/lit/ - Literature

Post an excerpt and I'll tell you if its over.

>>14036786
Melville was like 32 when he publish MD. You have a year or two.

>>14036796
Alright, this is the opening of my first novel, still unpublished:

It has always seemed to me that my existence consisted purely and exclusively of nothing but the most outrageous nonsense. As long as I can remember, every incident and every impulse of my existence has served only to perpetrate one episode after another of conspicuous nonsense, each completely outrageous in its nonsensicality. Considered from whatever point of view — intimately close, infinitely remote, or any position in between — the whole thing has always seemed to be nothing more than some freak accident occurrent at a painfully slow rate of speed. At times I have been rendered breathless by the impeccable chaoticism, the absolutely perfect nonsense of some spectacle taking place outside myself, or, on the other hand, some spectacle of equally senseless outrageousness taking place within me. Images of densely twisted shapes and lines arise in my brain. Scribbles of a mentally deranged epileptic, I have often said to myself. If I may allow any exception to the outrageously nonsensical condition I have described — and I will allow none — this single exception would involve those visits which I experienced at scattered intervals throughout my existence, and especially one particular visit that took place in Mr Vizniak’s medicine shop.

>>14036786
Fuck no. The stories of people getting their shit together later in life are always better than the younglin who blew up in the 20s and slowly reached their peak. At least imo.
You'll be more inspiring.

>>14036809
Ligotti is... not good. And to think I was considering picking up one of his books.

>>14036809
One sentence in and this already sounds like the most whiney shit I have ever read

>>14036786
What a grotesque image.

>>14036786
Has anyone under thirty ever said anything useful?

>>14036809
Ahhh boo hoo the post

>>14036892
Yes, have you ever heard of Dante, William Shakespeare, Christopher Marlowe, John Milton, James Joyce, Samuel Beckett, Flann O’Brien, Goethe, Franz Kafka, Robert Walser, Peter Handke, William Gaddis, Thomas Pynchon, etc etc etc.

>>14036878
>>14036909
Kek, this

>>14036786
30 IS TOO OLD FOR THIS BOARD GET OFF MY BOARD YOU DISGUSTING WRINKLY BOOMER GO PAY YOUR TAXES AND TALK ABOUT THE STOCK MARKET AND PLAY 9 HOLES WITH THE BLOKES REEEEEEEEEEE

>>14036969
Golf is great anon.

Why would your care about publishing. Only you exist. Who cares what others think

>>14036977
GOLF IS FOR CRAGLY OLD REPUBLICANS

>>14036954
>posting /literallywho/s
lurk more

>>14036969
We were here first. You zoomers ruined our board.

>>14036954
... Gaddis?

>>14036988
How about someone writes about the generational divide on the internet.

>>14036809
>this is the power of Ligotti
Wtf bros? I thought he was supposed to be good? Is it better in context?

>>14037219
Or the generational divide in general.
So many popular media is about blaming "the boomers" for all of our problems. Boomer memes that chastize the old people are so fucking common.
So many jokes about how "lmao my mom can't even find her inbox on her email. She's obsolete". The generational divide between the pre-internet and post-internet people is fucking insane.
It's been like that in the past. Old vs young. The differences of generational ideas. But the internet fucking blew that to infinity.
I just watched that cult movie that came out not long ago called "Hereditary". Horror movie, pretty spooky. One of the major themes of the movie is about how the parent's and grandparent's trauma and what have you affects their kids. Hence "Hereditary".
All my liberal college art friends are absolutely in love with the movie. I can only imagine it's because it's, again, the really common theme of the youth of "our parents fucked our entire existence up and they're to blame for this". It's a really common, and dangerous mindset for the youth to be hive minding about. Almost subconsciously.

Am I fucking crazy or does anyone else pick up on this? It seems like a ton of media that's popular with my generation has this theme.

>>14036878
Can't decide if fiction or self-help

>>14036809
What a fucking mess. Goddamn this was painful to read

>>14036892
Angie Thomas published “The Hate You Give” at 29.

>>14037590
It’s “The Hate U* Give,” incel.

>>14036786
>Just turned 12 years old
>Still not published
I'm a fucking GONER, dude!

>everyone itt got filtered by fucking Ligotti
Kek

>>14037654
I and two others didn't but the others a very worrying indeed.

>>14037654
Filtered as in we don’t get it? Or filtered as in its shit and we called it shit?

how is becoming 30 like? i am extremely afraid of becoming 30-40 and still being a loner wage slave with absolutely nothing. just thinking of that or the fact that i am wasting all my chances that will never come back makes me plan my suicide ahead

>>14037722
We will always regret our past, I think Kierkegaard made that point. If you marry you’ll regret it, if you don’t youll regret that too, etc. I’m thirty now. I suppose my defining regret is pursuing a career in order to be comfortable, of always putting comfort and security before everything instead of taking risks. It’s risks that get you freedom — starting a band or a company, performing on stage, writing a novel, etc. Nothing happens to the man so concerned with security, afraid of a cold night or two. There is no different between having nothing and having everything if you never wanted everything from the start. I’m a highly successful lawyer and you’re a “loner wage slave” and yet I am certain I have wasted my years and will never get them back. I’m constantly filled with dread. You believe you’d like to have what I have, but if you got it you’d realize how wrong you are. To conclude, turning thirty is shit.

>>14037759
This post is lit

>>14036809
It was over before it started.

