Post your work OP

>>7931493
Inside of Ridgewood (Prose) :https://web.archive.org/web/20070315234234/http://www.the-manifest.org/19/ridge.html

American Imperium (Poetry): http://www.cosmoetica.com/American%20Imperium.htm

Omnisonnets: http://www.cosmoetica.com/Sonnets.htm

Fat Nasty Bitch (Prose): http://www.hackwriters.com/bossbitchJS.htm

UPG Poems: http://www.cosmoetica.com/UPG.htm

>Getting any of your writing expertise from Youtube videos

>im-FUCKING-plying

>>7931501
is this the /lit/ equivalent of mercwip.jpeg ?

>>7931505
Nope. Not expertise.

Discernment, ambition, and willpower.

Until then you can have all the expertise in the world, and you'll still be a hack writer.

>>7931522
what makes a hack writer?

>>7931506
>/ic/ memes
disgusting

>>7931529
Contra Stephen King: http://www.cosmoetica.com/B118-DES70.htm

Contra Steven Pinker: http://alexsheremet.com/review-of-steven-pinkers-the-sense-of-style-the-thinking-persons-guide-to-writing-in-the-21st-century/

the question that, in the end, reveals elements common to all good creative expression: attention to detail and craft, the avoidance and/or subversion of clichés, wit, originality, and, if appropriate, intellectual substance. Consider them, repeatedly.

>>7931529
Contra Orwell: http://alexsheremet.com/if-george-orwells-none-too-good-you-better-say-why/

How 2 Writ Gud: https://andrewgearywrites.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/how-2-writ-gud-on-why-writing-guides-and-tips-are-bullshit/

Communication vs Self Expression: https://andrewgearywrites.wordpress.com/2015/08/23/on-writing-communication-v-self-expression/

>>7931539
>>7931541
Was kinda hoping I would get personal interpretations, since, you know, being able to break something down right there is a sign of having command over one's knowledge.

>>7931522
There's plenty of that worthless new-age garbage in self-help manuals. You should go back to those texts permanently and wallow in your own mediocrity as you do so.

"Why can't I write something excellent?! I have all the discernment, ambition, and willpower in the world!"

And it's all for nothing, because your mind has degenerated into the kind of cyst-ridden gray matter present in Alzheimer's sufferers. It's the kind of mind that collects trash Youtube videos and, quite undiscerningly, peddles them as capital-T Truth.

Never post again. You're only making others' lives worse.

>>7931529
And also This Old Poem archive for doggerel critique and rewriting:

http://www.cosmoetica.com/top.htm

>>7931546
Do you want to actually explain yourself or do you just want to continue practicing gestures in the mirror

>>7931569
Do you want to actually stop posting shit or do you want to be that guy everyone hates for shitting up a place?

>>7931573
The latter it is

>>7931541
>https://andrewgearywrites.wordpress.com/2015/08/30/how-2-writ-gud-on-why-writing-guides-and-tips-are-bullshit/

This article is strange since while the guy has his heart in the right place its very obvious he's just conflating almost all writing advice with bullshit you see on tumblr blogs. Drama is a craft in its own with its own different forms for different effects, I really dont know how this idea is lost on people in literary circles - to them "it just works". It seems only really film and stage manages to keep that conception alive.

>>7931545
Well, since you're asking for a rundown in a way that isn't bitching like this child over here >>7931546

1. Cosmoetica is run by Dan Schneider. Dan Schneider's life can be read in an interview over here:

http://www.citypages.com/news/dan-schneider-vs-the-rest-of-the-world-6742834

Mainly, he's the most well-read poet in the world, so he has the ability to discern whenever a line is a cliche or not. He's also (so he claims) the most prolific poet out there, and the greatest poet out there. But, rather than merely saying that without having zero backup, he has his collection of poems over here

http://www.cosmoetica.com/Poetrylinks.htm

Reading through these poems, you can tell that he knows what it good shit, and he himself is a great writer, so you can guess that his self-discernment is probably accurate. He can pull off styles from Whitman-esque poems to sonnets inspired by John Donne. He also wrote a poetry collection of American Sonnets based on every single Shakespeare Sonnet

