>anon posts his work>other anons tear him a new one>in reality their prose and writing ability is far above most selfpubs, YA fiction, web novels, and the shlock you find in writing subreddits>anon never posts work again even though if I hadn’t had a three day vacation for posting Nicoavocado’s slimy asshole, I could have told him that his work really was cool and then he should keep up the great workMany such cases!
Sorry I just didn't like your stuff
>>23819745>in reality their prose and writing ability is far above most selfpubs, YA fiction, web novels, and the shlock you find in writing subtedditsIn reality their prose and writing ability is far below Melville's, Joyce's, Tolstoy's, Flaubert's, Mann's, etc. What's it matter if anon's better than horseshit, if he's still dogshit?
>>23819784legit. lmfao at judging ur abilities compared to the average
>>23819745I haven't seen anyone post an entire work. Everyone here just posts random shit posting excerpts.
>>23819784The point THOUGH is that lots of people worse than posters here have successful careers
>>23819784Most posters here aren’t even old enough to vote, no shit they aren’t that good. But they might one day be
>>23819789Why would I want anon to have a successful career? I’m a crab in a bucket asshole. I’d only encourage him if I believed that one day he might be good enough to provide me something.
i posted my work and one anon liked it like i knew they would, then i deleted the post and continued writing because it meant that more than one feedback would have meant getting too drunk on my own hubris to continue improving
>>23819745>in reality their prose and writing ability is far above most selfpubs, YA fiction, web novels, and the shlock you find in writing subredditsThat is not really something to brag about.
There have been hundreds of millions of books, yet only a dozen have great "prose" . To expect someone to write at the level of Vladimir Nabokov on a Mongolian basket weaving site would be a miracle in of itself
>>23819745Idk. Sometimes what's posted is actually good and the OP gets some genuine critiques, but yeah there certainly are a lot of disparaging - and unwarranted - remarks, mainly by anons who are jealous that someone actually got off their ass to write something instead of just lurking here. That's not to say that there's a lot of genuine shit writing here, though - mainly by anons who just want to write smut or "Incel: The Book".>>23819784I don't think it's really healthy to compare a newcomer's writing to some of the literal best writers in the Western canon.
>>23819745>anon never posts work againembarrassing faggot should kill himself as well for being so weak-willed>I post ecelebs religiouslyhow tragic for you that you're mentally stuck at 14
>>23819745>his>theirWell, which one is it?
>>23819904That’s what publishers and academics want you to believe
Is mixtape hyperbolia good?
>>23819784Do you seriously expect new writers to start off on the level of those authors right out the gate?
>post a chapter I wrote on /lit/>one guy gives it high praise>another writes a several hundred word impassioned tract on why it's shit>friend asks me to send it to him, he says it's great and is looking forward to moreI'm not an amazing writer (yet) or anything but, allow me to project here for a minute, I think the niggas of this forum, where bitterness and personality disorders run rampant, get intimidated by talent and feel the need to tear others down to their level. That's what I tell myself at least.
>>23819745/lit/ systematically trains its users not to read, write or post anything serious about literature.If you make the smallest mistake you will be attacked, so the only winning move is to shitpost because then any criticism of your post can be seen as taking the bait.
>>23819784>What's it matter if anon's better than horseshit, if he's still dogshit?Seek help
>>23819975Trump is not an e-celeb you spastic retarded bitch
>>23821058I tell myself that too. Even so it’s better to post here and get teamed out than share on Reddit where nobody will read and if they do, they won’t give honest advice because they just want you to give them updoots and review their own work.
>>23821097>this level of fragilityIf you give a flying fuck what random pseuds on /lit/ think, the internet is probably not for you.
>>23819784i am greater than all of them conbined but /lit/ pseuds still nitpicked my writings to shit so now i dont want to share anymore
>>23821258>Yes I will have a conversation with you but I will not care what you think nor reply to what you sayRepent
>>23819745anything that's not "you are bad" is good criticism because there is no such thing as appealing to everybody. YOU CANNOT MAKE EVERY PERSON ENJOY YOUR BOOK! When you hear criticism and you think "oh, but that's not what my book is ABOUT! That's not fair criticism!" then that should be helping you because it tells you what kind of book you actually want to write. My english teachers tore into me for years because they knew I could do better, and lo and behold, I ended up writing conan the barbarian type short stories (long for highschool lol) and it actually made me happy. I was ENJOYING writing for the first time in my life after my teachers ripped my asshole open for ten years straight.Literally all criticism is good criticism just learn to have thicker skin. If you can't, go to reddit instead of 4chan retard, it's literally against the rules to be mean there
>>23821097>/lit/ systematically trains its users not to read, write or post anything serious about literature.That's actually the bots on every single board you're thinking of. We celebrate "dutch day" on /pol/, the day of the great unmasking where all the amazonAWS servers went down for one day in 2021 EXCEPT the one in the netherlands.AmazonAWS proxies cost alot of money and are typically ONLY purchased in bulk by governments or corporations.Overnight, every single bad, abhorrent, or even SLIGHTLY disparaging post was proven to be part of a massive corporate shilling conspiracy against pol and int. We were perfectly polite for... three days? Because it was like a star of juden- every single bad poster was forced to wear it on their sleeve. Even KNOWING that, they had to keep posting, their corpo overlords required it. On day 3, the jannies were MADE to kneel and rangeban the netherlands.We had a perfect, clean board. It's ALL bots and shills. Literally every single bad post. All of them. I'm dead serious.
