>spend 3 years writing a book >edit it obsessively >get

>>36387720
sounds like you are a retard my man. on the plus side, you seem to be in the right place.

>>36387720
>not using a fake name
>not realizing normies love shit
>not remembering 50 Shades of Shit is a billion dollar franchise

I work at a publishing house. If it's any consolation, your book likely would not have been accepted without further heavy editing to detract from what you felt was satisfying. A person who spends so long on a single work is likely to make something slipshod from over-thinking, especially if they spend a lot of time going over it again and again, let alone to "edit it obsessively."

>>36387787
That's good to hear. It was a """""philosophical""""" far future sci-fi book that probably wouldn't have had any appeal anywhere. Wouldn't appeal to normies because it's far future sci-fi, and wouldn't appeal to smart people because the philosophy was probably garbage.

>>36387787
There have got to be some publishing houses that publish anything though right?

>>36387816
but u could of posted it here in short sections and built up a following

>>36387829
You can self publish literal shit on a page and it'll get on amazon books or something.

>>36387840
We would have just turned into memes

>>36387766
"Fifty Shades of Grey" was accepted and sold because it appealed to the lowest common denominator, which is the primary objective with publishing. It's unlikely that any book written by a person on /r9k/ would get published because everyone here is a misogynist in one way or another, and almost every single person who purchases and consumes fiction is female. If you want your book to be popular, to result in significant revenue, and even to be looked over by a publisher--it has to be centered on appealing to women first and foremost. Write characters women find sympathetic, and write plots which concern issues that women think about. You can be as stereotypical as you like, but self-rewarding fiction which is unusual, even if it's written well, is likely to be seen as immature in the publishing industry. It's the reason why few companies will even TOUCH certain genres like horror.

>>36387866
>self rewarding fiction
What did he mean by this?

>>36387892
basically wank
anything that has purple prose, extended sections where the author uses characters as a mouthpiece for views, etc

Can't you just put it on Amazon? I have amazon prime and they give you "free books" with it that are absolute shit I know no publisher actually picked up.

>>36387866
>It's unlikely that any book written by a person on /r9k/ would get published
/r9k/ is literally just a male version of Tumblr. THe bitch who wrote 50 shades was just writing autistic literotica about pre established characters, /r9k/ can do that.
/r9k/ could use their understanding of misogyny to create a bad guy that the female protag overcomes.

>>36387816
The classics in sci-fi are popular because they were published during a time when it was cheap and lots of people would read (especially since so many only ever had to compete with radio). They had a bigger market, and now that they have aged, their philosophy seems exciting and intelligent because it's beyond our current culture.

It's unlikely a sci-fi book with philosophical elements would be published today because almost all novels are out-done by the special effects of film and television. Combine that with the fact that women (brainless normies) are the only ones who read, it'd probably come off as too pretentious, rather than what we call "geek-chic."

We also tend to turn down literature written by young people that involve strong philosophical themes in general, because they're almost always inspired by Nietzsche, Camus, and the unimaginative trend of "dude, society is like so mundane and all about money and stuff."

If you want your edgy, intellectual book to succeed, here's a great tip: do not write about suicidal people. It was original and interesting when suicidal individuals were buried in separate plots at the graveyard, but now we see it as narcissistic attention-whoring. Too often people are self-rewarding, thinking that they've risen above it all, when even their extremely flawed characters are nothing more but self-inserts.

>>36387930
I could have, but not any more.

>>36387829
I think a smaller start-up would be likely to publish whatever it can get to build an identity, but for many genres, it would still have to be amazing. The major publishers, who are likely to get you good deals on publicity and openings into popular markets have numerous genres that they simply do not publish. You can often find a list of them on their website under submission guidelines. You're also expected to write a synopsis of your novel, and we'll simply trash it if it doesn't follow the proper procedure.

I take your horror stories home to read on my own time, but they just go in the paper shredder when I'm done with them, since none of them are good enough to convince the board to follow through and I can't go off on my own to publish them.

>>36387971
Is there no way to recover it?

>>36388004
That's too bad. Shame the book market is subject to the whims of aging middle class white women.

