/lit/ - Literature

Not in poetry which is the only field that matters.

Girls are ten year old fuckpossessions not intellectuals.

>>11657973
Cringe quality bait.

>>11657973
Women are more imaginitive than men, and better in touch with their emotions. This naturally leads them to be far better in all matters of creative craft. The logical male brain simply can't have a similar grasp on writing, or on painting or anything like that for that matter.

>>11657973
Because most people want to feel, not think when reading. I'm not saying that particularly as an insult, but the majority of philosophy and masterworks of literature is male. It is tough, inaccessible and enduring.

Women have a large marketshare, sure. But do they really have the staying power?

>>11657973
Women are the only people that read nowadays. Naturally they will connect more with things women write. Romance and self-help are the best selling genres for a reason.

>>11657973
Male authors dominate the scene

>>11657998
Only because history on the whole has been so male-dominated, giving women very few opportunities to get themselves known of even to write at all. Now that we've reached true gender equality, the balance will shift, the pendulum will swing back, and the women at last can show us the true extent of their art and imagination.

>>11658007
>this is what femlets actually believe

>Emily Bronte
>Mary Shelley
Name one other good female writer
pro-tip: you can't

>>11658018
More importantly name one good female poet. Even one.

>>11658018
>J.K. Rowling

>>11658007
>2018
>still being a feminist unironically
cringe

>>11658018
Dickinson ?
Woolf?
Wilde ?

>>11658019
Are you serious, retard? Emily Dickinson.

>>11658035
>Wilde
Good one.

>>11658018
Alice Munro, you fucking idiot.

>Dickinson lived much of her life in reclusive isolation. Considered an eccentric by locals, she developed a noted penchant for white clothing and became known for her reluctance to greet guests or, later in life, to even leave her bedroom. Dickinson never married, and most friendships between her and others depended entirely upon correspondence. She was a recluse for the later years of her life.

/ourgirl/

>>11658039
I am not aware she counts.

And one Girl who had to confine herself to her room almost constantly in order to compose anything of worth in opposition to hundreds of poets from Homer to Heaney? Come on. It ain't looking good ma'am.

>>11658092
Homer was blind and had literally nothing better to do, not exactly a good example there.

>>11658102
Homer and Heaney are not the examples. The history of poetry FROM Homer to Heaney is.

>>11658106
Well I don't know who the fuck Heaney is, for one thing.

>>11658114
Not my problem. He is a reasonably well known Irish poet who wrote in the English language.

>>11658092
You asked for a good female poet. You were provided.

I've legit always wondered why women mostly hold their own in literature, when men push women out of most fields where there's money and status to be gained.

For example, women were big in the movie industry, before it became a thing, At which point they were pushed out.

All I can think is women are naturally talented at writing.

>>11658147
>For example, women were big in the movie industry, before it became a thing,
Examples?

>>11658151
https://vimeo.com/214569895

>>11658147
I figure it's because women are more imaginitive and creative, but men more logical and business-minded. Women just want to create stuff, but as soon as there's money to be had, men will take over and grab that dosh.

>>11658166
>I figure it's because women are more imaginitive and creative
This is a very deluded poster

>>11658173
Fucking shut up you retarded incel.

>>11658175
>using incel as an insult
yikes...

>>11658176
>yikes
Incel detectved.

>>11658060
What a qt. I want to smell her hairy unwashed anus.

>>11658143
One psychologically insane girl. In all of history. Come on.

>>11658181
Fucking disgusting.

Continue.

>>11658189
Then you should have ruled it out right at the start. Besides, it's not like all male authors were sane.

Overnight, very
Whitely, discreetly,
Very quietly

Our toes, our noses
Take hold on the loam,
Acquire the air.

Nobody sees us,
Stops us, betrays us;
The small grains make room

Soft fists insist on

Heaving the needles,
The leafy bedding,

Even the paving.
Our hammers, our rams,
Earless and eyeless,

Perfectly voiceless,
Widen the crannies,
Shoulder through holes. We

Diet on water,
On crumbs of shadow,
Bland-mannered, asking

Little or nothing.
So many of us!
So many of us!

We are shelves, we are
Tables, we are meek,
We are edible,

Nudgers and shovers
In spite of ourselves.
Our kind multiplies;

We shall by morning
Inherit the earth.
Our foot's in the door.