>>14037309
>It's a really common, and dangerous mindset for the youth to be hive minding about. Almost subconsciously.
Not really, fairly normal. You are just demonstrating another quality of your age, blowing things out of proportion. Many people go through a phase where they look at everything wrong in the world and blame the previous generation. Eventually they get some more experience in life, take on some responsibility and realize, shits a lot harder than it looks

>>14037590
>The Hate You Give
Literally who

>>14037759
based

>>14036954
Dante was 35 when he began the Divine Comedy. Not going to bother looking up the rest.
Also
>Joyce
Opinion discarded.

Nah, there are plenty of example where people don't publish anything until later in life. e.g. I am rereading Tristram Shandy recently which Sterne published when he was 46. Before that all he had written were a few sermons and letters on local politics in his 30s.

>>14037827
You're right but this was off set in history by giving young people little political power or cultural influence.

>>14037846
>political power
they do not really have that much more, if any more political power. It is just viewed as such because you think it was so much harder for past generations to communicate and organize on the large scale, but that never really was a problem and in ways, an advantage, it forced the past generations to think on a large scale and too look to the future instead of focusing on the past and present. As of right now, your generation has less power because they really think they can just make a few posts in the ol internet and change the world in significant ways, they have yet to learn to really look to and plan for the distant future, you want it now.
>cultural influence.
It is mostly their culture, always has been.

>>14037759
Based and truthpilled

>>14036809
It's over

Why does this board feel so pressured to accomplish something? Humanity works together to create great things

>>14036809
Here's a tip. Cut the soliloquy and bring us to a SCENE. Give us an action, something happening. Verbs are the engine of your story. You need to show us why the MC feels this way. Cut the huge unwieldy words in your future writing.

>>14038095
Because most of us are American.

>>14037759
based

in a similar situation anon, but I don;t actually regret it. you can have balance in comfort and spending your free time and money on travelling, buying books and experiecing a ton of stuff as long as you have the meaningful people alongside you.

anybody who sacrifices his free time and energy completely for money or fame is a junkie and should not make the subject of this discussion

>>14037959
>but that never really was a problem
It certainly was. The individual has potentially a far larger level of political influence than ever before if they can find a way to cut through the noise. Social movements that have been born out of the internet would have faded away in years past due to a difficulty of sustaining momentum.
> it forced the past generations to think on a large scale and too look to the future instead of focusing on the past and present.
This sounds pretty vauge. What "looking to the future?" did people in previous generations look to? What inability
>It is mostly their culture, always has been.
If by "their" you mean youth that has only been the case since the twentieth century and the creation of mass culture.

On the generational divide this anon >>14037309 has a point. I'm of the view that "generational analysis" is a fool's errand, facile generalizations stoked by sociological departments needing a quick study published to justify their existence and stoked by desperate journalists needing some clickbait. However, there is a definite level of hatred among politically active zoomers and young millenials that is far stronger than what I've observed researching the culture wars of 50 years ago.

The baby boomers' rebellion against their parents was more along the lines of
>They just don't get it man, they're just not hip.
There was disdain but it was the mocking arrogance of youth that felt that the oldies had their time and now the stage was theirs.
There's an underlying apocalypticism to young people today that heightens that natural generational disdain. Boomers aren't just lame and stupid they are
>KILLING THE WORLD. They RUINED EVERYTHING. FUCK YOU DAD YOU RUINED THE ECONOMY BECAUSE YOU GOT A LOAN THAT TIME NOW I CAN'T GET A HOUSE AND I'M DEPRESSED FOREVER. ALL EVIL IN THIS WORLD CAN BE TRACED BACK TO YOU
And the internet just stokes the histrionics over and over and over again. Hopefully you're right and everything will settle down but I'm not too sure.

>>14038101
Good bait, I hope

>>14038172
>The most basic guidelines of writing fiction is bait
Maybe in the sense that half of /lit/ doesn't know them.

>>14038189
That's not OP's work you dumb cunt

>>14037759
Lucky for me I quit being a lawyer to pursue writing.
I'm yet to be published, I'm over tirthy, I have little money and no income and I've never been happier, nor freer. I used to be afraid, but I'm not anymore. I know I'll write - where I'll do it, as long as I have the possibility of having a roof over my head, is not important.

>>14038163
>if they can find a way to cut through the noise.
That is true of all societies, with or without internet. These same things were said about radio, phones, tv and the power they gave.
>This sounds pretty vauge.
They had to plan far in advance and could not just look at the short term.
>If by "their" you mean youth
No its not, culture has largely been moved by those in their teens and 20s for ages, most people move on from ideology and start families, get a job, live their lives and leave such things behind, nothing new here.
>They just don't get it man, they're just not hip.
Not really, you are focusing on the more mainstream party aspect of the hippies, you are forgetting about things like Malcom X, the Weatherman, PLO and countless others. You really need to learn more about that generation before you start forming such judgments.

>>14038264
How old were you when you quit?

>>14038481
>Malcom X, the Weatherman, PLO and countless others
Not the PLO, wrong acronym... Can not think of the one I meant. Oh well.

>>14038510
SLA.

>>14038495
27. I wrote a novel that was almost published by a big publisher in my country - it went up to the "editorial department", as they told me, and kept calling me and sending me emails saying it had good chances. But it was rejected all the same.
I'm now finishing another novel; I'll probably have it ready by January. I hope this one gets published. All I have ever wanted in my life was to be a writer, and being published is that ultimate goal I set for myself I am yet to reach. I think the day it happens I will feel the most intense feeling of happiness, one I've dreaming for years.
It's close. I hope this is the one.

