What does /lit/ generally think of books written by anons/namefags? Do they shill their own work here, and how are they received? Assuming the work is freely available.
And yes I'm planning on doing that.
Shilling yourself is generally a bannable offense, but I think it might be permissible if the work is free. I still wouldn't do it outside of the writing general threads. It's poor form. You're supposed to write something that'll make other people post about your work for you.
>>24852301We are anons. Self promotion and attention seeking is looked down upon.
>>24852327Speak for yourself
>>24852322>You're supposed to write something that'll make other people post about your work for you.Yeah my wildest dreams right there. But first I need to get their attention so they will take a look at my offerings. I'll keep the /WG/ in mind.>>24852327I am aware. My argument is that the book has elements related to gen-z imageboard culture, and that is why I want to bring it upon /lit/ first.
I’ll help with any book writing free of charge. Time is my only issue. remohschannel_official Leave my bard alone. He just reads my scripts.
>>24852301Generally it looks a lot better if you provide a copy for free like >>24852322 said. Meaning a link to a plain PDF or EPUB download, not a link to a "free" Kindle version on Amazon or some web novel platform or whatever; posting direct links to commercial copies is most likely going to get your post deleted. I wouldn't say it matters to keep it exclusively in /wg/. An OP is fine if you do it right.There have been a few authors who have seemingly received positive attention on here over the last few years (Ogden Nesmer, Adem Luz Rienspects, Wallace Mack), but it will always be a mix with the anons who hate you a priori. Just be receptive to criticism and be willing to bant a little. Give a half-decent description of your book and tell anons you're interested in their thoughts when you post a download.Make multiple OPs, but space them out. Post it in threads if it's relevant (while making it clear you're the author). Engage with the receptive anons. Remember you need to earn an audience's attention.>>24852395>the book has elements related to gen-z imageboard culture, and that is why I want to bring it upon /lit/ firstThis doesn't really affect whether you should post it here or not. A lot of /lit/ posters (profess to) only care about classics, and posters interested in contemporary writing (especially self-published authors) are far fewer.
>>24852607huh
>>24852622What's your deal?
>>24852780huh?
>>24852607It's pretty sad how so many /lit/ users won't even consider reading something unless it's at least half a century old.
>>24852780huh
>>24852301Anon the trick is to have no shame and remember that hatred is still a form of attention.
>>24852818To be fair that is a reliable quality filter
>>24852961Negative attention is not going to get you the kind of readership or discussion that positive attention will, at least not on /lit/. For all of Woolston's shilling, I've never once seen any of his books discussed, which isn't the case for the more honest approach of Ogden or Wallace Mack. Never seen him offer PDFs/EPUBs either, so he falls cleanly in the annoying "buy my book" category, and I doubt his shilling has led to as many sales (from /lit/) as the other guys.Negative attention only makes sense if that blows up into broader knowledge of your work; /lit/ is way too small for that to be meaningful. In a small community you're only going to taint your identity.On the free copies thing: /lit/ also isn't big enough to make your book profitable. You may as well just give it away to anons if you genuinely want their thoughts. Some will buy it, but trying to be a salesman here won't work out well.
>>24853496>actual for real reddit spacing(go back)
>>24853496I don't care about sales. I crave discussion, call that attention seeking or whatnot.
>>24853496>For all of Woolston's shilling, I've never once seen any of his books discussed,There is a lot of hype about the low-fi-high-fats tho. The manifesto is coming out any day now, I suppose
>>24852301Attention whoring is permissible on /soc. The problem is that /soc is infested with fishing scams, tranny chasers, fat feeders, cockrating threads, and disgusting std ridden whores.Good luck though o7
>>24852322>Shilling yourself is generally a bannable offense, but I think it might be permissible if the work is freeNopeSloppers on the now death /wng/ regularly got their shillposts deleted
>>24852395>the book has elements related to gen-z imageboard cultureEvery single time someone, usually a newfag or tourist, has tried this it ends up as failure
>>24852818>its sad the average anon doesn't want to lost time with low-quality self-pub slop
>>24853706>I crave discussionThat's what I'm advocating for in saying authors should drop free copies. Post a download link and ask anons for their thoughts. It'll still be a tiny fraction of /lit/ bothering to read it, but it's up to you to be convincing somehow.>>24853791It's not just low-tier self-pub stuff, but contemporary writing in general that /lit/ is mostly disinterested in. And yeah, you're more likely to read something rough or bad if you bother with reading what a random anon writes, but I ultimately see it as a different thing from my regular reading; you can approach it very crtically and look for what they do well, what they do poorly, what you'd do differently. You can approach regular reading that same way of course, but with mediocre/bad/unpolished/naive works the perspective is more stark.There are also a few anons who've written books I'd consider "good." No masterpieces, but things that were enjoyable to read and novel to me. There are also some short stories from /lit/ that I think are terrific.
