/lit/ - Literature

>stole all her ideas from James Joyce and Henry James
>claimed not to like their works
The absolute madwoman

>>9238586

>>9231329

Virginia Woolf actually had talent. This woman is an idiot.

>>9231356

>Most of the characters are unlikable.

Worthless plebs, both of them. I bet they never choose to read any difficult works of their own volition outside of "class". They bitterly suffer through what they are assigned and then stick to basic page turners in their spare time.

Do these people even care about literature? Why study it if you clearly don't give a fuck enough to properly understand it? Isn't this just glorified babysitting then?

>>9143537

Anon said women do everything for show and your first thought was to try and snipe him over social validation? Do you even listen to yourself?

In the end, was Virginia Woolf just a tryhard edgelord?

This is half true. Let's set the record straight so we never have to see this shitty thread again.

Woolf did kind of look down on Joyce. She wasn't impressed with Ulysses, we know. I quote from a 1982 NYT article about a joint Woolf/Joyce exposition:

She was in the midst of writing what some Woolf readers consider her own masterpiece, ''Mrs. Dalloway,'' when she wrote in her diary: ''I should be reading 'Ulysses,' and fabricating my case for and against. I have read 200 pages so far - not a third; and have been amused, stimulated, charmed, interested, by the first two or three chapters - to the end of the cemetery scene; and then puzzled, bored, irritated and disillusioned by a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples. Tom, great To m'' - meaning Eliot - ' 'thinks this is on a par with 'War and Peace'! An illiterate, under bred book, it seems to me; the book of a self-taught working man, and we all know how distressing they are, how egotistic, insistent, raw, striking, and ultimately nauseating.'' 'Diffuse,' 'Brackish,' 'Under bred'

Ok. Kind of bitchy, but while idiots like OP want to attribute her bashing to mere envy, (idiots like OP always assume a woman is envious) it was actually because of her classic English snobbery. Woolf had a very good education growing up, and was well connected with academics her entire life. Joyce's beginnings are more humble, and if Woolf despised anything it was the underclass or basically anyone socially beneath her. We praise her for being a modernist and a good example of an academic feminist, but she was human like anyone and therefor prone to prejudice. After reading a lot of her non-fiction, in which she even questions her own snobbery at one point, I believe that is where we draw the conclusion "Woolf hated Joyce" from. She only grudgingly admits the importance of Ulysses later on.

From the article:
''I finished 'Ulysses' and think it is a mis-fire. Genius it has, I think; but of the inferior water. The book is diffuse. It is brackish. It is pretentious. It is under bred, not only in the obvious sense, but in the literary sense."

So, her objections to the book were not from how successful it was, she was just being her snobbish self.

>>8365505

underrated post

>>8119715

>>7343505
>I was reluctant to read a book about a woman.
Friendly reminder that these people are among us.

>>7290593
:^)

The Beak for the win

>>7001462
>Respectable history list
>terms like ''medieval'' on it
>nothing between medieval and modern

>>6813633
>Madame Bovary
>For some reason reading anything set in Victorian England bores me to pieces.
>Madame Bovary
>Victorian England

>WTF Woolf, this is unreadable garbage, run-on sentences everywhere, no discernible plot, you use the same sentence over and over again--
"Uhh, it's uh ummm Modernist [aside: maybe this will fool these idiots]"
>Wow genius, truly a visionary, bravo virginia
"[aside: Yes! It worked, now to rake in the dough"

>>6029179
I should've just said ''pic related''

>>5371303

>That way when you don't end up finishing half of the books you bought to feel smart -

Ah, nervous projecting. Well this sure is an unexpected sight to see around these parts.

Great post.