So somebody last night in a thread that I think was about the

I don't see what you see in Pound; he was a fascist and anti-semite.

>>9782266
I agree. That's why we need him.

>>9782374
To distance myself from my idiotic attempt-at-bait
was Pound too smart for others with his Cantos?

>>9782266
>t. doesn't get it.

Read the critique threads.

There's no Eliots, Hemingways, or Joyce on here.

At least if there is, nobody on lit is interested in promoting them. If however, you write really mediocre fantasy, then yeah lit is crazy about you.

>>9782577
I've always assumed that no writer who knows they're any good would post anything they're trying to get published in the critique threads, since journals and publishers can sometimes be sticklers about that. That, at least, is the reason I hardly ever post in the critique threads.

>>9782542
My dad had a friend who self taught Greek in order to read the Cantos and Homer

>>9782583

Well I'm published and i've posted my stuff, even some stuff that's been published, in critique threads. It always gets 0 responses.

Lit is fun for what it is, but it's not a place for serious writing and publishing.

>>9782593
>It always gets 0 responses.

Are you me? The few times I've posted my stuff it hardly ever gets replies either, and I've gotten a few short stories published. I suppose in the end you're right. Still, can't hurt to ask.

>>9782612

Well you have to consider that 4chan in general sort of despised people who are successful, or at least making progress in their lives. It sort of goes against the entire purpose of the site. So, no, nobody is actually interested in someone producing good work on here.

The whole point of lit is to talk like with genuine morons and trolls, nothing else.

>>9782577
I'm at least a Hume or Pound though.

>>9782633

I think there might be a few Kings on here...maybe on a good day.

That's why I like it when "Dis Author be bad!" threads come up, when it's kind of obvious the vast majority of lit isn't capable of putting out the quality of work King, or even someone like Grey is.

>>9782266
He's the greatest editor of the 20th century.

>>9782542

No. The cantos rely on a theory of language that is false, namely that succinctness and concreteness makes for specificity. It doesn't. Prolixity actually makes things more specific. We prefer succinct and concrete writing because it is mysterious and vivid over prolix writing, which is didactic and repetitive and dull.

The Cantos are not arranged in such a way that they form a context for each specific utterance within them. They're designedly fragmentary, they're supposed to be symbols that serve to make a definitive statement on human history, but they never transcend the condition of fragments. Pound accidentally rewrote The Wasteland.

There's a lot of the very highest quality of writing in the Cantos, so they're still worth reading. Pound was a master stylist. But his intelligence was never fully expressed in his work.

>>9782593
>>9782612
>>9782577

I'm also published, and I think it's very clear most of /lit/ is in the very earliest stages of developing their literary intelligence and artistic ability. Like they're not even to the point where they realize how poorly read and clumsy they are.

I'm CEO of Random House, ask me anything

>>9782585
>not learning Chinese to read the Cantos

File: Screenshot (92).png (172KB, 1365x494px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 1365x494px

>>9782624
I made some longish post about critique threads lemme find it