why aren't millennials getting published?

Millenials are being published.

File: full_selected-tweets-web-cover[1].jpg (12KB, 300x433px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 300x433px

Because they have nothing intelligent to say

>>8415830

Because millennials aren't reading.

>>8415830
Publishing is dead. Or, not quite dead, but not quite living. Almost undead, but less zombie-like and more like a dead horse being beaten with such vigor one imagines it still alive

>>8415830
>Why aren't 20-25 year olds getting published?

Either they're self-publishing or they've wised up to the novel as the spent creative force it really is. They perform their poetry as the singer-songwriter camp did, and very similarly much of it is shit but eventually some talent will break in. The internet has launched new narrative forms still very much in their infancy and you can expect them to take off within the next 10-20 years. The whole avenue of publishing is pretty torn up, and I wouldn't be surprised to see YouTube and Twitter starting to feature considering the publishing goldmine that is the hit "YouTuber" or Twitter Star.

>>8415830
Because publishing is a scam and a slow moving one at that. Self-publishing makes a lot more sense.

>>8415830
>>8415911
It takes a lot of years to be really good. There will always be Wunderkinds who break trough in their early 20s. Or how media likes to spin it. A kid who could read before Kindergarten and kept reading has a lot of experience. But younglings at work isn't exciting.

File: no good teens.jpg (159KB, 960x672px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 960x672px

>>8415911
>hah huh my youtube account is just like being published mom get off my back man

File: caspar-book.jpg (151KB, 1140x700px) Image search: [Google]

151KB, 1140x700px

>>8415963
>Like

There is no 'like' about it. This is where publishers make most of their revenue nowadays. These are the faggots keeping print ticking over.

>>8415981

face of plastic cheese

haha

just kidding son love u

>>8416014
Thanks, Dad.

>>8415830
They are they're just writing inane shit with no literary merit.

>>8416020

...but Pynchon did that and is on of this boards favorites.

>>8416024
It's like you only read the first five words.

>>8415830
Maybe because they can't write and even if they could there's not much money to be made from it.

>>8415830
go back to /pol/ you fucking b8 poster
saged

>>8415876
This. It's just that literary fiction is so much more of a bubble now than it used to be. With few exceptions, only writers read lit fiction anymore. Any writer who is reasonably invested in the field will be able to tell you who the big young writers are. But writers becoming household names? I don't think it's likely that's going to happen a lot going forward.

>>8415911
>The internet has launched new narrative forms still very much in their infancy and you can expect them to take off within the next 10-20 years.

Name some.

>>8415830
Because no one wants to read the whiny scribblings of a bunch of talentless entitled idiots.

>>8416295
Interactive and participatory narratives. Homestuck is the obvious example there but there are other examples, such as Visual Novels from Japan. The participatory nature of discussion about narratives on the internet should be stressed though. In the past people read a critic's opinion in a magazine, maybe discussed it with a friend or two who had read it as well, and that was that. The nature and meaning of the text was mostly set in stone and immobile. On the internet a plethora and variety of discussion can be found about popular narratives and at least some discussion found about literally everything else. This discussion forms an important part of people's enjoyment of a narrative as well. "The author is dead" is a widely known quote now (if somewhat misunderstood). The idea that the reader's interpretation of a narrative is under their own control and is itself a valid interpretation of the narrative has found its way into the heart and soul of our culture. The discourse about a narrative then becomes part of the narrative itself and is fundamentally and radically participatory, with help from the internet, in a way that we haven't seen before.

BEE still has 300 pages of narcissistic faggotry cornered.

Im publishing my diary, atm

>>8416765
>>8416295
Rekt

File: saeki.jpg (71KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 640x480px

>>8416765
>visual novels
I'm seconding this. Bible Black was one of the first masterpieces of this millennia's literature, or one of the last of the last millennia, depending on how you view the 2000/2001 thing.

Really though
>The discourse about a narrative then becomes part of the narrative itself
kek, no it doesn't. 4chan is shitposting, not literature.