>>36387892
>>36387921
This fellow has it right. Young authors and elderly authors tend to lean the most towards self-rewarding fiction. The primary problem isn't so much that the author is using them as a tool to present critique, but that the author is just putting themselves into the story. Every single author, without question, is unable to avoid seeping into their narrative in some way, but kids do it the most by linking personal flaws to substantial character flaws (anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, suicidal tendencies, etc.) Women tend to write about characters who are "plain" but are loved by everyone (see early 19th century garbage like Jane Austen and Elizabeth Gaskell to learn how long this has been going on). Men write about beta-males who never get the girl or who are "outsiders" from their family and community (think Mr. Robot).

Can you write a synopsis right freaking now and post it? You gotta at least give us a quick rundown.

>>36388047
I think it's just a problem with democracy. Regardless of who the primary audience is, the majority of fiction is all similar to each other. As long as publishing is driven on profit, the quality of writing is going to verge towards appealing to an audience that doesn't desire change.

I've read a lot of material which is never going to be published (and I mean a lot, think in the tens of thousands in only my spare time) and even if the audience wanted that kind of material, it would become droll quickly. There's a few rare diamonds who just cannot find ground for publication, but most of it is just trash that doesn't get its time in the sun by pure circumstance.

>>36387961
Not OP but this is great advice. I too have spent my life writing (a) book(s) that will probably never see the light of day.

File: c6d.png (436KB, 1024x577px) Image search: [Google]

436KB, 1024x577px

>>36388077
here bro
orgavovado

>>36388100
>I think it's just a problem with democracy. Regardless of who the primary audience is, the majority of fiction is all similar to each other. As long as publishing is driven on profit, the quality of writing is going to verge towards appealing to an audience that doesn't desire change.
>DUDE THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD FORCE BUSINESSES TO PUT MONEY INTO THINGS NO ONE WANTS TO BUY LMAO

>>36388154
I was going to go find this screen cap, thanks for saving me the time

>>36388077
tl;dr, all of humanity is computer simulations on eternal ships floating through a black void because all the stars have long since died. Through absurd amounts of time with thousands of polymaths, AI, and random number generators running countless simulations, everyone has discovered that there are alternate realities, other universes, and higher dimensions, but there is no way at all for us to access it. Eventually people start deleting themselves because the alternative is a slow heat death along with the universe.

The story is divided into 3 characters: someone who, pre-singularity, was a mathematician, and is obsessed with proving that entering other dimensions is mathematically possible. He's terrified of death and wants a way to avoid the universe's heat death. He works feverishly until the ship stops working and the universe succumbs to heat death.

The other character was a biologist pre-singularity and spends her time simulating evolutionary pathways that could have led to a different outcome. She's a bit bored but mostly nonchalant and generally unconcerned with the state of affairs, just doing what's fun. She deletes herself out of boredom and curiosity as to whether there might be an afterlife.

The last character is a hedonist who, instead of furthering science, is constantly simulating more and more absurd fantasies but finds them less and less fulfilling. He's the first to delete himself after sinking into a depression when he realizes he hasn't been enjoying anything for a long time.

please be gentle

>>36388056
To follow up: if you want to write a story I might actually bring up in a meeting as a rare chance to discover "the next big thing," do not hold back on your plot. Make it absolutely ridiculous.

The trend with wanna-be intelligent authors is to make allegories like Kafka's "The Trial" and "The Castle" in a modern context, or to mimic something like Lovecraft. It's not the choice of genre is bad, it's that they're focusing on the wrong style. Kafka's poetry and Lovecraft's non-fiction are better. Hell, Lovecraft demeans people who enjoy dogs over cats as 'meekness loving peasants.' No matter how serious he is, it's so much more interesting because his writing is passionate. If you ever find serious material you like, don't imagine how you can mimic their technique, but try to make it sillier. "The Brother's Karamazov" for example is a nice story for its own time, but I think it's out-done by the more fantastical "Notes from the Underground."

This isn't rather unusual, I find, and tends to break cultural barriers. A Song of Ice and Fire for example is far sillier than Lord of the Rings. Just as teenage material like Jojo's Bizarre Adventure is sillier than Hokuto no Ken.

>>36388168
I wasn't saying the government should fund these projects, but the people who buy books aren't actually people who read. This is why /lit/ doesn't sit around reviewing brand new novels, but are debating about the quality of older works. I'm merely saying that there's no reason being upset that women demand bad books, because any audience with enough members to affect publishing is likely to have dumb opinions.

>>36388207
I'd read it tbhfam

>>36388207
Not a bully.
This sounds like a premise. Nothing in this feels climactic. Is the universe itself the antagonist? How do you make the reader feel that?

