>>25573836
Top right is intriguing enough for me to read more. So I'd say it's the best.
I've read Mack's first story, it was good but I wish it were more developed, something longer.
The others I'm not very interested in.

They’re all shit. I would only read more in the same way I stare at car crashes, to see just how shit it can get, in that regard the bottom one seems to be the most promising.

File: Screenshot 2026-10-06 125132.png (100 KB, 748x607)

100 KB PNG

according to AI.

>>25573875
They're all around 4.5. That Rus bullshit was so boring I couldn't even finish a page.

>>25573836
King of La reads like a movie script
Cur sounds like schizo bable
It's all forgotten... reads well
Chemical divorce reads well
Rus is stupid girl shit.

File: dodo.png (1.67 MB, 1237x1403)

1.67 MB PNG

>missing the only masterpiece

NJB is a once in a generation genius, and you are all vastly dumber for not having read both of his published works in their entirety.
Don't lump him in with run-of-the-mill garbage /lit/ shit.

>>25573918
we can't possibly compare this masterpiece to all those shitters. it won't be fair

>>25573957
I realize that, and you are correct and clearly a patrician yourself, but sometimes the lesser ones need to be reminded of their place. For their own good as well.

File: Screenshot 2026-10-06 141520.png (145 KB, 735x750)

145 KB PNG

>>25573924
AI loves Boor's story the most. A.I. is never wrong

>>25574027
Ultimate proof AI truly doesn't understand shit about writing.

There's a reason they're still unable to write anything but immediately recognizable slop. They like that sort of style.

>>25573836
Rus is least bad on a technical level.
Cur has by far the best idea and initial hook, but the author squanders it very fast.
If I had to pick one book to actually read all the way through, it'd be It's All Forgotten Now.

I hate all of them and couldn't read more than a few sentences before checking out.

File: collab.jpg (719 KB, 945x1235)

719 KB JPG

>>25574051
How dare you not include this

>>25573875
>King of L.A. - Nicholas John Boor
>Rating: 4.5 / 10
Way too high of rating for the dysgenic jew who spams his lllm sloppa here

File: AI ratings.jpg (883 KB, 744x1586)

883 KB JPG

AI loves King of LA. Her'es the prompt too

lol

I’m changing “last week’s holocaust” to “last month’s holocaust” to improve historical accuracy regarding the firebombing of Dresden. Otherwise, I think my story is quite good. FZ

>>25574027
To be fair, this >>25573918 isn't the incipit, it's taken from somewhere in the middle.

File: blade.png (49 KB, 1735x177)

49 KB PNG

literally what's wrong with this, The Chemical Divorce is just the rule of cool turned into a story

>>25574414
It doesn't read well. The "cool" bits should be interspersed with regular prose, placed where they can make the most impact. Otherwise you get sensory overload and nothing really hits.

Reading the passage my mind goes from a cross to a guillotine to a stump to a dirty napkin to crows to rattling skulls to weapons to sunsets to apples to keen, gleaming instants... it's just too much, too incoherent, with no apparent connection between them. Maybe that style can work in a fragmented dream sequence, but the author should really tone it down and consider painting with impressionism rather than abstract art.

lol Bore thought getting a chatbot to rate CC last would reflect badly on it

>>25574599
That's not even consumptive curs page 1.

File: dialogue.png (59 KB, 910x427)

59 KB PNG

>>25574523
the story is like 98% dialogue based on Venus in Fur, but I could understand not liking the ending as a matter of personal preference

File: 1780461472326968.jpg (782 KB, 427x10000)

782 KB JPG

>>25574603
Yes it is, but the introduction is taken out of the context of the book being a novel about a literary vampire.

>A new kind of vampire is on the prowl.
>Something’s wrong with Kitty, a terminally online, slobbish history buff. One random day, she loses all desire to consume—be it food, drink, or media. Things only get worse when she realizes what she must do to solve her problem: produce. A novel idea comes to her, and she writes a bit of it down, but hates each one of her sentences. How can she possibly carve her name into the history she adores with such poor skills?
>She finds her answer in the darkest corners of the internet. TB. According to real history, the disease imparts literary prowess. But infecting herself with it proves insufficient. It must spread. And not to just anybody; only to adepts of the craft. Kitty’s quest to feed on others’ literary skill takes her on a misadventure through the lives (and deaths) of a series of authors, deep into their own foul methods of obtaining talent.
>For readers’ consumptive pleasure, a strange, dark, irreverent, and bitingly funny tale awaits.
>*Contains explicit sexual content, graphic violence, and metacommentary.*

File: b81d6fb1-e57a-4d4b-9783-7(...).png (1.89 MB, 1121x1403)

1.89 MB PNG

>>25573836
Here's the rest of It's All Forgotten Now if anyone wants to read it. The Laundromat Clown and That Ole Gang of Mine are the best stories imo.

