Recent reviews
Recent lists
Recent writings
✦
✦
✦
Is this just the 4chan version of Goodreads? 1/3
I'm going to approach this from a perspective opposite both yours and those of the other commenters. This rambles a bit since I'm not exactly at my best, language-wise, but trust me when I say I ultimately weave the threads together. lit.salon is essentially an offshoot of r/redscarebookclub, itself an offshoot of r/redscarepod, itself an offshoot of the Dimes Square group—by which I mean the Redditors are Dimes Square wannabes. This led to the base community, McCarthy-loving and retard-slinging, you describe. I am none of those things. I came across the original shillpost by chance, yet am somehow, by any metric, a fairly active (certainly more than I should be) user of both the site and the Discord. In many ways, I'm the opposite of everything you described. Precisely one of my reviews mentions violence, I construct no narratives to explain the world nor do I have much interest in politics beyond the local level, I don't normally insult users, nor am I snob. The last part seems a bit odd, given many of my posts subtly or overtly delineate books into popular mediocrities, under-read gems, and genuine masterpieces. You actually captured the reason with "words that rarely define the average experiences of a person". 'I was too poor then I was too ivory tower to know what average is.' The comfortably middle class person reading Jane Eyre has very few significant experiences in common with me. Class undeniably pushes perspectives onto people. Low–highbrow; obscure–popular; what is roughly the synthesis of the two, underread–overread; and derivative–experimental are convenient spectra upon which I can make sense of my experiences, not slopes upon which I can attack those below me.
Circling back, I, when considered at the individual post level, almost seem like the typical lit.salon user, except each interaction betrays just a slight difference: truelit instead of redscare, SF bay area instead of NYC, and other, less superficial differences in my train of thought: New instead of dirtbag left or syncretist, prone to mid-20th century thoughts and writings instead of Mark Fisher &c. On 4chan, you'll be insulted for daring to disagree, e.g. for liking 'slop' authors, but no reasoning will ever be provided for why the differences matter so much as to speak to character. On lit.salon, you'll be insulted for facile reasoning or genuine inadequacies of thought (and for liking 'slop', I'll admit), but rewarded for demonstrating a viable alternative that can help one's view expand. This difference between the two may sound like an inane, minor disagreement with your post (if it sounds like a duck and walks like a duck, who the hell cares if it's a graylag goose), but it speaks to something some of the newer users won't have enough data to notice and some of the older users aren't active enough to see. lit.salon's growing more diverse whereas /lit/ went from a semidecent place (or so I'm told) to an insular, xeno-allergic community. Our slogan already sounds dated and is a distinct product of the community when it was produced and the Discord's on a rockier path towards maturation. lit.salon may be an echo chamber, but it's gradually accepting new views, until it'll hopefully come to represent alt lit writ large: rs, truelit, TPOT, brodernist, feminist, avant-garde, esoteric, paperback scifi, various phpBB forums, &c.
Honsetly I hope you are right. I think I am more worried regarding inaction than any sort of fear of the future. I know you are very active, and I've seen you around even when I was. I will be honest; I do not really understand the Jane Eyre part. A second crack at it from you would be welcome because I am reading it over and over, and I just can't seem to get it. As for your comment, I do see that there are good people here, but you only need to take a look at the comments I've got for this post. Been told to fuck off, got assumed every which way and others are threatening me that they'll "tear me to shreads" but are so kind they let me go. (It's Bo Burnham's socko sketch all over again.) I think that a firmer stance on discouraging these kinds of actions from the site wouldn't come as a negative but would actively help the future you described.
That's my bad! I used Jane Eyre as an example of the zeitgeist, in that it's probably one of the most popular 'classics' right now and therefore in opposition to the books I frequently review and mention. A unique life experience has led to unique taste and, from what I know of several of the other regulars here, similar applies to them. We're very diverse in terms of country, region, race, &c but we've converged on similar tastes. This leads to us being more willing to accept outsiders, so we have more dynamism in the community. Hopefully, tastes will expand as well.
FYI: I'm fairly vocally on the side of more moderation as well, and a few people I've invited have been scared away thanks to the Discord.
❤️ Also want to add that I have no personal allegiance to any agenda at hand. I'm not particularly well-read, nor am I well-read enough to have definitive preferences of anything that pertains to literature. I just read what I think is interesting, simple as that. I'm sure most people operate this way, and get stumped when anyone asks "who is your favorite author?" or alike. I think if I were hyper aware of literary trends and incredibly well-read, I would perhaps be less trusting of the community at large. However, precisely because I am so uninformed, I have a hard time moderating, especially because I don't like heavily moderated online communities at all. Nothing pisses me off more than jannies.I am all for showcasing the highlights (like literati's lists that received more traffic than some global pages), but I am against suppressing certain attitudes or agendas unless it's so obviously bad-faith posting.
