/lit/ - Literature

>>14986185
Hot but just looking at her you can tell she has been blacked. Hard pass

>>14986185
/lit/ has a continental bias and constantly underrates anglo lit

>>14986185
now this is a good thot

No wonder they ignore Pater

>>14986185
I could kill this woman with a single strike. It's amazing how much better men are than women.

>>14986185
I really like Dickens even though people accuse him of caricature. His stuff is just so fun and full of adventure while having wonderful and evocative prose, and I'm really glad that he was incentivized to write long winded novels. Personally I don't have a problem with reading long books because I don't care that much about reading 100+ books a year or doing it to give me some sort of dopamine hit when I finish something, so his long windedness doesn't bother me. I wish Oliver Twist was twice as long.

>>14986220
whats going on big guy?

>>14986185
Hardy has based ideas but his use of coincidence makes me sick. Jude the Obscure becomes almost unreadable with Sue's nonsense. I read it again as a comedy and laughed all the way through. Eliot is based. Dickens is shit.

/lit/ loves Conrad and Kipling, two late Victorian writers.

>>14986185

It's not about literary talent. They have no meme value, so there's no real reason to discuss them on /lit/.

>>14986185
Those authors are all good, they're just so overrepresented

>>14986185
>Dickens
bloated serial fodder, not a coincidence he's known for Christmas Carol (~100 pages) and not being read in school.
>Collins, Hardy
never read em
>Wilde
fag but alright
>Brontes
tedioius womanshit
>Eliot
completely based

>>14986185
I've always gravitated towards the Victorian poets than the novelists, honestly. Give me some Tennyson or Rossetti or the two Brownings and I'm a happy camper.

>>14986220
You have some issues, bro.

Only Wilde, Eliot and Hardy deserve praise.

>>14986231
>>14986354
newfags don't know about based single-strike-poster

>>14986185
>Dickens
>Wilde
>Eliot
>Hardy/Collins
>Brontes
objective truth

I'm kinda sad I just jerked off because I missed the chance to get horny from this picture. I feel impotent

>>14986354
GO BACK

>>14986459
you're a sad man

when you say eliot you are referring to the vacuous hole, right?

>>14986220
>newfags dont know
OHNONONONONONONO

>>14986470
I'm aware.

I actually don't care about victorian writers I just wanted to coompost

>>14986195
Do you think black guys go

"Hot, but just lookin at her you can tell she has been bleached."

You're losing at reproduction.

Eliot is top 3 poets of all time. He was also an early modernist, not Victorian

>>14986195
i dont think so. my penis is small though, so it's likely smaller than her exes.

/lit/ as the best taste in women

>>14986185
Victorian era poetry is pure kino, fuck the romantics.
>Robert Browning
>Elizabeth Barrett Browning
>Dante Gabriel Rossetti
>Christina Rossetti
>Alfred, Lord Tennyson

>>14986683
Have you ever been on Twitter? Tons of hoteps complain about that.

>>14986185
Thot posters get out

>>14986683
>t. Jew

>>14986478
Stop talking about things you dont know about

>>14986220
Kek based

I really like the Brontës, I've read everything by Emily and Anne, just about to start Jane Eyre. Emily especially is brilliant, her poetry and Wuthering Heights are full of this dark intensity that really appeals to me.

>>14986185
Bait. We all know they're top tier.

>>14986346
I mean, Dickens gets read a ton in high school. And that's an appropriate place for him outside of specifically studying Victorian novels.

>>14986196
Maybe the anglos should stop putting forth long winded moralizing writers with dry prose and absolute midwits who think that mathematical logic games is the height of philosophy.

>>14987550
Dickens is solid. Give something of his another pass. What others consider dross is, in fact, depth.

>>14986698
I mean you're not wrong, but you're a retard. We're talking about George Eliot, she's SSS tier and should be talked about more because she's a titan in the western canon.
>>14987530
agreed
>>14987543
I don't think Wilde belongs in the same tier, I liked him when I was younger but he's a romantic that too obviously shoves personal morals onto readers for me to take too seriously now. I haven't read enough Hardy to have an opinion.
>>14986185
The posters who are actually well read, AKA maybe a third of this board, don't despise Victorian authors. I think the problem is that when there are post about these authors there is very little discussion and responses. I post about Middlemarch whenever I can and most of the time it's in some bullshit thread about how women can't write or the like and if it isn't in that sort of shit thread then it's someone replying to me saying 'lol women can't write'. It's gotten to the point where I don't even bother half the time because I know maybe 5 people care and those that do care don't need me to tell them that Eliot is a phenomenal writer.

>>14987630
I should have just said this>>14986304

>>14986185
>Forgetting about Thackeray and Trollope
You'll never be the tiger king, anon.

It's a real shame lit doesn't have more time for Hardy. Although pic related has some structural problems because it was published episodically, it's one of the most moving and profound character studies I've ever read.