>https://litter.catbox.moe/jlrvxhr5x21d3n35.pdf

>>25573836
you're forgetting John Jay Stancliff's new book Pierce

>>25574617
Also some parts of The Chemical Divorce seem off (just my opinion as a casual reader of the passages posted in the thread).

>...I hammered out the chromatic melody... My tempo quickened...
This part is more telling than showing. I would've liked more physical sensations related to the fingers. Did the narrator begin slowly or immediately burst out into melody? "Chromatic" is also a useless descriptor here. Instead, maybe tell us how fast or slow the song is meant to be played.

>Gulping, I pissed myself. "Come forth."
This part also. It's so sudden and confusing. The dragging door, the opening of the songbook, the hammering of the keys are all described in detail. Then the narrator pisses himself, brushed over in a single sentence. No details at all, we're just expected to imagine it.

And who's even talking, the narrator? The dialogue is so out of place, because "come forth" sounds like something a calm, composed person would say. At first I thought the person holding the sword was talking. At least make the narrator say it shakily or something, like "c-come forth." Also the narrator was still playing piano right? Did he shout "COME FORTH" so that the druid could hear him?

>...his sword's strong edge trimming an inch off my goatee
So passive and weak! Why use present participle "trimming" instead of "trim"? A "sword's strong edge" is again telling us about his sword's sharpness, not showing. The agency is assigned to the sword instead ot the druid doing the action. And try using a better, more active verb like "flicked" or "shaved" instead of "trimming" which sounds like he's gardening.

>As her soup splashed my face
More passive voice that detracts from the imagery. Starting with "As" makes the violent action of splashing soup sound like a passing breeze or something. Was it not a big deal? Was the soup hot or cold?

Overall it reads like the narrator is floating in a dream and has lost his sense of reality or touch. Maybe that was what Zeist was aiming for? Because otherwise everything reads confused and my sense of immersion is lost, even when the text is written in first person.

>>25573836
I don't think any of them are shit. Most posters on /lit/ are bitter faggot losers who hate everything. That being said, here are my thoughts on what I'm reading. Hopefully useful feedback if any of the authors lurk.

>King of LA
Nothing wrong with it. I can see the scene in my head, but I think it needs a hook, something emotional to draw you in. Right now it's just a picture. Whoever said it reads like a movie script is right. Chill it on the ellipses.

>CC
Probably not fair to judge since it's just an introduction, but frankly this doesn't make me want to read more, and it's a little too up its own ass. I see what you're getting at, but I don't think you necessarily prove that fiction or writing is evil. Perhaps a quote or short epilogue from another piece might better summarize what you're getting at. This reads like performative depth and saying "I am very serious" vs. priming the reader for what you're getting ready to present in the story itself.

>It's All Forgotten Now
Although I haven't read the rest of the story, I think this does a competent job of setting the scene. A little detached and sterile, but that's probably a stylistic choice. It's not flashy, but it does draw you in a little. Could use a bit more of an emotional hook, but "Vinny knew he didn't own his thoughts" is strange enough to keep you reading.

>First of The Rus
This will appeal to a specific reader, and I imagine there are lots of them out there. It's polished and controlled. It's hard to get a read on where it's going. Just from the first page and title, I don't know if it's historical fiction or fantasy. It's not exactly my cup of tea, just because those types of books aren't exactly my taste, but I think if someone were into that world, they would certainly continue reading.

>The Chemical Divorce
A lot going on here. Certainly the most creative/outlandish start, but a little murky. There's a kind of dream logic that is a bit hard to follow, but if subsequent pages clarify that I think this intro could be great. All depends on the rest of the book. If the rest of the book continues this way I think it would be hard for me to finish.

When's the nigger guy going to post his novel

File: zeena.jpg (32 KB, 615x410)

32 KB JPG

>>25574705
>the narrator is floating in a dream and has lost his sense of reality or touch

There's a twist during an argument between Barb and Otto that re-contextualizes the previous events.

The story has a lot of telling instead of showing because too many readers told me they were confused, so I added lines that explicitly explain what's going on. I have strong opinions about accessibility: never using flashbacks, for example, because some people find them difficult to keep track of.