Copying from discord i think you may be conflating the site and the discord a bit, which I like bc the discord is just a groupchat formed around the site not something that underpins the site, the site underpins the discord. The village retards are not dominating the site. But I like this bc I get equally good book recs through discord stream of consciousness diary posts Also idk, I get your point and it’s obviously elitist and has a particular “edge” that’s definitely something only neurotic gen Z coastal elite etc ppl could create bc I knew the only good vector I could form the site around was the RS crowd, but that’s also helpful bc the site actually has an edge whether we like it or not. Also like the other ppl said I find that it’s more accepting for diverse taste than I imagined. It’s not all novella circlejerking + it doesn’t remind me of /lit/ textbook snobbery either bc no normal person uses chan in 2025 so those corners are just so insulated. Besides imo it’s better to be intensely loved and hated than to be ignored, better to evoke reaction and emotion than to be lukewarm. There’s a reason the landing page looks like that, where my normie friends who work at b2b saas look at it and say “why are there asian girls smoking cigs are you retarded?” but my other friends who are unemployed look at it and say ohhh ok i get what you’re trying to go for At the end of the day I made the site bc I thought we could all benefit from a book social site that actually works well and looks good that doesnt have to be a subreddit or forum or some isolation chamber of GR/storygraph/etc where the only use case is sending your profiles to other people and never interacting with the site. A site where just being on it says something about you whether that’s good or bad
Well, first, I would like to say that I am definitely not conflating the two. I haven't been on the Discord in ages, but I've been on the site every month or so. I can't conflate the two, I have the views of only one. Secondly, while I'll look past the insults, the words "people are more accepting for diverse taste than I imagined" stuck out to me. You should be expecting diverse tastes to be accepted, no? My point kind of is that while the pretence is up because there has been a surface level of acceptance, wider discussions rail into insulting and demeaning. You say that no normal person uses 4chan in 2025, so those corners are so insulated, yet you say that you want to create a site where just being on it says something, whether good or bad. My point is to make it good. Because at the moment, it's a recipe for another 4chan. Isolated and circle-jerking with an air of perceived knowledge hanging around that doesn't actually achieve what it stands for. You are on the precipice of a choice where you could shape what this site means, and inaction will lead to the worst outcomes. History repeats itself; that's the first thing you learn reading it. I'm asking for a consensus on what is acceptable in a conversation because I agree with your sentiment regarding book social sites. GR is awful to navigate, and it's even harder to find any sort of a commonplace, and most of the other sites don't offer much besides other books to read and share. The salon feature is what made me interested. I also like the aesthetic; it's clean, and the asian girl smoking cigs is what made me stay, no joke. The idea is stellar, but it needs to be managed. It needs an etiquette, even if it is counter-cultural (though which cultural facet it is countering seems to be up for debate, too). 1/2
Finally, "it's better to be intensely loved or hated than to be ignored." I don't think so. Intense hatred will bring out a side of you that's only focused on destruction. While intense love dims any sort of wider range of disagreement. Luckewarm doesn't mean that there can be no intensity. What I am asking for is for that intensity to be controlled. Otherwise, it will delve into intense hatred. It always has 2/2
Didn't mean to insult anyone, my bad king. I just assumed you were in Discord the whole time b/c I remember seeing you beef with berry a long time ago. I am against enforcing a certain code of etiquette because I just don't know what those things should be. Maybe you have good ideas? My version of etiquette on social platforms where you have anon is very skewed towards having no etiquette. It's simply way too personal. I am very forgiving in IRL and online, and if you're in the Discord you know this. And not everything is allowed. I banned a couple users and deleted many reviews of people shitposting nazi book reviews. Yes, this is the bare minimum, but this is to illustrate that this isn't X.com. Not EVERYTHING flies. There is a base level of decorum I do want to maintain. In a way, I decided to trust the community with these things we are talking about. Yes, this leads to lord of the flies situation where the loudest voices reign supreme. Perhaps it leads to an inevitable echo chamber of taste. But I can tolerate this, because I look forward to the stuff that breaks this mold too, and I do get consistently surprised. I look forward to conflicts as much as agreements as long as it doesn't lead to SWATing someone. We are all adults, we can all talk and thug stuff out online. Besides, in Discord, it has been demonstrated numerous times that people can yell at each other than become friends, just like irl. I do believe that the community can self-regulate itself without falling apart at the seams. So far it has, I believe.
I just attended a lovely church service about resisting temptation, which is all that's keeping me from ripping OP to shreds. But @lowiqmarkfisher, please, for the love of God, do not change your moderation stance. You've done a wonderful job with this site, and if you started clamping down on conversation because silence is violence or whatever this little dweeb wants, it would break my heart.
