/lit/ - Literature

>>18909552
You're supposed to write women with the intention of pissing off hordes of entitled menopausal hags, anon.

>>18909552
Impossible so don't even try.

I will never understand why Reddit is like this. It's like they all tiptoe on eggshells around each other. The artifice in this reply chain is grotesque.

It doesn’t matter. Women read trash, complain that it’s trash then buy and read more trash.

It’s like when they started howling in outrage over all the rape and booba on Game of Thrones but never stopped watching (and never stopped complaining)

What are they going to do? Entertain themselves? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Haruki Murakami spends his entire writing life with one hand down his pants and women still love to read his sexist prose. He's probably the most common author posted on that subreddit but he's also primarily read by women of the same demographic. My point is that you can't please women, so just write about metaphysical tits and ignore the complaints.

>>18909552
You write terf characters then watch them fight amongst themselves

>>18909567
god damnit, normies (and/or women) really are a disgusting race

>>18909552
Why do you care what they think?

>>18909552
1. Think carefully. What's your setting? What era is it? What are the societal norms? All of these things will dictate a lot about how you should choose to proceed.

2. It's weird to sexualise minors, particularly if your narrator is either considerably older, or their parent. Unless you're deliberately setting out to shock and upset people, you do not need to describe tits or hips, etc on someone younger than 16 or 17 unless your narrator is of a similar age.

3. Is it anatomically possible? Are you sure? Are you really sure? Double check. You don't want to look like that one French idiot who wrote about women's pee getting lost in the maze of their insides, when a women's urethra is, in fact, shorter than a man's. This sort of thing reeks of careless ignorance.

4. Can she be replaced with a disinterested animal, or an inanimate object, and have the story still move along anyway? You haven't created a proper character. You need to try again. Look at your male characters. Are they better fleshed out, or can they also be replaced by disinterested animals and inanimate objects? Do you have an issue with character development in general, or are you having trouble humanising women? Stop thinking about men and women as absolutes, as other, as alien, because they aren't. Not really. It's not a case of blue and orange morality -- you're dealing with people who ultimately share very similar fears and dreams. Not identical in the same way no two people are, but similar.

>>18909681
Back to your creative writing class, dumb Anglo.

>>18909552
Reddit is retarded. Look up r/writing. Literally half threads are "how to write people of color", "how to write a trans character" and shit like this. I once replied to write a black man like a normal character but with dark skin because black people are normal people not some other fucking species, and got downvoted to beyond for being racist because I am a whitewasher trying to destroy black culture of whatever those fucking dumb morons replied.

>>18909578
youre kidding right?
murakami is a fucking sjw feminist and all his work stinks of it, especially IQ84
it's embarrassing that he represents japanese fiction with his strong wammin dogshit

>>18909699
you were in the wrong though
theyre not white people and dont act the same

>>18909701
Read literally any passage about Fuka Eri in 1Q84. Seriously, pick one at random. It will be full of sexual language. That's not to mention the fact that Aomame is a walking sex doll. It's no coincidence at all that his one female protagonist is a lesbian sex addict who ends up loving a man anyway. If that isn't enough for you there is the many times he uses the chest of an underage girl as a metaphor in Killing Commendatore

>>18909690
I thought about taking a creative writing class once but it was a second year university thing and I dropped out of school when I was 13, which meant I would have had to do a bunch of bridge courses to qualify for it, so I didn't bother.

>>18909701
Murakami has admitted that he sucks at writing women and has also said that tough shit, he ain't changing nothing.

>>18909709
Maybe in some shitholes like Africa or America, I worked with blacks in my country and they were as erudite and normal as average white people, literally no difference.

