/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6037156]

>main character is a writer

[Anonymous No.6037162]

>characters talk only in an unreadable approximation of slang

[Anonymous No.6037181]

>main character has a profession related to the arts

[Anonymous No.6037224]

There's /lit/erally nothing wrong with any of this.

[Anonymous No.6037269]

>>6037224
It's masturbatory and fails to accomplish the purposes of literature. You can't make literature about literature. It has to be about something else. Writer can't write for other writers. It's question-begging logical fallacy.

[Anonymous No.6037276]

>>6037269
>purposes of littature
Oh boy, here we go.

[Anonymous No.6037284]

>main character

[Anonymous No.6037288]

>main character is white

[Anonymous No.6037292]

>book has characters

[Anonymous No.6037296]

>>6037269
>Writer can't write for other writers
>the field of the main character determines the target audience

Pls kill self

[Anonymous No.6037300]

>>6037269
>It's question-begging logical fallacy.

The main character being a writer doesn't necessarily mean the book is about writing. Also, I don't see how the logical fallacy applies here.

[Anonymous No.6037302]

>main character is not a young white man, or an old white man talking about when he was young

[Anonymous No.6037306]

>contains /lit/ approved characters

[Anonymous No.6037319]

>>6037306

>author killed himself

[Anonymous No.6037324]

>main character is unexperienced yet talented individual who in the end overcomes the obstacle using his superior wit and by finally finding himself

[Anonymous No.6037327]

>>6037319
kek

[Anonymous No.6037332]

>>6037269
>You can't make literature about literature

So large amounts of Modernist and Postmodernist fiction isn't literature?

[Anonymous No.6037334]

>>6037269
But writers writing about literature is what created the romantic myth of the writer and is the only reason you want to be a writer.

[Anonymous No.6037335]

>>6037300
Think about the first books ever written and the invention of literature. They were written to fulfil some human needs that got nothing to do with literature. Literature cannot be about itself, it is not it's own purpose, it was supposed to serve people, people that are not writing books.

[Anonymous No.6037341]

>contains people
>contains animals
>happens on Earth
>happens off Earth
>is surrealist
>is realist
>is genre
>is literary
>is hardcover
>is paperback
>references the Greeks
>author(s) embarrassingly unaware of the Greeks
>uses adjectives
>uses commas
>uses periods
>uses any punctuation
>uses verbs
>uses nouns
>has pictures
>has no pictures
>tries to pretend that letters are pictures
>has a dead bug squished inside
>is /lit/ approved
>is unknown on /lit/
>is an underrated classic
>is an overrated new book
>is an underrated overrated adaption of new classic
>was written by a gay man
>was written by a gay woman
>was written by filthee ameddikan
>no glot clom fliday
>was written by a heterosexual
>is liked on tumblr
>is liked on reddit
>is liked on facebook
>is liked on democraticunderground
>has sex scenes in which an orgasm is not described with an allusion to The Book of Revelation
>has a rubber ducky sized trilby and/or fedora wrapped in cellophane and taped to the back of the book
>is signed by an author in cursive with the phrase "muh autograph"
>is easy to read
>is hard to read
>is readable
>is a book

[Anonymous No.6037345]

>>6037334
Which is stupid and sick. That means literature is useless and just an illusion.

[Anonymous No.6037346]

>main character is a teacher
>n-not a self-insert

I can't remember any main character who had a physical job.

[Anonymous No.6037361]

>>6037269
>Writer can't

Writers can do whatever the hell they want you fucking hipster faggot.

[Anonymous No.6037362]

>>6037269
Literature has historically been described as fiction which is "about itself"

[Anonymous No.6037370]

>>6037335
The first works of literature were metafictional. Metafiction is essential to literature. If you think literature about literature isn't literature, you don't know what literature is.

[Anonymous No.6037372]

>>6037332
>So large amounts of Modernist and Postmodernist fiction isn't literature?

Perhaps. Perhaps it's degenerate literature for decadent societies. Artist forgot about the common man and fell in love with themselves, began writing for themselves and about themselves, things that the non-writer can't relate to authentically and has to force himself to pretend he likes it, thus alienating himself from his real conscience. Through postmodernism, people stopped looking toimproving their lives by reading, instead they emptied their lifes of it's authentic content and started making their lives about literature. People do not read in order to live better, they live in order to read. They call that romantic, this art pour art bullshit.

[Anonymous No.6037378]

>>6037345
It doesn't mean that at all.

[Anonymous No.6037379]

this >>6037341

[Anonymous No.6037381]

>>6037341
That's a cool post.

[Anonymous No.6037384]

>>6037156
Main poster has no purpose by creating this thread. Called it.

[Anonymous No.6037392]

>>6037345
>just an illusion
how clueless are you?

[Anonymous No.6037394]

>>6037372
>people stopped looking toimproving their lives by reading

Ah literature and moral instruction. Moral instruction being the purpose of literature was an antiquated idea prior to post-modernism. Even during Samuel Johnson's time when that was the universally understood purpose of literature there were guys like Jonathan Swift who used it to satirize society, not offer moral guidance or anything.

