/lit/ - Literature

>>1979153
Authors retain full rights to their work. By virtue of creating it they are automatically the owner of the copyright.

A contract would have to be signed in order to relinquish the copyright. No contract is ever signed and thus the author retains ownership.

By emailing theaprilreader@gmail.com and conveying intention to submit the work, the author is simply allowing it to be disseminated through our website, nothing more than that.

Please note that these statements are in line with the copyright laws of the United States. It has been determined that these laws are the most appropriate to adhere to and promote as far as the publication is concerned.

>>1979118
I might be able to be of some assistance.
What is your question?

It was and will be, similarly, nothing in the beginning and the end --- I exist to make something of this nothing.

Thanks!

I enjoyed Austerlitz. I'm looking forward to reading this.

>>1944550
As others ITT have alluded to, fanfiction is fiction based on fiction, and historical fiction is fiction based on fact (or supposed fact).

I just realized that Plato would abhor fanfiction if he were aware of it.

Pic related, it is something that I've read which I think is what OP is generally referring to. I enjoyed it. The death chamber scene is incredible.

geben in Deutsch bitte

Count ol' weasal in as well.

Let me know if you need help with anything website related.

>>1927157
As soon as i get to my home computer---sometime today.

>>1927048
It would probably not have to be serialized but I cannot say with certainty without reading it.

>>1925017

The cost of the servers is written off as a business expense. The reason why I am willing to do this is because it gives me experience in maintaining a server and operating as a webmaster.

Any money that TAR is able to acquire will go directly toward contest rewards.

The question is whether Google Ads should be used on the site (text-only) or should there be the option to donate on the site (sans ads).

What does /lit/ think?

But this is not possible with /Infinite Jest/. This book is like a spaceship with no recognizable components, no rivets or bolts, not entry points, no way to take it apart. It is very shiny, and it has no discernible flaws. If you could somehow smash it into smaller pieces, there would certainly be no way to put it back together again. It simply /is/. Page by page, line by line, it is probably the strangest, most distinctive, and most involved work of fiction by an American in the last twenty years. At no time while reading /Infinite Jest/ are you unaware that this is a work of complete obsession, of a stretching of the mind of a young writer to the point of, we assume, near madness.

From the Foreword of /Infinite Jest/, by Dave Eggers:

It's possible, with most contemporary novels, for astute readers, if they are wont, to break it down into its parts, to take it apart as one would a car or Ikea shelving unit. That is, let's say a reader is a sort of mechanic. And let's say this particular reader-mechanic has worked on lots of books, and after a few hundred contemporary novels, the mechanic feels like he can take apart just about any book and put it back together again. That is, the mecahnic recognizes the components of modern fiction and can say, for example, "I've seen this part before, so I know why it's there and what it does. And this one, too --- I recognize it. This part connects to this and performs this function. This one usually goes here, and does that. All of this is familiar enough." That's no knock on the contemporary fiction that is recognizable and breakdownable. This includes about 98 percent of the fiction we know and love.

Continued in next post:

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

I'm participating. You reminded me that I must take out a copy from the library sometime this week, thanks OP!

Also the time-chart thing gives me a good idea (if it doesn't already exist): We should make a Google Calendar---if it can be mad public---and have the dates posted on there. That way everyone can just go to the link and check the calendar so people are less likely to miss dates.

Perhaps it isn't needed though, from what I remember the dates seem kind of straight forward. Am I correct?

>>1834837
>he's implying that literary authorities are wrong (when he derides Faulkner)
This points at the argument I was ultimately going to make in this thread. It is a waste of time for serious critics to write about works that they do not appreciate as great.
If such a writing is necessary, for example when OP mentions "a literary text getting praise it doesn't deserve", one is better off critiquing the critical work derived from the original.
Attempting to seriously critique the original in a negative way is an exercise in futility.

>>1834791
You stopped replying to me, brohom. And you are getting the part where I said I was trolling confused with another thread. You were the one who was making the same idiotic post during the thread in question, however.

I would like say that we should take this time, and now make this thread, in dedication to appreciation of Deep&Edgy. His posts are mostly misleading at best and redundant at worst, but as
>>1834746
points out, he does make /lit/ a more colorful place. Some people don't like him, just as some people don't like homosexuals in their society, but hey I'm not homophobic so I really do just marvel at his existence. It is, if nothing else, entertaining.

>Who said anything about objectivity
I said that it is your job as a critic to try to be as objective as possible in your writing, you stupid fucking cunt.

>What is the end of literary critical evaluation? Ha ha! Pretty darn simple really: To sort works of literary merit and flaw, to sort the 'good' from the 'bad', essentially.
Why would a literary critic waste his time writing about a 'bad' work of literature (i.e. a work he doesn't appreciate)? Isn't the point to write about a work that one appreciates? You write about why the work is worthy of your appreciation, and you try to be as rational and specific as possible in doing so.

>all of these circumstances aren't any 'better or worse' than each other' they're just different circumstances
The circumstances are not better or worse, but what they result in certainly be judged as such, because what they result in are arguments regarding a work of art. The arguments try to prove a point. Certainly one argument can be stronger than another, so one argument can be 'better' than another.

>Wouldn't whether you like, say, Ulysses, depend on your culturally, social, and academic background?
Who said it wouldn't?

>In what sense do you mean 'good' or 'not'
In the sense that some critics have rational reasoning for explaining why they appreciate a work of literature. Other critics do 'not' have rational reasoning for explaining this.

>What sort of evaluation are we talking about here?
We are talking about explaining why one appreciates a work of literature.

>What do you mean by better or worse?
I mean that certain people are good ("better") at explaining why they appreciate a work of literature. Some people are bad ("worse") at explaining why they appreciate a work of literature.