/lit/ - Literature

How ... how fragile situations are. But not tenuous. Delicate, but not flimsy, not indulgent. Delicate, that's why they keep breaking, they must break and you must get the pieces together and show it before it breaks again, or put them aside for a moment when something else breaks and turn to that, and all this keeps going on. That's why most writing now, if you read it they go on one two three four and tell you what happened like newspaper accounts, no adjectives, no long sentences, no tricks they pretend, and they finally believe that they really believe that the way they saw it is the way it is ... it never takes your breath away, telling you things you already know, laying everything out flat, as though the terms and the time, and the nature and the movement of everything were secrets of the same magnitude. They write for people who read with the surface of their minds, people with reading habits that make the smallest demands on them, people brought up reading for facts, who know what's going to come next and want to know what's coming next, and get angry at surprises. Clarity's essential, and detail, no fake mysticism, the facts are bad enough. But we're embarrassed for people who tell too much, and tell it without surprise. How does he know what happened? unless it's one unshaven man alone in a boat, changing I to he, and how often do you get a man alone in a boat, in all this ... all this ... Listen, there are so many delicate fixtures, moving toward you, you'll see. Like a man going into a dark room, holding his hands down guarding his parts for fear of a table corner, and ... Why, all this around us is for people who can keep their balance only in the light, where they move as though nothing were fragile, nothing tempered by possibility, and all of a sudden bang! something breaks. Then you have to stop and put the pieces together again. But you never can put them back together quite the same way. You stop when you can and expose things, and leave them within reach, and others come on by themselves, and they break, and even then you may put the pieces aside just out of reach until you can bring them back and show them, put together slightly different, maybe a little more enduring, until you've broken it and picked up the pieces enough times, and you have the whole thing in all its dimensions. But the discipline, the detail, it's just ... sometimes the accumulation is too much to bear.

Where do i start with Gaddis?

We went from the 20th century, the most philosophically and artistically innovative time period in history, to this boring dead end period we are at now in the 21st century. What happened? And no it hasnt always fucking been like this. Where are the great artists and philosophers of today?

>>13296514
Had he had had been going to have had gone there when he knew he had had not that that of which he had have had been scared of would never have had the opportunity to have had to have had scared him.

What do you think of namedropping in writing outside academia? Is it a valid form of engaging larger arguments of a tradition, or does it generally do more to confuse than clarify and get its negative reputation first from that?

Gaddis is really attractive in this photo

>“I know you, I know you. You're the only serious person in the room, aren't you, the only one who understands, and you can prove it by the fact that you've never finished a single thing in your life. You're the only well-educated person, because you never went to college, and you resent education, you resent social ease, you resent good manners, you resent success, you resent any kind of success, you resent God, you resent Christ, you resent thousand-dollar bills, you resent Christmas, by God, you resent happiness, you resent happiness itself, because none of that's real. What is real, then? Nothing's real to you that isn't part of your own past, real life, a swamp of failures, of social, sexual, financial, personal...spiritual failure. Real life. You poor bastard. You don't know what real life is, you've never been near it. All you have is a thousand intellectualized ideas about life. But life? Have you ever measured yourself against anything but your own lousy past? Have you ever faced anything outside yourself? Life! You poor bastard.”

Most based of 20th century american writers. Its one of the few books which can still give me hope. The same people have always been around, you just have to hear from more of them these days.

ahem

>>12571732
Well this man >>12571393 or pic related is the greatest author of the 20th century.

Is there a demand for a short story or novella in which a male mulls over the shattered remains of a friendship with a female suspecting its destruction is due to her having a retrospective look at it deeming their brief sexual interaction as sexual assault and/or rape on his part? Emphasis would be placed on the guilt the male feels, and of course it will be ambiguous as to whether or not sexual assault/rape occurred. It’s something I feel strongly about writing because it offers a male perspective, especially in relation to rape/sexual assault cases where the female “withdraws” consent months afterwards. My worry is that this will get fully rejected due to its “problematic nature” of presenting a male perspective on a female issue. Thoughts?

>top 5 writers with the best prose

What are some /lit/ approved careers?

Are there even any jobs in publishing anymore?