Looking for some criticism for a work I wrote a while back. Don’t worry, the work is free; I’m not trying to profit off anybody. I’d like to have some literate people review the work and see what they like and dislike about it. You can download the epub or the pdf by following the link below. Much obliged.
https://books.google.com/books?id=5pgXAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>7766360
I feel like this may have been relevant approximately 104 years ago. The point of Marcel Duchamp was that he was genuinely brave in his absurdity, forward-thinking, truly avante-garde in the real meaning of the term. To rehash this kind of stuff over a century later isn't necessarily bad or good, but just... irrelevant. No one wants to read absurdity when our entire culture is more absurd than your writing can possibly comprehend.
>>7766389
But your post only came 9 minutes after OP posted. You couldn't have read the work in that short amount of time. Or are you judging the book by it's title and cover?
>>7766389
>No one wants to read absurdity
Speak for yourself. This guy is literally giving his work out for free, and absurdism is still a greatly relevant genre (see the continued cultural significance of Kafka).
>>7766393
I read the first two and looked at the drawings. But in any case the point was about absurdity as an art form.
>>7766395
Kafka being relevant is like Hemingway or any other modernist being relevant. They are read, but that doesn't mean authors today are trying to imitate them. Nor should it, because if people kept writing in the style of a century ago, it would quickly become boring, right?
>>7766419
What, so people can't write in a minimalist style anymore since Hemingway did it 60+ years ago?
>>7766427
They can, but it's boring. What aren't you getting about this? Are you slow?
stop using the word "suddenly"
>>7766436
You keep using "relevant" as if it means something. It just doesn't make sense to me, especially when we're talking about literature and the expression of human experience.
>>7766449
You keep using "words" as if they mean something, you post-modernist basket-case. Surrealism expressed a certain spirit of non-compliance in a tightly wound world just before the outbreak of WW1. When it is done in 2016, with nothing to react against, it becomes drivel, blather, nothing. It doesn't even fulfil its original purpose, a shock value.
>>7766360
Overall I like the direction you're trying to go. Just a few criticisms:
- Try to be more subtle. Things like the subtext note explaining dandy refers to himself as "we" is too explicit and treats your readers like they're juvenile. In other words:
SHOW DON'T TELL
- Your comma-abuse is painful in some places
- Never use the word "suddenly" again
>>7766419
Are you completely ignorant of contemporary literature? Why do you think minimalism is a style of a century ago, as if Lish edited, k-mart realism and other strains of minimal style aren't still being done today?
>>7766436
Which present-day authors do you enjoy?
>>7766474
LOL. Yeah, "suddenly" is a word I stopped using some time ago. Thank you for the criticism. The work was published in 2015, but many of its stories trace back to as early as 2012. I tried to write each story is a different style, trying to capture a different perspective, embracing some type of abstract ideal related to relativism (or something like that). Thanks again.
>>7766488
keep it up, man. I'm rooting for ya.
>>7766469
I was talking about absurdism, not surrealism. IMO so long as humans exist, absurdism will be relevant.
I agree with your thoughts on surrealism, however.
>>7766474
Forgot to mention. I tend to abuse commas the way an alcoholic husband tends to abuse his wife. It's unforgivable, I know. I'll work on it.
>>7766485
I never said anything about the amorphous title of 'minimalism'! Does Tao Lin write like Hemingway? If yes, why?
>>7766495
Well, I think we can agree then. Absurdity is a part of the world, but "absurdist" writing has had its day?
>>7766486
Pinecone
>>7766526
Pynchon is a big influence in my writings as well. Joyce was actually the author that got me interested in writings to begin with.
>>7766532
I'm not saying you're a bad writer. I think, having read a bit more while browsing, you also have some creativity. But I'm saying surrealism is not what it used to be. It is a style that relies on having prior constraints to break out of, whereas post-modernism (Pinecone) acknowledges these constraints have already been done away with by modernism (Joyce).
>>7766360
Absolutely shit, but at least you tried.
>>7766561
Absolutely. We have to remember the post-modern condition of man. I suppose my writings are more in line with something like Alfred Jarry or Jacques Vache.
My problem with postmodernism is that, while it is true that we tend (overall) to live mundane and meaningless lives, why not simply have fun and create surreal spectacles which we can enjoy in? Screw meaning. Forget interpretations. Just create beautiful words that satisfy the human psyche the way a good bottle of scotch or a sensual blowjob might. No?
