IT'S OFFICIAL THE NEW YORKER IS SHIT

[Anonymous No.4871181]

Steve Roggenbuck is the new Walt Whitman

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/05/if-walt-whitman-vlogged.html?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook&mbid=social_facebook

>Along with Tao Lin, Roggenbuck is one of the bright stars of Alt Lit, an online writing community that emerged in 2011 and harnesses the casual affect and jagged stylistics of social media as the basis of their works—poems, stories, novels, tweets, and status updates. Its members have produced a body of distinctive literature marked by direct speech, expressions of aching desire, and wide-eyed sincerity.

[Anonymous No.4871183]

>>4871181

[Anonymous No.4871187]

>>4871181
.

[Anonymous No.4871191]

>>4871181
>?utm_source=tny&utm_campaign=generalsocial&utm_medium=facebook&mbid=social_facebook

Why are you including this shit? It isn't needed to get to the link.

[Anonymous No.4871192]

>>4871191
Sorry

[Anonymous No.4871194]

>>4871191
referral link so op can make facebook bucks to use in castlefarm

[Anonymous No.4871207]

>>4871181
omg
he's like
sooooo sincere.
raindrops.

[Anonymous No.4871471]

Blogs can be written by anyone

[Anonymous No.4871494]

>>4871181
>let's pretend this guy in his 20s is as good as a man who spent a lifetime writing one of the foundational books of American poetry

Truly we live in an evil age.

[Anonymous No.4871524]

>>4871494
>Truly we live in an evil age.
This is just the beginning of the ride for you.

[Anonymous No.4871525]

>and harnesses the casual affect and jagged stylistics of social media as the basis of their works
>tweets, and status updates

Just another example of old media bending over backwards to suck off social media in a desperate bid to maintain relevance.

[Anonymous No.4871528]

And how much of this 'poetry' will be relevant in even a decade?

[Anonymous No.4871574]

What the fuck.

[Anonymous No.4871580]

college dropout: the movie: the book: the social media celebrity: the "poet"

[Anonymous No.4871591]

>>4871528
Who knows.
The argument these people use, as seen in the New Yorker comment section, is that people also called Leaves of Grass weird, people hated Howl and so on.
This makes them seem ahead of the rest of us, forgetting the hundreds of poets and artists who has made absolute shit throughout time, who haven't been deified.

[Anonymous No.4871592]

>>4871528
How much poetry from more than a decade ago is 'relevant' today?

[Anonymous No.4871593]

Is /lit/ jealous?

[Anonymous No.4871595]

>>4871181
>mfw his life will become a movie adaptation written by Shia LaBeouf and played by Michael Cera and directed by James Franco

[Anonymous No.4871602]

I hated him at first but his poetry is pretty cool

It's gooey and sentimental and all that but you know he's self-aware enough to know he's putting himself out there making this shit

Also he's pretty well read

[Anonymous No.4871612]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bR6uOsDn-Q
>my grandpas in the top 10 smallest cocks
>we're talking small
>ripley's believe it or not that is one small dick

[Anonymous No.4871613]

>>4871595
>tfw you will never be among the pantheon of awkward white guys

[Anonymous No.4871616]

>>4871612
wow this is awful
maybe it's because i'm not a poetry guy but this is pretty much the embodiment of 'lol so randumb xD'

[Anonymous No.4871623]

>>4871616
He's the PewDiePie of literature

[Anonymous No.4871630]

>>4871612
Sort of cheating with that emotional music, like adding Godspeed You! Black Emperor to a short film about concrete buildings.

it's clear that he is trying to be Whitman, with the enumerations and such - but it's so cheap, he makes some clever remarks, like 'your dog only lives once' and then tries to build on it, but it all falls short because he explains himself too much.

[Anonymous No.4871631]

>implying the New Yorker being shit wasn't already established as fact prior to this

[Anonymous No.4871742]

>>4871593

i don't want to be in the new yorker for bullshit like that. i'm pissed and disillusioned.

[Anonymous No.4871772]

>work my ass off in uni
>finally, get internship at new yorker
>slave for 12 hours per day in the hope of getting a full time job
>after 2 years of non-paid bullshit, finally get a job (no insurance, no security)
>boss says that we're losing sales, have to come up with a way to gain more % of young market
>boss forwards me mail from his marketing guy with youtube videos of some autist "poet" shambling through the woods, tells me to write about him
>write the piece as much as possible to his liking
>die inside, this is the opposite of what I envisioned working for The New Yorker would be like
>post
>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/05/if-walt-whitman-vlogged.html

[Anonymous No.4871838]

I actually just came on /lit/ to moan about all this godawful internet writing. And here it is, not even a minute in.
I love you guys, we need to stand in solidarity against this evil specter.

Honestly, call it what it is.
All of this is genre fiction. (poems, too)

[Anonymous No.4871858]

>yfw he gets more prime pussy than you

[Anonymous No.4871929]

>this is how mad people got at the literary movements back in the day as well
>the people that now celebrate these movements are getting mad at new movements

"oh muh social decline and kids these days i surely cannae deal with this" - some old greek cunt 2700 years ago whining just like all the old cunts of now and forever

[Anonymous No.4871937]

>>4871838
>we need to stand in solidarity against this evil specter.

Unfortunately we have nothing to offer as an alternative so our outrage can easily be written off.

[Anonymous No.4871941]

>>4871929
but the people decrying all of the literary movements beyond 1910 were right

[Anonymous No.4871998]

>>4871858
I met him, he doesn't.
He probably gets less pussy than the average lit guy despite his fame.
Also alt-lit bitches are ugly as sin.

[Anonymous No.4872005]

anyone who reads literary magazines as if they are relevant in this day and age was deluding themselves from the start. Genuinely, I have no idea why people respect magazine institutions just because they put on a polished face and slap on some horseshit signifier of "quality" like the new yorker

go read a book

[Anonymous No.4872012]

>>4871941
Calm down, Hitler.

[Anonymous No.4872014]

>>4872012
>He likes good art
>better call him Hitler

I guess this is how degenerate drug abusing hipsters justify urinals and Finnegan's Wake now eh?

[Anonymous No.4872026]

>>4872005
You can smell the desperation coming off those magazines.

[Anonymous No.4872027]

>>4872014
>wow how do you call this music? it's just noise, it all sounds the same!
>you call that a painting? a five year old could make that. it doesn't even really look like a person. this is not art!
>abstract? sounds like a fancy word for bullshit, why don't you paint a nice landscape?
>why is the sky green? somebody better git these hippies good

[Anonymous No.4872032]

Also if you look up the dude that wrote that piece is a fucking college professor and what the fuck do they know about quality. over analyzing pricks.

