How often do you guys buy a book by an unknown author that's

I don't find that funny at all. We're just starting by the beginning, perfectly normal.

why would I gamble on a new author when there hundreds of sure-things i've yet to get around to?

>aspiring authors
aspiring in a dim far away sense
i'm sure those here who are actually published or do actually have a novel in the works probably do read new authors

>>7650921
None, im not a faggot.
No seriously the only newly published things that i find are utter trash like soccer mom books.

Any recs? No alt lit shit either.

>>7650942
The only modern literature that I tend to enjoy is Bizzaro fiction. I found some nice Indie authors too (usually ebook authors) as well.

Then, again, this is a society obsessed by 50 Shades of Grey and Twilight, so most people would probably consider the book I like to be utter trash.

>>7650928
Maybe, but do you start from the beginning with films and such?

>>7650942
Sadly, i rarely do it either, sometimes I'll pick up a random book at an opshop, but more often than not I'll only read a few chapters and put it away. I was just curious if any people actually did pick up books by unknown authors

>>7650968
It angers me that a book like 50 shades was able to sell so much

>>7650930
You wouldn't

I find this an interesting question. I try to read new fiction whether "properly" or self-published, because I think new stuff can often be very good. I don't understand why /lit/ clings so ferociously to the authors of the past. There could be authors equal to Kafka, Melville etc. writing right now that you guys are missing out on because you, in effect, only look at books that have pre-established reputations. You're missing out on the excitement of discovering things for yourself because you seem to treat literature as a kind of hierarchy of old greats, a pole to be climbed (like >>7650928). It seems a very grey way to read.

>>7651002

>like Kafka
>like Melville

I see what you did there.

i judge books by their covers. if a book has a good cover, i'll read it although it's new.

>>7650971
>implying you don't watch Eisenstein or the Lumiere Brothers

>>7650930
>I'm sure those who are actually published...read new authors
I read quite a bit of more contemporary work these days because I'm publishing/trying to publish short fiction. Art isn't created in a vacuum.
That said, I have a loose definition of contemporary because I consider it anything from the past 30 or so years. I rarely pick up books cold without knowing anything without them, but sometimes if the first 20 pages or so are good I'll jump. I'm also a sucker for buying from that author at readings because I want to support them and if they end up being good I have a signed copy and I made a good impression.

>>7651002
I am so very frightened to read anything contemporary... I don't completely avoid the stuff, but most of what I have read has not been that great.

I was having a discussion on this with a friend of mine recently and we pretty much came to the conclusion that since mass-production of books has been around, the majority of publications are utter trash. What we decided to call the "surviving texts," (that is, any book that is still known and read today) we're only a small percentage of the novels, novellas, and serials published during their time; that this phenomena is nothing new. Time will tell which contemporary works are good and which will fade away amongst the forgotten bygones of our time, and it really is up to the individual to wait to see which contenders survive or to go out and sift through the near infinite publications of today.