>>24853791And obviously, there's nothing more valuable to the average 4chan user than their time
>>24853773It's interesting to hear various anons attempt a similar subject, beyond just the internet as said subject, like the various attempts at burgerpunk. Even if most attempts are lacklustre, there's the possibility for variety in perspective, and that's where some glimmer of the zeitgeist comes through.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91gT68xeDMM
>>24854015This isn't true, i'm >>24854215 and have dropped links to the pdf, have asked anons to post their thoughts and you generally get the trolls commenting on your post and derailing the thread, and this is especially rampant if you are deemed as non-native speaker. Anons are more interested in your background and nationality than they are in reading the book. Very few people here are interested in reading anything that isn't adjacent to their culture or worldview even while calling themselves well-read or open-minded. Every attempt to defend your book is met with hostility and notions of not being worthy enough to write in English, even though this might be a work in progress.
>>24854215I can't believe none of you guys have left a review yet for this masterpiece
>>24854239Where you posting from?
>>24854270The democratic republic of Zamunda.
>>24854015>It's not just low-tier self-pub stuff, but contemporary writingWhich also happens to be low-quality and often politicized to hell
>>24854239>have dropped links to the pdfCan you do it again?Can I also give you a piece of advice? Choose a real pen name or use your real name. ex_kamau is a username, it's not going to work as the name of an author. Make it look like a real name and you will have a much better chance of people taking it seriously enough to give it a read. Drop the PDF again and we'll read it and put up a thread.
Im down for free pdfs -op
>>24854038>It's interesting to hear various anonsCorrection, the ones doing this schtick aren't anons but tourist trying to go viral using the infamy of this place as a crutch
>>24854239>ESL gets complaints about shitty grammar Have you tried properly learning the language before posting?
>>24854296I'm not talking about the zoomer internet novel thing specifically, but about the effect of many perspectives on any given subject, which can make up somewhat for the weakness of individual works. It's almost more like an anthopological thing though.>>24854277Sure, but you can still practice some scrutiny, It's not like it's hard to sniff out political posturing in advance, and if they've been decent enough to post a download link then there's no sunk cost---drop it after the first two paragraphs if it sucks. I'm not suggesting buying everything every shitter from /wg/ has ever thrown on Amazon.I've bought a print copy of book from a /lit/izen exactly once, and I'd already read and enjoyed another work by him. And then I enjoyed the one I bought (even if it was rife with typos, which I emailed him about).
>>24854291https://files.catbox.moe/ksuv4k.pdf. The second scene of the first chapter is a mess, try reading beyond that. Disclaimer:To those who keep asking what this book is about, before reading the first chapter and getting yourself frustrated over nothing, this is an experimental book with non-linear timelines, and little to no attribution to place or time. You have to piece things together on what is reported by the narrator. I also have Hemingway to thank for there being little to no internal monologue. There is a speech, a play, and tonnes of dialogue with imagined or real characters. Some chapters like 7, 11 and 12 can get very cryptic, but if you can get past chapter 4, then you'll start to understand what I'm getting at. There's some original philosophical/psychological material in chapters 4, 10 and 12. Other than this, I can't really tell you what the book is about because I haven't yet figured it out myself, you'll have to read it to the end and make your own conclusions.
>>24854341>, which can make up somewhat for the weakness of individual worksNah, a hundred shitty novels doesn't make the subject more interesting
>>24854341>Sure, but you can still practice some scrutiny, It's not like it's hard to sniff out political posturing in advance, and if they've been decent enough to post a download link then there's no sunk costTrue, thing is though is not worth doing all that for, at the absolute best, a bad work that almost reaches mediocrity
>>24854218Here's an example of acceptable self-shilling: anon's work is freely available and he makes himself easy to ignore
>>24854369Fair point, though I was thinking more about short stories. A novel perspective isn't likely to redeem a bad book, no.>>24854385Like I said, I've read books from /lit/ users that I enjoyed (though to be fair this was after other anons vouched for them). Five total. I can distinctly remember dropping another /lit/ novel after a few pages, and probably did the same with a handful of others.
>>24854343>I haven't yet figured it out myselfhmmm.
My ad's been approved. I'm just waiting for the free promo to start. If you're curious, wait about three hours and then disable your adblocker, or just do it sometime over the next two days.I'm sure an epup or pdf will find its way onto z-lib at some point but for now it's only on Kindle. Sorry, Amazon haters.
>>24854215I knew it was you the moment I saw your post. I respect your endeavor to inspire conversation, but your book just did not do it for me.
>>24854588Yes. I keep saying it's not for everyone. If you have traditional expectations of what a book should be, it will surely disappoint you. It's most likely going to be enjoyed by academics who are looking for novelty--I get what he's trying to do here and maybe can improve on it types--and not connoisseurs of literary maturity. I'm still desperate to know what you thought about it, how far you made it, etc, in a separate thread.
My Victoria story shall be read by some anon some day!
>>24854614I read your excerpt on /wg/, neat stuff, I'd give the full book a try
