/lit/ - Literature

Who is bankrolling guardian and why is the writing there so bad

>>14923025
>how does popular culture reinforce the feet pics market?

People hate incels because they're ugly.

>>14923025
Oh shit, frustrated romance is the logic of the incel, thus rendering any work containing this to be an affirmation of incel logic? Fuck man, that's some balls-deep logic that really spluttered girl-goo all over my mind. There's gotta be an ironclad syllogism somewhere in there, anyone able to help me articulate it since I am a really fucking dumb man?

>If I am right that there are subtle but real connections between mainstream literary structural misogyny and violent subcultures like that of the incel, then perhaps our lives actually depend on it.

Fuck those are some subtle, fine-grained dialectics, so delicate that only a woman of skittish temperament could track them - Elliot Rodger had a pleb-tier understanding of Hamlet's insanity, thought it was because of Ophelia spurning him, and that's why he killed a bunch of people. FUCK MAN! If only he had read it through a Kierkegaardian lense he would have realized that the dialectics of despair inherent in Hamlet have nothing to do with Ophelia, but are entirely predicated on faith and the loss of substantiality! DAMN!
It's good to hear though that reading Chris Kraus' " I <3 DICK" will cure these instances of plebby interpretations of classical literature which lead to murder sprees. Thanks based Guardian for providing us with a solution!

But fuck, what will we do about action movies, violent video games and rap music! They also glorify UNACCEPTABLE behaviour! Will reading some of Kraus' other work ensure that these don't lead to murder spreads?!

>>14923025
> Mon 4 Jun 2018
They have a better way to scare public now.

> they call these 80s pop songs “Elliotcore”
Is trolling of journalists is a second derivative of trolling of autistic virgins, or a first derivative of virgins trolling themselves?

>>14923025
>product of the American literary canon
they wish

>>14923025
Honestly in terms of factual evidence incels are completely right from a purely evolutionary lense the world where monogamy is not forced is a world where the top tier of alpha males have access to 80% of the woman which will cause the lower classes of men to rise up in retaliation. To be honest a society does have a obligation to make sure sexual reproduction is equalized relatively to make sure the society continues to exist in a healthy state

>>14923324
Can't have it both ways. Are we to be the most biologically fit, or are we trying to be "fair?"

>>14923399
Humans are political animals my friend if society didn’t exist and it was every man for himself anarchy then it would be the fit option however if humanity continues its trend of society forming then it must establish practices that help keep it cohesive such as monogamy

>>14923399
Yes, because women are known for their excellent reasoning and choices, surely what they deam to be the "peak" man is what's actually the most biologically fit to carry on genes.

>>14923324
Incels aren't "right" because they aren't a cohesive group with agreed-upon opinions. It's an insult. Replace every instance of the word in your head with "dumb virgin losers" and you'll realize how fucking stupid all of these articles have always been.

>>14923434
Society has never been and will never be geared around maximizing evolutionary fitness.

>I received my Ph.D. in English Literature from The Graduate Center, CUNY in October 2019. My dissertation explores representations of rape in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century British novels. More generally, I study gender, sexuality and novelistic form in Transatlantic literature. I also work as a freelance writer and editor.

>>14923434
Cope

>>14923450
that's what my point was as well, so the person's argument i replied to makes no sence

>>14923452
CUNY?

>>14923399
>>14923434
>>14923454
Anon is right and no amount of 'cope' posting will change it.
Women are proven to desire in crushing preference men with various sorts of psychopathic traits, plus narcissism and sadism.
They are also proven to be repulsed by high intelligence (IQ in men is negatively correlated to attractiveness).
As usual the evolutionary argument begs the question: fittest for what?

>>14923572
>They are also proven to be repulsed by high intelligence (IQ in men is negatively correlated to attractiveness).
No.

Here's a proper link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190518072216/https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/04/incel-movement-literary-classics-behind-misogyny
The author, being a highly educated PhD holder (though not at the time of writing), seems to assume that people are more well-versed in literary canon than they are.
She references "literature you read in high school", Hamlet, Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, The Great Gatsby, The Things They Carried, Catcher in the Rye.
The latter two, I actually read in high school, but how many high school students actually read these or are really influenced by them? No effort is made to bridge the gap.
She goes on then to point out more contemporary members of the "canon": DH Lawrence, W Somerset Maugham, Ernest Hemingway, Harold Pinter, Henry Miller, Saul Bellow, Vladimir Nabokov, John Updike, Norman Mailer, Bret Easton Ellis, or the patron saint of elevating male bullshit: David Foster Wallace. She complains about the lack of female authors in high school courses.
Have these problematic incels actually read any of these authors?
Does she think that Elliot Rodger was pondering the supposed sexual injustice done to various protagonists of the literary canon? No, he was listening to his sister have sex with her boyfriend while being blasted with images and videos on social media of sexual relationships and wondering why he wasn't one of them.
The paragraph that reflects on current cultural trends is almost paradoxical in nature, on one hand the author sets out immediately to diminish the importance of (white, and this is very important for her to note!) male sexual frustration "We can counteract this fearmongering by remembering the misogyny of the canon, which reveals to us that we have always worried about male sexual frustration more than we need to", but on the other hand, links it to nothing less than the election of Donald Trump: "Maybe Donald Trump wouldn’t have won the presidency in a country that didn’t worry so much about what white men think all the time." People who voted for Trump are familiar with the literary canon? Non-whites voted for Trump out of fear? What exactly am I reading here?
Overall, I find the link between the literary canon and the pop culture topic of incels to be tenuous at best and it strikes me as another attempt for a person in a niche field (her byline reads: "Erin Spampinato is a writer, scholar and observer. She is currently writing about depictions of sexual violence in literature and culture (from George Eliot to SVU).") to a topic that is currently in the news.
I don't think "silly" is the right term for the article, but I don't know what the correct word would be to describe a work that doesn't seem to have had any significant criticism taken into consideration during the process of it's creation. Did anyone read this and ask the author serious questions before it was published? I don't think so.

>>14923025
the author has the causality completely backwards

Is the point of that article that we shouldn't have books about romantic frustrations if the protagonist is a male?

>In both life and literature, we lock up women who are dangerously sexually frustrated for the (supposed) good of themselves

What?

>and hardy ever expect young white men to read extensively in traditions where their identities aren’t represented or are degraded.
WHAT?

>>14923031

>Implying that is a bad thing despise the current state of the male gender (see picture)

Then why are you trying to make me click it you faggot

>>14923025
The Guardian is centrist shit anyway, true Chads stick to the independent

>>14923031
Have sex.

>>14923038
ouch

>>14924028
In what way did I imply this was a bad thing? It's just reality.
>>14925372
Wow anon you're so funny!
>>14925435
It may hurt at first but after you get used to it it becomes kind of liberating. People who treat you like shit and don't like you do that not because of who you are inside, you're not a shit human being, you're just ugly and people are superficial. It's not you, it's them.

>>14923025
>implying r9k has read anything besides manga
Lmao, this retard is living in a fantasy world.

>>14925372
Have kids.

>>14923025
A classic example of an old, out of touch, opportunistic cunt talking about matters that she is woefully uneducated on. Incels are a generation raised on anime and porn; they aren't reading David Foster Wallace or Henry Miller. It's funny that she mentions Elliot Rodger but didn't bother doing any real research on him. If she had, she would've seen that he was venting on forums and watching dumb Hollywood blockbusters like Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, not reading The Great Gatsby.