>>18909726
Your advice is bad, because whoever follows it will write bullshit 21st century American realism stuff, i.e., soulless crap, the same soulless crap that you see everywhere, absolutely everywhere, and which will be forgotten in three or four generations, at most, and even if it isn't forgotten in three or four generations this will only mean that the future generations are so stupid that being remembered by them, in the depth of their aesthetic ineptitude, will be worse than total oblivion.
There is nothing wrong with anachronism, hot teens, anatomical impossibilities and rejection of the so-called 'literary character'. You are still writing under the realistic paradigms of the 19th century novel, that bourgeois fakery mass-produced for the midwit, the novelistic equivalent of late 18th century music.
Also, the sentence "she breasted boobily down the stairs'' has more life in it, no matter who wrote it, than anything in the current ultra-corporate, Jeff Bezos-approved NYT best seller's list. NEVER take any writing advice from R*ddit, in fact you shouldn't really it take it from anyone, but if you're going to do so take it from authors who revitalized literary forms. Read Beckett's Trilogy, and Robbe-Grillet's essay 'For a New Novel'. Fuck R*ddit and anyone who uses that website.

>>18909734
link your comment (or screenshot) so we can see if you're full of shit or not. I highly doubt reddit would react so negatively

>>18909681
Its weird to sexualise dried up hags

>>18909567
I have never been on that reddit nor reddit in general in forever but do these women/trannies treat every description of a female body as misogynistic and objectifying amd other buzzwords? Do they understand what misogyny actually means? Saying that a woman is hot is not sexist lol

>>18909838
You're either retarded or you've never been to reddit

>>18909552
>How are you supposed to write women without pissing off the hordes of entitled menopausal hags out there?

A good place to start is to not refer to women as "hordes of entitled menopausal hags". Just a thought.

>>18909567
Mentally ill retards

>>18909916

>>18909903
Not that anon but post evidence. Shouldn't be hard. Just censor your name and some of the words if you're worried about being found out.

>>18909831
Based post

>>18909903
>deflects
nice try, retard.

>>18909552
woman here
men and women don't speak that differently to each other but their conversations are more gendered when they're speaking to someone of the same gender
i find first person works better to characterize women because they are passive by default. Like a lot of men, their inner monologue revolves about themselves, their problems, and social approval. However, their conflicts are mostly ethical rather than physical, and thus don't usually have an outlet. third person works better for male protagonists because you don't always need to show his inner world to get a good sense of characterization. Men do shit to escape feelings of powerlessness, women tend to either throw tantrums to get what they want (depending on their integrity) or repress their feelings to work within the existing power structure. Women supposedly crave stability in order to rear children. But the truth is that western women don't know what they want because they themselves erased the extended family structure from which people derive their culture. These strong women characters only exist in real life in places where they aren't gendered socially so they must do shit for themselves instead of having men be the providers. However, even where women aren't socially gendered they are always aware of their physical inferiority to men. This subconscious vulnerability defines the existence of women. They know transgenders to be frauds but will never say so, for predictable reasons

>>18909552
You don't do it. Instead, you write them precisely in a way that will piss off the hordes of entitled menopausal hags out there. Or you're gay.

Your call.

>>18909552
>Caring about what women think
>Caring about what women on reddit think
Have you gone mad? Just write your thing

I unironically hate women, so I’m not sure you want my advice.

imagine sticking your finger in a wet warm pusy

>>18909567
Yeah it's disgusting. Like they're always indirectly butting heads to fit into the hierarchy. You see more genuinely nice posts on here somehow. Don't think I've seen a 'nice' post on reddit that wasn't shamelessly trying to get upvotes, control someone's views/feelings/language, or passive-aggressively attack someone.

>>18909681
>What's your setting? What era is it? What are the societal norms?
>Now ignore that and adhere exactly to my norms
this is why you will never understand literature or write anything of value

>>18909567
Over-socialised freaks with no mooring in reality.

>>18909831
Based.

>>18909681
>Can she be replaced with a disinterested animal
Women are disinterested animals though

>>18909681
fuck you

I just don’t include women in stories

>>18909952
you have been ignored

>>18909552
Who cares? Just piss them off, controversy sells.

If your writing doesn't piss off women you aren't a real author.

>>18909552
>Reminder: Trans Women are Women. TERFS are not welcome
Funny

>>18909552
Trans women are not women, they're men who became women. Quite different.

>>18909681
an effortpost actually answering OP's question gets shat on five times before this comment acknowleding it's contribution. while OP clearly is enganging in scab picking and (you) farming,

>>18909831
>she breasted boobily down the stairs
is soulless, because it is coomer.
>because whoever follows [>>18909681's advice] will write bullshit 21st century American realism stuff, i.e., soulless crap
is a strong statement with counterexamples. Balzac's works follow these criteria, although I admit I personally read too little fiction with women in them to produce more refutations.