>>7766574
>my writings are more in line with something like Alfred Jarry or Jacques Vache.
hahahahaahahahaahahahahahah
>>7766566
You read all 300+ pages within the 60 minutes that this thread was established. I commend your speed-reading abilities, good sir.
*tips fedora*
>>7766579
30 pages was enough for me to determine that you're a terrible writer and thinker.
>>7766577
Well... perhaps not stylistically. They were a heavy influence on me, though, at least ideologically. But aren't they a heavy influence on us all? Great writers, IMHO.
>>7766574
>>7766586
Do me one favor por favor? Read Beyond Fields of Rabbit's Foot. That was primarily a prose piece. See if the writing is up to snuff. Much obliged.
>>7766588
Not trying to be smug, just honest. The problem with being honest in a superficial society, is that you are often meet with a severe sense of disdain (Am I superficial or is society, as Debord might have said?). I love Nabokov, though. What a wondrous writer!
>>7766574
Kind of. You know when people think nihilism means being depressed, when authors associated with it tend to view it as a liberating philosophy that frees one from a great burden? I think post-modernism tells us the same about literature in so far as it is supposed to liberate, not engender ennui. All this fart literature about being depressed, taking pills and so on... its really all very late 19th century in its outlook. That's why I consider Mason & Dixon to be the prime example of what post-modernism actually is: playful, creative, brilliantly readable, unreliable, semi-historical, not particularly moralistic, etc. Like you said, it is beautiful words, so why not?
But this leads into your writing. You've had these thoughts, they're good, they make sense to you, but I fear you've tried a little to hard to force the conclusion. Your style follows the belief that there ought not to be a defined style so rigidly to the point where it has defined your style. Make sense? That's just what I think. Pinecone genuinely didn't give a fuck and wrote in 18th century English.
>>7766605
Trying to be honest and being honest are two different things.
>>7766605
holy shit you can't write a post or an original thought without having to namedrop writers and thinkers, you inauthentic faggot.
>>7766615
Yes, you wonderful person! If there is nothing to be happy about, then there is also nothing to be sad about! Mason & Dixon: "men of the grain and grape," where they not, as Pynchon said?
Now, your statement about my writing being somewhat "forced." This is true to some extent. As I said before, James Joyce was a major influence in my life. I have always tried to condense my writing so that it is like consuming Campbell's Soup. One has to add quite a bit of water (effort) in order to make the work palatable.
Pynchon, to me (who I regard as the best living writer), is like soup that is ready to serve, while I, alas, cannot escape the condensed soup stage. I ask my writers to cook the meal for themselves. Those who choose to eat condensed soup out of the can will only be disgusted.
I thank you deeply for your comments. You were one of the few to offer their forthright opinion. I truly am grateful.
>>7766639
What's wrong with citing sources? I am a rather egoless man. But what in my work makes you think I'm inauthentic. Though, I suppose, technically, we are all somewhat inauthentic since we create ideas based on the works we have previously read and experienced for ourselves, which begs the question: “Does authenticity even exist?”
>>7766657
You're not egoless anon, you're just not self-aware.
>>7766645
Well, you're welcome. But find your rhythm, and remember Joyce worked like a demon on every line and came out with only 4 book-length works in a 40 odd year career. Pynchon only 8 in coming up to 60 years of writing.
>>7766666
Five 6's in a row. My god are you devil himself?
But of course I am not self aware! The self is an illusion, good sir. Identity is established merely by associating with symbolic differences that have no impact upon our impartial existence. We are all a flux of energy: stardust as the scientists say; dirty for the earth and food for worms. How wonderful.
>>7766669
Very true (and a pertinent idea when concerning modern day lit). Look at how many books authors are expected to crank out this day and age. It's positively... absurd.
That said, I've only written a few full-length works.
14 Surreal Absurdities (300 pages)
Four Different Faces (150 pages)
Three Poems (80 pages)
Outside of this, I have three other works that are only about 40 pages in length.
If you put all my work together, it would probably only be the length of one Pynchon or Joyce novel.
Thank you again for the comments.
>>7766676
This post gave me cancer.
>>7766697
Can you please prove that the concept of "self" is nothing more than a concept? If so, please explain. I would be most interested.