[Anonymous No.4872033]

>>4872014
>Finnegans Wake
>bad

[Anonymous No.4872043]

>>4872027
Don't think you know who you're dealing with here, hipster-boy.

[Anonymous No.4872047]

>>4872043
This image is what you get when you know nothing of art history. "art was better back then because it looks like a photo."

[Anonymous No.4872052]

>>4872047
>"art was better back then because it looks like a photo."
Nice try. Can't recreate ancient greece mythology in a "photo"

[Anonymous No.4872055]

>>4872027
>wow how do you call this music? it's just noise, it all sounds the same!
Merzbow is shit, and so is most of harsh noise get over it.

>you call that a painting? a five year old could make that. it doesn't even really look like a person. this is not art!
pic related

This anti-art era is worse than everything.
Everything has to be ironic and even the worst and less constructed thing has to have a pseudo-meaning.

Thus said, some contemporary art is awesome, some harsh noise too, and probably some alt lit. But this little prick in OP's link is just a guy with no sense of art and a camera.
And he is praised for being a turd.

[Anonymous No.4872057]

>>4872047
>>4872052
rekt.

[Anonymous No.4872058]

>>4872043
Stuff on the right looks a lot more interesting. Also top kek at using gaudy neo-classicist nazi sculptures as an example of art of merit.

Pic related, 'art then' and of actual merit instead of proto-photography.

[Anonymous No.4872061]

>>4872055
>he is praised for being a turd
Just like in the haydays of the late-roman empire.

[Anonymous No.4872062]

>>4872052
Except you can.

[Anonymous No.4872066]

>>4872058
Your tail is in between your legs, and now you're resorting to goal post moving.

You're rekt, deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4872068]

>>4872062
>implying that is

Listen, you're just stupid--sorry I gotta be the one to tell you. You're just a stupid mentally ill degenerate (who probably 420s er'day).

[Anonymous No.4872076]

>>4872043
>being this bourgeois

[Anonymous No.4872077]

>>4872066
You didn't even make an argument. You just said that stuff after 1910 has no artistic merit. I'm still waiting for you to back that up.

>>4872068
>ur stupid
Great argument.

[Anonymous No.4872079]

>>4872076
>being this "ironic"

[Anonymous No.4872082]

>>4872076
It's not even bourgeois, it's the worst kind of petit-bourgeois. That selection of 'good art' is like a 14 year olds conception of what cultured people like.

[Anonymous No.4872083]

>>4872043
>>4872052
>Turning art into some kind of dichotomy

Also
>>4872043
>Implying it's a matter of time.
Rodin is neo-classic, he's only a few years off (literally) from the modernist movement. Enjoy your muscle-y men and bosomy women though.

[Anonymous No.4872085]

>>4872077
You're rekt. Deal with it.

[Anonymous No.4872087]

>>4872068
fuck off, you know nothing about art
you probably couldn't tell a Caravaggio from a Rembrandt and yet you still ramble smugly on as if you have the faintest idea what you're talking about

[Anonymous No.4872088]

>>4872043
That Bouguereau is kitschy as fuck. Sterile and overposlihed.

>inb4 but muh skills

[Anonymous No.4872091]

>>4872076
>appreciating a cultural legacy and the history of art is apparently bourgeois

[Anonymous No.4872095]

>All these hipsters trying desperately to defend shit in a can, crucifix's in piss, messy beds, and paint splotches of nothing

[Anonymous No.4872102]

>>4872095
yeah, because that's all modern art is, right?

shut up

[Anonymous No.4872106]

>>4872102
Nice cherry pick dere buddy.

Also, nice denial of pre-1910 styles of painting this painting obviously embodies.

[Anonymous No.4872107]

>>4872027
It's telling when your only form of argument is mockery.

[Anonymous No.4872108]

>>4872091
>solely appreciating that which can safely be appreciated
>not the domain of mercantile bores

[Anonymous No.4872109]

>>4872108
No man I never said that I didn't appreciate modern art, I just said that appreciating older art isn't inherently bourgeois

[Anonymous No.4872111]

>>4872107
What's where to argue against? I'm not the one pinpointing an arbitrary point in history and denouncing all culture after that. There's no arguing against purely sentimental "back in the day everything was better" whining.

[Anonymous No.4872113]

>>4872108
>degenerate detected
>it's even apparent in your "taste" in art

[Anonymous No.4872115]

>>4872109
The poster who posted that silly pic solely appreciates older art, that is what the other guy was reacting against.

[Anonymous No.4872117]

>>4872111
It's not "arbitrary", there's a very obvious difference in the kind of art produced after a certain time period.

[Anonymous No.4872118]

>>4872113
>liberal

[Anonymous No.4872119]

>>4872106
I assumed that you were so utterly incapable of appreciating anything that isn't borderline photographic in its detail that it's the only kind of painting you'd understand as "art"
wouldn't even waste my time watching you deride Picasso or Ernst as if you weren't completely out of your depth

[Anonymous No.4872121]

>>4872117
Define the difference and then explain why the latter period lacks artistic merit.

[Anonymous No.4872139]

>>4872117
Les Demoiselles d'Avignon was in 1907
The Whistler vs. Ruskin case was in 1877
Artists started painting landscapes rather than religious figures at some point in the 15th century
but forget that it's got a history, art was perfect until suddenly people started to make bad art in 1910
"It's degenerate that portraiture became more abstract after photography became widespread, high quality and affordable! I have no idea why liberals pretend to like this hipster garbage! Ha ha ha!"

[Anonymous No.4872140]

Stevie Roggenbuck aint got nothin on Joe Peaches, heres what I think of Stevie

Stevie get wet on these peaches

[Anonymous No.4872149]

>>4872140
an this pussy ass bithc Jamie Dunmore can go fuk eachother up the arse

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4zFwyToywQ

[Anonymous No.4872167]

>>4872149
I been in this alt-lit game fer yeers men. I've seen em all come and go, if I counted on my fingers how many noobs have called themselves Yeats I'd have two hands.

Joe Peaches. Respect the underground. Live life. Carry on. LoV3

http://joepeaches.tumblr.com/

[Anonymous No.4872171]

>>4872139
>1907
>1877

Yeah, you aren't exactly making your point here and are closer to arguing mine. The fact that there were a few outliers that prefigured the degeneracy to come within the following few decades only makes sense, as there are always minor cases before an epidemic strikes.

