/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.486805]

what are the most controversial issues in lit today?

[Anonymous No.486811]

What would be an example of a controversial "lit issue."

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

[_*_Trioxide_*_ !!fcA/1TZCq1K No.486810]

Vampires. Discuss.

[Anonymous No.486816]

>>486810
Ugh fuck. I've always made sure I took my name off before coming to these boards.

[Lupin !!jy31j2tvsli No.486817]

>>486810

Women bringing women back 200 years. I didn't know Meyer was Austen.

[Anonymous No.486819]

Issues are about whether to write good books or to pander to idiots. The later is winning.

[Anonymous No.486822]

post-modernism

[Anonymous No.486823]

>>486817

At least Jane Austen tried out different styles. Meyer's just squeezing the angst rag until it goes dry.

[Anonymous No.486875]

Post-modernism.

[Anonymous No.486912]

being conservative

seriously, if you write a book about dudes fistfucking dudes, it's ok.
but if you write a book about how gays are worthless, you're a maniac.

same goes to everything that conservatives had always said about everything.
family
feminism
abortion
christianity
blacks

etc

[Anonymous No.486917]

>>486819
Pandering to idiots has always had the far bigger market share. People who constantly nostalgia for halcyon that never existed make me fucking rage.

Shut the fuck up and write the next literary difficult masterpiece. Hope you've got a side job.

[cornbread !!hfF/ZHIVBKf No.486921]

>>486912
not very controversial that conservatives are assholes

[Anonymous No.486934]

>>486921
see?
instant profit

[Anonymous No.486941]

>>486823

>squeezing the angst rag until it goes dry

That put a big old smile on my face.

[Shakespeare's Sister !uMRFid.bpQ No.486938]

[Anonymous No.486944]

could you write a likeable terrorist and get away with it?

[Anonymous No.486952]

>>486944
yes

[Anonymous No.486960]

>>486944

Being controversial is some hard ass shit in these modern times. That's why having followers and viral marketing are vital to attracting anybody's attention.

[Shakespeare's Sister !uMRFid.bpQ No.486983]

>>486960
Writing about terrorists is overflowing the shelves of Tom Clancy's descendants.

If you fags thing writing a novel that's 'OMG CONTROVERSIAL' will get you published or famous, you need to turn off TV news and read something other then Palahnuick.

[Anonymous No.486993]

>>486983
>implying not watching a populist source of information and not reading Palahiunak, a popular, widely-read contemporary author, will in anyway help us get published by publishers, by their very definition populist disseminators of content.

[Anonymous No.486996]

>>486934
The difference between a book about about 'dudes fistfucking dudes' and one that says gays are worthless, is that that one isn't inherently professing a group of people as worthless. The answer is in your own example. Still, I really don't care, and people shouldn't be like "omg, people have predjudicicies and write about them"

[Anonymous No.486994]

I think the biggest controversy is whether there is some qualitative difference between "literature as high art" and popular writing.

I am surprised and happy that so many on /lit/ have already figured out the correct answer to this on their own.

[Anonymous No.487004]

most controversal would just be writing for kmoney v. writing for fun

[Shakespeare's Sister !uMRFid.bpQ No.487006]

>>486993
You're right.
I correct myself: Writing about 'LOL CONTROVERSY' will get you published, but nobody with a brain or any taste will want to read it, it it will find it's place in the dustbins and you will die unread and forgotten.

[Anonymous No.487018]

>>487006
>implying that most authors give a fuck about being in the bargain bin once they're dead.
>implying that most authors aren't trying to make a fucking living like the rest of the world.
>implying that you or anyone else on /lit/ have a snowball's chance in hell of attaining immortality through your written work by sticking to your non-populist guns.

[Anonymous No.487022]

>>486912
>seriously, if you write a book about dudes fistfucking dudes, it's ok.
but if you write a book about how gays are worthless, you're a maniac.

Heh. What? If you write a book about how an entire section of the population is worthless, you probably ARE a maniac. Pic related.

[Anonymous No.487034]

rabid commercialisation
critical cronyism in award panels
publishing house "clan" mentality
celebrity endorsements/authorship
ghostwritten work
television tie-ins
info-dump 'Faction'

implicit topics (never addressed openly for fear of backlash):
lower readership
publish-for-profitability only
a less literate public.

[Anonymous No.487048]

Religious freedom.

[Anonymous No.487112]

>>487048
yeah, not really.

artistic authenticity, though it's pretty much been covered by >>487034

[Anonymous No.487122]

>>487018
>>Implying that you believe any of that.

Harold Bloom's Anxiety of Influence. Read it. Maybe you'll learn something.

[Anonymous No.487152]

Today's controversial issue is pillows

[Anonymous No.487156]

well, my point about conservatives proved itself quite well

dumbasses

[Anonymous No.488279]

bump

[Anonymous No.488284]

>>486912
problem is not conservative, it's being fucking retarded.

[onionring !Rrxa7zePwI No.488300]

>>486912
sounds like you have a problem man. and it's not your being conservative.

[Anonymous No.488308]

>>488284

no it isn't if you're liberal and retarded, you get the nobel prize for peace or literature.

[Anonymous No.488318]

he edited