>>36388254
tl;dr: Modern writers are too conservative, or mistake complexity for being unique. Being unique usually means being outright strange. Just think about how successful Archie is compared to the innumerable no-name super heroes Marvel and DC pump out. "Bloodraven" or whatever isn't cool because he has knives on the edges of his cloak and a plague-doctor's beak with protects him from various stimuli. Jughead is cool because he eats way too many fucking hamburgers and he wears a crown all the time.

>>36388207
Anon that sounds amazing, I want to read it

I've had the exact same idea for a book while watching Star Trek really high, with a few separate details

The idea of a last remaining bastion against entropy in the form of a space ship floating through the abyss filled to the brim with supercomputers running simulations is fascinating.

>>36388207
>that face when ur the third guy
Im on my phone so I don't have it but it is a mix of shock, disgust and sadness

>>36388296
Not OP

Antagonist? Climactic? Why do you expect that

How does the story end? It just ends, that's all

File: weird-beyonce-face-superbowl-derp-13602815150.jpg (60KB, 500x700px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 500x700px

>>36388207
Well since you threw the book out, why not try writing it as a screenplay? You have the idea but it'd be a different challenge.

>>36388254
OP here. Honestly, this touches on one of the reasons I deleted it. It honestly felt like an exact copy of Greg Egan's Permutation City with a few names and details changed. Like >>36388296
said, there isn't really a climax or antagonist, it's just an unsatisfying ending with every character ending up unhappy.

>>36388372
I wouldn't even know how to begin that. Do people just write screenplays? What does one do with a screenplay?

>>36388207
The primary idea sounds interesting, but the setting demands too much from your characters and your "sci-fi" that you'll never be able to provide. I like the idea of human characters who are depicted through machinery, but it seems to be a crutch to make up for how they are dominated by personalities which are focused on the setting and not on their relationships with others.

It reminds me of that video game SOMA, but I can see why SOMA's story is cleaner, because the artificial-humans are still on Earth, and don't rely on particularly futuristic themes. The theme also isn't about response to death, but about the legitimacy of an experience. Your last character on that front is the most interesting, since he has to consider why constant stimulation cannot make him happy. If you understand they're still humans, you have to remove the idea that human personalities are based on a reaction to the surrounding natural world, when they are more likely a reaction to the surrounding social community.

"The Martian" for example wasn't a hit because it was outlandish and imaginative, but because the author was able to describe every intricate detail of his universe, something you'll never be able to do with your plot and is sure to disappoint sci-fi "fanatics," and will be immediately too confusing for casuals.

>>36387720
I do this, but with music.

>new project
>incubate for months
>listen to it
>become overly self-critical
>decide it sounds like shit
>delete project
>
>new project

>>36388442
Anon I can tell this is good feedback but I started drinking and I can't really figure this out, so I'll save it in a notepad file and figure out what you're saying later. Thank you though. I think you have a good point with the last sentence.

>>36388423
If you want to do a good "bad ending," save the climax until the last few pages, and then end the novel almost immediately. That, or illustrate regret with a hope for the future. Long, drawn-out suffering followed by no resolution isn't fun for other people to read about, because believe it or not, people only want to whine about their own problems, and don't want to hear yours.

"1984" does a good job with the quick bad ending, with O'Brien revealing Winston to be a hypocrite, thus shattering his moral stance and forcing him to declare "I love Big Brother."

"Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" does good with the dual-side ending, after the protagonist finds the mechanical toad in the desert, but decides to take care of it anyway.

"The Stranger" does the excellent sharp resolution after long pages of nothing. Simply put, characters should change, but not artificially. If characters have goals which are disappointed, they should take it as an educational opportunity.

>>36388423
>I wouldn't even know how to begin that. Do people just write screenplays? What does one do with a screenplay?

I have no clue but I'd guess some no-names can get movies made if their screenplay is good enough. Matt Damon and Ben Affleck were nobodies until they wrote "Good Will Hunting".

>>36388634
>>36388423
Screenplays are more likely to be picked up as they don't take very long to read.

If you want to write a screenplay, just focus down a story to scenes, events, and dialogue. For the love of god, do not ever write about the cinematography or describe more than the bare minimum necessary for a scene or character. The director of the show will be responsible for the visual performance, and it's unnecessarily restrictive and obnoxious for a writer to attempt to describe how they want it filmed. This is why book adaptations are nothing like the movie. It isn't a "time issue," it's a creative differences issue. What works in literature will not work in live performance.