Landscapes don't concern me, but there are examples of landscape paintings before the 15th century.

[Anonymous No.4872301]

>all these ugly white boys being hyped up
at least have the decency of picking a pretty one

[Anonymous No.4872304]

>>4871929
By your logic, the Scary Movie/Epic Movie/X Movie are the future of film. After all, most people hate them, so it must be good!
Sometimes, people call things shit because they are shit. roggenbuck is shit.

[Anonymous No.4872350]

>>4871181
>wide-eyed sincerity. (“language is so cool. i can type out these shapes and you can understand me,” or “Yay! Dolphins are beautiful creatures and will always have a wild spirit. I have been very lucky because I have had the awesome experience of swimming with dolphins twice.”)

Well played Roggenbuck. You've fooled those stupid boomers into thinking you don't beat your shit to facialabuse.com. You tricked them into believing that you don't derive intense pleasure from video games with realistic blood and tits. You've lead them to believe you aren't a hideous little creature spawned from a pool of ritalin, aspartame, and rancid hormones.

You have convinced them that they haven't messed up. You've mad ether think they've done the right thing. They will die without knowing it.

[Anonymous No.4872353]

>>4871623
>He's PewDiePie
ftfy

[Anonymous No.4872369]

>>4871181
>There’s an intensity and an edge to his work, verging on violence, which is at once terrifying, hypnotic, and completely moving

In a world of war without borders, in a world of global warming, in a world of impending cybernetic and biogenetic advancements that could change the definition of what it means to be human, in a world where one economic crisis has barely started easing up before the next one descends, in a world of resurgent reactionary, nationalist and fundamentalist movements.
In this world, where we live now, there is someone who literally described Roggenbuck as "terrifying." That is the world he used. He said Roggenbuck's vlogs of running around in the woods and talking about Robin Williams' sex life are "terrifying."

Jesus fucking Christ.
And the whole article is the same way. Is the New Yorker really this desperate to pretend they're relevant?

[Anonymous No.4872382]

Anyone else scared of buying into New Sincerity while its authors secretly laugh at you behind just another extra irony proxy?

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4872432]

So much anti modern art in this thread why did I go to sleep before it got good.

Modern art is most infamous for its relativism, which disqualifies much of it from serious consideration – if it does not believe in anything, what could it possibly need to express? This has been especially true since the end of WWII, with the majority of modern art of all categories possessing a very vague purpose of breaking social taboos, characterizing itself as degenerate art intended only to demoralize.

"Music has taken a bad turn; these young people have no idea how to write a melody, they just give us shavings, which they dress up to look like a lion’s mane and shake at us… It’s as if they avoid melodies, for fear of having perhaps stolen them from someone else.” – Richard Wagner

[Anonymous No.4872460]

>>4872432
Well, Evolakid. That's a valid point. But keep in mind that during the Cold War, modern art was used by America to flaunt it's freedom in the face of Soviet censorship.

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4872464]

>>4872460
>But keep in mind that during the Cold War, modern art was used by America to flaunt it's freedom in the face of Soviet censorship.

Are you implying this is a good thing?

[Anonymous No.4872491]

>>4872464
Are you implying freedom isn't a good thing?

[Evola Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ Kid: Th(...) !vKJYJAzBlI No.4872493]

>>4872491
>Are you implying freedom isn't a good thing?

Freedom is not always a good thing

[Anonymous No.4872500]

>>4872493
>psychiatrists
>gender identity disorder

That's not freedom.

[Anonymous No.4872502]

>>4872382
The thing is: why would you buy into new sincerity. It's probably the stupidest idea that was ever considered.

[Anonymous No.4872503]

>>4872432
>subscribing to relativism means having no beliefs
>a lack of belief implies a lack of need to expression

[Anonymous No.4872507]

>>4872502
>why would you buy into new sincerity.
Because you are so bitter and jaded everything you do must make fools out of everyone else

[Anonymous No.4872632]

>>4872507
I think it's the great ill of American culture being so concerned about status and the self and image. The need to appear good and liked and accepted.

Irony is an obsession only of American culture because everyone cares only to be in on the joke and not how good the joke is.

Add to this the obsession with feeling good where anything is judged by how happy it makes you and you get a perfect recipe for stupidity.

[Anonymous No.4872669]

>>4872082
this

lit shocks me sometimes, stuff like >>4872043 is a dead viewpoint even among old people

[Anonymous No.4872691]

>>4872095

>people give pisschrist shit
>its actually really beautiful to look at

dat fucking lighting

[Anonymous No.4872739]

>>4872691
Indeed. Didn't some crazy fundie try to destroy it a few months back?

[Anonymous No.4872764]

In appears to me that ITT there is some debate about the merits of representational natural art vs. abstract impressionistic art.

What happened to the idea that every era gets the art it deserves?

[Anonymous No.4872769]

>>4871591
People still call Leaves of Grass weird, people still hate Howl and so on.

This is a good thing

[Anonymous No.4872776]

>>4872691
fucking golden. one of the better christs.

[Anonymous No.4872779]

>>4872095
>defend Artist's Shit
the whole thing was made to mock critique tendencies of the time. If you don't understand this on your own you are stupid. There is literally nothing to defend.

[Anonymous No.4872783]

>>4871181
Isn't this just "Language Poetry" again, this time in electrons? At least this round of crap will die with electricity.

[Anonymous No.4872803]

>>4872783
when will electricity die?

[Anonymous No.4872814]

>>4872803

the heat death of the universe

[Anonymous No.4872819]

>>4872814
Are you quite sure our little niche is the only place with electricity in the multiverse?

[Anonymous No.4872865]

>>4872819

Very true, one can only hope it is the only one with a Steve Rogenbuck then at least.

[Anonymous No.4872879]

>>4872865
>tfw living in the only world where Steve Rogenbuck exists

[Anonymous No.4872952]

>>4872803
that's what they used to say about whale oil, but we still have Beowulf. This alt lit thing is old snake oil in new bottles. Name a language poet without looking it up.

[Anonymous No.4872988]

>>4872865
>tfw there may be countless universes where steve rogenbuck exists with slightly different annoying qualities

[Anonymous No.4872994]

>>4872952
Ben Dover.

[Anonymous No.4873021]

Lil B has been doing for years what this Steve Roggenbuck pretends to do and in a way that's actually refreshing and not just painful to look at.

