Talk:Alternative literature

[Untitled]

This is a really bad half formed page that I will be adding to and structuring in the near future as soon as I can come up with something worth writing. This is because I have only just got access to the internet again after having my internet provider changed and so have only just been able to commence work on the planned "Alternative thinking" series. For these reasons I ask that this page is not aadded to votes for deletion. Thankyou. Motown Junkie 13:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but this article still suffers from the same problem as the alternative culture article does: lack of undisputed accuracy. I'm going to have to put the warning on this one too. After all, I've never heard anyone actually use the term "alternative literature", even in commercial hype. -- [[User:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 05:34, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Um, almost a year later, this article is still a mess. Noam Chomsky, Sylvia Plath, and Spawn, share a dubious connection at best, I would have to say. Unless this is really going to be substantially improved, I'm thinking it should probably be deleted or maybe redirected to counterculture or something along those lines. MC MasterChef 14:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has no merit. It describes a huge amount of literature, and to be frank, I have heard very little of a genre called alt lit outside of the world of the internet. I'd like either HUGE improvement (with sources a'plenty, it would need it) or deletion (the realistic option).--150.237.85.249 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the term is not correctly used. As i've seen, "alternative literature" is most commonly used to describe free-of-charge direct-to-reader literature, without the need of publishing processes beyond formatting and other corrections. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 22:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to the beswhat the hell is up with this article?t of my ability. I have added a number of relevant references and removed parts which seemed promotional, silly or simply inaccurate. I have also removed the excessive number of listed authors. You will naturally hear very little of an internet-based, academia-rejecting genre outside of the internet (at least for the time being) but I think Alt Lit (as opposed to 'Alternative Literature') refers to an easily identifiable, select genre of literature (even if manifested manifold ways). -Fantini (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that in its current state, this article seems to be written so broadly that it doesn't really say much. Many of the authors mentioned as exemplars of Alt Lit are not verifiable by external sources as notable. It might make sense to edit that section down so that the established, published, top-line examples are mentioned, and the others are either cut or shifted to another section. I'm sure this page is a juicy target for self-serving vandalism by up-and-coming Alt Lit aspirants, so that doesn't make things any easier-- nonetheless, this is a legitimate subject for a wikipedia article, and it deserves a page that allows readers to actually get some kind of grasp on what Alt Lit actually means, and how it is used (even if pejoratively) by book reviewers and critics. 69sportsdude420 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on closer reading, this page seems pretty profoundly off-target. Most of the sources are blogs, and Alt Lit is (spuriously, I suspect) connected to "New Modernism" and "New Sincerity", both of which seem to have little to do with the actual exponents of what is commonly and collectively agreed to be Alt Lit (Tao Lin, Marie Calloway, and a handful of others). We need to start over here, seek better sources, and pretty much thoroughly renovate this whole page so that it clearly and accurately explains what Alt Lit is, who named it thus, and what writers actually represent Alt Lit. 69sportsdude420 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]