/lit/ - Literature

>>18173874
Maybe you should stop reading genre fiction then.

>>18173874
Maybe you should grow up and join us in the present?

>>18173874
Read real literature

It's so hot reading a post written by a girl. It's like she's really talking to me.

>>18173874
It reads like you think you've internalized tropes that you generalized to a population. That's more a 'you' sort of problem, right? If you were to hear speech dysfluencies in every conversation, is the onus on you to correct the interlocutors, or should you let every "like," "um" and "you know" buffet the ear? In reality, women are written poorly because women...are female. You may not know this, but the average natal female is a moron, a quality which is disguised by the bland and basic nature of femininity. What you consider to be a dearth of realism is probably the closeted revelation you've dismissed.

>>18173874
>if the author does a bad job at writing a whole 50% of the entire human race, then they're NOT a good writer
Are women really so boring that they have no individual personalities and you can refer to them in such monolithic fashion?

>>18173874
>if the author does a bad job at writing a whole 50% of the entire human race, then they're NOT a good writer.
Most books were written by men for men; no offense but that's why male characters are deeper because they are generally describing the good/bad male archetypes.
There are some books, novels, centered on women those obviously take a better prospective on females.
At least you don't sound like the normie girl who reads just romantic novels, >>18173925 very hot indeed.

>>18174143
>Men dominate literature
>Tragedies, epics, sci-fi, sublime horror, and even genreless niches so unique to the authors that they are eponymously named
>Women come to dominate literature
>Sexy vampire harem with blank-canvas female protagonist and erotica with blank-canvas female protagonist
Yes

>>18173874
You can't write a strong female character because such a character only exists as a reaction to patriarchal character types. Her identity would be inextricably bound to the patriarchy.

I'm male and don't identify with feminism, but I also always wanted books to either have good female characters, or none. It just ruins my enjoyment when some of the characters seem like humans and some of the characters seem like cardboard cutouts.
Also this is more related to visual media, but I can't stand overly sexualized female characters. If I wanted to be turned on I would be watching porn, not Space Jam. I don't understand why anyone wants to get horny in a movie theater, but there must be a demand.

>>18173874
You will never be a woman.

>>18173874
>a hot take
go back

>>18174576
>there must be a demand.
yeah me, I like it

>>18173874
It always hurts when someone critizices or put people who you are assoicated with in bad light. I know people like me when they get to know me, but as an immigrant, it is painful to hear those same people that I like telling me bad things about immigrants. I understand where they are coming from but by portaying an image of the general immigrant I am by no choice linked to that same stereotype before anyone knows who I really am.

I have not come further with this. At the moment I have my friends who never generalize and I like them. The rest are immature and thats it. The rest is beyond my control.

I am to lazy to articulate my thoughts anymore so hope you got anything. Give me some input if this helped you draw any conclusion.

>>18173874
>Maybe this is a hot take

Not a hot take but you are discussing women on 4chan so obviously people will claim that they don't matter.
On the whole I agree with you.

>>18174350
>Most books were written by men for men; no offense but that's why male characters are deeper because they are generally describing the good/bad male archetypes.
Shitty excuse to be honest. If someone wrote a story set on a ship with loads of incorrect details, and said "sorry this is a book written by a landlubber for landlubbers" I would see it as pure laziness. Like >>18174576 says, I would rather have it that no women are included in that case like in Moby Dick.

>>18173874
agree on the whole but the skill of a writer isn't just in writing characters and so i would ever say that a writer is bad just for failing in that regard. lyric poetry, just to name one genre, is one in which no characters at all appear

this is copypasted from r/books, retards

>>18175449
Sorry I don't go on reddit like you LMAO

>>18173874
Women’s inability to entertain themselves is not men’s problem

>>18174870
>I'm going to critize the whole corpus of western literature because it wanted to represent men doing cool stuff so other men were inspired and interested by it instead of being hyper detailed about women
Men read, men write, men inspire other men. I don't get inspiration or interests in women affairs and personalities other then stuff you all would label as "sexist" "sexualized" because are mostly relationship focused, and those aren't mistakes they are just seen from our prospective.
>ship with loads of incorrect details
Are we going to put exceptionally detailed description of ships to appeal ship engineers so others would find everything boring about it? Those wouldn't be mistakes but simplifications.
Are you going to get a clearly male character put a female name on it and label it "deep female character", just like in vidya as said by OP? Because those are just bunch of polygons with boobas doing men things.
Our species is patriarchal you just can't reverse that; men are the object of action not women.
Hence, in conclusion, a "deep" woman would be a deeply emotional character and would be boring af if you center the whole story on it, thus all the literature where women have deep characteristics are almost always on a middle ground and not in the foreground.
>>18175449
Fucking plebbitors.

>>18173874
I know this is bait but I am really tired of the 50% device being used again and again, an author could be shit at describing 99.9% of the things in existence but he could still be the greatest master in history because only a very very very scant few things deserve to be written about

>>18173874
You need to go back
>https://www.reddit.com/r/menwritingwomen/comments/n4kxfl/rant_hes_a_great_writer_he_just_cant_write_women/

>>18175817
Women don't understand numbers.

>>18173874
For every single paper I wrote in college, we were required to include an entire section dedicated to how the author treats women , whether or not they can write androgynously

>>18176026
>studying litterature

>>18173874
All the male characters I write are human beings. All the female characters I write are symbolic representations of some concept (hatred, existentialism, BPD, liberal capitalism or what have you).
I am based.

>>18173874
This is pasta right? Not from here, but I’ve seen that EXACT opening sentence used elsewhere at least once.

>>18173874
idc if this is pasta

this is broad therefore unadressable. do you (or others) have specific books in mind? maybe read nonfiction if all fiction authors have a universal flaw.

>>18174576
exactly why i can't stand many movies, but there are exceptions. but, i believe movies are structured the way they are to get asses into seats (or to get coom-brained idiots like >>18174776 to keep clicking and paying and clicking and paying). just watch stuff like glengarry glen ross, 12 angry men, etc.

>>18173874
That’s all right. Women don’t know how to write men, either.

tf have you been reading lol. actually, do you even read? your prescription is nonexistent and reality contradicts it.

the main problem today is the YA heroine archetype that infests everything.

another problem that you too promote is 'representation'. you won't get good characters if you're intent on appearance and ideological catering.

>>18173874
You speak the truth.

>>18173874
Give examples, name names or stfu. OR tits