I have been around writing forums for a while.
All I see is hate. They call it "criticism", but it's all hate.
All of those forums are stuffed with unsucessful "writers" who can't contrustruct a half-decent story.
They of course have tried "sefl-publishing" to deny the fact that their drafts will be rejected if they ever send them to agent or publishers.
They hate the world for not recognizing their "talent"
The bitterness, the hate accumulate, day after day, week after week, then month, then years. Still they haven't sold any copy at all. They mountained up, but still can't crush the little ego of the hater writers.
Denial, they failt to escape denial. Instead, they go deeper. Obviously, this world can't recognize their "talent". That doesn't mean they don't have "talent" (in fact, they don't). So, they secretly label themselves as "undiscovered writers" and think that they know it all about writing; and that their style, their structure, their emotion, idea and underwear are the best of all. If Hugo and Kafka are somehow zombified and returned from the death, they will hail our "undiscovered writers" as the savior of literary world.
But the hate is still there because they haven't sold any copies.
One day, another "writer" pop up and post something like "Should I writer like this...". The "undiscovered writers" immediately jump into the thread and vent their hate on the foolish who asked. They call it "stupid","nonsense" of course with other formal words to conceal their bitterness and to pretend to be polite. But the hate is so thick that it clogs in their word like a stinking zombie rat that refuse to go away.
I hate these hater so much that I spend 15 mins of my life to write this shit up, just like they hate this world so much that they spend hours and hours touring the forums, posting hate and hate non-stop.
Writers, if not sucessful, will become haters. They hate the world, hate other people's style, hate climate change, hate dog, hate cat. They love themselves so much that they hate themselves.
What is the point of asking how to be a successful writer in a shithole full of unsucessful writers and polite haters. I just don't understand.
I've received some good points on literary critiques thread, but I agree that for the most part the replies are by unsuccessful and disappointed people trying to drag other people down.
If anything, I'm more bothered by the snobbery than by the hate.
Snobbery - the rallying cry of the pleb. The one who is so convinced of his special snowflakeness that he cannot possibly conceive of flaws and criticisms and the implication that he's simply not good enough. Along with accusations of pretentiousness, it is a surefire sign someone has no future.
>The one who is so convinced of his special snowflakeness that he cannot possibly conceive of flaws and criticisms and the implication that he's simply not good enough
I don't think this is what this thread is about at all. Every time someone point out a flaw or something in particular about a piece of writing in a LCT and tend to agree with the poster, post most commentaries are simply "it's shit" or "it's good" which neither helps the poster in any way.
I do complain about snobbery, because very often I've seen that the average /lit/ poster only appreciates a piece of writing if he knows the reputation of the author. I've seen excerpts of Joyce, Pynchon and poem from reputable poets posted in LCT and being called "shit" more often than "good". Open a thread with the very same excerpt but point out that Joyce wrote it and everyone gets wet. That's snobbery.
cause no one here reads. going to a /lit/ criticism thread is just a bunch of talentless hacks criticizing other talentless hacks. it's not talentless hacks raging at actual quality writers.
often in LCT I see people posting obscure bits from famous author X just so they can say "haha gotcha" when someone assumes it's a piece put up for critique. This is annoying for a few reasons,
1) the poster implies that just because X wrote it, it is untouchably good,
2) the poster implies that just because the reviewer doesn't recognize it, the reviewer is bad,
3) the poster doesn't acknowledge the reviewer is working under an assumption that poster wrote the piece in contemporary era (this discrepancy seems to be ignored especially if X is long dead),
4) this tactic is usually drawn out after one or two harshly critical reviews of the poster's genuine work, i.e., as a defense tactic
I am annoyed by this tactic because I think the point of a critique thread is to get actual responses from people. I refuse to believe the meme that most litfags are unread, uncultured NEET memeposters. I think we're all reasonably intelligent and can at least respond to a piece of writing in a semi-critical manner. However, I do agree that there are people who say "it's shit" or "it's great" without defending those claims, maybe because they lack the vocabulary to expound their responses coupled with the fact that they're lazy and casual.
I think some people are overly quick to judge something and don't look at it from the right angle, but I also think what's good about 4chan is people will tell you what they really think, they won't suger coat it.
what the other anon said, but also, just the implication that you have to read /lit/'s memelist 100 (that's not a diss) to be "well read" is ridiculous, people read different things (no, not John Green et al.) and they can still talk about literature, which was my point regarding critique threads, but either way, "unread" =/= "not well-read"
if you don't have a working familiarity with the core texts of the canon you're not well read.
that's not to say you need to slavishly work through a list or that only read the list makes you well read (it doesn't), but if you read less than 1/3 of the /lit/ top 100, which is (an admittedly narrow) section of world classics, it's very very unlikely you're well-read.
'twas only one example of many. it's quite self-evident from how people here discuss works that either they haven't read them or their eyes glazed over the pages as they "read" the books.
>1) the poster implies that just because X wrote it, it is untouchably good
It doesn't have to be, but the very same piece has been bashed anonymously and praised under the name of the author.
>2) the poster implies that just because the reviewer doesn't recognize it, the reviewer is bad,
It's not a matter of recognizing the author as it is of knowing the difference between good/bad writing. The very same excerpt can bashed when posted anonymously and praised when posted under the name of a recognized writer. When someone judges the quality of some writing depending of the person who wrote it, that person is being a snob.
>3) the poster doesn't acknowledge the reviewer is working under an assumption that poster wrote the piece in contemporary era (this discrepancy seems to be ignored especially if X is long dead)
If someone is incapable of recognizing good writing beyond the (possible) archaic style, should also be unable to appreciate any classical work.
>4) this tactic is usually drawn out after one or two harshly critical reviews of the poster's genuine work, i.e., as a defense tactic
It can also be because the poster ate some magic mushrooms and thought it was a good idea. Does that changes something? No, either way it shows that most people here are snobs who often praise books then haven't read and critique pretending they know about literature.
>I refuse to believe the meme that most litfags are unread, uncultured NEET memeposters.
With the exception of NEET, this seems right to me.
There is nothing much to see on /lit/ besides name dropping of books. This happens more often when the person doesn't know a lot about the subject.
Maybe there are a lot of highly knowledgeable people on /lit/, but in that case, they don't seem to post often, because snobs seem to constitute the greater part of /lit/ population.
Most books in the top 100 chart are basic.
What you're saying is like saying "I know about mathematics, but I don't know a thing about writing proofs"