>>11658019
Rossetti, Browning, Stein
>>11658018
Austen, Eliot, Arendt, Sand, Burney,

>>11657973
women spend more time and effort speaking and have better linguistic skills, since they'll actually talk to a non-verbal child incessantly until the child learns grammar.
however, what makes good authors is rejection, so most women don't bother to become literary greats. you'll find that in lesbians.

>>11658297
What I have read of Browning seems decent. I'll give you that.

Women write for women and men write for men. It's harder to accurately evaluate the quality of an author's work if they don't share the same genitalia as you.

>>11658421
How is that true, when the majority of book sales are of male authors, and the majority of readers are female?

>>11658441
Nothing contradictory in that.

>>11657973
I'd agree if there wasn't a possibility of you being a tranny.

OH IS THIS ANOTHER ANTI-MEN THREAD ON 4CHAN WHAT A JOKE

>>11658686
Even in their final safe space, the poor men get oppressed and hated. Where can they even go anymore?

>>11658704
show bobs pls

>>11658686
>>11658704
>she thinks men havent moved on
I wont name the site where we brood currently, but I can tell you that 4chan is currently vastly female, probably 80%
Hope you enjoy a ruin

>>11658737
okay, this is epic

>>11658019
Unica zurn

>>11658018
Unica zurn

>>11658092
>he learnt homer without sappho
>monolingual simpsons watcher observed and hidden

>>11657973
U wot, mate? They suck hard. Thats why every important piece of literary fiction and nonfiction was written by MEN.
Because men say: the content is most important. Why use 5 words if you can use 1 that describes it perfectly.
Women say: Why say 1 perfect word, if i can say 15 words to say the same?
Womens Works lack depth in story & character and clarity in writing.
Jane Austen is a meme, not a literary genius.

As with every endeavor, women lack the ability and thumos to be worthwhile. Thats why, exept for the last 100 Years, everyone knew that their function was simply to bear children and earn their food by doing the works that were to boring and menial for men. The Greek Philosophers even argued that women have no soul, unlike men.

>>11658737
This.

Any misogynistic anti-woman thread/comment you see here is most likely actually written by a woman, seeking to troll others of her kind.

>>11659199
>Women say: Why say 1 perfect word, if i can say 15 words to say the same?
Are you an antiPound fag false flagging? Because even with being associated with TS Eliot, most Imagists are not dumb enough to ignore HD

>>11658147
>I've legit always wondered why women mostly hold their own in literature, when men push women out of most fields where there's money and status to be gained.


I tell you a secret. Most Men dont read much fiction. But women do read very much of it. The great works in literature get written by men. Not women. They write Twighlight. They write the bad works that most women crave to read.
Women dont get pushed out by men. Men are simply better. Only if you have the case with a female audience being 10+ higher than the male audience they can achieve something.
Bad literature (by women) is for women what videogames are to men.

>>11659230
Video games are good tho.

>>11658018
Edith Wharton

>>11659225
>Are you an antiPound fag false flagging?
What the hell is that supposed to mean?

>>11659217
>Any misogynistic anti-woman thread/comment you see here is most likely actually written by a woman, seeking to troll others of her kind.

Sorry girl, but a man is here, and this is just wishfull thinking.

>>11658007
This but unironically.

>>11658007

They already had, depending on how you count, 50-150 Years to prove that and the simple fact that they did not produce any worthwhile thing, despite all their chances proves that they are just not as good as men.

>>11659254
Sorry girl, I'm on to you.

>>11659281
Believe what wrong opinion pleases you.

>>11657973
Same reasons the Juice and the Irish are. Enough discrimination to force them to try much harder and not enough to fully suppress them.

>>11658315
You realise that rejection goes far beyond some mundane "no one will suck my dick" right? Wimin face much more rejection than men on average, although the picture is getting slightly more balanced in the West.

>>11659199
> Why use 5 words if you can use 1 that describes it perfectly.
>The Greek Philosophers
Why didn't you actually start with the Greeks?

>>11659279
>they did not produce any worthwhile thing
But they did.

>>11659302
I did. Currently reading the lesser works of Xenophon.

