Have you ever had the urge to write an epistolary novel? It seems like the perfect strategy if you have a lot of smart ideas but can't really be fucked to put a plot together.
Epistolary novels still use plots you plonker
when was the last time you wrote a letter?
>>9544480
yeah but they're often just obvious vehicles for the author's aphorisms
>>9544500
When was the last time you wrote an email that wasnt business related?
>>9544500
>tfw no epistolary novel that is made up of 4chan shitposts
Holy... I want more
>>9544539
I think I wrote two or three yesterday and while I sent none today, I have received 9 from a group mailing list.
>>9544474
One of the worst covers I've ever seen
>>9544555
Then carry on. You are in a minority ( i dont believe you though)
>>9544547
We already have cancerous books full of twitter posts, are you really that level of meme-addled clown that you want a 4chan post book?
>>9544558
Not as bad as this one
>>9544577
It's a mailing list of people who still use IRC, it's hardly surprising they use email still too.
It was good enough for Laclos, de Sade, Senancour, so yes, why not?
Of course, the modern equivalent is fucking twitter and FB.
oh, and /lit/ too while we're at it.
>>9544474
>epistolary novel
Great idea to make it, if only the current year were 1780.
>>9544597
oh lawd
>>9545222
>so yes, why not?
Because it's a meme whose novelty died centuries ago? Because it brings nothing a normal narrative couldn't achieve? Because there is zero public for this?
>>9545290
Not him, but not sure why you have such a raging hatred for this format.
>it's a meme
There are classics written in that style, it's a legitimate literary form.
>brings nothing a "normal" narrative couldn't achieve
even excusing the pure stupidity of the phrase "normal narrative", this is just ignorance
>because there is zero public for this
debatable and totally unpredictable until he's actually written it.
>>9545313
that's me, and I couldn't have put it better.
>>9545290
>Because it brings nothing a normal narrative couldn't achieve?
L O L
>>9545313
>it's a legitimate literary form
It's completely dead. How many epistolary novels published in 2017? How many classic tragedies? How many epic poems?
>even the pure stupidity of the phrase "normal blablabla
Newsflash! Just like Petronius or Lucian of Samosata, you can actually use fictional letters inside a classic narrative form, and have the best of each world!!! You don't need to meme the whole novel under this tedious form and deprive yourself from the resources of a normal narrative for little or no gain!
>debatable and totally unpredictable until he's actually written it
Even in 1817, no one wanted this anymore, so in 2017? It is possible to imagine the success of one novel like this (as a curiosity), but there is no general demand for epistolary novels in 2017, because the public that demanded it died around 1800.
>>9545420
>equates popularity with quality
you fucking reprobate
>Jew-money-grabber/media whore detected
>>9545436
S-sorry master
>>9545420
Nothing you wrote is worthy of greendisputing.
Let us know when your next "normal narrative" blockbuster sells out.
>>9545470
For your information, the "21st century epistolary novel with SMS and e-mails lol so modern XD" thing has been done several times, even in 2017, and it wasn't interesting whatsoever.
Perhaps it failed because they were just mediocre writers, so the epistolary form itself isn't to blame? Surely. But an excellent writer would be excellent, no matter what he writes: the epistolary form wouldn't make him more interesting. And why would an excellent writer choose such a limiting form in the first place (since it's not even fashionable like in 1780)? Tell me? Why did all the major writers of the 20th century avoid it?
To ask it in another manner: why do you think Goethe stopped writing in the epistolary genre? Why didn't he spend all his career churning out this kind of novels, if it's so good?
>inb4 le "ur not worthy of an answer" meme
>>9545519
I didn't say anything about SMS or emails.
Goethe had a very wide array of interests, he spent his entire life in pursuit, it's pretty much what Faust is about.
He probably stopped writing in the genre because he had a success in the genre and it was enough for him.
To turn your question around, if the genre is so inherently shit then why did he bother writing in it in the first place? I guess you are more knowledgeable about "normal narratives" than Goethe was.
>>9545519
writers choose forms precisely to exhaust their possibilities, and then go beyond then.
you might say the same of the sonnet, say. or another form of structured verse or prose.
>>9545532
I did not say that the genre is "shit", it's interesting albeit limiting, and it has been replaced by more sophisticated techniques (inner monologues, etc.).
It was used by Goethe and Laclos because it was fashionable back then, and it's barely used anymore because almost no one cares.
>"normal narratives"
Yeah, it's a 4chan post, and you know exactly what I mean by this. You normal asshole.
>>9545536
That is true, but my point was that the limits of the epistolary genre aren't very rewarding (IMO), considering the more modern alternatives to it.
>>9545601
>everyone only wrote epistolary novels b/c it was fashionable
This is where you fall apart btw.
You're talking about a group of artists, many of them highly-respected and studied. It just isn't convincing that they all chose this format b/c it was "fashionable."
And if we're to be dictated by what is fashionable, then OP probably shouldn't write at all.
>>9545601
>That is true, but my point was that the limits of the epistolary genre aren't very rewarding (IMO), considering the more modern alternatives to it.
OK, now we have it, this is just your opinion as a reader. That's fine but you would be arrogant to conflate your own personal taste (and sales statistics) for proof of literary merit (or crapness).
The genre perhaps just needs to be reinvented. That is, after all, what happens in the arts.
Also, breaking all limits results in undigestible stuff like Finnegan's Wake, are you sure you want to go down that route, anon?
>>9545610
These authors wanted success, and they were obviously influenced by what they were reading, so they chose a genre that was common back then--and they used it well. What's so hard to believe?
>>9545626
I was implying these limits aren't rewarding for readers and writers alike, but whatever.
Reinventing the genre could be done more cleverly, like actually setting up 15 fake Twitter accounts (your characters) that do discuss together and create drama in real time, day after day. Then publish the novel by adding private messages that reveal another layer of complexity, etc.
(I give this idea for free to whoever will use it, don't forget to credit me, "Anon from /lit/".)
You have to be more subtle than just "hey it's like Laclos with e-mails lol".
>>9544474
epistolary novels are dead desu
the novel of the future has to be written in blog posts
>>9547121
That would be an epistolary novel.