>A statistic that sounds fake but isn't: Not one single white American man born after 1984 has published a work of literary fiction in The New Yorker.
>>25641452>women take over literature>it instantly dies as a relevant art formOops
It's just market forces, white men are natural non-readers, they prefer video games and porn more than literature.
literature, like film, is passive (feminine)video games are active (masculine)this is just return to normal
>>25641452I don't have this issue because i read chinese cultivation novels where the mc struggles against heaven's will, dominates and rapes every woman he sees and perserveres through every challange through sheer willpower and grit
>>25641452Of course there is systemic pressure against straight white men in almost every Western institution.But also, I think careers like this are mostly available to women because women do not have to be earners.Even a poor woman has more safety nets than a rich man, she can take an arts degree without worrying about employment, and then either marry or her parents will take care of her until she does marry.Introducing women to the workforce has effectively made all easy or desirable jobs the domain of women, as they can compete for those jobs for less money and take more risks as they have more safety nets.
>>25641551You can't seriously believe that. White men have always been the biggest readers of everything besides trash fiction>>25641572This is true but men would take the risk in the past, because they had a chance of success. Now there are hardly any male starving artists in any domain because why bother
>>25641745The risk is worth it more than ever. You could break through to be the Great White Male, whose quality was so undeniable it got through the sexist gatekept industry.
>>25641452Because there are no right-wing patrons of the artsNone of the right-wing billionaires and financiers are willing to spend money on culture and arts
>>25641572>women because women do not have to be earnersUnderrated trvkeMen have to bear the cost of dating, all the risks of marriage, an alimony system designed to enrich the ex-wife and children rather than provide a basic livelihood, and they voted to have the government forgive their student loans with taxpayer money
>>25641850ok but why arent rich sons of wealthy people writing literature then?
>>25641452Because men with talent live in the bleeding edge of art, which is now social media content. Mr Beast, Pewdiepie, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes and the such, are the modern cultural trailblazers.Books have been relegated to being porn for women and mental masturbation for failed men.
>>25641452>>no wonder young men are no longer reading.Why, I do read. Technically.Can't really wave around non-fiction things like "A Skeptic's Guide to the Mind. What Neuroscience Can and Cannot Tell Us About Ourselves" or "Cosmologies of Pure Realms and the Rhetoric of Pollution", when the cattle flocks together to discuss characters' motivations, plot and shit, though.
>>25641855See>>25641846>None of the right-wing billionaires and financiers are willing to spend money on culture and arts
>>25641885Bug man.
>>25641452The traditional publishing institutions are thoroughly captured, yes. Doesn't mean men don't read or write at all anymore, it just means that when they do, they do it outside the confines of the traditional institutions. Helps that the institutions can't gatekeep anymore like they used to. It's the era of self-publishing and self-marketing for that matter. "The New Yorker" is not necessarily needed other than to bestow what little legitimacy and status the old literary elite still has to offer.
>>25641557you're an addict
>>25641846Sam Altman, Peter Thiel and Elon Musk think AI is the future of art
>>25641943Someone should round them all up
>>25641943All of them are literal retards though
>>25641452White men have one job: sit down, listen, and support marginxlized pxople.
>>25641943—and they're right.
>>25641452Dungeon crawler Carl is the best selling book this year. Written by a man
>>25641948Don't worry, the Democrats are already prepping that up as we speak. Especially Musk
systemic sexism obviously
>>25642141This is the quality of 4chan/male authors who think they're being oppressed. Read their shit. You think any of them have even a shot at being traditionally published?>>25638739>>25638739
>>25642149You think any serious young author is posting their work on 4chan?
>>25642152No. They are busy having every ounce of actual creativity and expression slowly crushed by higher education.
>>25641936Most men if they are reading read books written well before they were born. So if you are publishing house releasing new books those readers might as well not exist. Even non-fiction men prefer older already verified works than newer books. While it was funny seeing her crashout that one woman crying that she has to compete against Tolkein at the Hugo(?) awards was right. I can't really think of any other industry where newer works directly compete with older works. People watch old movies, but they don't have to compete with them at the box office. Sabrina Carpenter doesn't have to worry about people buying old Madonna records.
The average editor at the major publishing houses deserves to have their skull caved in with a baseball bat.I would legitimately watch a snuff film that involved hunting down and killing employees of Penguin, HarperCollins, Simon & Schuster, etc.. It's exactly what they deserve for helping ruin literature.
>>25642152They're not on reddit either. They're on Royal Road writing litrpgs
>>25641452>Dearth
>>25642163They should be doing more to try and widen their audience, but I also don't blame them pumping out slop for the romance hogs because without them they would have gone out of business decades ago.
>>25642178What is your point?