>>23821097To elaborate, this was because every last "bad post" had a big ol flag of the netherlands on it for three days, the third day of which there were no bad posts at all, and the netherlands was rangebanned.RIP to our five or so usual posters from holland for a couple days.
>>23819789>>23819795>>23819920>>23821024They should get good before posting their shit here.
>>23821454>he thinks /lit/ is deserving of anything goodAnon, I...
>>23821480Then they shouldn't shun scorn when they post shit
>>23821316Holy fuck… any screenshot or source?
>>23822370No.You can look through the archives and lurk and find out for yourself, or you can take me at my word because I've been on more of the site than you, probably for longer.
>>23822507we believe you dont be hostile
>>23821454Even the best writers, like legit GOATs, get shat on here. Retard!
>>23819745>>in reality their prose and writing ability is far above most selfpubs, YA fiction, web novels, and the shlock you find in writing subredditsHere's the sad truth: bestselling fiction isn't slop because the bar is low; it's slop because the people want slop. If you want financial success, you will have to write slop.
>>23822507>You can look through the archives and lurk and find out for yourselfyou want us to scan every post for every day of the year in 2021 in the archives to find it?sorry but no thanks, schizo
>>23822370>>23822534>>23822558"dutch day" doesn't pull up anything related when you search the /pol/ archive on 4plebs
>>23822534Sorry, the aggression wasn't directed towards you, it was directed towards the people about to act like disingenuous kikes, that might write the same words but mean it in a sarcastic way when asking for a screenshot or source because they want to dismiss any evidence I bring to the table.>>23822558funny that on the LITERATURE board you illiterate indians couldn't even be asked to translate and read the second half of the post and call me a schitzo for that part too.
>>23822370It's complete bullshit. Only a dedicated /pol/tard could honestly believe that no one could possibly disagree with him unless they were a bot./pol/, like much of the rest of this website, is full of actual autistic people and one of their common traits is a lack of empathy and an inability for nuanced perspective. How this manifests in their political views is that they will adopt what is by any objective measure an extremely radical and fringe worldview but will be unable to consider that other people might disagree with them.Anyone who expresses disagreement or criticism can't possibly be a real person who believes differently; their disability makes it impossible for them to imagine this. No, anyone who disagrees must be an artificial plant sent to attack them. It's a bot, it's a shill, it's the jews, it's the CIA. Always some faceless, anonymous hostile entity out to get them because the alternative, that it's just another person with a differing opinion, is too much for them to understand.This is the worldview necessary to actually believe that>>23821316>It's ALL bots and shills. Literally every single bad post. All of them.This>>23822507>I've been on more of the site than you, probably for longer.sort of thing is especially sad because /pol/ and /new/ used to pride themselves on being very welcoming places. The meme was that anyone was free to come and start a debate because we were so confident in the superiority of our logic and reasoning that we expected to convert anyone who came with the intent of starting a fight. Those days are long gone, gone before this newfag ever heard of 4chan, and it's a shame to see that a once great board has been reduced to this level of paranoia and cope. I guarantee this newfag came here during 2016 at the absolute earliest.
>>23822579>I guarantee this newfag came here during 2016 at the absolute earliest.100%the only people that brag about being here the longest are newfags
>>23819745The /wg/ hates my guts for writing nonfiction
>>23819784Horse shit is objectively superior to dog shit. It's no chicken shit, but I digress.You're an idiot.
>>23822579>Anyone who expresses disagreement or criticism can't possibly be a real person who believes differentlystrawman argument>is too much for them to understand.ad homit's honestly so easy to just sit here and pick at your logical fallacies.
>>23819745>selfpubs, YA fiction, web novels, and the shlock you find in writing subredditsnot really a high bar
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Line-graph-of-posts-with-Dutch-country-flags-on-4chan-pol_fig5_349681040Here's a scientific paper on it. Took me a substantial amount of digging. Furthermore, go fuck yourself lugenpress.>>23822585>>23822579
>>23822625Also, sorry my timescale was off. Guess it was alot longer ago than I remember.
>>23822579I can’t count how many times I’ve seen anons consider a disagreeing opinion to be a samefag, jews, trannys, or whatever boogeyman entity. These same anons put themselves apart by calling others normies or normalfags so they clearly see there is a different type or person out there with different beliefs and a different life. There is just massive dissonance
>>23822647They removed IP counters on every board specifically to facilitate samefagging.