>Henchard's will

And yet I understand the general disdain for long-winded, often-sententious prose which is found in the Victorians.

>>14986195
What's with you Americans? Is mixing with niggers really that common in the west?

>>14986195

>>14986185
I don't, I love victorian prose, some of the best british novelists are from that period. Maybe I can appreciate them because I'm not a filthy anglo.

>>14988163
In the US yeah

>>14986185
Add Elizabeth Gaskell to that list

>>14986220

>>14986220
Never change, anon. Never change.

>>14986195
I've been an e/lit/ist for five or six years now, and there was a time when we could go a hundred posts without bringing Mutt's Law into effect, even in Jezebel threads. What happened?

>>14986185
This is bringing back some REALLY repressed memories

>>14986496
Not as a negative though. Look at the man who would write as you do about himself, who could possibly harm him.

>>14988810
>I've been an e/lit/ist for five or six years now
You will never gain /lit/izenship, newfag.

>>14986185
are cat girls real?

>>14986185
I don't despise them at all. Wilde is great, Collins is a blast. Dickens can get tedious, and Eliot is fucking excellent but slow. But why stop there? I've enjoyed William Morris, Margaret Oliphant, Arnold, Browning, Gissing, Rossetti,Hopkins, Pater, Burton, Mill, Gaskell, Stoker, Hardy, Meredith, Tennyson, Haggard, Scott, Trollope, Kipling, Stevenson, Carroll, Braddon, De Quincey, Radcliffe, Thackeray, Doyle and others. Almost all major fiction genres were established in that period, not to mention the great rise in illustration, book design, and so on.

>>14988933
...define "real".

>>14988895
I bet I could harm him with one punch. It's amazing how much better violence is than sadness.

>>14989004
>Dickens can get tedious, and Eliot is fucking excellent but slow
Could you rank the major Victorian novelists for me pls?

>>14988933
>>14989024
the platonic ideal is indisputable. "cat" "girls" are but cheap simulacra

>>14989040
Ah, nice trick question. Of course they are all of rank "major" ;^)

>>14989040
Well, that would be somewhat subjective, and several of the best ones worked into the 20th century (Henry James--despite being ostensibly American, Joseph Conrad, Kipling), and some were a bit early, like Scott and Austen, but still part of the movement to literary realism (and if we want French writers, Hugo, Zola, and Dumas should be here), but my top ten would go something like this:

1. George Eliot.
2. Thomas Hardy
3. Charles Dickens
5. Anthony Trollope
4. William Thackeray
5. The Brontë sisters
6. George Meredith
7. Wilkie Collins
8. Elizabeth Gaskell
9. H. Rider Haggard
10. George Gissing

>>14986196
>this board underrates anglos

>>14986185
Because 1) they mostly wrote very long novels and /lit/ is too lazy to read them, 2) they mostly wrote about domestic topics like marriageable young women, when /lit/ can't relate to anything which isn't a psychological portrait of a tortured male "genius" (how they imagine themselves), and 3) you don't get street cred for reading Dickens because the prose isn't complex enough compared to a meme author (not saying he's bad) like Joyce.

>>14989143
>2. Thomas Hardy
Much better poet and short story writer than a novelist. He only wrote novels to fund his poetry.

>>14989199
>when /lit/ can't relate to anything which isn't a psychological portrait of a tortured male "genius" (how they imagine themselves)
This is true.

>>14989207
I disagree. Hardy may have thought so (especially after Jude's reception), but... Far from the Madding Crowd, Tess, Return of the Native, Mayor of Casterbridge, Trumpet-Major, Jude the Obscure, even A Laodicean, all have rich stories and social criticism.

>>14989288
I like Jude the Obscure. But most of the others like the Mayor of Casterbridge and Tess feel too small and mechanical in plot to me, not "rich" enough. His style in that regard works much better in short stories I think.

>>14989321
He does like a limited scope, I admit (Native is one year and a day in Egdon Heath), but I like that sort of thing (Austen, Gaskell, even Trollope). His short stories do handle that type of thing well (like the Wessex Tales).

i really like wilde

>>14989448
Ha! Gaaay!

>>14989448
Salome and his fairy tales just rock.

>>14989448
Me too fren

>>14988810
/pol/fugees and then redditfugees

William Morris alone justifies the Victorian era.

>>14988810
The proliferation and normalization of pornograpghy. Pornography and every lewd image should be banned from the internet under penalty of death.

>>14986195
Yuropoor law

>>14986185
Literally no one has said this.

Fuck the victorians you guys beed to read more elizabethians

>>14986185
i'd eat the corn out of her shit

>>14990359
Literally a cuck

>>14992007
So? Being a cuck to Rossetti is pretty top-tier cuckoldry.

>>14988895
Interesting