[Anonymous No.4873107]

>>4872669
>lit shocks me sometimes
we don't really read around here in case you were wondering.

[Anonymous No.4873171]

>>4873107
We do but then /pol/ and /sci/

[Feminister !!F9QVQ82MjmE No.4873186]

>>4872085
Realism looks like a cartoon?

[Anonymous No.4873200]

>>4873186
Is this a serious question?

[Anonymous No.4873292]

>>4872879
>>4872988
I'm not sure which of these ideas is more depressing.

[Anonymous No.4873324]

>>4873021
You're missing the most important difference, though.
Lil B is black, and Roggenbuck is white. A white guy doing things is more interesting, reportable and noble than a black guy doing things. This is how America works (see: Justin Bieber).

[Anonymous No.4873383]

From the comments section:

>You can't separate Whitman's breathless enthusiasm for life from his masterful use of language and still call it poetry. Do you know who else seems have boundless, breathless enthusiasm? Tony Robbins—and just about every hack of a TED speaker. Roggenbuck seems to be to poetry as TED is to the traditional academy/exchange of ideas.

I think this sums up the way I feel pretty succinctly.

[Anonymous No.4873398]

>>4873324
Well art fags are going to take the white male over the black male because of culture.

[Anonymous No.4873410]

>>4871181
Of course the New Yorker is shit. It's for old people, that can't or don't know how to access culture. It also is like a Louis Vuitton purse for young people who would look down on said purses.

[Anonymous No.4873413]

>>4873398

Yeah right art fags love niggers.

[Anonymous No.4873415]

>>4873383

#TrulyRekt

[Anonymous No.4873420]

>>4872632

America is the only culture.

[Anonymous No.4873422]

>>4872464

It is definitely a good thing.

[Anonymous No.4873437]

>>4871181

This 26 year old reminds me of someone who has had a nervous breakdown.

Once me and my friends got high and happened upon the Al Anon North American Reunion at the Toronto convention centre, we went in and there were thousands of recovering alcoholics in there. They all were overly filled with a new zest for life, and a creepy positivism, it seemed artificial and insincere. This guy seems the same as all of those alcoholics.

[Anonymous No.4875487]

This is what happens when you give kids trophies for participation. I have read poetry written by people with Downs Syndrome and it sounds eerily like Roggenbuck and his ilk. The only difference being that poetry written by people with Downs Syndrome is sincere and Steve's oeuvre is a snide and sarcastic joke. Steve is angrily lashing out at authority, such as the New Yorker. Behind their back him and Tao are giggling and putting firecrackers up frog's butts. He is testing them and seeing just what he can get away with - how stupid he can sound - before somebody calls bullshit. Like many creative movements, it's a backlash against the paradigms of the previous generation, only this time Steve is using the heartless cynicism of his time to pillory boomer sensibilities.

In all likelihood he knows how to write a poem, but he chooses not to because the prevailing subjectivity would mean that it would be equal and comparable to the work of a child or a mentally ill person. Steve Roggenbuck's act is a double middle finger to those who judge the merits of poetry. He's not attacking them by being what they hate, he's attacking them by being what they love. He is exploiting the idea that there is no "good" or "bad" in art for all that it's worth. The older generations are too blind to notice, they still see him as a child - their child in fact. Anyone who grew up during the same time knows what we went through, how we think. We can all remember the maudlin sentimentality and forced cheerfulness. Roggenbuck is throwing all this back in their faces, deceitfully. He is effectively saying; 'this is what happens when you have no standards' and 'this is the grave you chose.

There is nothing new or sincere about this. It's a gigantic charade. If you wanted "new sincerity" y'all'd be reading erotic Sonic fanfics, not this guy - a man obviously taking the piss. Not to risk sounding like a broken record, but fuck the boomers. Their evil will be stench upon the earth long after their bodies have rotted away.

[Anonymous No.4875519]

>>4871580
As in, the Kanye album?

[Anonymous No.4875525]

Maybe this guy is but Tao Lin is anything but sincere. Being aware of affectation does not negate it.

[Anonymous No.4875537]

>>4872085
The problem with that image is that it gives the impression that realism is the base while any study of art history knows that realism is not the norm but is a later evolution of visual arts not dissimilar from expressionism or minimalism.

[Anonymous No.4875567]

>>4872095
I bet you're also the kind of type that defends Hitler's mediocre art despite the fact that he could not into perspective at all. Look at Picasso's early work - he was perfectly capable of drawing the human form well yet he decided to venture into other styles. I'm not a fan of conceptualism or performance art as there is little in the way of skill and hard work involved yet to tar entire periods with the same brush is dumb.
Photography might be down your alley since to a degree it has assumed some of the old functions of art, such as realistic portraiture.

[Anonymous No.4875589]

>>4875487
You are giving too much credit to roggenbuck.

He is a college educated person who went to get an mfa in poetry and got offended when people weren't praising his shitty poetry in class and were telling him that if he wants to be a serious poet he has to sweat it and it's going to be in pain.

So his reaction was "But I don't want to express the eternal wound of mankind, I want to write stupid jokes for my friends".

So he dropped out and moved back with his parents in rural maine, only to find out that all his hs friends have moved on and no one is living there anymore. He is a 20 something in the middle of nowhere, no way to make friends, no where to go so he starts making youtube videos and spending his days on spreecasts where he gains popularity because he is a 20 something wearing a pikachy hoody.

There is no snark, cynicism or bs in Roggenbuck. There is only his terrible desire not to be alone and his narcissism and his dumbing himself down to not be intimidating to 16 year olds.

[Anonymous No.4875599]

>>4871181
>Purposely aping the look of amateur videos strewn across YouTube, they are meticulously crafted infomercials for poetry

>Not Ideas About the Thing but the Thing Itself

[Anonymous No.4876033]

>>4875589
>There is no snark, cynicism or bs in Roggenbuck

Impossible, those things have pervaded the popular consciousness. If this were true he would have to be Amish or something. If you've seen a movie, read a book, or above all, been on the internet these days you've experienced snark, cynicism or bs in massive quantities. It's a part of everything now. He's being abrasive and annoying out of hatred and rage. He's probably angry at his own inability to escape the meaninglessness and absurdity of the present, so he has given up.

[Anonymous No.4876076]

>>4876033
That is one of the biggest lies conveyed about our culture today.
We are living in a culture of unabashed sentimentalism and twee.
With the exception of few niche groups (fashion + cocktail art world) everyone is painfully sincere.