>>11659317
You mean like this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4v5Zd2FbFk

I might be getting laid soon and I don't even want the actual sex, I just want to be able to stick my face between a nice pretty girl's legs and in her ass and chill out there for a while. I don't even care about sex in the mechanical sense any more, I just want to bury my face in something that makes my brain fuzz over with contentment. Nothing else in my entire life makes me feel this way. I want my ex girlfriend back just so she'll do that thing where she sits on my face in leggings and a skirt and drapes the skirt over my head. I hate life and I want to escape it.

>>11659536
>Son-Goku posting
meta

>>11657973
Are you a woman? Wanna add me on discord?

Mods delete this blatant shitpost bait thread.
Where's pooposter spammer when you need him?

>>11657973

you're right OP

>tfw Mary Shelly published Frankenstein when she was 20
>tfw I'm 24 and have never been published
>tfw Murasaki Shikibu and her daughter wrote a 1200 page masterpiece that invented the novel and I've never written anything over 500 pages
>tfw JK Rowling effortlessly manipulated liberals to sell her books that she knew were trash for more than a decade
>tfw Sylvia Plath had realized that intellectuality was a curse and had the courage to kill herself but I don't

>>11657973
The average female author is better than the average male author, but most truly exceptional writers have been men. There's never been a female Proust or a female Shakespeare.

>>11659296
>You realise that rejection goes far beyond some mundane "no one will suck my dick" right? Wimin face much more rejection than men on average, although the picture is getting slightly more balanced in the West.
you know Rachilde, darling of the French guys whose poetry you can't read, had parents who replaced her with a monkey? you're thinking of mediocrities who never write a book of note. great female writers tend to be lesbians because they have to be rejected more than the average woman, though there are other ways. such as the monkey.

>>11659296
>Wimin face much more rejection than men on average
Except that they don't, statically. Most disproportionately male professions have a hiring bias in favor of women.

>>11660440
>Most disproportionately male professions have a hiring bias in favor of women.
During which period, BEE and Stephen King are the most discussed authors alongside JK Rowling. If you want to count any period where the term old maid meant 22, then, no.

>>11660454
>If you want to count any period where the term old maid meant 22
You yourself said that rejection extended far beyond sexual selection. This is an irrelevant point.

>>11658166
>Women just want to create stuff
Why are most inventors male? Women are good writers because their more linguistically adept, not because they're more creative.

That’s just bad bait. It’s like you know better but posted it anyway because you have nothing original or insightful to say. Goddamn you, good Sir.

>>11657973
Maybe on a common level, but the canon has a very obvious dominance of men. I don't like jeff memegum but he's right; like general academics females have better acuity required for the craft of writing but aren't really capable of producing extremes, works of genius. It's no coincidence that the handful of sublime female authors were shut-ins or lesbians - unconventionally unfeminine in some way.

>>11660480
>Why are most inventors male?
Inventions tend to be not about creativity or imagination, but about utility and logic.

>>11660483
I rather like it over the usual kind of woman-hating we get around here. It was a humorous inversion and could have ended up with some good discussion and breaking of community molds.

Alas, the usual unimaginitive crowd took over almost right away and turned it into the same old drek we always get.

>>11660486
They're about both you mug. Creativity isn't distributed asymmetrically among the genders. It's a linguistic thing, hence women being great at creative endeavors that involve language, but not so great at ones that don't.

>>11660469
The only systems under which old maids make sense are ones of female coverture where access to professions is nearly 100% male since females are legally non-entities, which are hard to pay. Incidentally, this is why a lot of women became writers, though not all of them ones of note, since copy work was paid piecework which women could do at home, and ownership of literary works was the only title women retained in the English speaking world after marriage.

>>11660469
Also, I'm not the anon you were responding to, it's just retarded to limit your period to the last fifty or so years, when most of the classics are the other 4,000 years. The women taking jobs that men formerly had argument is patently weak enough that more than one person now disagrees with you.

>>11660493
>It was a humorous inversion and could have ended up with some good discussion and breaking of community molds.
It wasn't and you knew that wasn't going to happen (whatever you meant by that).

>>11660511
I don't want to hear the fucking sappy narrative of historical female victimhood. In a time before reliable birth control, when domestic duties were a full time job (prior to washing machines and the like), women were required to get married because the division of labor was absolutely necessary for survival. And they did plenty of compensated work at home, like embroidery, tailoring, dressmaking, farming, etc. Fuck off with this post-Wollstonecraft revisionism.

>>11660542
>I don't want facts about the history of authorship and copyright or scribing
>what I want to talk about is babies
I suggest a different board then.