It's difficult. Moderation is always a tricky situation, especially with communities that have such wide-ranging topics. Disagreements are bound to happen. The point of moderation is to not have the conflict escalate and then *hope* that it'll work itself out. There'll come the day when it won't. If I had to write a mission statement for this, it would be "You should always contribute to the topic with a meaningful argument or comment. Sly jabs, especially targeted at minorities or individuals, are strictly prohibited. You are allowed to be funny, just not to the extent of others or for the sake of derailing a conversation." Honestly, just this alone will make a world of difference. What's more difficult is making this kind of a thing be taken seriously. Now, some sort of time-out would be best. It would be a little slap on the wrist, but I also think that some people are only here because they realized that being annoying is rewarded here. For them, it's a ban. I hate it, too, but I've seen communities thrive once they banned popular figures that have been very active from early on. Sonny Boy Episode 8 is a great example of what happens when you don't. The Discord for sure needs this. I looked through some of the older stuff and oh my God there is some really fucked up shit in there weekly of not more. The site is more or less safe from this, but I still see instances where this is an issue. The ban is done with warnings, and once those are repeatedly ignored, it's for only a few weeks. If the person is still acting as they have after they returned, then permanently remove them. I know all this sounds very totalitarian, but these are the basic rules of any community. For it to be a place for discussion, you need the option to remove those who want certain discussions to lose all meaning.
You are barely active here. Fuck off and stop giving us faggy mission statements and retarded rules. You are not important.
This reads like you saw someone call a book "slop" and decided to post a multi-paragraph screed. Rest assured, if this was anything like 4chan, the replies would be much less kind to you. I for one am happy that we have a breadth of opinions and voices here. We have people calling classics slop, relatively unknowns transcendent, and that one guy who said Lolita was too unkind to Humbert lol. I myself have posted a good amount of genre fic reviews, dime store thrillers, with no pushback. Perhaps you should ask yourself why you're here and what you're looking for. Something kinder and more anodyne? Because there are plenty of places like that on the internet.
Going to mirror comment below, you bring up some fair points (especially regarding how rejection of mainstream opinion leads to its own kind of bien-pensant attitude), and I think that's inevitable when a platform is created with a deliberately countercultural narrative. There's a lot of gatekeeping, but I, personally, am more OK with erring on the side of the gatekept. If a forum is too open, too inclusive, it winds up devolving to the lowest common denominator, which is how you get the things like r/music or r/books, where uncontroversial but banal opinions rise to the top. It doesn't help that most people who actually have the time and energy to post skew quite young, and a good discussion about books, especially, requires a lot of world-weary old bastards as well as some bright young things. Is that 4chan-ish? In its cloisteredness perhaps, but I've been generally pretty impressed with the level of discourse. I also do Goodreads, and have had great discussions there too, simply because my personal tastes are kind of self-selecting. If you're the sort of person who wants to go at me for my opinions on W.G. Sebald, that rules! I care more about the fact that we both have passionate opinions than whether or not we agree. I'm here because I feel more likely to have those conversations in this space. And I feel the same vis-a-vis your critique, the passion is excellent. I'd buy you a Boulevardier if you were at my local.
I'm aware that the Boulevardier is most likely an accident, but I do live in France, so I might be closer to your local than you think. As for what you said, I am not preaching for some kind of perfect utopia that is sanded off from any opinions. I think you brought up two extremely huge communities where the most general will rise to the surface as those'll be the only points that can be related to the most. I am more in favour of a set of rules regarding etiquette. If this place is trying to establish itself as a place for discussion, then that discussion needs to be outlined. I'm not advocating for some kind of ban system before somebody waves 1984 at me, but places where discussion is meant to happen need a kind of discipline. You can say anything, but how you say it is important. The current state is a very in your face fuck you, I stand for my own and what you say is an attack against mine. These need to be fixed. The way that the presidential debates weren't fixed with the mute button, I don't think banning is the solution. A rule set on civilized discussion is. Maybe. Idk I'm neither a god nor an expert. I see the passion on display too; I was intrigued to come here after all. It's that if this passion is used in this way, it doesn't just hurt the messages that are being discussed, but the mental health of the users. I am very likely not staying. I feel that all I can say has no effect, and I am doing more of a post-mortem than any sort of a crusade. But I still wanted to make this post, firstly for the sake of trying, secondly for seeing that if another smaller community that I'll want to become a part of starts showing similar symptoms, I can try and see what can be done about it.