He's also written a 2 million page book that he claims is the best novel in the world and the seminal American novel. The problem is, of course, it isn't published, partially because his personality is unflinching acerbic, and partially because people can't get over this fact to see that it isn't because he's arrogant, but its because he's one of the most self-sufficient writers out there. Also he doesn't ask you to trust him like 'self-help new age garbage' but merely to use your intellect and run through his words, and see whether you think his methods are better or not.

2. His other main point is criticism is Objective. Something which is totally lost on so many people out there, who still bear the shield that everything is opinion and subjectivity.

This is a harder point to explicate on because if I don't do it well enough, people will jump into the fray with ridiculous abstractions that have no meat to their bone. But I can only say that it is an insight you gain when you actually engage with his essays, because its a point that can only be shown in practicum. If you're closed off to that point, then you're going to never even be able to touch into the insights he provides.

And his lesson isn't an easy one, because most people are lazy, and the fact is that many won't even be able to reach to a certain threshold that allows them to perceive that fact. When you critique you have to take full measures, and when you criticize you have to reference and deal with it in strength. That's what he teaches you.

3. Schneider doesn't go to the extremes of saying that a book is good because of 'so and so' ideology e.g. Nouvelle Roman who said that the book was supposed to represent pure ideas, the New Sincerity of DFW, Hysterical Realism etc... He is also anti-political and pro 'Art for Art's Sake', but with the caveat that the Art still links to something that is human, not like the pure form of the Abstract Expressionists.

>>7931584
Are you a cultist?

>>7931584
Are you Dan Schneider? If not, please revisit my post in where I asked to see your work. Since that's what I'm interested in.

When it comes to these sort of topics I'm always interested in seeing people's own personal interpretations of what makes good work and dosent, and what is the outcome of our respective approaches. Just handing out a bunch of links isnt really conducive to enlightening discussion.

>>7931584
(cont)
His whole point is that point that Art is Communication. This word is a semantic ambiguity, and thus people who over-analyze will be able to distort it to their own advantage. But I'll try to put it simply:

Mainly, it doesn't matter what the content of the message is, whether its a Christian writer, or a Neo-Nazi poet. Art can exist perfectly randomly, from shitheads who happen to get the correct combination of words at the perfect time. The main thing is that you interrogate the work of Art as it is, which is a form of Communication that gets at something intrinsically human.

Like I said, Semantically ambiguous, but, the example I'll give is Countee Cullen's Heritage:

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/heritage/

While you may not agree with the message of the poem, you cannot use that as the gauge for the work of Art, like so many retard critics do (e.g. Pauline Kael, Jonathan Rosenblaum) The message is Christian, but how its written is evocative and simplistic. I can't fully run down the poem here, but I'll link you to this great critique

http://alexsheremet.com/on-countee-cullens-heritage/

Anyway in the end the methods of writing are still simple, which is:

"the question that, in the end, reveals elements common to all good creative expression: attention to detail and craft, the avoidance and/or subversion of clichés, wit, originality, and, if appropriate, intellectual substance. Consider them, repeatedly."

And people who complicate the message to try and place it in their own worldview are merely going to fail, because they never focus purely on the Art.

4. The point of it all: " As for what I'm fighting for- recognition of my poetry, memoirs, website, will come- history shows that quality rises. Only the young (like my wife in her 20s) care about 'recognition'. To me success is being read in 10,000 years by some alien on an intergalactic cargo cruiser, having it pause, & say- That old human animal- he KNEW! It's the aha that we all want, as well as that other knowing who so moved him/her. "

This is complete zero-bullshit, and the main point, which is the whole prosperity idea, which goes all the way back to Shakespeare's sonnet, or the "Keep on singing" quote from Orson Welles. Of course people will get caught up in all sorts of things about why do you write and all that.