>>25642159>People watch old movies, but they don't have to compete with them at the box office. Sabrina Carpenter doesn't have to worry about people buying old Madonna records.Honestly I don't think that holds true. All art and entertainment is impacted by competition from past works of excellence to some degree, because it's never been easier to go back to the archives. New movies may not typically have to compete with old movies directly at the box office, but they do compete with old movies that people watch at home instead of going to the cinema. Attendence at the theaters has been declining for a long time. And if you ever listen to the radio, I think you'll find that a lot of airwaves are being hogged by music from the second half of the previous century. Sufficiently popular singers and musicians have the one advantage that they can go on tour to offer a unique experience to their fans which cannot be so easily replaced by listening to the greatest hits of the 70's and 80's on Spotify. But nonetheless, the overabundant proliferation of music online, whether through commercial channels or piracy, has dealt quite the blow to the music industry of old. Nobody's getting rich off record sales anymore, you only earn real money through merchandise and concerts. The malaise of literature isn't all that unusual, the field just got hit more strongly, since it's always been easier to gain easy access to entire libraries worth of old books than to do the same for the new media.
>>25642219>he doesn't knowkek
Zoomers are feeble half-men so it's not surprising they have nothing anyone wants to read.
>>25642239Take your meds
>>25642230There is more willingness for movie people to go back and watch older movies, but despite how frictionless music listening has become I don't really see much desire to listen to older music more broadly. The radio is the same because clear channel doesn't want pay money to update their nation wide playlists.
>>25641452>>25641519>>25641551>why aren't men reading romantasy slop funded by NGO's and governments?DURRRR I DONT KNOW IT MUST BE MISOGYNY OR SOMETHING BRAAAAAAAAAAP, MEN ARE LE BAD MMMKAY
>>25642310>everything I don't like is an NGO/Government funded psyop Romantasy is dumb slop but it is slop created by the free market. Women want it and the industry provides.
I'm more worried about the continued availability of few but good classics in good format rather than mass producing new stuff for the sake of the new
>>25642335>>everything I don't like is an NGO/Government funded psyopThis is unironically true if you’re a straight White man
>>25641551very high quality bait this
>>25642163
normies catch onto to 4chan's opinions 10 years after the fact, and announce it as if it's some huge discovery. Maybe in 2036 people will finally catch on that the majority of books published now are just straight up porn for foids.
>>25641551
>>25641559>clothes formed from pure skillthis one always gets me
>>25641559the average westoid cannot even comprehend will to power or the zhenreneven trying is likely to send them into qi deviation or cripple them on the spot
>>25641551They hated him because he told the truth
>>25641551I do like video games and porn.
>>25641452>why do minorities need to feel representation in games/media in order to enjoy it?...>WHITE BOYS NEED TO FEEL REPRESENTED IN FICTION IN ORDER TO READ!!!!!kek
>>25643044it goes the other way as well.>representation matters!>no! not white male representation! You don't need any of that!
>>25642949But Conan, what is good in life?
Reading fiction has always been considered an effeminate activity (look into it). The female demographic has also always been more dominant and therefore more profitable to cater towards. Robert W. Chambers stopped writing horror because he was barely scraping by, and when he switched to writing romance novels (specifically "shopgirl romances" which were about plain girls working as department store attendees where they would come into contact with all sorts of rich and powerful men, who of course end up vying for their attention -literally the exact same template that's popular today) he became one of the wealthiest authors of his era.It's also just simple market forces. Contrary to the idea that there's a grand jewish conspiracy to prevent men from getting published, publishers just follow the money and nothing else. Women actually read (and more importantly: buy) books. Look at how fervent women are on social media. They constantly make tiktoks and youtube videos about books, they have large communities discussing books, etc. A woman can make a youtubde video about some romance slop and get a million views. Go make videos about sword and sorcery or weird fiction. You'd be lucky to crack a 1000 views. The market just isn't there. Men collectively aren't interested.You have to stop projecting your own autismal interests onto the masses. In the United States, for every man that enjoys reading there's 10.000 men that like to watch football or fish.
>>25643045It can also go this way, too.The women and minority publishers feel the need for representation in their stories so they publish books with that representation. And since it was very obvious that men don't care about representation whatsoever, based on how vocally opposed they are to it online, they removed that representation since it shouldn't matter to that group. So why should that latter group care unless they had ulterior motives the whole time and where just trying to subvert a group of people?If I say something matters to me but you say it doesn't matter at all -- it's not hypocritical for me to continue that "thing" for me but discontinue it for you. It would be hypocritical, however, for you to know demand that this thing is now, in fact, important for your group.
>>25643062you must be in the wrong thread, this isn’t about representation you discordtranny
>>25643061>Reading fiction has always been considered an effeminate activity (look into it).No it was not.Publishers had to develop new strategies to appeal to women, including new genres and selling the books in grocery stores instead of book stores.There was a massive concerted effort to appeal to women audiences by publishing houses, essentially developing a softcore porn genre for them over the past 100 years.The free market is a myth by the way. I bet you think that social media engagement is organic.