>>8416771
BEE was truly ahead of his time.

>>8416794
do you really keep a diary or do you just meme

>>8416035
I know plenty of dudes my age who bought their girls diamonds. I'll admit they aren't as big or as many on one ring as my parents (or their parents) but they are still buying diamonds. Even if they aren't buying them, bitches still expect it. Its not like these fuckers aren't making a killing selling colorless rocks anyways.

>>8415830
Really it just has to do with breaking into markets. Its like what these anons said: >>8416192 >>8416288
Think of Harry Potter: do you consider Harry Potter to be a literary masterpiece? You're on /lit/ so probably not. Rowling managed to write a book that just so happened to be popular with YA. That demographic (10-18) has been historically incredibly hard to crack, but when you can manage to crack it, you will stumble into obscene amounts of money. Shit, look at the movies they go and see; 'John Green Movie Adaptation', 'The Hunger Games', 'Twilight', and 'Harry Potter'.

tldr; Millennials ARE getting published. Not a single one has broken into the "big leagues" yet.

>>8415830
With the emergence of dumb self-helf books and romance/scifi/fantasy bullshit, no one's making money off things that are even slightly profound, even something so profound as the vague philosophical meanderings of a college dropout. People don't want to think while they read. If a book is too hard for them to read and understand, they'll laugh it off as pretentious and write a short paragraph about it on GoodReads. You fuckers like Ulysses, right? Think for a moment. Someone, somewhere, right now, has just got done reading about five pages of said book. They're fucking pissed off. They don't know why, because they don't understand what they've just read. Immediately, they assign a reason. "This guy just wants me to think he's smart", they say, throwing their copy of the book across the fucking room in anger. "Why did all my college professors think this guy was such hot stuff?" This, this is 98% of the reading population as of now. These are the same people who pick up Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" and complain that it's "too boring" or "too weird". This is the target demographic. And then you ask me the following question: "why aren't millennials getting published?" Exactly. Why aren't young aspiring fuckheads making it in a world that doesn't care about them? Why would they? We live in a world in which Stephen King is the greatest writer of all time. A world in which The Martian, a book containing 200 pages or so of "uh oh I sure did fuck up better do some science stuff", is somehow a genius work of art. A world in which no author anywhere matters for shit unless they get some kind of movie or TV show based on their work. So it's a good question.

>>8415904
Why/how/which part of it are you referring to?

>>8416848
Oh sweet minty Jesus someone tell me this is pasta.

When my absurdist hard-scifi religious allegory that functions as a metaphor for mental illness and evolution gets published, you'll see millenials in their droves buying that

>>8416861
if it's not it will be now

>>8415830
Many writers don't reach commercial success until their early 40s. They may publish some, but don't get big enough for your average person, or even your average /lit/ poster, to hear of them. This generation just isn't old enough yet.

>>8416829
>4chan is shitposting, not literature.
Your experience of a narrative is changed and expanded by discussion about it online. An example would be people discovering that a book they liked had racist or sexist themes in it. They may dislike the book because of it, or more reasonably just hold a few reservations about some parts of it, which can temper their memory of it. You may want to compartmentalize things to keep them separate but there's no way to fully accomplish this. If you enjoy posting silly DFW faces you're also expanding your experience of Infinite Jest. There's no way to stop this process. In your own subjective viewpoint there's no way to separate the narrative from your subjective experience of it. This experience is grown by reading the book and by other experiences that you relate to it, including internet discussion.

File: taipei.jpg (31KB, 260x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 260x400px

>>8415830
what do you mean anon?

>>8416840
The joke is that millenials aren't buying diamonds because millenials are poor.

File: 1453230107523.jpg (27KB, 500x304px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x304px

>>8416941
That makes sense. All of my friends are broke as shit.

>mfw my family thinks I'm a poorfag (nobody expects to get a Christmas gift from me) but I actually have more money than all of them