>>11660518
I'm not saying that it's wrong, i'm saying that oppression narrative is myopic. It was material advances that emancipated women from duties that they literally could not forego. My post was a response to OP who claimed that women are better writers, which historically hasn't been the case, for multiple reasons.

>>11660551
>you can separate the history of female art from the material realities of pre-20th century motherhood
Stop being retarded for a quick second

>>11660542
You should note I'm talking about professions (i.e. not a farmer, not even if he's male and landed). Writing is interesting in that it was piecework for the majority of writers for so long, well into the industrial revolution, for both males and females. Pink collar jobs developing out of that isn't surprising, because it's a way to professionalize and salary the work.

>>11660564
>>11660575
You seriously sound like you're one of those women who's about to steal a baby she's hitting the wall so hard. Take a moment and consider that maybe why I'm focusing on literature and writing is that it is a literature board, and maybe babies aren't the be all and end all of that for males or females.

>>11660585
Prior the Pill, sex = might have a baby. And given that we have an inherent sexual instinct, you can't separate motherhood from the personal and professional lives of pre-20th century women. It has to be discussed.

>>11660600
>my ovaries are why Nellie Bly back to Sappho don't matter right now
Maybe >>>/soc/

congrats on your 95 replies i hope this thread devolved into something interesting

>>11660578
I don't think we're disagreeing, my contention was with how the discussion was framed. I think you have to employ historical materialism to talk about women in historically male-dominated professions, not feminist historiography

>>11660605
No, ovaries are why there weren't more Sappos

>>11660625
>my contention was with how the discussion was framed.
Your contention was that discussing literature should come second to discussion of the pill and babies. You're fucking retarded, and, in the spirit of continuous improvement, should consider sucking dicks instead of coming here.

>>11660632
Apart from Praxilla? You're fucking ignorant of a couple hundred years after Sappho, the majority of which was totally illiterate. You've also failed to read Aristophanes properly

>it's another thread hijacked by jeff

>>11660637
We're not discussing literature itself, we're discussing women writing literature, you legitimate retard.

>>11660655
>women=the pill and babies
>also they should come before literature on /lit/
You're being retarded is what's happening. How's that dicksucking coming since books aren't on the cards for you?

>>11660651
The existence of female poets isn't what's in contention, it's the percentage of female poets that's relevant. Let's not bogged down in exceptions and particularities in order to obscure the point.

>You've also failed to read Aristophanes properly
I don't know what you're referring to here. Like I keep saying, the status of women in a given culture is heavily tied to particular material conditions, not just to arbitrary laws and customs.

>>11660675
1. People like having sex
2. Sex prior to reliable contraception often resulted in pregnancy
3. Because domestic work was a full time job (washing machines, chemical cleaning products, and cars hadn't been invented yet), women needed to stay home and take care of the kids while the men worked to support them financially
4. This usually resulted in most professions being disproportionately male
5. Writing, which could be done from home, was one of a few exceptions, hence the existence of good female writers prior to good female artists in any other creative profession
6. But because domestic work was its own full time job, professional writers still tended to be men
It isn't hard to understand why my point was relevant to the discussion at hand

>>11660688
>The existence of female poets isn't what's in contention, it's the percentage of female poets that's relevant
They have a two to one advantage during the height of the first great Attic period. The question isn't why are there so few, but why are there disproportionately so many great women, despite the handicap of the social status. Why is there a Hipparxia or Arete of Cyrene at all, when leading philosophical movements is usually only expected of very few males out of the many and not really at all of the females? That's when women are legally required to be at home. Which is the case for most of the relevant period for this board, while you want to only talk about literature in relation to the contraceptive pill being popularized in ~1950+.

You're not right, and saying we agree and all this bullshit so you can keep thinking you're talking about important things like literature is sad and fucking bullshit. I'm writing these posts so other anons who don't want to be as pathetic as you learn something, since you are obviously incapable of learning anything or navigating a conversation. Reminder you'd be a better person if you just dedicated your life to sucking cock at a truck stop.

>>11660721
>5. Writing, which could be done from home, was one of a few exceptions, hence the existence of good female writers prior to good female artists in any other creative profession
You've missed my point that you're now trying to steal. You objected to me raising it in the first place, I'll add. I'll not correct my point since it's obviously above to be read by anyone with the capacity to learn from this thread.

