Anonymous No.3427959]

>>3427957
Truth cuts deep.

[Anonymous No.3427968]

2deep4me

[Anonymous No.3427969]

>>3427943
Did those editors really quit because they wanted to publish good stuff whereas Prole wanted to publish, like, lowbrow /b/ stuff, because it was a 4chan ezine, or whatever?

I wasn't around when it happened, I just saw people alluding to it.

[Anonymous No.3427974]

>>3427969
Sounds like your work got rejected or something

[Anonymous No.3427980]

>>3427943
I really didn't want to write this.

But I am that guy. I left on my own accord, and took my little nude guy with me (first thing I designed for TAR). We just wanted different things is all.

I still fully support TAR (even though I was mad at the moment of departure). Prole and the editors put in much effort (it is a lot of work believe me), and there is only this thread once a month. It should not be an disturbance.

From a personal perspective, since I myself got accepted once, I can say that TAR serve a purpose. For me it felt like an honor to be accepted to TAR (it was my first thing to ever be accepted to any place), even if TAR might be rough around the edges, but that feeling is still one of the driving forces behind my own writing.

If you feel your work is to good for TAR, it probably is, and you should submit it to other magazines.

Polite sage for off-topic.

personally i kinda liked lonely together by augustine lopez. Interesting structure.

[Anonymous No.3427981]

>>3427974
Why? I don't even write. If I did, I wouldn't send it to TAR, though.

I am curious about what happend.

[Anonymous No.3427983]

>>3427969
I don't know...maybe someone will enlighten us over the drama of this TAR slinging pit.

[Anonymous No.3428006]

>>3427980
>I left on my own accord, and took my little nude guy with me (first thing I designed for TAR).

Then you sir are the only person who has submitted good content to that damned publication.

I know you'd feel like you'd betray the confidence of your "friends" and fellow editors by giving the details as to exactly why you left TAR, but I can't help but ask why (perhaps you can give a "diplomatic" description).

Also, are you the only editor who has left?
Why did people leave?
Are you working on anything right now?

Also, I submitted a poem to a contest yesterday *fingers crossed*

[Anonymous No.3428019]

>>3428006
No. I have better things to do than hi-jacking a thread. If memory serves me right it was archived because of all the juicy drama. Look it up.

> I wasn't the only editor.
> Different ambitions.
> I am.

[Anonymous No.3428025]

>>3428019
You can fuck off now, hypocritical prick.

[Anonymous No.3428028]

>>3427980
>if you feel your work is to good for TAR
oh the irony

[Anonymous No.3428036]

Seriously, to the faggots who constantly come in here and don the "le fucking ubermensch" persona and act like TAR is a piece of shit, your anger and personal vendetta against this once-a-month thread really says more about you than it does about the quality of the writers or editors of TAR.

Sure, it's not amazing writing, if it were people would be getting paid for it or getting it accepted by literary magazines, but jesus christ being this hostile to amateur writers wanting to see their work in some sort of print and to have other people on a board they frequent tell them waht they like and dislike, and how they can improve, is fucking pathetic.

Just close the thread and move on you edgy cunts

[Anonymous No.3428044]

>>3428036
I wouldn't rail on TAR so much if they just showed the least bit of competency. It honestly appears to be the biggest fraud I have ever seen, a fraud that allows shit writers to say that they are "published", and half-assed editors to have resume fodder and bragging rights.

It's pretentious in the extreme.

[Anonymous No.3428071]

>>3428044

[Anonymous No.3428072]

>>3428044
>fraud
They don't charge money, they personally reply to each submission, and often give their own thoughts via email (I submitted two stories in the early editions), how this is fraud I don't know, they don't try and act as if what they publish is amazing, or that they are some sort of established magazine which should be taken too seriously. They try their best to give it a look of proffesionalism and format it in a way which makes it easy to read.

As for bragging rights, I doubt very much prole and whoever else edits it go to bars telling chicks they edit a magazine for a weaboo imageboard which everyone seems to hate, and I doubt, judging by many of the stories they allow (the tentacle porn one for example) that they would jump at the chance of showing potential employers what kind of stuff they publish, but if they do, good luck to them.

>pretensious
>Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed.

Again, show me how this is the case. Do they claim the writers who submit could be prublished in more well known magazines? Do they claim to pioneer some new genre etc which is 2deep4damainstream? The writers often come to these threads and ask other anons to asses their stuff, and thanks for them for it and admit they're trying to improve. That isn't pretensious, despite what you may believe to the contrary.

