Why can't we publish ones with essays and articles and maybe the occasional poem? No one wants to read the "pulp" written here with AI covers. But anthologies of long effortposts about literature, philosophy, history, math and the arts? Would anyone be interested in that?
>>25112892>Would anyone be interested in that?
>>25112892Anon we've ALREADY tried to do magazines exactly like what you say. We've tried it more than once. They always fail. At this point it's an exercise in utility. I'm not going to line up to kick the football again, I know what happens.
>>25112915>They always fail.But why?
>>25112915>At this point it's an exercise in utility.
>>25112892Give it a shot. People have done it before, and there are descriptions and old PDFs on the wiki:https://lit.trainroll.xyz/wiki/Collaborative_WorksJust be realistic with your expectations, since it'll be hard to get people to commit their writing to it, letalone anything particularly good. There's been great writing in old /lit/ mags, but don't bank on most of it to be any better than mediocre. Also don't expect it to run consistently for a long time, since a lot of it banks on the novelty, which will wear off. Consider that is should be fun, for you and for people sending material in.And how do you plan to format the release? Say it'll end up as a PDF, how would you make that?>>25112915>They always fail.They always end, but I wouldn't say that makes them failures. Any /lit/ project that got submissions and released something counts as a success. Keeping that up is harder, improving it over time even harder than that, but ultimately a good /lit/ mag can be something other than a good literary mag.
>>25112892There's a lot of ways for it to fail. That doesn't mean it has to. Publishing, even small time online publication, is almost monolithically gay and brown and female now. There's never been a better time to be anything else or to find contributors that are anything else.Focusing on /lit/ or 4chan culture or making it central to the identity of the publication is going to kill it. There's no market for that even inside 4chan and serious people don't want their names associated with it. It needs wider horizons to ever be anything and that means not shooting yourself in the foot out of the gate. Being ran by some memeing retard posting squirrel soijaks is going to kill it. There's no reason to take that person seriously or to think they take the publication seriously. I personally wouldn't contribute to a publication like that.Publishing the work of other memeing retards is going to kill it. Even a great deal of people here don't want to read that. Focusing on essays and articles about literature and your faggot poems is going to kill it. You don't have a large talent pool to draw from to limit it in that way. Nobody cares and nobody ever will care about your shitty free verse poems. Starting a publication so you have a distribution channel for your shitty poetry is the wrong reason and it will kill it.Not knowing shit about formatting and design will kill it. Figure out your format. Keep any mention of 4chan out of it. Post open calls for work here and on other boards and in other places like X that won't shut you down for having an opinion that isn't gay and brown and female. Take it seriously and be serious and keep your faggot poetry and memes out of it or you may as well not even bother.
>>25113008I hope you realize that complaining about things being "gay and brown and female" is no more prestigious nor serious than squirrel memes are
>>25113042Observations are not the same thing as complaints. You lack the intellect to pull this off, as suspected.
>>25113008>It needs wider horizons to ever be anythingJust let it be a /lit/ mag. It doesn't need to be more than something with niche, passing novelty on /lit/. Trying to be a real literary magazine is something entirely different from having fun putting something together on /lit/. Doesn't need to be serious, just make it seem fun and free enough for anons to contribute to, particularly stuff they don't think they could share elsewhere.>Being ran by some memeing retard posting squirrel soijaks is going to kill it.I agree with this though.
>>25113058I don't think you've demonstrated any intellectualism here, if that is even the contest. You appear to be advocating a mission to be taken "seriously" by the very institutions you seem to have nil regard for. I am not a "serious" fellow, nor do I take myself "seriously". But I am doing my very best to take you "seriously" under the circumstances
>>25113147I haven't claimed to "demonstrate any intellectualism here". I've laid out a rough, practical roadmap to success for a /lit/ based publication and I've called you a retard incapable of implementing it, which you're now >n-no u'ing about.