>>11660763
Nuh uh. I said that there were fewer good female writers, not that good female writers didn't exist prior to the material emancipation of women. My problem is that you framed the status of women politically and socially, as opposed to materially.

>>11660777
There are disproportionately more good female writers than males writers in most periods. I've avoided pointing out that Hildegaard of Bingen and Elinor of Aquitaine shaped pretty much everyone's world view for most of the Middle Ages, but here I am again pointing out your argument is built on sand, despite that being obvious from your trip alone.
>I'm going to pretend that I've been doing Marxist history this whole time
If you were doing that you'd know who Praxilla and Hipparxia are, and most everything else I've been pointing out including their regional affiliation and their foreign status in Attica.

>>11660790
>including their regional affiliation
Are you making Praxilla jokes he can't understand?

>>11660799
No, and let's not, it'll only invite Rick and Morty idiots.

>>11660751
>They have a two to one advantage during the height of the first great Attic period.
According to whom? A claim like that requires a reliable source.

My posts centered around the disproportionate number of men in the Western canon. Unless we're going to disagree about something that fundamentally obvious, then the discussion moves on to why that is. Your point about women being required to stay at home in ancient Greece (an oversimplification of the statutes concerning unaccompanied women) is irrelevant given that we both already agree that women's uncharacteristic excellence in writing (compared to their presence in other creative professions) is partially the result of the fact that it's a job that could be done from home. I'm still trying to grasp your point. Some women writers are great? No one's denying that.

>>11660751
>why are there disproportionately so many great women, despite the handicap of the social status
>There are disproportionately more good female writers than males writers in most periods
I hope you're fucking joking, m8. You know your ancient examples are still just individual exceptions in a pool of notable men?

>>11660821
>>They have a two to one advantage during the height of the first great Attic period.
>According to whom? A claim like that requires a reliable source.
According to who they named the meters after.
You know, one of those literature things that matters if you want to read Attic literature contemporary to Plato or Aristotle.

>>11660829
>I hope you're fucking joking, m8. You know your ancient examples are still just individual exceptions in a pool of notable men?
>Pls go back in time and tell all the Cynics to stop electing Hipparchia as better Cynic
They're kinda cynical about that kind of shit, m8, might be a hard sell.

>>11660790
>There are disproportionately more good female writers than males writers in most periods.
That's actual bullshit, and I have trouble you believe something that ridiculous. As influential as Hildegard is, Shakespeare, Homer, Virgil, Milton, Proust, Cervantes didn't have contemporaneous female equivalents.

>>11660847
That doesn't fucking prove the absolute bullshit claim that there are more notable women writers than men. You know for a damn fact most ancient philosophers, and the most notable ones (Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Diogenes, ect.) were men.

>>11660837
Ancient sources are known for their validity

>>11660849
Shakespeare is notably only preserved because of the Bluestockings, particularly the writings of Lady Montague, who argued it could only be understood by women and it should be preserved instead of being re-written by men, as enough women now read to be able to experience his broader works.
Sappho is literally tied in Greek tradition to Homer. They're called Poet and Poetess for shorthand.
Virgil's fucking shit, at least pick a good Roman poet.
Milton's following a lot of writers and the explosion of 17th C women's writers before him can hardly have escaped your notice. Margret Cavendish and Rachel Speght are already writing the kind of polemic and pamplet he is known for being edgy with now- only they're doing it earlier and as more prominent females. DESU if the monarchy weren't in the process of fucking up, he might not have got famous at all.
Proust's coming after Rachilde, Sand and hundreds of years of French female hosted literary salons. The tradition he's based on is largely female.
Cervantes hardly outweighs Elinor. He's a response to the movement she's started of romance and troubadour poetry, and only exists because her influence was so pervasive as to be parodied. It's like praising the Rape of Lock as deep and meaningful without any idea it's a satire.

You seem to be confusing a surface level knowledge of name dropping with the rigorous ability to delineate canon and its influences. Try impressing the tripfag.

>>11660849
>>11660914
oh wait, you _are_ the trip fag. I guess you probably impressed yourself at the time.

>>11660894
>Ancient sources are known for their validity
Well, talking about the text left behind of all the literature we've lost from the Greeks doesn't really count as reading books. We've to deal with what the Library of Alexandria and the rest of the grammarians and hoarders left us. Well, you don't, you don't read. You can talk about books you imagine you could read but won't all day, evidently.