[Anonymous No.3428077]

>>3427938
Well first of all, TAR wasn't welcome from the very first issue. It didn't overstay anything. I personally don't like it because they're doing a bad job. An editor is meant to curate the content of a magazine, a magazine is meant to publish a curation of work. Any decent zine has a personal artistic vision it strives for, an aesthetic taste that embodies the standard and design.

TAR has little coherence, the standard is set very low, and the design is consistently in terrible taste, I'm not surprised Prole is unconfident in his personal vision because it'd probably result in a total pile of shit. Instead he just lets in whatever.

[Anonymous No.3428082]

>>3428077
This is a problem with most similar 4chan projects, like v's VGA. Being anonymous and the hate against tripfags, everyone is always hesitant to take personal control over a 'community' project. But you need to, unlike reddi, we don't have any voting system and required identifying egos to dilute our taste into a very easily understandable and forgivable level.

If you're going to do this project, you have to distance yourself some, make it a zine that's home to /lit/ and welcomes their writers, not /lit/'s zine. Of course, then the person who takes the lead needs to be able to find a vision that fits that, and if he can't, or won't, there's no reason to put this shit on /lit/.

There's already a pastebin that collects what /lit/ posts. That's all it deserves.
TAR should be released on pastebin. At least the design and typography would be many marks more tasteful.

[Anonymous No.3428085]

>>3428077
>wasn't welcome

By whom? Do you represent the whole board? Judging by the fact that many people here sumit to TAR and often discuss it in the threads once a month, it suggests you don't.

[Anonymous No.3428088]

>>3428082
What the fuck? Is Reddit filtered?

[Anonymous No.3428095]

>>3428085
By /lit/ you dolt, the general consensus was giving it shit from the beginning. When I clearly state I'm giving my own personal reasons, how could you think I was posturing as the whole board?

[Anonymous No.3428098]

>>3427917
>>3427920
>finnegan's wake by James Joyce is the shittiest novel ever. I can't believe people enjoy this shit oh my god stream of consciousness is so shitty I could write something better with my eyes shut. Listen up guys I am a professional writer and have published five books and an anthology so you kids better listen up b'cuz it's time for some serious shit. Reading? who the fuck does that man lol go to wikipedia and type "read this shit" and it'll do it for you pls send me five bux

[Anonymous No.3428112]

>>3428095
Then why do they get new writers submitting every month, and more submissions than there is space to print?

That doesn't sound very general to me, especially considering /lit/ is one of the slower, less frequented boards, and is constantly in need of new ideas for threads, just look at the front page now. If seeing this thread posted once a month gets you foaming at the mouth I'd consider laying off the pepsi

[Anonymous No.3428117]

>>3428095
That's a false assumption. TAR was taken with sceptically, but it followed in the tradition of Writers Guild Zine or whatever it was called.

[Anonymous No.3428129]

>>3428098
THERE'S NO APOSTROPHE
THERE'S NO APOSTROPHE
THERE'S NO APOSTROPHE

[Anonymous No.3428140]

>>3428112
Wow, TAR Defense Forces seems to enlist the dumbest people on this board.
/lit/ is a pretty popular board, many people think they're writers, obviously there will be a small number who will submit.
I don't understand the fascination with 'once a month', it doesn't upset me to see the thread, it's the project and writing that I find dumb.
And /lit/ already has writing threads frequently where people share and criticize each other's work, I'm not saying TAR is redundant but you don't seem to understand TAR's place on this board.
And being digital, there is no limit to the space it can print.

I'm not going to respond to you again.

[Anonymous No.3428143]

>>3428129

[Anonymous No.3428149]

>>3428117
I wouldn't consider "taken with sceptically" welcome but to each their own.

[Hermeneuticist No.3428174]

>>3426022

I'm still not seeing an essay response from all the "hard men" of /lit/ who disagree with muscular, forceful reading of texts. Did you essays shrivel up inside your body when you realised the dose of spunk you'd been fed?

[Anonymous No.3428181]

>>3428140
>being digital, there is no limit to the space it can print.

Sure, because printing everything they get would make it appealing to readers

>it doesn't upset me to see the thread, it's the project and writing that I find dumb

Cool story, then why not choose not to post in these threads? If they're so dumb they will sink down the pages. Posting about how dumb the project is every month really doesn't make you ubermensch or all that edgy.