>>18909952
I read this whole comment. I doubt the first two words, but maybe I'm wrong. Your opinions are copies of things I read on this website all the time -- I thought this was supposed to be the /lit/ subforum, in which people exposed their minds to the cornucopia of human creativity? I've known men and I've known women, and neither are as one dimensional as your /pol/ effortpost would imply.

You will never satisfy a woman because the nature of women is dissatisfaction. Women exist to be dissatisfied and to continually remind you how dissatisfying you are to them. You may, occasionally, if you're foolish enough to try, bring a brief flicker of satisfaction to one of these harpies with your big brain, big muscles, big paycheck, big dick or whatever, but she'll soon re-collect herself and find some inadequacy --or, if she can't find one, make one up-- in you by which she can continue her withering dissatisfaction until you're shrivelled up exhausted on trying to satisfy her and she moves on.

>>18910379
what no pussy does to a mf

>>18910364
>is soulless, because it is coomer.
all the greatest artists were coomers. The Italian renaissance was a coomer renaissance. Look at this painting. You think he was worried about triggering feminists?

>>18909567
An amicable interaction on 4chan. The holy grail. Thank you all. You've improved a tired black mans week.

>>18910403
>Italian renaissance
>this painting

>>18910379
I am literally perfect and all women love me. I’m sorry you’re you.

>>18910438
Yes, the Italian renaissance and John Waterhouse. They are two separate examples.

big titties are big :D

>>18910452
didn't know genghis khan posted on /lit/

>>18910383
>>18910452
As women's nature is dissatisfaction, men's nature must, then, form a pair, and you demonstrate it: validation-seeking. I know full well the undeniable, empirical reality of what I wrote about women must strike you provided you've had contact with the harpies, but it's nothing but an opportunity to laud yourselves as truly, truly satisfying, and so even as you shrivel and die, you would pretend, and because you won't admit it's a rigged-game, you'd lure others as you were lured into it. Hell is other simps.

>>18909552
lmao

>>18910500
I walk through life at ease and make no effort, joy comes to me. I am simply divine.

>>18909681
>Stop thinking about men and women as absolutes, as other, as alien, because they aren't.
They are

>>18910403
>The Italian renaissance was a coomer renaissance.
I don't agree. compare neoclassical prudishness to classical coom-brainery. you don't seem well read or erudite or interesting, are you the anon i replied to or a tourist on this subforum?

don't you think there are more interesting topics of conversation to occupy our minds than the same few
>muh triggering feminists
stuff that's been on the surface of the internet's brain for more than a decade now?

>>18910601
Reminds me of the early days of athiest youtube before the schism. MRA's were protested against by crowds. Not to mention all the people who got their start by university scandals.

>>18910411
break your buck, fucking nigger

>>18910687
Cool it with the racism chud.

>>18910601
Are you unironically illiterate

>>18910601
>don't you think there are more interesting topics of conversation
No. I don't. I'm honestly sick and tired of feminists dictating political discourse, education, and forcing censorship on every comedian, writer, and artist. I'm sick and fucking tired of men being publicly shamed or canceled because they dare admit to being attracted to women. As if it's a bad thing to look at and admire something you're sexually attracted to. I'm sick of being told that a man's libido is evil. I'm sick of the double standards where women are free to explore their sexuality but men aren't. I'm sick of female artists who can make an entire career out of making nothing but paintings and sculptures and stories about vaginas and be hailed as revolutionaries. I'm sick of feminists slinging the word "pedophile" around to men who are attracted to women who are 18 years old, and I'm sick of everything that's a little risque being labeled as "pornography" by feminists. No, an 18 year old girl in a bikini is not child pornography, Karen, go pop some more anti-depressants.

So to reiterate what I said, if you aren't "triggering" feminists you aren't a real artist. If you're tiptoeing around art and self censoring you're not a real artist. So I say gaze with maximum maleness. Describe your characters titties with perfect precision. If you don't like fat girls, put a fat girl in your story and let your reader know how utterly disgusted they make you feel. How every jiggle is an insult to your eye. And when some blue checkmark on twitter goes "ugh. This is so toxic," say "yes. It is. Because that's how I feel, baby."