These are people who will candidly discuss the merits of their favorite disney world, they will bring cupcakes and complain how characters in literary fiction are unlikable and how neil gaiman is awesome.

There is no snark, no irony, they are just nerds. They are the people that share the upworthy articles and get upset when a character in a story doesn't call a girl back because "she seemed nice".

They are the product of the process of infantilization of consumers, the eternal man-child, the placid consumer, the relentless conformist. All they want is to be liked, to not have any problems of the scary adulthood and be accepted.

[Anonymous No.4876082]

>>4876033
M8, you can detox yourself from all of that by listening to Palestrina and praying to the Virgin Mary daily. Don't let yourself be deceived into thinking that you can't do these things because they go against "the times", "the modern age". Truth is truth, even when it's unfashionable.

[Anonymous No.4876088]

>>4876082
>Truth is truth
What if the inherent absurdity of conscious existence means that snark is the closest thing to truth?

[Anonymous No.4876095]

>>4876076
You are.defeating your point. You're cynically describing a supposedly post-cynical culture.

[Anonymous No.4876097]

>>4876088
Snark is just ignorance masking itself as wisdom.

The spirit of wisdom is benevolent.

[Anonymous No.4876098]

>>4876095
Probably because he thinks he's on the avant-garde of culture.

[Anonymous No.4876104]

>>4876097
That seems like a laughably pre-modern way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.4876109]

>>4876104
It is. But once you realize that the modern world is useless because it was built on vain ideals, you won't mind being laughable in the eyes of modernity.

[Anonymous No.4876111]

>>4876088
I really have a hard time understanding the obsession with snark. As if people really can't take other people's criticism or hostility or as if the only reason why people think, write or work is because they are trying to obtain prestige.

A lot of hipsters and writers are snarky and will make fun of you without understanding what you are trying to say, so what?

The question of irony has any relevance only for those who don't see any value in their work other than public recognition.

[Anonymous No.4876122]

>>4876111
>implying I don't keep a postmodern diary

[Anonymous No.4876131]

>>4876109
Every era has been based on vain ideals.

[Anonymous No.4876140]

>>4876098
>>4876095
No mostly because I don't think cynicism to be a problem nor I believe that sincerity is a merit.

I just don't think that cynicism is that big of a problem, I think it is the result of a lot of self-conscious middle class people thinking like soccer moms that all of society problems can be solved with manners.

Because the critique of cynicism is nothing but that, a criticism of manner, asking people to be more polite.

[Anonymous No.4876144]

>>4876095
Do you really think he meant to say that cynicism can't exist in any form?

[Anonymous No.4876276]

>>4876076
...and why do you suppose everything is as you say?

Why do you think they try to be as sugary as possible? Because it makes them feel good. Why do they have this constant need to be embraced in a hugbox of pablum? Because outside it is so hellish, bewildering, and ugly to them. It has all the obsessive devotional aspects and benefits of religion, only secularized with all the edges, implications, and duties filed off.

They are only trying to pretend that all-anal gangbangs, gore, and fluffy abuse don't exist. These memories are implanted in them, forcefully So they bandwagon charlatans like Roggenbuck. How can they be unable to face reality unless they havn't already faced reality and had their eyelids severely shocked.

[Anonymous No.4876334]

>>4876276
There is multiple reasons.
But I also think that part of it is that they grew up in a very isolated way.
Most of them grew up in lonely suburbs and then moved out to college campuses.

They lived a sheltered life of alienated relationships, thus they have a very poor comprehension of human psychology outside the petri dish they were brought up in.

Also I think that media access can only illuminate this much. Even in the time of internet I meet 20 something kids, totally normal, not religious at all who think, for example, that casual sex is evil and that a character should be punished for having sex.

[Anonymous No.4876350]

>>4876334
>Even in the time of internet I meet 20 something kids, totally normal, not religious at all who think, for example, that casual sex is evil and that a character should be punished for having sex.

The internet hasn't been around for that long. Do you really expect millennia of culture to be erased in less than a single generation?

[Anonymous No.4876368]

>>4871471
Books can be written by anyone

[Anonymous No.4876454]

>>4876095
I mean look at what new york is becomig:

http://gothamist.com/2014/05/09/good_morning_sunshine_would_you_go.php#..

[Anonymous No.4876460]

>>4876104
being kind and wise is 'laughable'? jesus christ, you're what is wrong with the world

[Anonymous No.4876461]

Regardless of this kid's motivations - whatever they may be - the point is that people adore his 'art' because it's easy to understand, right?

Hasn't that more or less always been the case with schlock? Serious literature/poetry hasn't been popular for a few decades now.

[Anonymous No.4876492]

>>4871613
>white

[Anonymous No.4876513]

>>4876461
Serious literature has almost never been popular.

[Anonymous No.4876584]

>>4872113
kek he even reached his /pol/ folder for this one

[Anonymous No.4876613]

>watch his videos
>comment section
>all these chicks praising him

[Anonymous No.4876700]

>>4876613
>chicks
Steve will never be taken seriously.

[Anonymous No.4876704]

>>4876513
Ah, this old myth again. I'd suggest you do a little basic research before perpetuating it.

[Anonymous No.4876707]

>>4876704
Ah, this old myth again. I'd suggest you do a little basic research before perpetuating it.

[Anonymous No.4876709]

>>4876584
>Having multiple folders for you image maymays

Autismal

[Anonymous No.4876712]

>>4876707
>trying to give me a taste of my own medicine

Two words for you: suck it.

[Anonymous No.4876777]

>>4876704
Ah nah, people think it is a myth because instead of public reaction and mainstream criticism they survey the reception of marginal intellectuals or the use that certain classes had.

So because Flaubert was appreciated by a core of fans they say he was appreciated while most of the reviews were constantly panning his works.

Or for example with Moliere people think that just because the king made him his personal playwright he was appreciated when he in fact was constantly panned and criticized.

Of course there are exceptions like Shakespeare and Goethe but they are the exception and not the rule. Also consider that in the case of Goethe his most complex works were regularly the least appreciated.

But there is literally so many examples of unrecognized geniuses that it's hard to claim that it is a myth.

Rather the myth is that it is a myth that serious literature was appreciated.