You do you. I did peruse some of your other comments, and tbh I haven't seen the vitriol you've described. That being said, I haven't participated in the Discord, because I have no desire to participate in ANY Discord, it just seems like a source of white noise in general, and when I read comments on the site I prefer to engage with them in paragraph-length, edited responses (as any literary gentleman of the world ought to, bourbon and Gauloise in hand, natch). If it seems dumb or bad-faith, I ignore, unless that personal snipe I have is genuinely awesome (it almost never is). But that's all as an individual user. The ethics of moderation are a trickier issue, and above my pay grade. As you clearly recognize.
Hm you make some interesting points but I'm also not sure where a lot of this is coming from. > The obsession with gore and violence is also a bit concerning. Look at the most recent books reviewed on the site, and you'll see just how few DON'T have themes related to some kind of human misery (be it psychological or physical) I don't see what the problem here is? I'll admit I'm probably one of the people who writes reviews on books that are quite gory and violent but I can't help my tastes lol I don't really like negatively categorising books or using language like 'slop' to describe novels, but to the defence of users who make those lists- I'm pretty sure they're for personal usage and it's a way for them to track which books they disliked. To be honest, I think any space where tastes are more 'intellectual' is going to inherently have snobbery and it's sort of a lost cause to expect otherwise. I also feel like I've seen many reviews on books here that are 'common' and 'non-intellectual' so I think this conclusion is a bit biased, because I feel that there has been space for discussion of more popular books. In fact, in cases where users have attacked reviews for being lowbrow or what not I've only seen other users come to the other reviewers defence. Tbh I like this site because I get a lot of book recs here from people I know have similar tastes to me. I probably wouldn't use it as much if most book discussions were mainstream, cause there's already other sites for that. Sorry it didn't suit your needs tho
The comment about the taste is fair. I do tend to forget how vocal some are about these kinds of books, and it might just stick out more because of the smaller community size. I am happy you had good experiences, still, I feel like some of it is very much deliberate. You can make lists private, so the choice to have them public is just that: a choice. They also come with headers that seem to want to explain the contents for an audience. Still, this is nitpicky; I just wanted to shade things a little. Happy you responded and good luck with future book recs
Welcome to my fucked up world. You know where the door is!
I came here with some hope for a place where civilized discussions can happen, but the amount of hate, shaming and general bad view for anything closely resembling an average taste finally drained me. I come to look around every few months or so, but I think this is my end here. Y'all are some very smart people (I mean this, the books on your shelves are rivalling textbooks) who decided that the best thing to use all your knowledge for is to create pseudo-narratives about psychology, philosophy and statecraft or bicker about "the state of the world" while throwing around such words that rarely define the average experiences of a person. The obsession with gore and violence is also a bit concerning. Look at the most recent books reviewed on the site, and you'll see just how few DON'T have themes related to some kind of human misery (be it psychological or physical). I see the few who try to write about less extremes, but it's a drop in the ocean. I think I learned my lesson here. Those who seek places like these (brand new with no established leadership, culture and no moderation) are usually shunned by places that do have them. I'm not saying that it's all racism here and all of y'all are the devil. The conversations are very clearly written and rarely delve into arguments. I also find that most of the regulars are very tolerant and not racist at all (with a few exceptions, but that's bound to happen), but I also find the irony that while presenting as a very intellectual person, people here still use the word retard very frequently. My problem is more around the attitudes in which points are presented. This smug, witty, above all ideas mixed with insults hidden behind the framing of a question type of dialogue is rampant. These are some of the worst instincts in people, and in more popular circles, they get called out. Rightfully. 2/3
Conversations around art are also quite painful to read. For one, it shows that I saw more users have "slop" or "painfully mediocre" or "garbage" lists than favourites. This idea that something is "worth reading" screams of a culture that chases itself. Of a culture that can't admit greatness, so can only raise standards by diminishing works that have been widely accepted as great. The slogan for the website is "Goodreads for people who hate Goodreads" That sums it up better than I could. I find this atmosphere to be damaging and suffocating. At worst, it's contagious as well. I'm not gonna pretend that I haven't done what I've described here. But my point is that I have only done it *here*. On other sites, I have never argued, even when topics were far more wide-ranging and controversial. It's well known now that fully open spaces like these don't foster the open environments they claim. We are not equal. Socially or intellectually, some will come and take control, especially when that position is left open. My problem is that those who choose to or end up controlling rarely are the ones that will help people with less social status have a chance. This intellectualism mixed with art snobery (and I know that at least one person here takes the word snob with pride, so I want to be very clear that this is derogatory) will create an echo chamber. It already has. So with this post, I wanted to make sure that all those who still claim this to be a place for open-minded, intellectual and free conversations for all are aware that it isn't. It's an echo chamber. Not with information, but with attitude and opinion, which then form the collective views on topics. 3/3
What is the internet but the 4chan version