One of the reasons Otto loses control of his bladder is because the protagonist is always supposed to be outmatched or in danger, and I didn't want to add even more dialogue to convey his fear.

I didn't have Otto stutter while saying "come forth" because it would have broken the parallelism of him repeating the line multiple times throughout the course of the story.

Incidentally, the "strong edge" of a sword is another word for the forte. To make things as accurate as possible, I did a considerable amount of research regarding the parts of an organ, how locks work, and occidental occultism. The dynamic between Otto and Barb was based on John Dee and Edward Kelley.

>>25574748
>There's a twist during an argument between Barb and Otto that re-contextualizes the previous events.

If the passive floatiness is deliberate, then it improves my opinion of the text.

But speaking as a passing reader, the difficulty of picturing what was happening on the first page is off-putting. Instead of being pulled into your story by sensory details, I had to stop and parse and question every step of the way.

What are "sour" notes? What does the melody being chromatic have to do with anything? Why did he piss himself? Did he really piss himself or was it a hallucination? Why is the druid not reacting to the piss puddle or smell? What does a "druid" even look like? Why is the author using passive voice? => These are bad, distracting questions that should be answered by vivid sensory details and clear, unambiguous word choice. The "pissing" is the detail readers focus in on, because it is so out of place.

What does the church being 'liquefied' mean? Why is the narrator chained to a door? Who is McGorey? Why did a B-17 roar overhead? => These are the good mysteries that I would much rather be focused on, but cannot, because I have already forgotten about them after being distracted by other inconsistencies!

>The story has a lot of telling instead of showing because too many readers told me they were confused

I don't think telling is bad per se, but when you tell us "he pissed himself" and don't expand on it I just get more confused. Sensory details should be the best way to explain strange happenings in a grounded, realistic way that readers can relate to.

I would recommend reading the first few pages of "Piranesi" by Susanna Clarke or "Hard-Boiled Wonderland and the End of the World" by Haruki Murakami to see how surreal situations can be introduced to a reader without throwing obscure occultist references or immersion-breaking ambiguities in their face. Strangeness should be slowly introduced like worldbuilding. References should be made deliberately, after asking what it actually brings to the story.

Otherwise, I'm not going to assume everything's explained later - I'm just going to drop the book, because it doesn't read like a polished work of fiction.

>>25574748
>"Not much of a doorkeeper..." A druid stepped into the moonlight, his sword's strong edge trimming an inch off my goatee. "If you don't face the entrance."

This line could be changed, for example, to:

>"Not much of a doorkeeper..." A horned, tattooed man stepped into the moonlight, flicked his blade, and shaved a whole inch off my goatee. "...if you don't face the entrance." He grimaced slightly at the stink.

Active voice, much clearer picture of what druid McGorey looks like, and acknowledgement of the piss puddle so that readers aren't left wondering.

File: 672.jpg (3.51 MB, 4000x3000)

3.51 MB JPG

>>25574881
I cut most of the description because and added the "Maybe there's no difference" line to set up the philosophical revelation at the end of the story following "Great work." The strangeness is just to keep the audience's attention: I asked readers to mark where they got bored and added punch lines or gaps to those paragraphs.

There are reasons for all these things you mentioned that can't be explained without spoilers (I'm very happy with the three twists regarding Savagery, Otto's potion, and the black mirror), but most people seem unfamiliar with the ancient Egyptian text this story is based on, so it's understandable some find it confusing. Any member of a magical order would probably recognize the references—for everyone else, I just wanted to keep the pace moving.

That said, it's good you're reading actively.

>>25575179
Don't dismiss his criticism while you try to justify your story choices later. This is something I learned as a writer, we aren't you as a reader so we won't know all these nuances and plot twists and can easily glaze over it. It's your job as the writer to ease us into it.

George McDonalds Lilith has a surreal atmosphere and defines evil to us but he never needed to hide random shit. It felt naturally revealed.

Try to find ways to introduce concepts like the Egyptian gods without an info dump. How? Well that's your job.

>>25574719
When you learn some manners.

>>25573875
kek, how did you get it to be this critical? What AI and what prompt?