[Anonymous No.4876799]

>>4876777
shakespeare is sort of the opposite... really popular but not taken nearly as seriously as he is now. people thought he was a great playwright but i think they would never have believed that he would be one of the centers of the western canon

[Anonymous No.4876816]

>>4875487
>There is nothing new or sincere about this. It's a gigantic charade. If you wanted "new sincerity" y'all'd be reading erotic Sonic fanfics

Made me lol


Interesting points anon, it just seems he is not smart enough to contrive what you have described. It fits with the anon talking about the recovering alcoholics who have an artificial new zest for life. I think Roggenbuck is not aware that he is very cynical.

[Anonymous No.4876820]

>>4875567

Picasso is shit.

[Anonymous No.4876822]

>>4876076

I don't think we are living in a culture of any one thing. That is just your worldview.

[Anonymous No.4876827]

>>4876513

>implying there is such a thing as "serious literature"

Stay pleb.

[Anonymous No.4876830]

>>4876513

If you've heard of it, it's popular.

What are you reading, lost scrolls?

[Anonymous No.4876835]

>>4876777

Wow, is it possible to sound like anymore of a cliche pedant?

pls be trolling

[Anonymous No.4876853]

>>4876822
Unfortunately it's not my world view because my world view is very different then what the cultural industry constantly produces.

It's exactly because the cultural industry produces products that are in contrast to my worldview that I'm aware of it.

Clearly no trend encompasses the whole culture, there are always trends that are minoritarian or on the sides or waiting to emerge.

But there are some trends that are leading and dictate the rules of cultural production. And in the US kitsch sentimentalism is what is happening right now: from tech commercials with ukulele to George Saunders stories.

Thinking that snark and cynicism is the dominating cultural attitude in the us today it means being disconnected from what it's happening, being provincial and not seeing the trends.

[Anonymous No.4876856]

>>4876853

>notice a trend in advertising - everything is kitsch sentmentalism

You don't what the fuck you talking about.

[Anonymous No.4876860]

>>4876853
>Unfortunately it's not my world view because my world view is very different then what the cultural industry constantly produces.

You're so special. Stay edgy.

[Anonymous No.4876875]

>>4876830
Just because it is known it does not mean that it is popular. You are doing the same mistake I was pointing out before: judging the popularity of an author by some niche that appreciates it and not by the mainstream reception.
Gaddis and Musil are very known and well considered authors in the academia but you will be hard pressed to claim that they are popular authors, they never received popular acclaimed neither in life nor after.

>>4876835
Now don't be so mad.

[Anonymous No.4876886]

>>4876856
Well then explain me how things are.

>>4876860
I'm not special, I'm just a foreigner to US culture and I moved here in my 20s. So I grew up with other values, other references, other experiences and even a different school curriculum.

Also growing up in eastern europe in 90s with the heroin craze, corruption, mob wars, balkan war and mass inflation gave me a pretty different outlook on life than kids in the suburbs growing under the clinton administration.

[Anonymous No.4876942]

>>4876875

God, have you ever used your brain for anything but regurgitating other peoples thoughts.

[Anonymous No.4876944]

>>4876886
>I'm not special, I'm just a foreigner to US culture and I moved here in my 20s. So I grew up with other values, other references, other experiences and even a different school curriculum.


That explains your ignorance.

[Anonymous No.4876951]

>>4876875

>Gaddis and Musil are very known and well considered authors in the academia.

Therefore irrelevant.
Only Europeans think "academia" means anything in 2014.

Stay pleb.

[Anonymous No.4876959]

so fucking what most people who are seen as /lit/ geniuses nowadays have been seen as hacks or crazies in their time. you guys are retarded in getting angry over something like this.

i mean fuck roggenbruck, but fuck you too for being such tools.

fuckidy fuck fucking fuck

[Anonymous No.4876969]

>>4876942
Whose thoughts am I regurgitating? Or are you just assuming that I am?

>>4876944
Well I've been living and working in the US for 6 years now and I'm fairly familiar with cultural trends both in the publishing industry and in the media generally.

But please if I'm so wrong please explain it to me instead of insulting me.

Or are you just Roggenbuck being pissed off at this thread after finding it by googling his own name. Seeing your vehemence and lack of substance I wouldn't be surprised to find out that it is you.

[Anonymous No.4876981]

>>4876951
Your point was that for me to know something it must be popular. I pointed out that it just needs to be popular on the fringes.

As for the question of relevance it's always a question of "relevant for who?" for me Gaddis and Musil are genius and extremely relevant.
Maybe they are not relevant for the public at large, but who cares about the public at large?

[Anonymous No.4877364]

>>4876969
>Well I've been living and working in the US for 6 years now and I'm fairly familiar with cultural trends

Please, you are embarrassing yourself.

[Anonymous No.4877367]

>>4876969
>But please if I'm so wrong please explain it to me instead of insulting me.

There is too much to explain, I would rather just put it succinctly and say you are an ignoramus.

[Anonymous No.4877374]

>>4876981
>Your point was that for me to know something it must be popular. I pointed out that it just needs to be popular on the fringes.

MFW you think you are on the fringe.
Stay edgy my friend.

[Anonymous No.4877434]

>>4877367
Ok, cool.

>>4877374
That sentence says nothing about me. It just says that for the information of a work or a trend to propagate it doesn't have to be held by the mainstream but by a fringe group.

So I know who Minor Threat or Reagan Youth are even if I have never been into hardcore punk or part of that scene.

Thus the fact that I have read Albert Caraco works doesn't mean that I'm on the fringe nor it means that Caraco is mainstream.

[Anonymous No.4877542]

>>4872167
every pic of sam hyde i find on the internet is like a little diamond

[Anonymous No.4877693]

>>4877434
>So I know who Minor Threat or Reagan Youth are even if I have never been into hardcore punk or part of that scene.

MFW you think Minor Threat are a fringe group....

top laff

[Anonymous No.4877707]

>>4871181
Who are they? Who cares and why should I?

[Anonymous No.4877796]

>>4877693
It's not a competition about who knows the most fringe artist. It's about the principle that to have knowledge of x it is not necessary for x to be mainstream or for you to be part of the niche of x.

[Anonymous No.4877802]

>>4877707
The New Yorker is probably the most widely read literary magazine in the world.

[Anonymous No.4877843]

>>4871181
>tfw you could have been a known and respected poet if you had only yelled the first things that came to mind for five minutes and uploaded it to Youtube.

[Anonymous No.4877861]

>>4872047
Not him, but the problem I have with modern art is how vain its themes are.
Old art tried to be universal, to have a sublime meaning that could reach everyone, to create an impression of the world/society and its hidden wonders and terrors. It was a way to denounce the reigning power, even.

