What's /lit/'s opinion on experimental writing? Just

>MY
>DIARY
>DESU

Gimmicky shit for the most part

>>8698254
I think trying to make a good post on /lit/ is fairly cutting edge these days, especially knowing that without a doubt you will get shit replies like>>8698370
A decent post is a type of subversion here.

>>8698377
"A decent post is a type of subversion here"

>can't take a joke
>posts on 4chan

>>8698387
>posts on 4chan
This is by no means an excuse.

>>8698376
Does any kind of deviation automatically make work a 'gimmick'?
How else do you develop writing techniques or styles?

>>8698411
Providing nothing of substance but some quirky "deviation" makes a work gimmicky.

>>8698424
That's what I meant by asking what makes it successful?
How do you define what's substantial from a new piece of work?
Are there any books or experimental pieces that you enjoy or appreciate?
It's all too easy to pigeonhole stuff claiming it's just being contrary for the sake of it.

>>8698254

I think having some kind of constraint in writing, whether it's a writing prompt, a specific form to follow (e.g., a lipogram in the case of A Void), or what have you, can in its way be liberating in freeing the writer from making as many choices and focusing more on the story to be told

>>8698254
Gaddis used to say that his writing wasn't experimental because he knew what he was doing, or something to that effect. I agree in that it's a dismissive misnomer and just a dumb trendy label for anything that goes against the grain stylistically.

As for what makes it good, it's whether or not the ways it differs from standard writing actually improve it or not. There has to be a clarity of purpose behind the deviations or they're just gimmicks. Though of course this becomes subjective and in a lot of cases people are just too retarded or pretentious to open themselves up to seeing certain things.

>>8698436
An example of an "experimental" work I enjoyed greatly is Italo Calvino's Invisible Cities.