>>11660914
>The only reason we don't know about good female writers is because their work preserved less assiduously
Is this the feminist version of black egyptology? It must be exhausting viewing everything through the conspiratorial prism of female oppression. You must have had to slog through so much fucking mediocrity to come up with your revisionist conception of literary history.

>>11660653
At least he's actually engaging in discussion, even if he's wrong.

>>11660914
This is either an elaborate troll or a legit hisotoricist vouching for feminists. Why would anyone devote time to art with such dry deconstructions of the tradition? Do you honestly believe that Cavendish and Speght provide more poetic power and warrant more eminence than Milton? What do you even read for?

>>11660971
It's a political exercise. He doesn't care about form and aesthetics.

>>11660914
>Shakespeare is notably only preserved because of the Bluestockings
That's literally not true. Milton was elevating Shakespeare 100 years before The Blue Stockings Society. Stop spreading nonsense.

>>11660975
Yeah I figured. It's the only way you can argue for OP being correct, but even then it's rickety ground because you'd have to do away with eminence or canonicity as a measure altogether, otherwise you're back to admitting males are predominant.

>>11660914
Cervantes satirizing the mediocre romances of his time doesn't elevate those romances. What a ridiculous notion.

>>11660971
>Do you honestly believe that Cavendish and Speght provide more poetic power and warrant more eminence than Milton?
I specifically said that they were known for their polemics and pamphlets. You know, all that shit that Milton wrote that got him famous at the time like criticisms of censorship and arguments why he should be allowed divorce his wife. Read what I wrote. Did I compare their poetry? Did you need a basic comprehension question to work that out, or are you just lazy and shitpost habitually?
>>11660975
I specified the form was infamous political pamphlets and phillipics of the 17th C. I think you'll find I did it because I care about educating the pig ignorant.
>>11660968
>Is this the feminist version of black egyptology
Is that question going to remove those facts or authors or provenances from history or canon? Nope, looks like apparently the library system doesn't listen to you.
>>11660981
>That's literally not true. Milton was elevating Shakespeare 100 years before The Blue Stockings Society. Stop spreading nonsense.
And it was still being edited. At least try to champion Garrick above Montague, if you want a who saved Shakespeare from always having a wedding at the end because it sold tickets.
>>11661007
My argument is that he picked them to satirize because they were so prevalent for so long. He's not elevating the genre from obscurity, since the opposite was his well achieved intention.

>>11661028
>My argument is that he picked them to satirize because they were so prevalent for so long.
Their prevalence doesn't speak to their literary worth, unless we're willing to argue that 50 Shades of Grey is an example of contemporary female literary excellence.

>>11661056
>Their prevalence doesn't speak to their literary worth,
It speaks to the influence of the (female led) Court of Love in the 12th on the preceding 500 years of canon. Also, since a lot of Shakespeare is stolen from that tradition, using him writing down troubadour songs based in that tradition 100 years after they were first composed in French seems a bit spurious if you're following the rest of the argument.

>>11661028
>Is that question going to remove those facts or authors or provenances from history or canon?
Claiming that you're overvaluing the importance of particular female literary figures isn't the same as erasure or denial. Nice try though.

>>11661088
The value of Cervantes comes from how he subverts that tradition. He stands apart from it, hence why he's still read while the people he references aren't. And claiming that Shakespeare is "stolen" from that tradition is arguing in bad faith given that that tradition is itself borrowed from earlier oral ones, and given that retelling these same stories was common practice for hundreds of years.

>>11661028
>I specifically said that they were known for their polemics and pamphlets...
You're making the very obvious (in consideration of what you're responding to) implication that Milton wasn't a great writer in context of other female writers. ('he might not have got famous at all') And what Milton's most known for certainly isn't that shit, it's his poetic skill, and his representational power in Paradise Lost. Your post is a reduction of those men's canonical eminence to the working of other women, you render artistic ability itself meaningless.

>>11661028
>And it was still being edited. At least try to champion Garrick above Montague, if you want a who saved Shakespeare from always having a wedding at the end because it sold tickets.
Maybe it's worth noting that David Garrick wasn't a woman, and neither was Shakespeare. Also, in what domain do we value promoters to this extent? The women in The Blue Stockings Society weren't Shakespeare.