Current art is mostly muh despair, muh life, muh irony or muh muh so clever right? and so on. Just vain shit without any relevance, an exercise in masturbation as productive as a date with your favorite anime girl.

[Anonymous No.4877862]

>>4877802

It's as pleb as Time magazine.

[Anonymous No.4877878]

>>4877861

Yeah this is very true, just google Brad Troemel, Post-Internet, The Jogging etc. to see how bad it is.

What can you do? You don't want to be so pleb as to think pretty scenes are the only good art, but you don't want to be doing shit like filling an art gallery with copies of Art in The Age of Mechanical Reproduction shrink wrapped with a bitcoin.

[Anonymous No.4877888]

>>4873324
Also, blacks are only allowed to whine about racism.
Anything else they can do will be called irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.4877917]

>>4877878
I don't even like pretty scenes.

The reason why those old paintings of biblical and classical characters were so beautiful was that they showed us something decidedly human that otherwise we wouldn't see because life is just life, not because they look pretty.
And not even because they came from a patrician tradition such as that of catholicism or the greeks/romans.

Being pleb has jackshit to do with appreciating art when it is good art.

[Anonymous No.4878022]

>>4877878
>google Brad Troemel
>pic related
Jesus Christ. I give up.
Where do I have to sign in to win millions doing horrible shit like this?

Maybe I can use the money to complete my toy collection, my guitar collection and my cheese and jerky collection.
Then I can finish my backlog before offing myself in a painful manner.

[Anonymous No.4878044]

>>4878022

Well if you read his artist statement/MFA thesis you'd get it.

huehuehuehue

[Anonymous No.4878059]

>>4878044
How long is it?
Depending on this I could actually call him an artist. A con artist, but an artist regardless.

[Anonymous No.4878144]

>>4878059

He has various blogs which can give a good idea of his ideas, sorry, I read the statement at a show.

[Anonymous No.4878189]

>>4871929
>"I surely cannae deal with this" - some old greek cunt 2700 years ago
>Ancient Greek
>cannae

What?

[Anonymous No.4878398]

>>4877862
The times doesn't have james wood which is probably the least pleb living lit crit.

[Anonymous No.4878407]

>>4878398

James Wood is the most pleb living crit. The guy is embarrassing.

[Anonymous No.4878419]

>>4878407
Not half as embarrassing as basically every other one (except maybe Kakutani, on a good day). Book reviewers are kind of terrible in general.

[Anonymous No.4878423]

>>4878419
Yeah he is, he goes on comments sections of blogs to defend himself. He is the definition of pleb. His taste is so pedantic as well.

[Anonymous No.4878431]

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/10/the-vexing-simplicity-of-neil-young.html

This is the article which turned me off of the New Yorker. I'm not a Young fanatic (or even a fan, honestly) but the idea that musician's output is artless because of a lack of poetic lyricism is one of the most asinine things that's ever been suggested to me.

[Anonymous No.4878443]

>>4878423
I don't think you know what pedantic is

[Anonymous No.4878454]

>>4878419
Kakutani is pretty terrible, she likes one thing and complains when she is not getting it. Also I tend to disagree with a lot of her tastes.

Wood besides being well read and sincerely enlightening on literature (his criticism works are pretty good, better than the reviews) has pretty good taste.

He made me discover Ismael Kadare and made me give a chance to Norman Rush (which if not to my taste it was surprisingly good).

I wish more people would share his attention and intelligence when talking and thinking about literature.

[Anonymous No.4878461]

>>4871181
I wish I worked for a magazine where I could get paid lots of money to write about anything.

As for whoever this kid, I don't really care. He's a poet; he can't be making more than about eleven dollars a year off of his work anyway.

[Anonymous No.4878471]

>>4878461
When I met him at a reading in bk two years ago he asked me if I knew of a job he could get.

[Anonymous No.4878476]

>>4871772
>I wish this was true

[Anonymous No.4878483]

Don't lump Tao in with this guy. Tao Lin is a literary giant, on par with Joyce, Dante, Shakespeare and Homer. And he's only 30. This guy is just a decent blogger.

One other thing, we all agree that blogging and writing novels are equally legitimate, valid, and artistically meritorious literary forms, right?

[Anonymous No.4878491]

>>4878483
You lost me at his being a decent blogger.
David Auerbach is a decent blogger.

[Anonymous No.4878493]

>>4878483
>jumpropes the Oxford comma rule in two sentences
Confirmed master troll

[Anonymous No.4878495]

>>4878483
Oh, totally. Youtube vlogs are mainstream, tumblr is avant-garde, and posting comments on news articles is the underground.

[Anonymous No.4878497]

>>4878443

m8 I don't think you do if you don't think James Wood is.

[Anonymous No.4878501]

>>4878454

Is that you James? He is a charlatan, a failed writer that really has no right to be critiquing anyone's work.

[Anonymous No.4878502]

People who look at blogging as a "lower" literary medium than print are the worst kinds of intellectual luddites.

[Anonymous No.4878505]

>>4878431
>http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/10/the-vexing-simplicity-of-neil-young.html


I say, it is so vexing!

What a fucking ridiculous article.

[Anonymous No.4878508]

>>4878497
I think you just read that word in a post from htmlgiant, I advise you to check a dictionary before using new words.

[Anonymous No.4878523]

>>4878431

From that article:

"He could only talk about what he felt or had seen or thought."

Top laff

[Anonymous No.4878528]

>>4878508

I suggest you use a dictionary before correcting people on words.

[Anonymous No.4878529]

>>4878501
Why is he a charlatan? I don't think he swindles or abuses anyone's confidence.

Also it is a well known fact that not all critics are good novelists and not all good novelists are good critics.

Eric Auerbach was an excellent critic but never wrote a novel. Tolstoy was an excellent writer but not the best literary critic.

[Anonymous No.4878532]

>>4878523
>or thought
Top wut. The first two I understand; solipsistic art is no fun. But how can go beyond his own thoughts? If he talks about it he thinks about it.

[Anonymous No.4878535]

>>4878502
Indeed.

We should be targeting the true lowest form of writing life on earth.

Journalists.

[Anonymous No.4878540]

>>4878529

He definitely does. His greatest hoax is getting people to believe that he is a legitimate critic.

[Anonymous No.4878543]

>>4878431

to be fair his autobiography was fucking awful

[Anonymous No.4878545]

>>4878532
>The first two I understand; solipsistic art is no fun.

