I can't help but think if an unpublished Kurt Vonnegut was posting some of his best passages in critique threads here, he'd probably get roundly shit on.
This board hates Vonnegut for some reason, so probably.
I post from Proust, Dosto and many others and get shit on all the time.
People don't critique to help usually. They critique cause they like the superior feeling.
>>8058228
So what, if you want your arsehole licked go to reddit and post your stuff there. Having somewhere to see your works get spit on is a good thing
>>8058234
No I am just saying the only reason anyone considers Vonnegut a substantial writer is because he is published and of course his zany bohemian style.
I highly doubt that. The problem with 99% of the posts for critique is that they ape the form and sentence structure of Joyce, Pynchon or DeLillo, without the thought that goes into that style of writing.
Either way, there's no actual substance or message to them. Even Updike was criticised as being simply a "penis with a thesaurus", but people in the critique threads here take it to a new level.
The point of the writing seems to be to make the author appear as smart as possible. There's no original message, ideas or voice, other than "Look at me! I'm very smart!"
Say what you will about Vonnegut, but he knew what he wanted to say, he was funny, he could be deadpan but was never boring, and he had a keen eye for metaphor and literary devices.
All of this is lost on the average critique poster here.
>>8058251
What he wanted to say was overwrought, nauseatingly digressive and unfocussed. Am I being enough of a penis with a thesaurus for you?
>>8058251
That or you and other clitique posters can't read. But really, posting actual work here is not only pointless at best but harmful at worst.
>>8058228
OP let me tell you something. you're right and /lit/ pretends that the judgement of art is objective but when you make a topic about it they squirm and say "ok ok it's subjective!" Then as soon as you turn your back they go back to claiming that it's objective.
They are pseudo intellectuals who want to seem smart by knowing more than other people about joyce / shakespeare / chaucer and figuring out new ways to praise them. If art is subjective, then the "value" of their knowledge crashes to near zero and they know this.
They will never view books as entertainment, only as elaborate not necessarily enjoyable shrines to the god of "Objective Artistic Value"*
*decided by the academia-media-publishing industrial complex
>>8058265
The ironic thing about posting this is that subjectivity is itself a marketing tactic employed to make people feel better about "choosing" (read, being sold on the idea by ads and less blatantly ad-like but still sponsored promotional media) to read YA and hackneyed, dime-a-dozen genrefic.
>>8058228
You could post passages from the works of any author here and get a reaming if they don't know where it's from.
>>8058251
The "penis with a thesaurus" was what some dumb bitch said to DFW. That's hardly criticism.
>>8058228
Why should you pay any attention to what anyone says on any of those """critique" "threads""?
>>8058265
>value
lmao
>>8058228
Unpublished Kurt V. would mean he would not had come to fame, therefore no popularity and no clones, therefore his writing would feel fresh and funny. What you kids call "Kek" would be spammed all day long. But now that I think about it, maybe not, and instead >>r/books would shower these chinese cartoon board.
>>8058265
you sound liek a huge pseud
>>8058228
well, yeah, cause vonnegut is shit, published or not