>>25643061>this particular industry, uniquely, is not interested in selling their products to the 50% of the market not currently buying them Simple market forces is not an adequate explanation, particularly as selling books to men was very profitable in the past. What has changed in the last 40 years or so when Roth and Updike and Mailer and all the Alister MacClean type slop was selling in bucketloads?It can’t be video games or social media, because women have access to those too. It can’t be sports or fishing because those existed before
>>25641452They lose interest quite quickly in school>You MUST read this novel about an insecure girl who wants to wear makeup but her sister and her ballet friends are jealous and insecure and………They arrive to the idea that reading is inherently ‘girly’’ because their (female) teachers pick class texts that appeal only really to female students which they’re forced to read begrudgingly, and so when they think about reading books, all they think is ‘that boring gay shit that only girls like’ because that’s how it was treated in school
>>25643088>No it was not.Yes, it was. >Publishers had to develop new strategies to appeal to womenNo, they didn't. The very first dime novels (i.e. proto pulp paperbacks) were in the romance genre. Romance has been one of the biggest and most profitable genres since day 1 of mass market literacy and women have always being the biggest and most resilient consumer base of fiction. >>25643125>Simple market forces is not an adequate explanationYes it is. >particularly as selling books to men was very profitable in the pastIt was never very profitable, compared to catering to women. Fiction was predominantly read by women and young boys (frontier westerns, etc.) until the pulp era boom, which was followed by a sharp decline but still somewhat steady male readership post world war 2, and then a pronounced and continued decline since at least the 1980's. Men, in aggregate, do not like reading fiction. We have over a century of data bearing this out.I know it's painful to think reading isn't le epic based intellectual activity, and that it puts you in the company of women and fags instead, but ignoring reality because it doesn't conform with what you want it to be is stupid (and very feminine, ironically enough).
>>25642149>insulting The Chemical Divorce
>>25641452ANSWER TO TITLE QUESTION:"WE'RE NOT"
>>25641519really makes you think, huh?
>>25641846Billywillynaires are told what to do with their cash by those who actually own resources (not fake fiscal "currency".)
>>25643227What happened to the boys/teens demographic anyway? In the 90s there was a modestly sized yet robust market for paperbacks that tied into popular videogame and movie franchises, along with similar OC book series that weren't as popular on their own but which were able to glean some readers once the bigger IP got those guys into the bookstores. It seems strange that videogames should kill off fiction reading when they used to have a symbiotic relationship with it, there has to be something more going on. It might be something devastatingly simple, like eg young guys who are inclined to read probably have significant demographic overlap with the sort of person who pirates all his media.
>kick all white males out of writing >western culture instantly stagnates and virtually all popular media revolves around creations from the past
>>25643408>picrelSo many leaps of logical fallacy. For you, you should start by picking up a finance textbook.
There's nothing biological about this particular trend.Take Japan for a counter-example. Their mass market sellers are manga and light novels. Their biggest sellers are consistently action manga and shounen, and the majority of LN sales are to men.And this is despite the fact that they have a very sophisticated scene of female creators (some of which write for young men instead of women).Men play more video games because the games industry kept making things for them, while traditional publishing mostly stopped.If a game developer stops making their games for men, the men often stop buying those games.Another thing to consider if we are talking purely about literary / philosophical works rather than this mass-appeal slop. Readers don't start there from kindergarten. They build a habit of reading over time starting at the simple stuff and eventually start tackling the difficult works. If you have an industry that is primarily targeting female readership at the lower levels, eventually you might see that bias affect even the high brow levels as well.1 out of every 1000 Dungeon Crawler Carl readers today might be reading Homer or Joyce in 10 years.
>>25641452Boys watch porn women read it.All the foidslop is basically porn or YA fiction or both. None of it is literature. Men will atleast have a video essay on while they work out or something.
>>25642078>White men won the elections because they want to be seen as weak and not do anything,trannies and women occupying the propaganda outlets doesnt matter! You just want the approval of trooned out kikes!deranged
>>25643597it's just the complete short-circuiting of a mind who operates on privilege comparison trying to reconcile the fact the whitey men are the evil rulers of society with the now un-ignorable statistical reality that they've been getting fucked up the ass for decades and everything's only gotten worse.
>>25642134Who couldn't get an agent and had to self-publish.
>>25641452There's plenty of books by old dead white men to read?
>>25643597>>25643629The faggot just screenshot his own post; completely contemptible. I agree it’s the mental gymnastics of a deranged racist confused by something that he doesn’t understand and thus is enraged by. The whole “you could go write mein kampf II you’re just lazy” bit is particularly eye opening, calling out blatant anti-white racism makes you literally Hitler in this person’s eyes.
>w-w-w-why-Because they're stupid and dopamine addicted and raised in a sick culture with a phone in their hands, that's why you stupid idiot.