He was referring to when talking to him, which is even more ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4878549]

>>4878529
>Also it is a well known fact that not all critics are good novelists

That's bullshit, something a critic would say. If they so much about what makes something good, they should do it themselves.

As Dylan says "critics are fucking pussies."

[Anonymous No.4878550]

>>4878540
Why is he not legitimate?
I read his books, I read books he reviewed and he seemed an insightful intelligent person.
Why was I duped.

[Anonymous No.4878553]

>>4871612
i wonder what he'd shout into the camera if he stumbled upon his dad sucking another guys dick

[Anonymous No.4878554]

>>4878528
you might not be pedantic but you are certainly banausic

[Anonymous No.4878558]

>>4878543

"He apparently had no examples of language carrying complicated thoughts or feelings, the way they are carried in the poems of writers such as Philip Levine or William Butler Yeats or the prose of a writer such as Isak Dinesen. The words Young writes fit his songs, often aptly and forcefully, but they are nothing like as elegant as his melodies.He apparently had no examples of language carrying complicated thoughts or feelings, the way they are carried in the poems of writers such as Philip Levine or William Butler Yeats or the prose of a writer such as Isak Dinesen. The words Young writes fit his songs, often aptly and forcefully, but they are nothing like as elegant as his melodies."

They criticise his lyrics.

It's stupid, writing lyrics is entirely different thing, it's about how words sounds, rhythm, melody. I can't believe this writer doesn't get that.
"YA YA YA" can be a good lyric.

Plebtier article.

[Anonymous No.4878560]

>>4878549
I may sit down and know everything about what it takes to be a good boxer and I might be able to judge a good boxer but that does not mean that I will be a good boxer.

[Anonymous No.4878566]

>>4878550

Because, you found him intelligent and insightful.

[Anonymous No.4878573]

>>4878554

I advise you to check a dictionary before using new words.

[Anonymous No.4878576]

>>4878560

If you trained hard their is no reason you shouldn't be, unless you are too pussy to get in the ring.

[Anonymous No.4878587]

>>4878566
And why shouldn't I find him intelligent and insightful?

[Anonymous No.4878588]

>>4878549
So you're a critic then.

[Anonymous No.4878594]

>>4878576
Studying literary theory and criticism is like watching fights on tv and reading books about them.

You can judge a fighter's quality if you study a lot, but you can't learn to fight just by watching fights on tv.

[Anonymous No.4878596]

>>4878587

I'm not going to change your mind. You like what you like.

[Anonymous No.4878602]

What is the point of not liking everything?

[Anonymous No.4878605]

>>4878594

But you really don't know shit, because you have never been in the ring.

[Anonymous No.4878608]

>>4878594

I really like this analogy btw.

[Anonymous No.4878615]

>>4878596

>I'm not going to change your mind. You like what you like.
>You're still an uneducated swine brainwashed by the lamestream liberal Jewish media who is completely incapable of appreciating the arts even if you also enjoy things I like in addition to the one thing I don't like

[Anonymous No.4878623]

>>4878615

haha

[Anonymous No.4878633]

>>4878596
Who knows, maybe you will. I'm open to the possibility.
Everyone is so certain that to change anyone's mind is impossible that I can never get a second opinion on anything.

The only people I read commenting substantially on woods are the guys at N+1 and even them at the end got to the same old "but james you mostly like white dead man!" as they do with harold bloom.

So another perspective would be useful. Maybe next time I read him I'll agree with you and see the cracks on the wall.

[Anonymous No.4878639]

>>4878615
Or

>you like what you like because you have shitty taste

[Anonymous No.4878642]

>>4878639

But what if hard determinism is true?

[Anonymous No.4878647]

>>4878639
>>4878615

Well criticism is not a question of a taste. It's a question of how the information compares in regard a certain object.

There is good criticism on shitty books and there is bad criticism on good books.

Only if you like the shitty books or you dislike the good books you have bad taste.

[Anonymous No.4878651]

>>4878633

http://www.themillions.com/2011/11/the-disappointment-author-lethem-v-wood.html

[Anonymous No.4878656]

>>4878647
>Well criticism is not a question of a taste.

C'mon m8 as much as we would all like to believe it, that's not entirely true.

[Anonymous No.4878663]

>>4878651

James Wood starts commenting, highly embarrassing for him.

[Anonymous No.4878665]

>>4878647

What if I enjoy Twilight and In Search of Lost Time (or whatever you consider good) at the same time?

[Anonymous No.4878668]

>>4878665

That's allowed. It's 2014, only publications like the New Yorker think there is still a distinction between high and low brow.

[Anonymous No.4878699]

>>4878398
Daniel Mendelssohn is better.

[Anonymous No.4878702]

>>4878651
>http://www.themillions.com/2011/11/the-disappointment-author-lethem-v-wood.html

But this is a positive comment on wood.

[Anonymous No.4878711]

>>4878699
Not enough Flaubert and Blanchot.
I admit I'm partial to woods because those two are probably my favorite writers with celine.

[Anonymous No.4880354]

>>4873413
Someone tells me you haven't hung around the art crowd. It's white as fuck, and anything produced by someone of color that isn't a commentary on race throws them way the fuck off.

[Anonymous No.4880400]

>>4880354
>that isn't a commentary on race
so it's actually white people's fault that black people only talk about that?
what a novel concept

[Anonymous No.4880692]

>>4878398
>>4878407
>>4878419
>>4878423
>>4878454

Wood isn't really a pleb but his tastes run a little too conservative for me. Kakutani is just awful.

[Anonymous No.4880729]

>>4872005
What about the Paris Review?

[Anonymous No.4880738]

>>4871181

Wow, this guy is honestly brilliant. Really well-executed and creative stuff.

[Anonymous No.4880766]

>>4880738
yeah, but why?

He doesn't even care enough about his work to check his spelling and grammer, why should I?

[Anonymous No.4880774]

>>4872691
iktf
i actually like piss christ

[Anonymous No.4880778]

>>4871494
>associating high-tier poets with contemporary trash
>welcome to the American Literature Landscape
>no tact and reserve
>no dignity and standards

[Anonymous No.4880909]

>>4872085
>tfw no dada-art nouveau

[Anonymous No.4881629]

>>4880729
I literally forget the fiction in any issue of the Paris Review the day after I read it.

Paris Review's interviews are still solid.

[Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk No.4881669]

>>4872005
The two copies of electric literature I've read were pretty solid. Same goes for the stuff in black warrior