>/lit/ has writing threads frequently

Sure, but copy and pasting something from notepad into a /lit/ thread doesn't make it appealing to read at all, especially when everyone is doing it and the narrative gets lost among other posters' work. TAR is a more organized way of publishing this stuff.

Medicated tryhards like yourself are the reason this board is often so unneappealing.

[Anonymous No.3428187]

>>3428174
wat

[Anonymous No.3428202]

>>3428187
/lit/ had a little conniption over my early contribution, but apparently lacks the stones to refute me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4W-iLT-U

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3428853]

>Someone else defending TAR for a change
Well this is nice. Glad to see people are still interested in the project
>Old Peter decides to post
A fine editor who deserves respect. The more I think about it, the more I regret how things turned out. But I can't change the past, so we might as well work towards the future. This is all I will say on this matter

Usually I don't feed trolls but,
>>3428140
>/jp/
>wwwwwwwwwwwwwww
And here I thought we actually had a real problem. So I guess you're the runoff we received by advertising over there, huh? Come to think of it, this makes a lot of sense considering the timelines for when this started. And here I thought it was an old TAR editor.

If you've got a problem with the release, be specific about it. Most of what you have said is superfluous ambiguities and makes me confident you haven't read more than five pages max. Distracted by all the pretty pictures? If you genuinely want to help TAR, I freely invite you to join us in discussing and improving the project during our next meeting - email us and I'll go about the arrangements Otherwise, get lost

And indeed, for anyone else who feels interested in helping out with TAR my invitation extends to all the rest of you as well. This is a group effort, after all. We've already started broadening the organization to include more people in the selection process this month, and would be overjoyed to include more- just email us ([e-mail])

[Anonymous No.3428863]

>>3428202
>trying to start drama over TAR
>thinking anyone will bother to fucking defend the integrity of TAR
>thinking anyone but the contributors reads TAR

[Anonymous No.3428871]

>>3428853
>advertising on other boards with fucking /jp/ being one
This is why nobody on /lit/ likes you TAR

[Anonymous No.3428878]

Get an editor who can fucking edit

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3428889]

>>3428871
Eh. We didn't get any submissions out of it, but the traffic was plentiful and the conversation entertaining

They even made us this lovely poster to hang on our wall~

>>3428174
Also, thanks for reminding me:
https://theaprilreader.wordpress.c/?page_id=1125&preview=true

We ultimately decided not to run it because people had such a negative reaction, but an essay response to your submission did arrive. Take a look

[Anonymous No.3428904]

>>3428889
>Eh. We didn't get any submissions out of it, but the traffic was plentiful and the conversation entertaining

>They even made us this lovely poster to hang on our wall~
This demonstrates a massive disconnect between /lit/ and TAR, if you don't want your shit to be the /lit/ magazine then fine but you should stop posting here (not that you post outside of TAR threads anyway)

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3428916]

>>3428904
One Man...
One message....
One Anti-reading Jihad

The TAR infidel

[Anonymous No.3428917]

>>3428853
>/jp/
I'm not from /jp/, it's just a picture I like that happens to be of Japanese origin. Here is another one, it's from the "Kaibo Zonshinzu anatomy scrolls".
>wwwwwwwwwwwwwww
I don't know what this means.

Why would you advertise on /jp/? And do you really think your campaigns there has caused enough new /jp/ posters to lurk /lit/ for one to catch your TAR release and criticize it?

>Most of what you have said is superfluous ambiguities
What more do you want me to tell you? The only thing I can offer is suggestions on your design. I don't have the time or interest to take part.
I already said that I believe the problem is you don't approach it with a definite vision or concrete standard. If you do, what is it?

>Otherwise, get lost
Why can't we have this discussion here?

[Anonymous No.3428935]

>>3428917
>Why can't we have this discussion here?
Because Prole's awful at discussing things

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3428945]

>>3428917
You'd be surprised. It wouldn't amaze me one bit if the same guy who had a hardon for going after nocturnes showed up latter to go after us.The first real shitposter (whom I assume if the origin of most of this) showed up the month after I advertised on the thread so it seems a plausible linkage. There really isn't much of an explanation outside beyond the editor we kicked.