I guess I'm not surprised how so many take CC's introduction at face value. Many tend to have trouble with subtext

>>25575258
How does the introduction signalize that it's supposed to not be taken at face value? There is nothing that shows that it's not delivered by omniscient narrator. As it is it will make most of the readers cringe and close the book. Since you are some self-published nobody moron your readers will not give you benefit of doubt.
Seems like a big issue that you should've taken into consideration before releasing the book.
But let me guess:
>I AM GENIUS

>>25575258
No wonder Boor gave you that 1 star review. This is a delusional take. When people give you well meaning criticism, my first move wouldn’t be to lash out and call them morons. Maybe you are a genius, but odds are you’re not, and even if you are your reader isn’t so have some respect for them.

>>25575258
It's not subtext well done. Look at rus for polished subtext. Wing adds in tons of specific details on fashion. The subtext tells us the girl is hyper fixated on appearances and there's a social game going on in a bride contest. She clearly wears a mask and has an air of superiority. All that with less words.

>>25575301
>Nooo if a retard gives you retarded criticism you must accept it or you're arrogant!
How come the reviewer is never arrogant for speaking about things they don't understand?

>>25575301
>even if you are a genius your reader isn’t, so you must dumb down your writing for them
Wow.

>>25575398
It's self published book.

>>25575398
Okay then have fun. No one will read your book.

>>25573836
>King of L.A.
Present tense in first sentence. Not reading that bullshit.
>Consumptive Cur
That's an Introduction. If the actual book is like that, wouldn't read past the first page.
>It's all Forgotten Now
It's just autistically explanatory, without any proper narration whatsoever. I read the first page, but would not read past that in an actual book.
>First of the Rus
It's fine. I would read more pages to decide whether the book is for me or not.
>The Chemical Divorce
Sudden but okay. I would read more pages to decide whether the book is for me or not.

>>25575415
nobody will read yours either

>>25575397
Personalities aside, your average /lit/ reader probably has higher written/verbal comprehension capabilities than the random normie who’s going to stumble upon your Amazon book. If the people here are telling you it’s not working, I’d heavily consider their opinion.


Do you want to be read or do you want to languish in perfect obscurity? The choice is yours. Feel free to join the fraternity of ego centric geniuses that no one reads.

>>25573836
Chemical Divorce amused me most; Consumptive Cur unfortunately begins with a really tiresome (bad) lit/crit take, which amused me too (of course) but in the wrong way

>>25575432
I don’t have a book. I’m just reading what’s written here

>>25575433
You’re too kind. Do not humor him concerning his erroneous estimate of his own intelligence.

>>25575258
Just you wait till you hear some us think the shitty introduction is the only palpable part of the book. Kitty? Seriously? Fuck off.

File: 968full-simon-king-of-the(...).jpg (108 KB, 734x580)

108 KB JPG

>>25575201
I appreciate the feedback and I'll check Lilith out. There is dream sequence later on in which Otto relives the first page of the book but with the knowledge he has learned, which I think is pretty cool.

>>25573836
Way too many words on a single page. Got bored just looking at it.


Sorry lads, I'm sure the story is great..but like. That's a lot of words. Maybe next time.

Geez, calm down. Low-quality feedbackers get triggered far too easily.
The satirical subtext of the intro being missed is that the tirade against fiction comes right before a work of fiction by the author of said tirade. Seems obvious to me how farcical this is, but I guess I'm a slightly more astute reader than most.

>>25575479
lol, did you mean "palatable?"

>>25575489
Nothing I hate more than when a writer uses words

>>25575301
>critique the critique
>critiquer takes it personally and accuses you of being unable to handle critique
Is there no self-awareness?

>>25575518
Yes I did mean palatable, my bad there, thank you. To flesh out my critique a bit more in the vein of good discussion, my main issue with your work is that I cannot stand the main character at all. The introduction is shitty because you reference too many real people and works, the actual idea is interesting and I do not hate it for itself. I just feel the introduction deserved a different book, that the book itself can be made better if you change the main character. Kitty? Seriously? Fuck off.

>>25575290
>How does the introduction *signal that it's *not supposed to be taken at face value?
By containing subtext

>>25575588
>I cannot stand the main character at all
All that "fleshing out" and this is the only bit of substance in your criticism. It's also not my problem.

>>25575522
Anything more than 20 lines a page is torture. Sorry but welcome to 2026.