[Anonymous No.6037396]

>>6037372
you sound like a fucking hack who got an A in his 20th century lit class and believe that entitles your opinion to some degree of worth

[Anonymous No.6037399]

Literature is useless the same way art's useless. And by that I'm not saying literature is not a form of art. But I am right. Art as a whole has no objective role. Deal with it. Move on.

[Anonymous No.6037404]

>>6037372
>Artist forgot about the common man and fell in love with themselves

Writer's have been writing about writers long before post-modernism.

David Copperfield.

[Anonymous No.6037410]

>>6037361
>Writers can do whatever the hell they want you fucking hipster faggot.

Obviously, like they're free to kill themselves by eating shit. That doesn't mean it's OK. When I'm saying they can't do this or that, I mean that I wouldn't want to live in society were books were like that, I meant that I am of the opinion that, those kind of books are waste of time and bad food for the spirit in the world I'd like to live in.

[Anonymous No.6037415]

>>6037399
Art has a role by its basic existence.

[Anonymous No.6037432]

>>6037415
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.6037437]

>>6037410
Then don't read them. I don't spend my time reading shit books, any more than I spend my time looking at shit art, whining about what other people do just makes you sound like a jaded faggot.

[Anonymous No.6037449]

>>6037432
How so?

[Anonymous No.6037451]

>>6037156
what about something like Notes From The Underground, where the main character acknowledges that he is writing the story? it's different from merely being a first person narration.

[Anonymous No.6037458]

>>6037449
the guy from >>6037415 is wrong, that's all

[Anonymous No.6037479]

>>6037451
Yeah that is more OK because the story is clearly not an aesthetic treatise or a hagiography of the artist, it's about some universal humane issues, but the stick is still pretty distracting and annoying.

[Anonymous No.6037509]

>>6037399
How the hell is art useless? Art is the personification of consciousness. Art is useless in the same way the universe is useless.

[Anonymous No.6037512]

>I will never make my main character a writer, such as myself

[Anonymous No.6037517]

>>6037509
>Art is the personification of consciousness.
How is that useful? There's nothing wrong in admiring art, but trying to instill meaning into something that is barely real is not a bit productive.

[Anonymous No.6037521]

>people who write about characters resembling themselves
>people who write scenery resembling their surroundings
>people who use words because they've seen others use them
>people who model their characters after anything at all they've seen in real life

[Anonymous No.6037524]

>>6037517
The ability to create art is what makes is essentially human. It separates us conciously from the animals. More often than not art propels science. Science is the only reason you're posting on a Peloponnesian drawing board right now.

[Anonymous No.6037529]

>writer is so shit and so boring the only thing he knows how to write about is writing and being a writer

[Anonymous No.6037532]

>>6037521
>Charles Dickens
>Mark Twain

[Anonymous No.6037536]

>>6037524
>The ability to create art is what makes is essentially human.
I guess you meant "us" there, right? Being conscious is what makes different from animals. That comes before being able of producing art.

[Anonymous No.6037541]

>>6037529
OP here: I love you. That's exactly what's happening with that kind of books.

[Anonymous No.6037543]

>>6037372
>it's degenerate

Aaaand stopped reading there.

[Anonymous No.6037592]

>>6037536
Right, but I'm willing to bet that Art was essential in becoming concious of our consciousness.

[Anonymous No.6037615]

>>6037521
you feel this way because writing about eating hotpockets and collecting jizz in jars seems pointless to you.
it is.

[Anonymous No.6037620]

>>6037592
How would you be able to produce art unconsciously? Art comes from inspiration and work, both of them need a counscious mind. Besides, how can you not be conscious that you're conscious? That's self contradictory.

[Anonymous No.6037751]

>>6037521

>the main character is described in detail
>the description is spot on with the photo of the author

[Anonymous No.6037783]

>>6037362
I know you want to argue with that guy, but most literature has been about something extraliterary. Of course, since it is in the form of literature, it must to some extent comment on itself as in its execution it excludes/includes certain forms and ideas, but that is an issue of craft.

[Anonymous No.6037947]

>>6037156
>>6037341
OP BTFO

[Anonymous No.6038015]

>>6037372
The common man is a fucking idiot. Fuck em. Art can be appeal to him or cannot, it has nothing to do with quality.
Literature is not for you.

[Anonymous No.6038025]

>>6037521
All creative writing is ultimately about the author you twat.

[Anonymous No.6038036]

>"" he said
>she said

plebs on here actually attribute dialogue

[Anonymous No.6038043]

>the story starts with the protagonist waking up

way to put that MFA program to use, dipshit.

[Anonymous No.6038194]

>the story ends with the title of the book.

[Anonymous No.6038206]

>>6038194
"When all was said and done, he knew that life was just an Infinite Jest."

[Anonymous No.6038287]

>>6037156
>writer protag describes in the book you're reading his struggle to write the book you're reading

[Anonymous No.6038309]

>Book opens with a character writing a book
>Character talks about how they are like the main character of a book
>After the first chapter ends, five chapters pass before this character shows up again.

[Anonymous No.6038323]

y'all would hate Mulligan Stew