Anyways, if I misjudged your motives allow me to apologize. I'm fine with criticism that has a productive utility, but most of what passes out clearly isn't and simply shows a bizarre underlying malice I don't have time for. As for "personal vision", most of what you've suggested is armchair expertise with no practical basis. Much of what we do is simply make the best of circumstances and try and direct them in our favour. We don't have the 1) time 2) money 3) renown to simply reshape things as we wish.

For visual design, I'd be happy to hear from you suggestions even if you don't have time to particularly carry them out. We have a talented compiler formatting, but he often does not have the time to alter things and the results are mixed. This is the source of most of these dependencies. Still, please do share your thoughts on this. The only "vision" I have for this is creating an open organization of volunteers where work is shared jointly and everyone productive gets a shot at inclusion.

>>3428935
Autism speaks!

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3428951]

>>3428945
*discrepancies
Damn you, auto-correct! Even if you don't want to take an active role assisting, we'd be happy to include a critical voice to guide us you know

[Anonymous No.3428952]

>>3428889
>https://theaprilreader.wordpress.m/?page_id=1125&preview=true
Prole, there's a space between Texts. and “, so it's both giving me two 66's and putting the second lot on a separate line to the quote.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3428960]

>>3428952
better? Wordpress has atrocious formatting utilities, so I don't like to play with it much

[Anonymous No.3429329]

>>3428945
>It wouldn't amaze me one bit if the same guy who had a hardon for going after nocturnes showed up latter to go after us.
I don't understand what you're telling me.

>As for "personal vision", most of what you've suggested is armchair expertise with no practical basis
I've lead a multimedia zine for a smaller offshoot imageboard, I killed it after 3 issues but I've done some amateur physical anthologies in the past as well.

>We don't have the 1) time 2) money 3) renown to simply reshape things as we wish.
Yes, you do. Every decision made is an act of curation, the problem is you don't have any overarching idea for the decisions made to follow. There is no direction.

>For visual design, I'd be happy to hear from you suggestions even if you don't have time to particularly carry them out.
Find a competent, willing designer is my suggestion. Don't accept shit from incompetent designers (or your incompetent photographer and knitter). It's not hard to steal simple design from other magazines instead of flailing around ignorantly. I meant that I didn't have time to be a consultant, not that I had no time to design your stuff. I'm not a competent graphic designer.

>The only "vision" I have for this is creating an open organization of volunteers where work is shared jointly and everyone productive gets a shot at inclusion.
Why would anyone want to read this? Why would you want to make this?
The answer would be "you wouldn't" because that's not your vision. You're clearly focusing on /lit/ which is directly relevant to submissions you get, the content you publish. The method of distribution is also relevant.

You clearly do not think much about how the magazine is directed. What do you consider your role? It sounds like there is no one at the top, maybe you should look for someone who will make it their own.
At least gather up your crew and collectively decide a specific manifesto of what you're all striving for with the project. What's yes, what's no.

[Anonymous No.3429373]

>>3428960
Yeah, much better.

[Anonymous No.3429430]

>Ideologically, TAR hopes aid developing authors...

Fix your fucking preface, drop that gayass nature shot and maybe people will submit

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429434]

>>3429329
TAR has always been a mix of opportunism and endless expansionism. My earlier hope had been we'd simply be able to exist as a reader-writer community, but it becomes apparent this is not possible. So again we are brought towards the pursuit of quality to appease readers and attract authors. Taking elements from our earlier approach, our methodology aspires to mass organizing. By including everyone we possibly can in the process, a natural kind of momentum flows from our efforts and combined interest.

I don't believe that in order to be a successful one must adopt a perspective outside of 1) achieving quality 2) Achieving support. We can never compete with the New Yorker, and do not even pretend to do so. We simply offer an inclusive adventure for everyone involved to take part in. Readers and writers gain a reasonable venue for their writing, and ideally gain access to criticism more valid than where they could get anywhere else.

I have written on this a fair deal on our website if you check around. Our mission statement also speaks of this. No magazine seeks anything more than success, each through their own method. Ours is volunteerism and the end is the same. There is nothing deeper than this to be found, so quit looking for one.

The knitting and photography we used arise naturally from this philosophy. We try and piece together the parts and make something greater. It doesn't always work out, but nothing ventured nothing gained.

[Anonymous No.3429438]

>>3429434
>TAR has always been a mix of opportunism and endless expansionism
lolno you delusional shit

[Anonymous No.3429441]

i haven't even read this thread because i think prole is just samefagging an argument with himself

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429443]

>>3429438
in what sense?