>>11661088
>12th
12th Century
I'm getting tired, might have to start just giving you links back to arguments already solved at this stage since I don't think anyone's getting on this as a reading list.
>>11661091
>Claiming that you're overvaluing the importance of particular female literary figures isn't the same as erasure or denial. Nice try though.
I stated their relevance to the material circumstances of the times, per your preferred methodology, with the material references we still have. I'm not saying they've been subject to erasure. I'm saying they're going to go on being important and influences on those writers listed, while you will go on being unimportant and wrong, and there's nothing I can do about that. They'll be just as important even if I lie and say I believe you instead. That's how a canon works. Try /a/ since /soc/ obviously won't let you suck it off.
>>11661119
>The value of Cervantes comes from how he subverts that tradition.
Yes, but that does not mean there isn't a strong female influence past that, nor that the tradition dies. It picks back up again with the Romantics, and amongst them, Mary Shelley is the only one to break away from previous notions to create a new genre which subverts it. The point I'm making is that if you try to say that the first half of that millennium is not dominated by women, then there's no point in a Cervantes. If Cervantes writes Don Quixote without that influence (which is more than half a millennium), it doesn't make sense. There is no joke. It's just a mediocre book about ideas nobody talked about with no references.
>>11661119
>claiming that Shakespeare is "stolen" from that tradition is arguing in bad faith
No, it isn't. His use of commonplace books gave England a tradition which linked it with Europe and elevated itself at the same time. His version of history being woven from stolen sources is why Plutarch gets elevated in British school systems much later on, because it will agree with Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and other far reaching consequences. Stealing is not arguing in bad faith in writing. Anatole France claims that if you see something well done, you must have no scruples and steal it as fast as possible.
>>11661121
>onding to) implication that Milton wasn't a great writer in context of other female writers. ('he might not have got famous at all')
The political situation at the time is incredibly important to Milton's success. It's also very important to Milton or else he wouldn't have written endless tracts about it. Cavendish would have been famous regardless, but not for her crazy views. Speght definitely wouldn't have been famous without being a radical liberal polemicist bent on questioning the standard Christian order. They are great writers and they are great influences on Milton. He's not as good at polemics as they are. That's why he's constantly writing more because his last pamphlet was ignored. Seriously, read the man you're whiteknighting should be a mantra.

>>11661172
I'm giving him as the male opposition to Montague. They want a man to contend, so I gave them a viable contender who is better than Milton for the spot. Garrick did a lot more for Shakespeare than Milton ever did.
>>11661172
>Also, in what domain do we value promoters to this extent? The women in The Blue Stockings Society weren't Shakespeare.
It's because Shakespeare's originals were almost lost and were routinely re-written for centuries. Basically what Montague did was what Zenodotus did for Homer. You'll have to look him up too, like her, but he's important.

>>11661210
>Milton's success
You're ignoring that he's not even primarily remembered for that, like I said. We could say he's a lesser polemicist/pamhplet writer than Speght or Cavendish, sure, but they obviously don't hold the candle to his canonical eminence, that's because Milton carried himself in the area that mattered most, being artistic skill, poetic power. You seem to be massively overrating influence alone as a measure of literary value.

>>11661246
>ou're ignoring that he's not even primarily remembered for that, like I said.
I know the pop culture reference is Paradise Lost, but despite its legnth, it's barely a fraction of his influence on the modern world or his overall body of work. His work on censorship is particularly valuable, because he is the argument against censorship before printing. That some women are better than him doesn't denigrate his influence on the modern world, but confining him to Paradise Lost certainly does. Especially since it's because you're pointedly not going to read or mention anything else of his, since you don't want him to be famous for anything else. What got him famous enough for him to be preserved isn't Paradise Lost. It's not Paradise Regained either, though you'll also not bring that up to support his poetry being ever so good.
His influence on free verse also puts him up against a lot of female poets. Going with his pamplets put him up against a lot of women, but most of the ones writing on censorship come after him. The religious subversion in Paradise Lost though isn't particularly edgy for women preceding him though, which also damages its potential arguments against women of the age, and leaves it standing on free verse and bad jokes.

>>11661210
>I stated their relevance to the material circumstances of the times, per your preferred methodology
Following the thread of your reasoning, there's always going to be both men and women in the cultural (formal and philosophical) roots of a particular artist. But that wasn't what was in contention. The question was the gender balance of the authors of the works that are most often considered to make up the Western canon. Arguing "well these exceptional writers all had women somewhere in their well of inspiration" sort of misses the point, given that the same can be said to an even greater degree about female writers, despite you claiming that women dominate more literary periods than men do.

