Does /lit/ subscribe to or read any quarterly/yearly lit publications?

The White Review is p rad but for a subscription in America it costs like twice as much as Paris Review so i just snipe random issues off ebay.

London Review of Books

I use to subscribe to Monthly Review back in the Bush era, it's great for Marxist stuff, not really literature so much, but since everyone around here is a fucking commie might as well mention it, not to mention a year subscription of 12 issues is like $20

>>8721466
I'm certainly not a marxist, but interesting nonetheless.

>marxist
>communist
>charging money for information that will help the proletariat
Sasuga, Marxist Monthly Review

>>8721470
they lean trot, but they're mostly just strictly marxists, like not even really leninist, they have reasonable articles that aren't too bombastic, unlike most marxists stuff you see, and they always review a bunch of lefty non-fiction of all sorts of topics

>>8721458
It seems expensive to bring over here in any large bulk.

Are there any single issues you like?

>>8721441
This is a good idea. It's funny how you read about how many classics were responses to the troubles/issues of their times, yet I have little awareness of any contemporary writers (except John Green, pls don't h8). I don't even know where to find the good ones, there are just so many books.

I do notice that I tend to like "classic" recent books than older classics, because they are just written with more similar experiences of life in mind (also the prose is closer to how people talk today).

So if I knew some great contemporary writers, that would be so nice, but I have no idea where to look. Can /lit/ help me?

>>8721720
>So if I knew some great contemporary writers, that would be so nice, but I have no idea where to look. Can /lit/ help me?

The Sellout seems p gud, and The Sympathizer looks p rad

>>8721441
>Does /lit/ subscribe to or read any quarterly/yearly lit publications?

I don't see any point. There's no guarantee that the content will be worth your time or money since you have no way to review it in advance. You're literally gambling your money away.

>So which (not necessarily from the above list) literature publications does /lit/ follow?

You're just announcing this thread to shills. This is an anonymous image board, Anon.

>>8722962
As far as I'm aware, gambling on the content is still better than gambling in any other sense. If I read something good, I've been introduced to a new author or work that I might not have seen. If I see something bad, I have something to discuss.

>>8722962
>You're just announcing this thread to shills.
>Any discussion of any kind of product or production is automatically shilling

Why even discuss literature here? People usually have to spend money to read one - what if books and authors are being shilled here.

I understand what you're getting at, but you're going overboard