>>7766360
The most surreal absurdity you could deliver is beautiful prose.
>>7766728
Do you think my prose is beautiful and aesthetically pleasing? If so, I am touched and offer you my deepest sincerity.
>>7766697
It gave us all cancer.
>>7766743
Please, by all means, offer a rebuttal. I am most interested.
I suppose the idea of the "self" being illusory is more of an Eastern, as opposed to Western, perspective. But I believe the Taoists like Lao Tu got it right.
The self is merely associating with abstract symbols and signs (differentiating ourselves from Others). In a sense, isn't "identity" like a patchwork shirt or a research paper? It's composed primarily from outside sources. Being so, is it actually our own?
>>7766759
*Tsu
>>7766759
you seem like a good guy, i hope life treat you well. i doubt this people answer you properly.
( i like your drawings)
>>7766735
I think it's base.
Every once in awhile you have a well-sounding word combo, even if it's as simple as 'frost or flake fell'. The word 'current' ruins it though.
I recommend you come at it with a different approach.
>>7766806
Thank you very much. Most of my drawings were inspired by the silent manga Travel by Yuichi Yokoyama. It's a wonderful work. If you like experimental manga, it's a great pick-up. Shame PictureBox publications went of of business, though.
>>7766759
No one is trying to refute your position. We just think you're a massive posturing mongoloid.
If you are CJ Cala, keep up writing, but try to understand that subscribing to philosophical Taoism does not give you carte blanche to act like you have a personality disorder.
If you are a shitposter, then 10/10 desu
http://www.amazon.co.uk/C.J.-Cala/e/B00445DJ78
Top kek at this fucker
>>7766820
I appreciate your ever-so thoughtful insight. I write mostly with my ears, I'm afraid. Sometimes I think my writings approach the schizophrenic. The, again, this is a schizophrenic society (or, at least, a Deleuzian one).
Also, the reason I use "current" so much is because of this old Zen ideal of a flowing river. Perhaps, I should tone it down some. But I do believe we, as humans, should learn to flow in life. Carelessly adrift like a piece of oak at sea. Ah, well, I'm rambling now.
>>7766840
read the reviews on his 99 penny poetry book thing, "an insult to poetry" lmao
>>7766832
Mongoloid? I didn't know I was Asian, or are you referencing Devo. They are a great band! Much better than the "one hit wonders" society tries to portray them as.
>>7766843
>schizophrenic society (or, at least, a Deleuzian one)
You're the kid in class that professors talk aboutto each other, saying how anooyingly pretentious you are and so on.
>>7766419
I don't know man, classical literature lasted a long time.
>>7766847
Oh, yes. That's not included in the work (14 Surreal Absurdities, that is). In fact, 99 Penny Poems isn't poetry at all. I was trying to deconstruct the genre by simply going on a political and philosophical rant, using rhyming couplets, to convey impartial "social realities." I feel as though everything I said in that work was true, but, certainty, it wasn't poetry.
>>7766858
Again, I'm simply citing sources. I'm not trying to impress. I am sorry if it appears that way. Text-based conversation is very limited after all.
>>7766864
I like you. Not "C.J Cala", but the person posting these pretending to be him. You are very good at this thing, keep it up, I do not think I could have came up with something so funny and forcibly pretentious that quickly.
>>7766469
>Surrealism expressed a certain spirit of non-compliance in a tightly wound world just before the outbreak of WW1
Rofl kill yourself
>>7766877
Ah, the aspects associated with being anonymous. One can never know, can they?
>>7766891
This is when I ask you for a time stamp and you ignore me. Sorry I am ending the game, it was fun.
>boy pussy
>>7766906
Oh, it's available for free if you're interested. I believe information and entertainment should be free for everyone.
https://books.google.com/books?id=A0mkCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA1#v=onepage&q&f=false
>>7766900
Can you give me a moment?
Has anyone else actually read the work in question?
>>7766906
Looks like somebody read the Greeks.
>>7766900
Here you are, good sir.
There have been 70 replies to this thread. 1 or 2 of those have been dedicated to discussing the book in question. I thought /lit/ consisted of intelligent people that are willing to explore new literary works and discuss them openly in a free debate. They’re not particularly difficult works. Feel free to analyze each story separately if that is easier to do.