>>18910687
>break your buck, fucking nigger
>me: black man being constantly called a nigger on an internet forum
Ah. Truly, I am home.

>>18909893
Women evolved to associate sex with pregnancy. Pregnancy is an enormous cost to women's bodies compared to men's. These women test high in female neuroticism (harm avoidance) so they freak out any time the catch a whif of sexual energy that didn't start with them because this means a man could force himself upon them and give them an unwanted pregnancy.
That's literally all it is. Run away female neuroticism.J0A4 G

>>18909552
Fuck em. Write what you like.

>>18909567
Disgusting drones

>>18910713
>and forcing censorship on every comedian, writer, and artist.
you're referring to a censorship of popularity, not of existence. people's tastes not being "honest" doesn't physically prevent you from writing a misogynistic invective and hosting the pdf on an anonymous host, but I feel like you're asking that the outside world accept it. do you really need popularity and mass visibility of your proposed anti-feminist art? further, have you produced any, or are your productive goals ot have mass influence?

>men being publicly shamed or canceled because they dare admit to being attracted to women
exaggeration.

> I'm sick of the double standards where women are free to explore their sexuality but men aren't.
you ARE free. write an essay, post it in the next &amp or on your website. I only criticize art in two ways: its shit because it's wholly derivative or it's shallow. start where de Sade left off, you're free to do so.

> Karen, go pop some more anti-depressants.
cliche

> if you aren't "triggering" feminists you aren't a real artist.
who are you to define real art?

honestly, my only point is that we're freer than we think, but only if we allow ourselves to be obscure in our time. you want to write a bestseller? write a self-help book.

>>18909681
Good post, people here too retarded for it.

>>18909567
You romanticist fags are always going on about the importance of tight-knit small scale community bonds but don't realize what that actually looks like in practice is R*ddit. This is what it looks like when you have a tight-knit community who expels and shames people who disagree, racially homogeneous peasant communes are literally r*ddit and yet romanticist fags basedface about them 24/7. 4chan is what happens when you throw a bunch of atomized individuals into a blender and dawinistically select for whatever retarded thing gets the most attention.

>>18910768
Based and rationalpilled
People need to stop conflating being disliked to being strictly forbidden and/or punishable by law

>>18909681
noo you can't just give sensible advice what is wrong with you??

>>18909699
You should have suggested to write the black person based on the culture in which they grew up in. A black person raised in a predominantly white middle-class society will act like a middle class white person for example.

>>18910768
>censorship of popularity
censorship is censorship. Feminists are gate keeping. It's awful feminist art and comedy that is unpopular. Netflix had to remove the rating system to protect awful feminist comedian Amy Schumer. It was untalented, unfunny Lily Singh who became youtube's poster child and got her own talk show, which was canceled due to being unfunny and unpopular. So don't pretend your rigged game is a popularity contest.
>exaggeration.
No. Not an exaggeration. Remember when Bill Clinton was photographed looking at Ariana Grande at Arithra Franklyn's funeral? All he did was look at her while she was preforming in front of him, yet twitter came out in droves to shame him as a pedophile. He didn't say anything. He didn't do anything. He just looked. Then there are comedians like Aziz Ansari and Louis CK who did nothing wrong, but got falsely #me too'd. Their crime? Flirting. Not rape. Just flirting. When the European Space Agency landed a probe on a moving comet, no one talked about what a historic and monumental achievement it was in space exploration, they only talked about Dr. Taylor's problematic shirt. Woo woo! Fashion police! Your shirt is tooooo sexist! Please resign immediately or we will make you resign.
>you ARE free.
Free to be deplatformed. Free to be blacklisted. Like I said, feminists are the gate keepers to society. Step on their toes and lose your audience. Lose your domain. Lose your gmail. Lose your ability to use fucking paypal. Keep in mind I only jumped into this conversation because I disagreed when you said "coomer art is soulless." The very dismissive attitude that shuts out normal, red-blooded male artists.
>who are you to define real art?
Who are you to dismiss the great coomer artists of the past? Do you think The Divine Comedy is "soulless" because a good 50% of it is Dante simping for Beatrice?
>my only point is that we're freer than we think
No. Your only point was "ew tits. Not real art." Your free to hold your opinion against coomer art, but your opinion is one steeped in misandry. Because when you won't let men be free to express their love for women, that only leaves them with the ability to hate women.