>>14038481
>That is true of all societies, with or without internet. These same things were said about radio, phones, tv and the power they gave.
Yes and the potential power of the individual has increased with each technological innovation, reaching a fever pitch hitherto not witnessed with the internet
>They had to plan far in advance and could not just look at the short term.
You've just repeated what you said before here with the same, if not an increased, amount of vagueness. People still do plan in advance today and there were plenty of people who saw life only in the short term in previous generations. What you're arguing isn't clear.
>No its not, culture has largely been moved by those in their teens and 20s for ages,
This is a narrow
Teenagers were not moving culture 150 years ago. They had no ability to do so, the platforms were in the hands of older generations. The increase in education time, the explosion of mass media and the recognition by corporations of adolescents as a lucrative market for pop culture is what resulted in what we now call youth culture. Teenage rebellion is an invention of Modernity
>Not really, you are focusing on the more mainstream party aspect of the hippies,
Not just hippies, the culture as a whole of the 50's and 70's including beatniks, mods, rockers, hippies and punks. The revolutionary spirit that existed in all of them wasn't pointedly political but hedonistic, based in a desire for total liberation from their parent's social mores and against anything that was seen as restrictive (like racism) or painful (like war). They were irritated by their parents' stuffiness, perhaps on some level pitied them but didn't hate their parents on principle for destroying the world that was theirs to inherit. The generational divide is present in both, you're right, but the quality of that divide is pointedly different and much harsher today.
>you are forgetting about things like Malcom X, the Weatherman, PLO and countless others. You really need to learn more about that generation before you start forming such judgments.
Focusing on fringe extremist political groups to typify an entire generation is a very disingenuous mode of analysis, like using /pol/ to sum up the current generation
But then this is why I don't like generational science in general, it ends up with complete generalizations. There are loads of young people in the 60's who weren't hippies and there are loads of young people who don't hate boomers all that much. When we discuss generations we are invariably talking about a handful of very loud people that aren't necessarily representative.

>>14038639
>This is (taking) a narrow
view of history

>>14038639
>Yes and the potential power of the individual has increased
As does the noise they have to fight through, net effect, not much difference.
>Teenagers were not moving culture 150 years ago
The culture of the common people, yes, only real difference is there is now a middle man in the form of capitalism. We just call it 'folk' instead of 'popular,' but they really are the same thing.
>is a very disingenuous mode of analysis
I was not focusing on the extreme, I just gave the opposite of the extreme you gave, you focused on party culture. But the civil rights movement was not that, and massive, the hippies were far more politically active than you make it out as well, if you looks past the music scene and drugs, you would see that. It is a very superficial view.

You are just trying to prove yourself correct, there is no discussion.

>>14036809
Good night moon

>>14038544
Please tell me how to write a novel. I never know where to start

>>14038761
>As does the noise they have to fight through, net effect, not much difference.
The difference is quite pronounced given that there are countless examples of individuals whose ability to promote themselves is increased thanks to these technological innovations. There are famous people and movements that could not have been so even ten years ago thanks to the internet. Your position that nothing much has changed throughout the generations is asinine and refuted by even a cursory glance at history.
>The culture of the common people, yes, only real difference is there is now a middle man in the form of capitalism. We just call it 'folk' instead of 'popular,' but they really are the same thing.
They are not at all the same thing - the introduction of capital is not some arbitrary element that you just can cast aside, the industrialization of culture was a titanic societal shift - you might as well deny the effect of industrialization on agriculture as no big thing because "well there's still farms so what's the difference?"
Also Folk culture was certainly not moved and shaped by young people. The whole notion of folk is inherently bound up in tradition and inheriting and learning your culture from elders whereas Pop Culture thrives on the New at the expense of the Old (except when exploiting and advertising nostalgia to older generations who have outgrown the New).
>I was not focusing on the extreme
The groups you gave were all very extreme both for the time and now. WUO and the SLA were also very small organizations who cannot be taken in anyway to be representative of the general population of students.
>you focused on party culture.
Which isn't much of an extreme. If there's one constant among young people across history it is their propensity to party. The hedonistic aspects of Baby Boomer youth culture were far more prevalent than the political aspects (which is true for today too).
>But the civil rights movement was not that, and massive
And not predominantly a youth movement so it's moot point.
>hippies were far more politically active than you make it out as well
They were politically active, I never argued that they weren't. This discussion was never about "whether or not baby boomers were politically active" but rather about the way many baby boomer activists saw and interacted with the generation of their parents is different to how the current crop of kids do.
>You are just trying to prove yourself correct, there is no discussion.
Stop being needlessly petulant.

>>14038781
You need to have a very good, simple, central idea (convoluted, messy ideias and plots muddy the message), a very good premise, and know what are the main themes you want to write about. These are easy, they're what naturally interest you.
Other than that, just practice and write. I'm not published, so I don't feel confortable giving more advice than this.

>>14036809
I liked the first sentence. I disliked the rest.

>>14038981
>increased thanks to these technological innovations
And decreased for others, it is still the same, who ever best utilize the tools of the day, is rewarded.
>capital is not some arbitrary element that you just can cast aside
Capital is not new, nor is middle men, only thing that changed is the scales tipped towards the middle men. It is still the culture of the masses, call it pop, call it folk.

>folk is inherently bound up in tradition
So is pop, things that are not built on the past rarely get wide spread acceptance with the current generation. In folk the new generations changed what needs to be changed to make it applicable to their generation, just as is done in pop, plenty of books on the subject if you care to investigate.
>representative of the general population of students.
Nor are hippies or even boomers, they are just generalizations, the more people you put under a generalization the more flawed it tends to becomes.
>Which isn't much of an extreme
hippies took it to the extreme, so in this case, yes it is.
>predominantly a youth movement
So? It still applies to my point.
>different to how the current crop of kids
Of course they do, never said they didn't, just that you simplified it to the point of being beyond stupid and it still supports my original point if you leave it in the context it was presented and stop picking things apart.
>Stop being needlessly petulant
You make it difficult.