Schneider will tell it to you, just write, and write greatly, but also, not everyone can write greatly, and if you have no talent for it just go and admit it and don't be a lazy pussy that pushes out reams of bad stuff into poetry journals and the oversaturated market. He gives you the vision, provides you the tools with proper critique that has actual meat to it.

>>7931595
Of course I'll never show my work, because he helped me realize that my current work is in no shape or form to even show to people. You have to bleed for hours over the text like Flaubert or you ain't even shitting worth to get into the circle.

On the other hand, I'm definitely better at criticism, which is where one should really start. To tailor his discernment. That's why the Geary link writes about how just telling people to write is the stupidest idea ever. What's the point of writing if you lack the discernment?

It's like that quote about Hokusai who said he took 50 years to draw the perfect line.

>>7931593
Cultist presumes that the doctrine is one that stands above yourself, and you are subsumed by it. I merely found his writing interesting and cutting, and binge-read all of it.

His main point anyway is it all leads to yourself, which, of course, sounds really new-agey. But the difference is its more akin to Confucius' quote:

"The man of breed looks at his own status [at himself], seeing it in clear light without trimmings; he acts, and lusts not after things extraneous to it."

If you're a loser. Admit it. And if you suck at art, Admit it. And if you're a bad critic, when someone gives you the evidence, you better admit it.

I don't think that's a cult at all. I think that's the best possible way to confront life.

>>7931617
What circle? I'm not even asking you to post a full short story, maybe a simple offhand paragraph or two, here I'll start

>The road deeper int the outskirts led into a land where each block was indistinguishable from the rest, even in the morning light. Grey, hollowed blocks battered by shells, wind and rain. Unkempt and forgotten by age and shrinking population. He passed by old, rust-skinned tanks and artillery guns; shells lined the ground as naturally as any pebble - big ones, small ones, many bent and stepped on - and between all of it was bright lines of green, flowers and vines, all was right, and spoke of water.

File: itsnotapopularitycontestbutcomeon.png (100 KB, 1011x503) Image search: [Google]

100 KB, 1011x503

>>7931595
Quite possibly it is Dan.

https://www.semrush.com/info/cosmoetica.com?db=us

>>7931624
People are trying to engage with you on levels beyond the superficial, but you're just not getting it. You're spouting doctrinal Dan Schneiderisms. You might get some respect if you called upon a literary or philosophical thinker or tradition of proven greatness, but Schneider is clearly not that. How is anyone to take you seriously?

>>7931625
It would literally be an exercise in vain though.

A short story is about the whole form. Just like how you can't complete Rilke's Archaic Torso of Apollo without the switch in the last line, merely attacking at a paragraph won't save you if your overall structure is bad.

>>7931636
>You might get some respect if you called upon a literary or philosophical thinker or tradition of proven greatness

So I guess if I invoke the spirit of contemporary published poets Robert Bly, WS Merwin, and John Ashbery, that will immediately make my poetry criticism great. Or perhaps I should invoke the Aristotlean unities and the Kantian view of aesthetics.

http://alexsheremet.com/on-the-history-of-criticism-some-updates-for-my-readers/
http://www.cosmoetica.com/d4-bs1.htm

Yea fuck that

>>7931636
But since you want to wank off the 'Call to Ancient Authority' so much. Here:

"Longinus’s “On The Sublime” was probably the most mature discussion of art up until that point, mostly because it dealt with art as art, tried to minimize (some) biases, and combined both technical and thematic/intellectual critique. In a way, true criticism- the correct criticism- can be said to emerge from Longinus, for as limited as he might have been, he was not only remarkable for his time period, his ‘spirit’ is also the spirit of communication- and, by extension, that of art.