>>11659335
Not an argument.

>>11661277
>The question was the gender balance of the authors of the works that are most often considered to make up the Western canon.
And, as I have said, the odd thing is that there are so many great females at all. Even in ages where women are kept home weaving, they still manage to produce a disproportionate amount of authors of influence, and often that influence lasts longer than male influence on literary history. I'm not solely arguing about female influences equivalent to the male librarians of Alexandria (except Montagu's in English so you can read her unlike the Greek guy), but also about female authors equivalent or greater than others of their own age, and who sometimes are the predominant influence for centuries.
You seem to want the version of history where Hildegaard doesn't make everyone sound hippydippyacidhead mad about eggs for centuries. It doesn't exist. History already decided.

>>11661210
>Yes, but that does not mean there isn't a strong female influence past that, nor that the tradition dies.
The value of women in this particular instance is that their mediocrity inspired greatness in a man. It's not that I don't agree with you about women's importance in the history of western literature, it's that I think that this example is a bad way of demonstrating that importance.

>>11657973
this board is fucking embarassing. you disgusting imbeciles

>>11661273
>muh influence
For fucks sake, dude, just admit aesthetic power isn't a measure to you. Address his eminence in the canon to at least admit you think it's simply wrongly placed. You could have just outright admitted your pure historicism from the start instead of ever arguing about the far higher amount of 'greater' female writers than males.

>>11661303
>The value of women in this particular instance is that their mediocrity inspired greatness in a man.
Is that really the analysis you want to submit of Romance poetry? I mean, you want me to think we wound up with men practicing sprezzatura for hours at home because they felt females were mediocre? Elinor probably wouldn't get poetry if she wasn't hot and queen is the basis of the whole outpouring. It's why you're now watching cuckporn like the middle ages used write Arthurian legends.
>>11661321
>For fucks sake, dude, just admit aesthetic power isn't a measure to you.
It is, that's why I said all you're left with is muh free verse and bad jokes. There's far better free verse. Arguing for his aesthetics is fucking retarded if you're doing it on the jokes or verse, because if you need a male who's known for aesthetic jokes and free verse, you can have your pick from hundreds of centuries after him. I'll even thrown in Nabokov for free, so the tripfag has someone who knew about The Pill to talk with.

>>11661302
Do you seriously believe that women's influence on our Western literary tradition outclasses men's, or is this a didactic exercise? I'd understand the assertion that their influence is undervalued and should elicit some surprise and respect given their status historically, but the claim that it's superior to men's really veers into feminist black egyptology.

>>11661341
>Is that really the analysis you want to submit of Romance poetry?
The distinction is that romantic poetry has a value aside from what it inspired in Shelley. We still read Keats; we don't read the medieval romances Cervantes satirized.

>>11661345
For long swathes of history it does. Especially once it gets to the point of novels, and critics of reading have always linked reading with females, especially with novel reading and hysteria and laziness. It gets even more criticism when reading takes off in Paris as a hobby, and again, it's because women, especially low class women, seem to be getting addicted and probably wet. The next time there's any real massive criticism of reading as a general hobby is with Penguin and Pelican books making mass market paperbacks, and then the concern is the working classes, and, of course, women.

You picked a girly hobby board to LARP a hobby. It's not really surprising you landed on a female one, since the cosplaying board is 100% about making dresses.

>>11661341
>muh free verse and bad jokes
That this is your reduction of Paradise Lost only shows your ineptitude as a reader.
>you can have your pick from hundreds of centuries after him
You really can't, he's well-regarded as the top of his field, with maybe a few int he English language above him. You've yet to address why his canonical reputation is what it is despite your belief in 'hundreds' that are better than him.
And it's blank-verse, not free verse, faggot.

>>11661368
>The distinction is that romantic poetry has a value aside from what it inspired in Shelley
You seem to be starting Romance with the Romantics. I'm referring to the tradition they picked up which started in 1100, spawned all those medieval courtship romances and Cervantes. And people do still read the Arthurian romances, and troubadour poetry, and people who stole it like Shakespeare, and probably just as much as Shelley (either of them) or Keats. You might not, but that just makes you poorly read across that period.