Just do it to do it with no expectations

>>14039404
>And decreased for others
That doesn't follow. Whose ability to promote themselves has decreased thanks to the internet?
>Capital/Middle Men
Who were the middle men within folk culture? Who were they the middle men between? How is a change that emphasizes Capital in the creation of culture not a significant shift?
>It is still the culture of the masses
Just because they can be under the thinly drawn banner of "culture of the masses" doesn't mean they are remotely the same thing. It's ridiculously reductive to say otherwise
>So is pop, things that are not built on the past rarely get wide spread acceptance
Pop culture is almost entirely preoccupied with the New. Every moment we are bombarded with a flurry of new fashion, music, films,
meant to be churned out, consumed and disposed of in a constant cycle of production Here, culture is diffused hierarchically, funded by the money men, produced by the "artists" and sent down unto the masses. Quite unlike folk culture which is usually produced in a far more communal fashion over a long period of time. Within Pop, one is constantly encouraged to keep on whatever particular trend is active at the moment, a trend that fades from view as soon as it came. Novelty is what is most important, above tradition
This can be easily seen by looking at how the cultures differ in relation to change. The innovations of pop culture from generation to generation are quite significant (in fact they are significant within generations, hippies and punk were both boomer subcultures) whereas the innovations within folk cultures are fairly minute from generation to generation
>plenty of books on the subject if you care to investigate
I sincerely doubt you've read any of them given how nondescript you've been about the subject so far.
>Nor are hippies or even boomers, they are just generalizations...
Which is exactly what I've been saying this whole time thanks for reiterating it
>hippies took it to the extreme
Most hippy kids weren't in an orgy 24/7, dropping acid everyday. They were just kids who partied about as much as any generation of kids did.
>So?
You are aware that youth culture is what were talking about right?
>Of course they do, never said they didn't,
Really? You said:
>Not really, fairly normal. You are just demonstrating another quality of your age, blowing things out of proportion. Many people go through a phase where they look at everything wrong in the world and blame the previous generation.
You're saying here, quite unambiguously, that the particular dislike that the current generation of kids hold for their parents that the other anon talked about is par the course and not unique at all compared to generations past. If that's not what you meant you really should be clearer with your words (which is becoming a reoccuring theme with you)
>You make it difficult.
Think how I feel wasting my time talking to a moron who doesn't even understand his own position AND is being a smarmy little bitch.

>>14036808
He was already a succesful published author by then, retard.

>>14039652
>thanks to the internet?
Everyone who is not good with the internet?
>who were the middle men Who were they the middle men between?
Managers, venue owners, the people that financed various traveling troops and so on, lots of people looking to make living. Folk was not just peasants filling up some time, plenty of professionals, roaming minstrels and all that. I never said nothing changed, things always change.
>reductive to say otherwise
Well, you probably will have big issues if you go into study of any of this, especially musicology.
>preoccupied with the New
And it is based on the past. Study any artist and you will see it. Feel free to give me examples of ones you feel that owe nothing to the past. Fringe stuff does not count, we are talking mass acceptance here.
>innovations within folk cultures are fairly minute from generation to generation
Not even remotely true, you have never studied any folk culture in any depth. They changed and took on new ideas constantly, from within and from external sources brought in through traveling.
>I sincerely doubt you've read any of them given how nondescript you've been about the subject so far.
Been as detailed as you have. By the way, I have a degree in musicology, I have put a fair amout of study into this.
Blah blah blah.
>You're saying here, quite unambiguously, that the particular dislike that the current generation of kids
I said age group, not generation, this has nothing to do with current generation, I went through the phase and I do not begrudge others for going through it. I never expressed any dislike, unambiguously or otherwise, I stated a simple and well known fact.

>>14036809
WOMP WOMP

Chuck palahniuk didn't start writing until mid 30s. You got lots of time, bud

I started writing in my mid 20s. I stopped because life was really hard and I was a hardcore alcoholic resigned to nothing in my life ever changing. I started writing again last month as I near my fifth year of sobriety at the end of the year.

I'm 36 now and hope to be published by 40.

OP is a weak bitch. Nothing is ever over.

>>14036809
You can do better than this

>>14036786
age doesn't matter unless you want to have a career

>>14040383
What do you mean

>>14040118
>Everyone who is not good with the internet?
The existence of the internet hasn't decreaed Grandma's potentiality o using it as a platform just because she's not hot on using a keyboard. Her ability to promote herself has increased with its creation, whether she knows how to use it or not.
>Managers, venue owners, the people that financed various traveling troops and so on, lots of people looking to make living.
Fair enough but this hardly comparable to the whole mechanized industry that churns out pop culture. Take away these managers and you'd still have folk music. Take away the industry from pop culture and there is no pop culture. Pop Culture is the industry, it is the middle man. That isn't incidental.
>Folk was not just peasants filling up some time
That is the bulk of it though - if it is not produced and sustained by the people themselves it can no longer reasonably be called folk culture
>I never said nothing changed, things always change.
You implied the change was not particularly significant which was my objection.
>Well, you probably will have big issues if you go into study of any of this, especially musicology
Give me the name of two musicology articles or books that argue that folk and pop culture are basically the same thing
>And it is based on the past.
Nothing isn't but that's not the point I was making. The point was that within popular culture, the New surpasses the Old, it is an amelioration of it. The New coming into being isn't just simple change born out of the passage of time, it's actual progress, everything before it merely a herald for the present. it from the which is an attitude that is not in a more traditional society where the New and the Old are more likely to hold a more equal footing.
>Not even remotely true, you have never studied any folk culture in any depth.
It is true. Compare the rate of innovation in a decade of a particular folk culture of your choosing and then do the same with a with a decade of pop culture in the 20th century The rate of the former is practically glacial in comparison.
>By the way, I have a degree in musicology, I have put a fair amout of study into this.
You haven't really shown much of it beyond "lol read a book"
>I said age group, not generation,
You literally said generation in that quote.
>I never expressed any dislike, unambiguously or otherwise
Is English not your first language or is your reading comprehension non-existent? You were making the point that this generation's hate of their parents is no different to any previous generation's hate of their parents because that's what people their age do. I was arguing that the hate is different in type and more pronounced in quality than in generation's past.