The best early critic to really get at the nature of art, however, was probably the poet Sir Philip Sidney in his essay “An Apology For Poetry”. No, he doesn’t give any real clues re: how to approach poetry, much less critique it, but buried in between many not-so-interesting things, he says something quite telling- and something that Dan Schneider has often said, himself. Sidney looks at historiography, and philosophy, and science, and concludes that while they’ve been useful, they are also quite static in their presentation. Poetry, on the other hand, not only contains these ideas, but also puts them in motion- makes them live. The same can be said for art, and it is in THIS distinction that the nature of the arts resides. In short, art is not ‘merely’ philosophy, history, religion, or whatever, but is distinct from these things inasmuch as it contains them. The attention, therefore, shifts towards how such things are expressed as opposed to merely their expression- a difference that’s been ignored both by good academics who happen to be bad writers (Hegel, Kant, whoever), as well as bad artists who wish to be something other than artists by way of their expression. Once this thing is grasped, and art’s emphasis on ‘communication’ vis-a-vis other endeavors is recognized, the foundation is laid for a much richer understanding of the arts.

>>7931645
Of course, there were others. Samuel Johnson was the first academic-style critic, and while a good scholar, had some of the most ridiculous judgments of anyone- judgments that very few seem to know about today, even as they praise him as a great critic. John Donne, for example, was savaged as mere tinkerer of sorts, practically without evidence, while the dull and often hackneyed John Dryden praised as a genius. Nietzsche wrote a wonderful book with The Birth Of Tragedy, but it still gives no real means of approaching character, idea, style, etc., and stereotypes art once more into 2 dichotomies… no matter how well-written. Shelley’s A Defence Of Poetry is almost childlike in its simplicity, what with the emphasis on ethics and function over, well, the art! And much of Edgar Allan Poe’s criticism has either been thought of as a hoax, or a mixed bag of good insights and utter stupidity- think, for instance, of his requirement that a work of art be short enough to be consumed in one sitting, as opposed to savored over the long term. And this doesn’t even touch the hundreds of purely philosophical aesthetics, wherein academics debate taste and preference ad nauseam without ever really hitting upon the ‘thing’ itself!"

>>7931650
In fact, it’s always been curious, to me, that while we’ve had great art for a few thousand years now, its explicit understanding- its criticism- has not improved all that much since Aristotle. I’d argue that this is because artists have typically created instinctively- that is, by gut feeling alone, and were often unable to apply reason to their artistic decisions. But while instinct might get you a great work of art, instinct can’t produce this consistently. This is why so many great artists have made so much bad work… they simply can’t tell things apart. They just GO. In this way, logic is needed to polish and finesse instinct- to tame it, to an extent, to make it serviceable. Artists HAVE learned to do this, to a degree, but not consciously. Critics for their part have went on instinct as well, which is why their actual argumentation, use of evidence, applying self-consistent thought, etc., has been so very poor. I mean, just look at what I wrote of Pauline Kael- she can contradict herself literally sentence to sentence, and argue something 100% counter to what she argued 4 paragraphs before and not realize the harm she’s doing to her own article. She is famous, yes, she was respected (I assume) but she still cannot follow a single thread of her own thought. That is a shame. It is only when both artists and critics learn how to harness both powers (what Nietzsche called Dionysian/Apollonian) fluidly that there might be something solid to build upon, rather than the confusions both groups have been thrown into again and again.

>>7931636
I wouldn't care who he invoked, I want to see what he produces.

>>7931637
I can agree then regarding short stories, its hard to speak of without the entire thing.

How are you with flash fiction? I did this not long ago.


>A tree and stones; touched by the sun and passing clouds. Spotted shadows dance on their faces - a sweet, mocking mix of shade and warmth. The sun is kind to the stones and cruel to the leaves - they have browned and crinkled, the shadows a late relieve.

>We pass them on, to other sights.

>>7931641
>>7931645
>>7931650
>>7931655
Jesus fucking Christ, it's like talking to a schizophrenic. Learn some Internet manners before they let you out of your cage next time.

tl;dr by the way, keep trash in the trash bin please

>>7931682
Thanks for proving once again that people over here have the attention span of a mouse.