you fat bitch

>>18910899
Sorry white boy, flow with Das Man or don't flow at all

>>18910811
This is like the awful libertarian argument that because the current government sucks and is incompetent, that there should never be any government at all. In group norm policing by spiteful mutants is not not comparable at all to in group norm policing by people with healthy values and instincts. The first is against the nature of the majority and the second is what human are best adapted to.

>>18910740
Updoot

why would you write female characters?

>>18910768
censorship means something else in an age of mass media. when you can just pump as much bullshit into people's brains and they will lap it up like pigs at the trough, there's no place for anti-social savants. there are no more good writers because there is no place for them anymore, except in doc files lost in the cloud

>>18910899
ok but bill clinton IS a pedophile

Just write a male character and then go back and change any reference to them from “he” to “she”. Also give them big fuckin’ knockers.

>>18910950
because they are half the population.no story of humanity is complete without them.

Dont write women.
I fucking hate women in all movies and books.
Males are always better characters, unironically name me one single good movie/book character, just one.

>>18909552
You are asking the wrong questions. The right one is: "How do I write women and get away with it?"
Use a pen name, anon.
>inb4 cowardice
It is mainly to not deal with the hassle, it is not like you can't block people on social media, buy a gun or whatever.

>>18911099
see >>18911111

Most of the stuff I read doesn't even involve women. Seriously what books are people reading that go out of their way just to make women look bad? I don't think they exist

>>18909838
>>18909930
Nah man he's not joking. I would put all the money I have right now on him telling the truth and I would win that bet because it's the favourite

>>18911111
>>18911133
Those gets don't lie
check'd

>>18909552
Think of it as free advertising.

>>18909552
>How are you supposed to write women
make them entitled menopausal hags
>without pissing off the hordes of entitled menopausal hags out there
why?

>>18910500
no one cares bro go touch grass

>>18909552
just write them like Miyazaki did

>>18910379
You missed the point. Twitter is the most influential social media site at the moment, and it has its tendrils in everything else, so the weird virtue-signalling daily public shaming ritual bled into the general culture. It's a bunch of people spiralling because they think the only way to win this system is to be on the giving end of castigation, when in reality it's a circular firing squad and the smartest path is just to opt out (if possible)

>>18911712
you really think this is about social media, when women being disappointed in you is literally such a trope Freud created an entire theory of the unconscious around it

>>18909681
>that one French idiot who wrote about women's pee getting lost in the maze of their insides
What?

>>18909893
they simply don't like being reminded of themselves.
if you write an attractive woman then it reminds the reader of her ugliness.
if you write an ugly woman then it reminds the reader of her ugliness.
anything that spurs self-examination is considered offensive. holding up a mirror to these people would be considered offensive. it makes them feel bad and that's really all there is to it.
it's the same reason black people would get offended if you said "black person" at them in a completely neutral tone. they consider it an insult.

>>18910364
you reek of midwit

>>18910899
>When the European Space Agency landed a probe on a moving comet, no one talked about what a historic and monumental achievement it was in space exploration,
you don't really believe this point.

we've gotten to a thread of like 3 back-and-forths, past the point of incommensurability, so i'll stop replying. i have been convinced though, that "coomer -> not real art", as was implied by my previous comment, is unfair and is a strong opinion on the definition of art i'm not willing to espouse. instead, my criticisms of art are again that it might be wholly derivative or shallow, and that doesn't preclude coomerism.

I'll maintain though, you're freer than your comment implies.

>>18910971
>there's no place for anti-social savants
then make a place, as you have power to browse the web you have power to change it, even just a tiny bit.

>>18909831
I'm not writing under anything. I'm just uniquely qualified to answer OP's question seeing as I am, in actual fact, a woman and in spite of my lack of education I've read extensively. Or did OP not, in fact, want an actual answer?

