Why is experimental literature so frowned upon in the literary community? I absolutely agree that ultimately your words have to stand by themselves, but what's wrong with adding some accentuations to make read even better? Things like typographic manipulation, font choice, use of white space, lack of punctuation--these things (if done right) can tremendously boost one's reading experience without detracting from the prose itself.
Why the fuck is everyone so against it? There's so much untapped potential here and people are dismissing it solely because of "muh traditionalism." It's fucking ridiculous.
>>7361677
I like Danielewski though.
I like the idea, but haven't seen it used well.
Every work considered a bench mark of literature is experimental.
It is frowned upon because amateurs try their hand at it and end up sucking. Most of the time. Also 90% of the population do not want to read experimental, it just does not sell. Only after a experimental gets big will it sell, which again, for new authors is a HUGE gamble. Etc.
Of course if you mean some kind of huge step in experimental literature. Like how it is structured outside of the prose, like you say white space and the like. It just is very, very hard to do well. And then the presentation is very different, it is no longer sold as a 'book' per-se. Or whatever.
But in general, I totally agree with you. It would be very interesting if someone or a group were to come along and have the ability/resources, to experiment with how a book is structured (fonts/space/etc).
what is some 'experimental' literature? is that shit like finnegans wake?
>>7361677
For every "done right" in all of these techniques, there are a million and a half gimmicky pieces of shit.
It's just too hard for the powers that be to sift through it all.
Things like improper font, lack of punctuation, really everything you mentioned, are usually red flags.
>>7361677
it's just gimmicks
it doesn't really add anything other than novelty
>>7361725
>For every "done right" in all of these techniques, there are a million and a half gimmicky pieces of shit.
This. As someone who went very far down the classical music path I can say that experiment for experiment's sake often sucks. In my case it was all about changing the production of sound so you'd get shit where you were just supposed to clack your keys and it was "music". Same thing here too probably.
>>7361734
This.
The story/novel it self should come before the experimentation. Look at something like Infinite Jest or Ulysses for example.
>>7361742
I dunno. Sometimes I want to listen/read/experience more noise than signal because I want to project on to a work more than it's projecting on to me. The signal being distance intervals of suggestion to my imagination.
Then sometimes I want the opposite.
An interesting question is whether or not something poorly done is equivalent to having a lot of noise because it can't be interpreted or understood reliable.
Albeit I'd admit any of these extremes are not very interesting. Random noise is meaningless and a book with zero nuance of interpretation and meaning would be kind of oppressive. I think the latter would make an interesting experiment though because I see a lot of tendencies toward more noise, but not toward more signal (e.g. some kind of extremely low entropy, super strict set of rules of composition and accompanying guides on interpreting the work).
Lol I'm mad rambling.
Experimental literature is experimental with its...WRITING. Not its font or formatting. Naked Lunch---that was very experimental writing for its time.
>>7361677
i don't mind the concept, for me it's just a matter of execution
if the addition of those things are crucial for the themes or to make the reader feel or think a certain way that's fine
it's just that something like that may end up being more gimmicky than important for the actual book, different for the sake of being different if you get my meaning