OH MY GOD. IT'S 4 POSTS IN A ROW. WITHOUT ANY POSTS IN BETWEEN. HOWEVER WILL I READ THAT?

Sure I didn't leave the quotes marks for that super long quote. I'll admit to that.

Just admit that you're triggered, and thus, you're in no way able to have any conversation, and now you're just dribbling rage semen all over the computer screen like a manic bonobo. If I hurt your feelings, good for you, asshole.

>>7931708
Spot the autist

File: Hero1.jpg (32 KB, 324x500) Image search: [Google]

32 KB, 324x500

>>7931718

File: 4388c190-c311-4e4e-8dd3-282f2207a680.jpg (532 KB, 1280x1871) Image search: [Google]

532 KB, 1280x1871

>>7931719
>that cover

okay so some major sperging is happening in this thread, and i hafta say i kinda like it

>>7931809
circle of pseuds t b h

>>7931815
yeah. is there any other reason to visit /lit/?

Anyone know the name of the infamously bad book that lots of writers like to make fun of? I believe it's a fantasy book.

>>7931835
>lots of writers
Which ones? Are we talking Eye of Argon tier stuff here?

>>7931681
You need this, my friend: http://www.thepunctuationguide.com/

>>7931837
Thank you, that is what I was thinking of.

>>7931838
thanks

Why are people here so desperate to talk about the hymen divider?

File: 1458411478330.gif (495 KB, 500x375) Image search: [Google]

495 KB, 500x375

>>7931851
i was fucking waiting for someone to take it there

>>7931546
You shouldn't write 'capital T truth'. We've all seen that video.

>actually linking to cosmoautism like it isn't a fucking joke
lmao take your pills you schizophrenic Scandinavian.

>48 replies
>10 posters
The fuck is all this spam OP you schizoidal sperglord

>>7931491
thanks OP

Next time try How Not to be an Elitist, seems like you need it

>>7932499
>elitist

"I mean, you can write about traumatic events, but if it doesn't have artistic merit, who the fuck cares? For instance, I wrote this poem about the time I was ramrodded up the ass with some kind of a hair-curler thing as part of a gang initiation, but it wasn't just cathartic; it wasn't just a litany of suffering, your typical woe-is-me bullshit. There was a context; I was conscious of structure.

>>7932507
I think you should have your own thoughts and stop identifying with Schneider. You started this thread acting like a high-nosed prick, and that's what people are addressing.

>>7932528
Like it would be any different if I fobbed it all off as my own writing. Or if it came directly from Harold Bloom. Or if it came directly from Socrates. That's precisely what he's trying to deal:

Deal with the content you retard or fuck off.

How many people here dealt with the content? Nacht.

Well Dan doesn't really care. His point is that you're either open to it and willing to engage with your brain or you're not. If you require an intricate web of politesse and exchange before dealing with any content, then I also can't be bothered.

Isn't this a worse new-agey self help statement? I'd rather be correct than be 'myself'.

Dan please stop

>>7932546
What happened here is that you dropped an entire library of links, claiming its the best thing ever with no further context, and told everyone who tried to engage you on a more practical level to fuck off.

It's not a bad thing to share information, but when you gallivant around as if everyone else is a drooling idiot then you make a very poor case for yourself, and this content. (none of it was particularly impressive btw, pretty much all of it you can find elsewhere in more succinct and well-managed formats)

How is anyone to take you seriously, or this content, if you're acting like some religious fanatic?

>>7932577
Simple.

Reference to text. Argument. Reply. Reference to text. Argument. Reply

>all of it you can find elsewhere in more succinct and well-managed formats

Reference to text? Source?

It's quite easy to conflate directness with simplicity. I've found many people do that.

>>7932598
Bro it's clear you don't even understand the text yourself, so how can you even hope to argue it without posting verbatim quotes as a crutch. You just absorbed it all while nodding your head, confusing that with practical knowledge.