>>14040496
>Give me the name of two musicology articles or books that argue that folk and pop culture are basically the same thing
This is banal, I am sure there are books that state it, but it is not something books or papers would bother argueing, at least not musicologists. When did the music of the people stop being folk and start being pop? The evolution from folk too today is well documented, few if any in musicology treat them differently, it is one continuum.

I am out of this thread, so long!

>>14036809
Fuck the other anons. I think it's good and wanted to keep reading.

>>14036954
>all men
Plen alert

>>14036786
Look at Sartre.

>>14040361
>Nothing is ever over
How would you know lmao, you haven't been published yet

>>14037309
>cult movie
You fucking retard.

>>14041651
You should self-harm.

>>14041118
If you'd studied the topic extensively you should easily be able to direct me to a book or two that talks about it - even a basic textbook on folk music would talk about the relationship between the two, if there were indeed synonymous. I'm sure you had some in mind when you said
>plenty of books on the subject if you care to investigate
Or were you just lying to be an evasive little shit? I'm starting to doubt your 'credentials' more and more.

>>14041437
You can, buy Ligotti's Teatro Grottesco

>>14040402
>30
>no career

>>14042036
>Or were you just lying to be an evasive little shit? I'm starting to doubt your 'credentials' more and more.
Full sentence.
>In folk the new generations changed what needs to be changed to make it applicable to their generation, just as is done in pop, plenty of books on the subject if you care to investigate.
I was clearly talking about folk specifically here and refuting your claim that folk cultures do not change much in time and are stuck in tradition, not relating it to pop, as I said folk being pop is banal in the musicology world. From a technical standpoint basic theory is enough to see how alike they are, there could be a pop-sci style book on this all somewhere, no idea, I do not read those.

Your asking for musicology books is somewhat humorous, you demonstrate complete ignorance of music theory, the primary language of musicology books.

Now run off and pretend you won.

Ahh fuck it, we all win, participation awards all around!

>>14036786
>>14036796
>>14036808
>>14036809
>>14036838
>>14036854
>>14036878
>>14036887
>>14036892
>>14042125
>>14042053
>>14042042
>>14042036
>>14042023
>>14042022
>>14041651
>>14041447
>>14041446
>>14041437

People who focus on their age instead of building meaningful relationships with good people or learning good skills are wasting their mental energies. Being 30 doesn't mean your life is over.

I'd just like to remind people that this guy made 5 nights at freddies when he was 44 years old. He has a net worth of over 60 million dollars from the franchise.

It's never too late to penetrate the market, fucking idiots.

>>14042125
Nice to see you're still here, I thought you'd left the thread
>I was clearly talking about folk specifically here
You were talking about how practitioners of folk music improved on a tradition in the exact same way that pop music did. What books on this subject were you thinking of?
>as I said folk being pop is banal in the musicology world.
Any textbook on the history of folk in a particular geographical area would have a section on pop music given that, according to you, the continuity between the two is so strong. I'm sure, since you've studied this so extensively, you can think of some books that discuss this. You say it's a banal truism within musicology but where did you learn it from? Who first made this pronouncement that folk and pop are indistinguishable from one another? The distinction between the two was area of controversy and discussion in 1968 when Maud Karpeles gave her address to the IFMC on that very topic and concluded that there were definite distinctions on sociological grounds. Given that this was a question 50 years ago, there must have been extensive work done in the intervening decades that settled the matter so definitely. All I'm asking is, what was it?
>From a technical standpoint basic theory
Ah but we were never talking about theory; we were talking about sociology weren't we? Either way this seems massively reductive for a trained musicologist since there are many different types of folk music. Yoruba traditional music and Afrobeat share commonalities, one being inspired by the other, but it would be silly to say that they are the same thing from a theoretical standpoint.
>you demonstrate complete ignorance of music theory
Music theory never came up until this very post. The books you've hinted at and that I've asked you to recommend several times with no response are historical musicological books, not theoretical ones so my knowledge of theory is an irrelevant moving of goalposts on your part in order to "win the argument" which makes this:
>Now run off and pretend you won.
into an even more pathetic statement than it first appears

>>14036809
Great pace, very nice styling. The voice is a little annoying, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
You're doing well anon, much better than I expected and probably better than most of the crabs here.
Keep moving forward and everything will turn out fine.

>>14042612
IT'S
FUCKING
LIGOTTI

>>14036786
Bump. This is a great thread

>>14036786
>>14036809
Even if not published at least you wrote something. I have been trying to write since i was 16 years old. Everytime i end up either staring at the screen for half an hour or if i manage to write a single sentence i end up obsessing over it. I check it over and over again and by the time i'm done with it two hours have passed, by the end it looks more like an advertisement for a synonym dictionary than something that belongs in a story. I always end up deleting anything i have wrote and convince myself that i just don't have what it takes, the dessire to write then dissapears for a few months and i when it comes back i repeat this ritual. I'm 28 years old now.