[Anonymous No.3429476]

>>3429434
>1) achieving quality
>2) Achieving support

How do you measure these two things?

[Anonymous No.3429482]

>>3429476
stop trying to figure out our secrets

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429485]

>>3429476
Define thng
>etc etc etc
>ring-around-the-rosy

Quality being the degree to which readers respond favourably to submissions. Support being the degree to which readers associate positive feelings with the organization. Really isn't difficult at all

[Anonymous No.3429540]

>>3429485
I don't think it's semantics because that's wildly different from how I would define quality or support. I would disagree that volunteerism can coexist with my idea of quality.

It sounds like your entire model is based on pandering to public appeal. Do your best to gain approval by the most number of people. Aren't you doing a pretty bad job, then?

>>3429441
>>3429438
>>3429430
>>3428935
>>3428904
>>3428871
etc

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429591]

>>3429540
raw public opinion polling doesn't work when 4chan has no accountability and can be distorted. Most of the time the best thermometer is input from aspiring authors and submission counts, which I know is stable and at the very least is something I can rely on. Our volunteer reach is also a very good gauge of opinion since we come into contact with reasonably verifiable opinions, which is also doing reasonably well. I am confident in this respect our status is reasonable

Regarding quality, I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this. Although the values are contradictory, I believe a respectable combination is very possible given sufficient mass and effective voting measures. The more people available, the more likely that a median and therefore objective view of release quality can be obtained. Assuming you're the sage fellow I've spoken with in the past, the model you've proposed of group decision-making and activity is a good one.

Most of this shitposting comes from one troll with a bizarre hatred of TAR that is never going to disappear. I don't have time for it and quite frankly could care less. Threads resemble a river in growth, and shitposting simply contaminates the water and pushes other opinions aside in the belief that hatred is the dominate part. It can't be avoided, 4chan is just a race to the bottom where five minutes of lulz is always going to outweigh any kind of meaningful discussion. We simply work with the material we are given

[Anonymous No.3429629]

>>3429591
>and therefore objective view of release quality can be obtained.
I think this is your problem.

>I've spoken with in the past, the model you've proposed of group decision-making and activity is a good one.
Likely not, I believe you should uphold your personal standard of quality. Everyone has a personal definition and approach to art, to achieve a consensus that appeals to everyone equally means diluting it down to a work that resonates with no one significantly.
This doesn't mean there cannot be collaboration, it's a matter of a developing and sharing a very similar taste and vision.

Mass collaboration will result in complete dilution. It isn't complete because it isn't truly mass, your audience is already fairly specific in the networking routes you take but your desire for objective quality is what heads it there. An example of objective art would be with unabstract, measurable goals such as profit or hits. It's lifeless.
I'm telling you to decide on subjective standard of quality and strive for that.

>Most of this shitposting comes from one troll with a bizarre hatred of TAR that is never going to disappear.
I'm pretty certain this isn't true. I think you're acting paranoid and defensive. I've noticed you come to rash conclusions when interpreting posters, you don't seem to understand english imageboard culture very well or are very intuitive understanding the posters. Twice now you've confused me for people with wildly different backgrounds than me, and a troll. If I were you, I wouldn't trust my assumptions on anonymous posters.

>It can't be avoided, 4chan is just a race to the bottom where five minutes of lulz is always going to outweigh any kind of meaningful discussion.
You really don't understand the posters here. I'd advise taking reasonable doubt with your suspicion and assume posters are acting sincerely, even if exaggerating.

[Anonymous No.3429636]

>>3429591
I also think analytical methods are inaccurate.

You're using
>input from aspiring authors and submission counts
>reasonably verifiable opinions from our volunteer reach
to decide
>degree to which readers respond favourably to submissions
>degree to which readers associate positive feelings with the organization

Not only does it feel strongly biased towards, it isn't at all representative of "readers". I'm not sure what "our volunteer reach" refers to and I couldn't suggest any better routes but I'd advise you recognize the faults of your current methods and not give it more weight than it deserves, which seems like very little.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429652]

>>3429629
>shitposters
If you've had any experience with our release threads in context, you'd see this be the case. Two years of experience under my belt gives me a very solid impression of how /lit/ responds and reacts. 70% of a thread is simply people taking social cues about how to respond from the immediate post above them. Because this shitposting is so rampant, there emerge natural errors in always identifying the respondent. You don't get anywhere on here by listening to people who don't want to discuss a question and simply are here to point and yell. See: >>3429443