Come back when you're good enough to post your work then talk this fresh shit. Until then you're a chirping bird.

Hey, Dan, do you wax your bald head?

>>7932605
>don't understand the text yourself
>post verbatim quotes as a crutch

I did
>>7931584
>>7931611

Verbatim? Nope.

>guy calls Shakeseare overrated
>not one of his poems is as good as any of the sonnets

wew.

I guess he can be the God of the Obscurantist but lets not pretend he's on some next level.

So I listened to three videos

>Writers Poetry/Prose Divide
>Literary Technique for Novels
>Novel Structure, Symbolism, and Overplotting

It's basically him just bouncing his own opinions and approaches to his work with some guy.

Was there something more I was meant to get out of these videos? I can appreciate the encouragement to be aware of the elements you employ in your writing, but beyond that I'm not finding concepts you can't find in so many other books on novel writing or just discovering on your own through personal experience.

Its interesting stuff, but I think you made a mistake in presenting it as some Holy Grail.

>>7931539
Fat fuck bashes King.
King has written hundreds of stories. Is worth millions. Fat fuck was in some shit kid shows.

Ok.

>>7932804
two very different dans

>>7932814
Oh. Whoops.

>>7931491
>Great Secondary and Tertiary Characters

Wow. WOW. "This rape is one of the best rapes, if not THE BEST rape ever written. My rape scene is the best ever."

This guy is so fucking full of himself it hurts.

This is hilarious. Watch the video where he attacks "Thomas Pynchon and his cult".

>>7931491
Dan Schneider is hilarious. I thought I was the only person in the world who watched his stuff.

His written film criticism is far superior to his rambling videos.

What do i READ for learning about poetry form and meter

>>7933684
>Implying you aren't OP
>Implying OP isn't Dan Schneider
It's pretty obvious.

>>7932883
>>7933684
>This is hilarious.
>Dan Schneider is hilarious.
Sup Dan.

Slaughterhouse-Five is far superior to Pynchon's (who is an idiot) Gravity's Rainbow: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4_wJ6f3WZc

Harold Bloom is an idiot: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tavz-teRK5Y

Dan Schneider and his wife are among the greatest poets ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJrj7WvTt8Y

Magical Realism (Borges (the worst) and Marquez) is bad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgc5j6XC94o

>>7934033
>Magical Realism (Borges (the worst)
Schneider outed himself as an idiot. He can't even pronounce "Borges" - let alone understand his work.

>>7932715
>It's basically him just bouncing his own opinions and approaches to his work with some guy.

Yep.

>Was there something more I was meant to get out of these videos?

Nope, it's just a guy discussing his own approach to writing, and honestly anyone who tries to shove some all encompassing theory of writing in your face is duping you..

>>7934033
But Slaughterhouse-Five is so shitty.

>>7933960
>>7933801
When I call Dan Schneider hilarious, you should realize that I'm laughing at him and his grandiose claims that he'll be remembered in the future for his work.

I like his film criticism, though.

>>7931584
>>7931611
>all these spooks

>>7934205
I enjoy Dan's honestly and lack of pretension enough to not be irritated by the arrogance that results.

>>7931541
It seems like the author of How 2 Writ Gud has been reading guides on how to write non-fiction and thought they were meant to be guides on how to write fiction.

>>7931584
But I like Harold Bloom and Schneider hates him.

>>7931584
Impossible. Or at least inconceivable.

Filling a page generally takes something like 600-800 words. So even PRETENDING that he wrote as quickly as 100 words a minute, and that he wrote 8 hours a day.

He would have to write:
6 mins = 1 page
60 = 10 pages
8 hours = 80 pages
56 hours = 560
working that much every week of the year = 29 120 pages
10 years of that gets you a mere 291 200 pages

He'd need to be writing at a pace faster than most people can type, continuously for 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year, all the years of his life.

And he still wouldn't get there.

>>7934422
I think that anon meant word count not page count