>>7766998
surreal
>>7767037
hey cala, im sorry but i don´t see the point of going through the "14 surreal" thing. you seem like a rational guy so...
because i didn´t ended i tell you:
why?
it´s just boring, unoriginal, or maybe i just don´t get it. tell us more about your intentions. in general, not only the "14 surreal" thing.
>>7767280
Each work is written in a different style. This is meant to convey the idea of relativity, noting that how we perceive the world is based on our relative perspectives, which we interpret to be true (these can be seen as our ethnocentric perspectives). Personally, I don't consider any of the works different from any other. All 14 works are the same thing. However, people will perceive them to be different. even though they aren't.
It's like the alchemists talked of in days of old. The Peacock's Tail: a rainbow one ONE white light that holds ALL the world's possible colors. I want people to see beyond illusory differences (beyond colors) and see life more from a holistic/unified perspective (the white light).
>>7767321
As Nietzsche stated, it is foolish to become an idol or a leader. For, when one does so, they create a hoard of followers. Who would want to create followers? Who would want to turn men into sheep?
>>7767324
you have to relax your perspectives.... in all what i read i see you talking about the colors... (that colors), i don´t feel that white light... talk straight. the literary life it´s a lie.
>>7767324
*of ONE
>>7767349
Literature is not the best way to convey philosophical truths. Still, I like merging dichotomies.
14 SA is most defiantly the rainbow perspective. But I'm hoping that, beyond it, the reader can see the holistic white light. I'm hoping people can see beyond the language and understand how it is all absurd. Hence the title 14 Surreal Absurdities. I convey surreal things only to show how absurd they actually are.
>>7767321
No. But memes are an end result of our current society. As such, they should be discussed.
>>7767370
but you can talk straight about that, make us understand what exactly absurdism you see in us. in all that "14 surreal" i see you playing and making the assumptions that everyone can understand all this you are explaining about the absurdity of life ... (well, i don´t read enough to say this) but all we seeing is you playing with characters and trying to adapt to something meaningful in a narrative and cool (in your perspective) way.
i just tell you, talk straight, or think what you want to say about the crazyness of our society, or life or whatever. you seem a little confused (what is all right in the end but... explain us your confusion, you know, not your teachings.
>>7766937
>stinking heaps of trash
>not 'stinking trash heaps'
your voice barrels on too much because you draw things out with old and busted images or too many prepositions so it loses any lyrical quality.
>>7767415
I have written philosophical works on the subject, but they are very dry and academic. They can be found in the work "23."
The absurdism I am referencing is that of the post-modern condition (the existential and nihilistic absurdity of life: understanding the relativity of our ethnocentric perspective and seeing beyond it by embracing a more multicultural/nihilistic perspective). This lies in being able to see beyond the various social illusions and ideologies that we are taught to believe at birth.
I am not attempting to create anything meaningful. Just the opposite. I am trying to dispel meaning by merging so many cherished cultural symbols together so that the end result becomes absurd.
Most people will see the absurdity of my writing in the surface; but you have to dig deeper to see beyond it: to understand how it is all meaningless and absurd. It's not as easy a work as it initially seems for the reader.
>>7767430
You have to understand that the character in question (Tom) is mentally damaged. The story is stream of consciousness mixed with the mind of a damaged man. It's not supposed to be succinct. Thank you for reading it, though.
This is definitely that one guy who assumes a different persona on lit and then gives it up after 100 posts. Why anon, why?
>>7766639
>calling someone unauthentic
We got a DFW wannabe here, lads!
>>7766855
your obtuseness is repulsive. i hope reality rapes your ass
>>7767444
>my character is an autist and that gives me free reign to write whatever drivel i want
no thanks... besides, faulkner did it better
>>7767438
for absurdity, read Kharms. your stories aren't absurd, they're just kinda boring
>>7766574
that entire second part is postmodernism to a t
>>7766676
please leave.
>>7766998
8/10
>>7766666
>Quints
>>7767037
>I thought /lit/ consisted of intelligent people
I literally lol'd.
>>7766360
I like some of the drawings, those with clear lines alternated with detailed textures and some volume to them, the flat or coloured ones just look repellingly childish
The text not so much at a skimming glance, occasionally interesting chunks of words pop up but the prose itself otherwise isn't enough to hold my attention or make me want to build the pictures.
>>7766360
This is hilarious
good job
>>7766906