>>14042933
IT'S
FUCKING
LIGOTTI

>>14036809
I wrote like this when I was 15 lmao I still cringe at a short story I wrote called “the vanishing act” which was written almost exactly like this.

>>14036954
>Beckett
>Joyce
>Pynchon
Get a real personality anon, don’t just spam the same lit memes

>>14043006
You are not ligotti

>>14043017
Based. Yeah don’t read Beckett because a bunch of incels like him too. Makes sense.

>>14036786
BUMP

>>14043061
And I thank god for that everyday.

>>14036786
>18
>still stuck on writing pornography, and autistic gambling fiction
>overuse the 2nd person perspective to hell
Is it over bros?

>>14044515
Why?

>>14044526
Gambling fiction?

>>14044536
Because Ligotti's shit.

>>14042281
>I thought you'd left the thread
I unpinned it and stopped following it, I will respond if I see it and there is nothing better to occupy my time here, you will not get any exchanges like yesterdays.
>What books on this subject were you thinking of?
EVERY single book on any folk tradition that goes beyond the superficial will show how it changes over the years, the books would all be rather boring and short if they did not and every single one that does not focus on a specific time period will make the connections between folk and pop.
>Who first made this pronouncement that folk and pop are indistinguishable from one another
No one has ever said they are indistinguishable from one another.
>Given that this was a question 50 years ago, there must have been extensive work
The question has been repeatedly raised since the term 'folk music' was first applied, it is nothing new, there is no 100% agreed upon definition, people quibble about this endlessly and when you ask them to draw the line of when folk became pop, they can not draw a line without giving a pile of exceptions.
>Ah but we were never talking about theory
You are showing your ignorance here, music theory is just the grammar of music, another language. Harmony is the basis, the stuff everyone mostly agrees upon, theory covers everything that can not be explained with the tools of harmony, mostly it is quibbling over things akin to whether or not you should use an Oxford comma, but you have those people that try to break things and those that try and push things further. It is like any other language, you have those that are always trying to go beyond what is accepted and do new things. Harmony is not really capable of expressing much of music outside of the western classical tradition and therefore relies heavily upon the tools of theory to share the ideas of other traditions and more often than not goes beyond established theory since many of these traditions do not fit into western theory at all. This is no different than translating a work of literature, it makes the work more accessible and teaches the western tradition new tricks at the same time. The term theory here, really is just the acknowledgement that it is a language which still grows and changes, it is not dead, it is not drawing a parallel to quantum mechanics.
>but it would be silly to say that they are the same thing from a theoretical standpoint.
That is just nonsense and no different than saying all folk music is the same, from any standpoint other than it is all music.
>historical musicological books, not theoretical ones
That is like asking for a physics book without the math, you want a pop science book, not a musicology book.

>>14040072
Yes but he didn't write his opus until he was into his thirties, you stupid fucking nigger.

>>14044867
>I unpinned it and stopped following it, I will respond if I see it and there is nothing better to occupy my time here, you will not get any exchanges like yesterdays.
I'm sure. Thank you for gracing me with your time, I'm assume you're a very busy man.
>and every single one that does not focus on a specific time period will make the connections between folk and pop.
So give me one
>No one has ever said they are indistinguishable from one another.
Nuh uh. You said:
>We just call it 'folk' instead of 'popular,' but they really are the same thing.
The only difference between the two that you could name was capitalism as a "middle man" which you made out to be a mere superficial difference which was always present anyway. You're moving goalposts again my lad. Do you even know your own position?
>The question has been repeatedly raised since the term 'folk music' was first applied, it is nothing new, there is no 100% agreed upon definition, people quibble about this endlessly and when you ask them to draw the line of when folk became pop, they can not draw a line without giving a pile of exception
But that contradicts with your statement that the matter had been pretty much settled within academia and is now seen as a banal truism.
>non sequitur waffle about theory
I've never seen anyone attempt to fillibuster in text form before but you gave it a good shot. I don't know whether you're mentally ill and prone to confusion or whether you struggle to read English in general but what you wrote there has nothing to do with the topic at hand; the sociological differences between folk and pop culture.
>That is just nonsense and no different than saying all folk music is the same, from any standpoint other than it is all music.
What the fuck are you on about, what I said is the opposite of that.
>That is like asking for a physics book without the math, you want a pop science book, not a musicology book.
Of course there would be theory in any musicology book, however what I'm asking for is a book that you have read which focuses specifically on the historical and sociological aspects of folk music and documents its seamless transition into pop music, since that is what this discussion is about as I've mentioned several times now (and you seem mentally incapable of acknowledging), rather than that which focuses entirely on theory.

>>14042183
what if the market is underage

>>14042183
>mass replier at it again.

>>14044989
Stop talking to yourself mate.

>>14044855
That’s horribly mean and plus I think he’s very good

>>14047404
No u

>>14036809
nonsense outrageous nonsense outrageous nonsense outrageous nonsense outrageous

>>14036809
You're good anon, keep it up.

>>14047541
>nonsense outrageous nonsense outrageous nonsense outrageous nonsense outrageous

Lmao it's actually

>outrageous nonsense nonsense outrageous nonsensicality nonsense outrageousness outrageously nonsensical

If someone wrote that in earnest, they should seriously consider dying.

>>14047902
How do you not see it’s intended to be comical? What is wrong with you? Are you retarded?

>>14047923
>that pile of fucking shit
>"intended to be comical"

So, they did write it in earnest lmao.

It's not comical or even funny in how bad it is, it's just plain horrible. What's wrong with you, lassie?