>>25575597
Is it not valid though? Are main characters being likeable just too cliche for you? Look man, your critique of writing itself is not lost on me, and as I told you I like the ideas in your book, but your capacity to make reading your work enjoyable is not as developed as you think it is. I realize being critiqued sets you on the defensive, it’s natural, it happens to all of us, I admit it happens to me. But realize that beneath the shotposting decorum of 4chan, I’m trying to tell you your ideas and critiques of the meta and nature of the writing craft are interesting, your use of a story about literary vampirism to convey said ideas is also interesting, the final execution of it made experiencing your ideas and viewpoints difficult and unenjoyable for me, if your answer is an author is that my enjoyment as the reader is not your problem then I guess.. okay? What is your problem then? What is the scope of writing and publishing if not the enjoyment of the consumer? Is it some way of immortalizing your existence? Proving something to yourself? Proving something to others? Who are these others and how do you define them as separate from me or my opinion which is not your problem?

>>25575544
Keep up this attitude and no one will even give your shit a fair shake. They’ll just think you’re a dickhead and write you off or leave bad reviews on something they haven’t even read out of spite

>>25575628
This is good feedback but he won’t listen.

>25575589
Okay, genius, how exactly does it signalize it's not supposed to be taken at face value?
>by subtext
What subtext?
Point at the page and tell me where's the signaling and the subtext. I am afraid I do not see any.
>The satirical subtext of the intro being missed is that the tirade against fiction comes right before a work of fiction by the author of said tirade. Seems obvious to me how farcical this is, but I guess I'm a slightly more astute reader than most.
Just use cursive for that, genius, that's how books do that. Ever read one? That's how Umberto Eco did it and he (unlike you) wasn't self-published retard who doesn't read but thinks he is genius. It didn't occur to you EVER that you are self-published retard and people who open your book open it with that in mind and the introductory section reads like edgy high schooler wrote it so 99% of readers will close the book immediately and only edgy high schoolers will read on? Is that your audience? Then I have bad news for you.
Trying to seem intelligent, rather than write well. Cannot take criticism. NGMI.

>>25575631
>makes broad generalization about what readers will think/will do based entirely on what he himself will do
You're bad at giving feedback and also a bit of a bad person too

>>25575652
Do you know where you are?

>>25575429
>If the actual book is like that
The rest of the book is a proper novel and better than you'll ever be able to write, you cretin.

>>25575433
>considering the opinion of your inferiors
Lol no. This is what my inferiors do.

>>25575518
>subtext of the intro being missed
Absolutely nobody missed that. Even /lit/ isn't that illiterate. They're saying it's a slog.

>>25575628
interesting > likeable
>inb4 "she's not Interesting"
That's also not my problem because all she needs to be is interesting to me.

>>25575628
Not him but disliking a character does not mean the character or the book are bad. It's also not really constructive criticism. What is he supposed to do, rewrite Kitty to be "probably more likeable by people like that guy on 4chan"?

>>25575638
>I cannot grasp subtext unless you clearly signal it with cursive
>Yes, I am that retarded.
>Yes, I will act as if it's your problem.
Wow.

>>25575663
>other users are often shitheads so I have to be a shithead too
Do you habitually let others govern your behavior?

>>25575684
Nobody has said it's a slog except you right now

>>25575638
>Can you point out in the text where the subtext is?
lol idiot

>>25575723
Are there any /lit/ authors that aren’t sensitive shit babies?

>>25575723
>Nobody has said it
It was subtext.

>>25575731
Me. I'm amazing at taking criticism. In fact, I have a fetish for it.
Criticize me more, daddy.
Harsher.

>>25575731
Sensitivity is generally regarded as a positive quality in the creative

>>25575736
Kek. Got him.

>>25575740
In the sense of perceiving more, not of being a thin-skinned little bitch.

>>25575736
You should've signalized that subtext stronger

>>25575750
You're getting insulting because your skin is thin

>>25574027

Basically it's saying that King of L.A. is the best because it's formulaic and probably follows the rules from some textbook written 50 years ago or something.
And Consumptive Cur is bad literally because it's not superficially masquerading well enough as "literature".

It doesn't even seem to care about the content or consider that some people might simply prefer one style over the other.

>>25575789
It's a shitty LLM, of course it works like that.

>>25575781
>no u
This bitch considers himself an author.

>>25575796
Let's see your book buddy
Oh wait

Who knew Boor was a little bitch. Shit writer. Whiny little faggot.

>>25575807
75% of the replies in this thread are Boor and Johnson arguing or samefagging

>>25575804
>You shat in this soup.
>Oh yeah? Let's your soup, buddy.
>What?
>If you can't make a perfect soup, you can't criticize mine.
>There's a turd in there.
>Let's see your chef diploma.
>Wait, the turd has something written on it... "King of L.A."...

>>25575804
Even the very first page reads like a script. "Hip, sharply dressed industry types are mingling". Lmao.