>>23822625>>23822631If you read the paper you'll see that those spikes corresponded to elections in the Netherlands. I'm not going to read the whole thing, but AWS is never mentioned (though that's not exhaustive of servers, whatever), and bots aside, there's naturally going to be a spike in users when something board-relevant is going on; /lit/ had a big spike during the Peterson-Zizek debate, for instance. In other words: nothingburger.So what are your thoughts on writing critique posted to 4chan? Is it overly critical? Do you have to consider it in context? Have you ever posted any creative writing here? Have you ever critiqued anyone's?
>>23822592>Horse shit is objectively superior to dog shitNo, horseshit is only subjectively superior to dog shit. Let me explain>bullshit - something spurious>shit - something bad (generic)>dogshit - something infuriatingly bad>horseshit - something so ridiculously bad that it’s almost funny or absurd>chickenshit - something/someone cowardlySo technically dogshit feels worse, even though it’s not, and that’s because it lacks an absurd quality. Think about two scenarios: one where a dog shits on your shoe and the other where a horse does it. The first of these is likely to make a person annoyed, angry, indignant; and it’s a hardly memorable event. As for the second… well it’s something one might have a laugh about with their friends looking back one day.
>>23822651>>23821306
>>23822650They removed it because 4chan is dying and they want to conceal it
>>23822651I think the critique here itself isn't overly critical- I would call it overly honest. If you give a page of your writing to someone IRL either they'll tell you they love it, or their eyes will glaze over and they'll go "ahuh, yeah, that's words on a page." Which is downright soulcrushing imo. At least for anyone not in the 'industry' or not also a writer. REALITY is that books aren't for other writers if you're trying to get published, they're for readers. Usually dumb readers. It's all about intended audience and whose criticism you actually care about, and who you actually want to enjoy your book.I've never posted my own creative writing here because the intended audience is not 4chan, it's mostly me and sometimes I bounce ideas off of my buddies.
>>23822665that too, yeah.
>>23822680Was that your take that you linked here >>23822664? I agree you've got to keep the audience in mind, and once you start figuring out something specific and getting to a level where you're experimenting with it, general advice kind of falls off; gotta find like-minded people. I think /lit/ tends to have people more interested in being a writer's writer, so there can be constructive discussions, but they're always going to plateau eventually.The one making the critique also has to keep the receiver in mind: keep it at their level and accept it as a somewhat incremental process. Stick with what someone can do to immediately improve what they've written rather than aiming for an ideal. Normally if something is really bad, it doesn't take much reading to assess what can be fixed (if not everything), though that may just be my excuse for my eyes glazing over mid-paragraph into another mediocre excerpt.On harsh criticism: I think it's some of the most valuable. Even if the work itself isn't completely bad, harsh criticism will at least highlight a possible flaw. It gives you something direct to address, which is a lot more meaningful than just being told it's good. Sugar-coating is a waste of time, and anyone committed to writing for others should be able to take harsh comments.
>writing for others>writing for yourselfFalse dichotomy.
>>23819745>faggot who reposts Nikocado assholeYeah dude, I'm sure your opinion is worthwhile.
>>23822689Yes, duh
>>23822708>the perfectly polite /pol/ack
>>23822660Horse shit is superior because it makes better fertiliser than dog shit (they don't eat meat).Not reading any of that nonsense you wrote.
>>23821097Caring what people on /lit/ say is hilarious. We have too many people on this board who unironically think Turner Diaries, Mein Kamf, the unabomber manifesto, are good
>>23822791my mom really enjoyed industrial society and it's consequences. You're crazy man.
>>23819784>In reality their prose and writing ability is far below (all these other writers who are considered among the peak of writing)Wow anon...You really showed him?
>>23822716Yeah well you’re mean
>>23822802You should tell your mom to read actual scholars who are critics of the industrial revolutions consequences. Not the ramblings of a racist schizo murderer who killed innocent people
>>23822882>you should both read works by people who didn't care enough about their ideals to kill for them!No, I don't think I will.
>>23822892He killed multiple journalists who weren't involved in his insane cruscade. Plus, you're telling on yourself. There's plenty of people who are critics who made actual changes against big industries without killing innocent people
>>23822915>cruscade
>>23821058it's true. people you personally don't know are going to project their own insecurities through means of unconscious comparison or familiarity, be it your works or your personality
>>23819784lmao at all the seeth this reply got
>>23822915>journalists>innocent people?
This is all There Is.Just as hot and cold, light and dark, wet and dry,Are all tautologies of temperature, illumination, and moisture,So too are the waters above The Firmament and the waters below The FirmamentTautologies of The Firmament.
>>23822650I think they removed it because you fags stopped caring about the content of a post and hyperfocused on if a person posts more than once, which gave you an excuse to devolve into a shitbrained monkey and feel validated because someobe MIGHT have replied to you more than once. It honestly got disgusting to watch.
I tried to revive crit threads a few times in the last couple months. They didn't make it to 300 posts but most of the feedback anons gave each other was at least polite if not constructive.
>>23819745Being better than absolute trash isn't an accomplishment
>>23821228the other guy in the image, imbecile