>>14036809
I love Ligotti, and I love this passage. I guess only true absurdists can understand

>>14036809
Honestly, even if this wasn't bait, the number of replies it got means it's good writing. If people felt compelled to write a response, even one fueled by annoyance, then it has worth. The worst writing is the one that doesn't leave any impression at all.

>>14036786
nah man you can still make it
lots of time till you die left

>>14048083
>getting attention or being popular means a thing is good

From wherever you're seated right now, stand. Jump up as high as you can, higher than you have ever jumped before. At the apex of your leap, flip upside down. Land on your neck and die.

>>14036809
>If I may allow any exception to the outrageously nonsensical condition I have described — and I will allow none — this single exception would
holy fuck this is brilliant

>>14036786
"For heaven's sake, publish nothing before you are thirty."—Virginia Woolf

>25 years old
>been writing seriously (every day) for about 4 years now
>reading every morning and afternoon
>this year in particular find a new level of joy in the process
>receive rejection letters, feel proud just to know my stories were read, realise that if it was rejected then I should not wish otherwise because why should I want something unworthy out there?
>editors have been sending me rejection emails lately with personal notes of feedback and encouragement attached
>this is it, this is the process, work, revise, edit, learn, submit, grow, repeat forever until I die, do it for the love of it I am finally doing it for the love
...
>live at the same house as my gf
>she is always kind of condescending about it
>thinks I have fantasies about being the next Stephen King (she's not a bit reader and he's her only reference for author, as in a celebrity)
>try to explain to her that even my wildest fantasies involve being a fucking meme tier author on a shitty lit board
>she always brings up the fact that I write in front of friends and family because she knows it embarrasses me
>always says shit like "ohh you should see the things he tries to write about"
>always logs on to my computer and ALWAYS ends up reading my worst most shameful first and rough draft and making fun of the shit in there
>once I kind of forgot myself and tried to get her to read something I was really proud of to prove to her that I could be better than that but she didn't want to read it and I ended up feeling like that cringelord who tries to foist his shit onto people
>I'm at the point where I'm hiding it from her
I don't know... It's so fucking bizzare. Yes it does mean a lot to me, it means everything to me. But I'm not some delusional faggot I know I'm just a retard giving it his best and I never talk about it EVER for this very reason, but for some reason she treats it like I'm trying to live this annoying pipe dream or like it's part of my identity or whatever.

>>14036809
>It has always seemed to me

wrong start mate

>>14048194
drop your gf and find someone who´s willingly support your goals in life

>>14036809
I like it, be yourself, let it flow

>>14048194
it's because you're obviously very dedicated to something much larger than yourself and she is not. it affects her to watch you have something like this which she does not, so she is trying to steal it from you... or no, not even that, she is trying to break it so that you both have nothing, the way she wants it.

>>14048204
>>14048222
You fags must be trolling now

>>14048228
if at least you want to write a novel, don´t let the prose be similar to an internet post, it reeks of amateurism, even i know that and i´m not a writer to begin with

In truth: my existence consists purely and exclusively of nothing. The most outrageous nonsense is nothing. For long as remember, and I can, not everyone can, I wish I couldn't, every incident and every impulse of my existence. I cut my words short, because it is outrageous nonsense. But it would also be nonsense to let the full stop run its course. A noose is a full stop unless unused. Only to perpetrate one episode after another of conspicuous nonsense? Each, completely outrageous in its nonsensicality. Considered from whatever point of view. Many. Intimately close. Infinitely remote. Any position; everything always seems nothing more than freak accidents - freak accidents are always cliches, such as the eternal whining of the - man - who - cannot - exist - for - the - sake - of - it. Reasons? Unthinkable. In multiple ways, "considered from whatever point of view." Occurrent (I say this because I hate myself). At a painfully slow rate of speed. Painful because speed should be fast. At times I have been rendered breathless. Impeccable chaos or beauty, I see little difference. I reject the absurd. That is why I embrace chaos. I am out breath! Hold me, I am fainting - nobody's around, because I fill myself my life with outrageous nonsense. Absolutely perfect nonsense is not nonsense. Quite so. Some miracle taking place outside myself. I shall not be held accountable for delusions. Accountability is an illusion. On the other hand, equally senseless outrageousness taking place within me. That could also be illusory. Images of densely twisted shapes and lines arise in my brain. Scribbles. Like these. This is a meta-universe. Literature has lost its way. I am gone. I have often said to myself: "If I may allow any exception to the outrageously nonsensical condition I have described", and I will allow none!, "this single exception would involve curious visits." Before I promised this, I already had a fairly good idea of the exception, which makes the whole promise a stupidity, an oddity. Outrageous nonsense. Throughout my existence? Constantly! Naturally! One particular visit to a particular person in particular: Mr Vizniak’s shop 'o meds.

>>14048241
Just read the replies to that post

>>14048194
I'm really glad you are doing it for the love of it. You seem to truly enjoy it.
But your girfriend is a different story. It's one thing to not be completely supportive, but another to be abusive of something someone enjoys and harms nobody by it. The fact that she constantly belittles you (and even in public!), the fact that she not only believes in you but actively demeans you and attacks you for it should have you seriously considering whether to stay with her or not. I hope you opt for the latter.

>>14048194
why do people choose to live like this?

>>14048194
Reading your account of your life reminded me of my years spent as an alcoholic and it has made me feel disgusting, all of your everything bringing about strong sensations of when my life was a shambling nightmare. As I type this I feel nausea in my gut and a vile chill has swept across my body as even just a small sip of your life evokes sense memories of gorging myself on flammable, poisonous liquids and the despair of not knowing how to move past trauma.