Nothing constructive comes out of the boards that is not either cushioned or appealing to the most base desires. The reason it is a race to the bottom is because trolling is always the trump. While this does not have to happen and often doesn't, the fact is that when you attract a motivated opposition these things are unavoidable. See Nocturnes issue 2 (and the response) for a prime example of respectable editing that does not fly entirely because they attracted a dedicated enemy

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429662]

>>3429652
>artistic vision
You're right about dilution occurring, but this is simply inevitable and not of my concern. Further, I don't think I can cite an occasion where we have willingly turned down good content because it didn't fit our tastes. Not once. If the end objective is good content, we have a long way to go before things beak down into into fragmentation. The myth of the gifted artist is that they become renowned by appealing to no-one. While this is an enjoyable philosophic discussion, I feel it is simply inapplicable to anything but a romantic portrayal of the business of management currently. Like I have said in the beginning, we do the best we can given limited resources and utilities.

>methodology
all forms of input here are biased. the first two controls are obviously balanced with thread responses, but we cannot simply rely on what people say here alone to really judge. Every month we try and identify errors we made from the previous and fix them, and have in fact make effort to deliberately say we are going to try and change them. You can't win with someone with strong negative opinions. Why? Because most don't read more than ~5 pages without a predisposed dislike. You could give someone on of the greatest books ever written and someone with opinions like this would still hate it. Dealing with 4chan is very fickle.

[Anonymous No.3429683]

>>3429652
>>3429662
Okay. I'm tired of the discussion now, I've said I wanted to say and I don't think it's going anywhere.
I'm still convinced your intuition with posters and the way you interpret responses is wrong, one example is subscribing to the myth of the meaningless troll. Such as the post you linked to, I'm certain that his interpretation of TAR definitely does not embody those qualities, even if he did not want to discuss it. The fact that he "pointed & yelled" is relevant even if hard to decipher, and you've brushed it aside.

I'm fairly certain this is a fallacy or two
>You can't win with someone with strong negative opinions. Why? Because most don't read more than ~5 pages without a predisposed dislike. You could give someone on of the greatest books ever written and someone with opinions like this would still hate it.

Anyways, maybe share the conversation with the other members of your team and see what they think, maybe not. I'm not going to offer genuine criticism of TAR as a project anymore, though I might still pop into threads and sage and call it shit or review the works inside. It was nice discussing this with you. Good night.

[Anonymous No.3429685]

>>3429683
That's funny. That arm is of >>3429655

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429696]

>>3429662
I will say however, that the efforts of shitposting would not work had we not exposed ourselves with various errors and mishaps. I think someone in our earlier thread summed it up best - "a steady flow of small errors" or something to that effect. Most of these stem from the fact we're 1) volunteer, 2) don't have all the time in the world, and 3) communication problems I'm still trying to resolve. Problems always come with time, unfortunately

The errors we make I correct for, and try my best to control all other factors. Some things are out of my control, and I can't change that. We can only hope to progressively overcome these problems and rise to become a more competent zine because of it. So we don't take the obvious shitposters very seriously, because if I did TAR'd get nowhere.

[Prole !XDERDXUpqQ No.3429702]

>>3429683
night

[Anonymous No.3429713]

>No
> Discernible
>Talent

[Anonymous No.3429790]

>>3429713
>no discernible talent

[Anonymous No.3431672]

Better late than never. This wasn't such a bad issue

>The Night is Young - 4/5
Solid writing quality masks a lacklustre plot. While character feelings are well-defined, the dramatic action is quite weak.
>Eternal Love, Eternal Loss - 3/5
Often shows plenty of promise, but is marred by a painfully overwritten beginning. The ending is a real "what" moment as well
>Charley and Leonard the blind man - 5/5
This should have won the award. A very delicate piece that will appear slow to some, but it blossoms with supreme beauty and vibrance.
>If you're reading this; It's for you - 3/5
The beginning is so rough I nearly dropped it, but the ending really starts to pull its weight. The sequence at the theatre was particularly inventive. If the author had spent more time shaping things up, this easily could have been something infinitely better
>Lonely together - 3/5
The concept is neat, but nothing about the piece particularly shines. If you just focus on people you're always going to miss out on a meaningful continuity of surroundings.