Good luck??? Idek.

>>14044989
>>14044867
>>14042281
>>14042125
>>14042036
>>14041118
>>14040496
>>14040118
>>14039652
>>14039404
>>14038981
>>14038761
>>14038639
>>14038481
>>14038163
>>14037846
>>14037827
>>14037309
Most tedious argument I've ever read on here, can't believe I even read it all, thank for wasting my time.

>>14050284
The musicologist in me found his myopia on pop music fascinating, but I could not keep him on track, he was far more interested in some imaginary victory. I do like that you read the entire thing, I could not even bring myself to reference previous posts in response.

>>14037712

>tfw 18 and show no signs of progressing any written story to completion
The only hope appears to be something similar to Salinger's Nine Stories, although there's no way to fully predict that.

>>14050430
You were the most tedious cunt in the whole thing. You barely had any idea what you were on about half the time.

>>14050430
You got BTFO by the other dude with every response

>>14042183
You didn't even understand my post faglord.

>>14050284
thanks for allowing me to save my time by ignoring it then

>>14050603
Musicology is tedious shit.
>>14050614
How many times did he say "your right but I am still right because I think I am?" He could not even draw the line from folk to blues and jazz to rock, folk revival and pop and was convinced it was imaginary because I refused to produce a book showing something everyone knows. The idea the pop is obsessed with new is just a joke, putting a distortion on a blues rif or playing a jazz riff on a synth is far from being new, pop is heavily rooted in the past and the only thing new about it is some of the instruments, lyrically they deal with the exact same things, love, loss, life and the issues of the day.

>>14036809
shut the fuck up son

>>14050954
I never saw him say any of that. All I saw of you was you ducking his points and going off on random tangents like an autistic. Embarrassing display on your part. All you had to do was come up with a single book and he would have shut the fuck up about it but you couldn't. You come across as a massive pseud. You haven't shown any musical knowledge or insight into the topic at all.

>>14050584
18...for fuck sake dude you're young as hell. Study literature for like another decade before even considering to write. You think we need another teenager telling us about the American experience? Pfffffft

>>14051025
>single book and he would have shut the fuck up about it
No, he wouldn't have. As I said, every book on the general topic at least touches on this, but he needed a book I specifically read so he could try and trap me with 15 minutes of research like he did with the Karpeles quote. If you really want to test my technical prowess, feel free to do so with something more substantial than asking for a title of a book, which demonstrates no skill beyond being able to ask google. I will happily respond in depth if you keep this thread bumped until I get home. Off to work for me. If you regurgitate nonsense clearly beyond your knowledge I will only point out your ignorance, keep it at your skill level and I will respond appropriately.

>>14051064
I don't think anything I've written so far mentions America, and probably won't. Currently planning on the decade thing, though

>>14051102
>No, he wouldn't have.
He wouldn't have a choice not to, it would have totally undermined his argument. But you failed to provide a single example of an article or book on a topic you claim to know.

>>14051102
Do a musical analysis of the first movement of this:
https://youtu.be/eftrUSXY3nM

>almost 30
>want to get into screenwriting

am i dumb?

>>14050954
>>14050430
It's me anon, you big faggot, you just couldn't keep away could you?
> he was far more interested in some imaginary victory
My main interest was keeping you coherent anon, you're a slippery shit.
>I could not even bring myself to reference previous posts in response.
Read: My points were so thin I couldn't remember the ones I made a mere 20 minutes ago.
>How many times did he say "your right but I am still right because I think I am?"
Not once. Compare that to the several times where you contradicted yourself or changed the topic in order to deflect
>He could not even draw the line from folk to blues and jazz to rock, folk revival and pop and was convinced it was imaginary
The argument wasn't that there wasn't continuity, you absolute strawmanning moron you, but that folk culture and pop culture are two separate entities, in the same way that Judaism and Christianity have continuity but are ultimately two separate and distinct entities. This a very commonly held view (simple too, thought you seem to struggle) and I haven't heard anything from you or anyone else that refutes it.
>The idea the pop is obsessed with new is just a joke
Yes, Pop Culture's obsession with the latest trends and it's constant hollow innovation, both driven by rampant consumerism, is totally something I've pulled out of my ass and hasn't been well discussed for nearly a century. Read some of the Frankfurt School anon, it'll help you come to terms with this. Here's a book actually (hopefully you'll return the favour, fingers crossed): "Dialectic of Enlightenment" by Adorno and Horkheimer, specifically the fourth chapter about the culture industry. I'm pretty sure you can find that chapter by itself online.
>more shit about the music itself
Sociology Sociology Sociology Sociology we were talking about Sociology. Don't be making me say this again anon or I shall be very cross

>>14042183
damn. and he made it with mutlimedia fucking fusion too.

>>14036809
There's a voice trying to come through here anon.

At the moment it's behind the words YOU are choosing. For this to be good the voice needs to be the force driving the words. Nail that and you're on your way.

Oh and most writers get 'good' in their 40s. You have ages.

>>14036786
Yeah

>>14036969
Gen X you appalling twat.

>>14048194
She is not 'the one' anon. It's as simple as that.

>>14051846
>There's a voice trying to come through here anon.
Yeah it's literally Ligotti's

>>14051194
>>14051102
Not finished "work" yet?

>Just turned thirty
>Still haven’t reached puberty
Is it over?

>just turned 20
>already regret everything
>have no desire
what do I do

>>14036954
Get Gaddis out of there. He was published first at 33 and then took 20 years to write his next book. He is the shining light on a hill for all who are insecure about getting old and not having been published