>>18911989
TEHRAN
E
H
R
A
N

>>18909552
I reffer you to
>>18905737

>>18909567
>irl these would be the people snatching water from an old woman’s shopping cart after everyone raids the grocery store in the wake of an earthquake

Especially the tired black man. Another long day of doing nothing, eh Tyrone?

>>18909552
Write women according to your prejudices about them. Fuck Reddit.

>>18910920
Cope

>>18911984
>you have the power to watch tv
>that means you have the power to change tv

There was a screenshot of how women were mocking men's writing of women. The joke from their perspective was that men mostly wrote about boobs and autistic technical specs. One of the women's parody pieces was a description of woman's breasts being as beautiful as the streamlining on an aeroplane's fuselage. I think the real joke was probably that a guy had given her an amazing compliment before she sagged and she still doesn't know. It's like an Aphrodite who doesn't know people are still praying to her because they all speak Latin.

>>18911303
I care

>>18909552
Just write them all to be cunts like Robert Jordan did.

>>18909567
This fucking hugbox, lmao

>>18912455
Realism isn't always the best way to go.

>>18909952
feet

>>18911111
Quints of quintessential truth.

>>18909552
They're currently getting pissed off at this. Some of the replies are great.
>I think it’s how concise it is that bothers me.
>We see so many overblown and elaborate descriptions of writers explaining and justifying their characterizations, but this is just... so matter-of-fact. Like he doesn’t need to explain further because his viewpoint is so obvious.
>And that is deeply concerning...

>>18910811
Big if true.

>>18909552
Who tf cares let them cope and seethe

>>18909681
you will never be a woman

>>18909681
>You don't want to look like that one French idiot who wrote about women's pee getting lost in the maze of their insides
Pretty sure that was Updike. I'd much rather look like him than any of the woke approved authors whose writing conforms to your tedious standards.

>It's weird to sexualise minors
Their bodies are inherently sexual and so are their minds. It's called puberty. All healthy men find 15-year-old girls to be sexually attractive. Their bodies are healthy and young and can conceive. Minority is a legal concept, not a biological reality.

>Can she be replaced with a disinterested animal, or an inanimate object, and have the story still move along anyway?
Not everyone needs to be relevant to the plot. Believe it or not, there's nothing wrong with having a woman who is only present for a paragraph or two and describing her in a way that's sexually pleasing. Stop demonising male sexuality just because it makes you uncomfortable.

>>18911989
You are not qualified to answer a question about literature if your only merit is having read extensively.

>>18912944
Holy based

>>18909552
>caring about what women think
>writing about women
>reddit
just kill yourself

>>18909681
Good post with sound advice, shame you triggered the meninists on here

>>18910364
>is soulless, because it is coomer.

So is much of Catullus, so is much of Goethe, so is much of Mishima. Do you even read or are you just posturing?

>is a strong statement with counterexamples. Balzac's works follow these criteria, although I admit I personally read too little fiction with women in them to produce more refutations.

Had to be a Balzac fan!
Anyway, even if you think Balzac is good, which I don't, you have to admit he's the worst author to be influenced by, because he's been imitated to death by quite a few thousand novelists since the 19th century.
The novel is something else, nowadays. It is not Balzac anymore. Jon Fosse, Krasznahorkai, Lobo Antunes, Pynchon, none of them are Balzaquists and none of them would pay attention to those mediocre rules, and even when they follow them they don't see them as rules that should be obeyed, but rather as conventions that can be broken whenever the author sees fit. Doesn't Pynchon use talking animals in one of his books? Doesn't Lobo Antunes have a guy who flies underground? Doesn't Krasznahorkai spend 15 pages describing a bird which could well be substituted by an object, given that the bird doesn't do anything? Doesn't he spend even more pages describing paintings which are, in fact, objects? Doesn't Robbe-Grillet have a female character who turns out to be a manikin and then a woman and then a loudspeaker and then a woman or maybe a dream or maybe who knows? Doesn't Borges have many women who are just objects of lust for his many gaucho characters?
The answer is yes.

That's why you don't go to creative writing classes. *All they're going to teach you is what has been done, not what can still be done.*

>>18910811
>the atomized people of 4chan put small scale communities on a pedestal.
Gee wiz I wonder why.
The problem is you are looking at such a community as an atomized outsider. It makes sense that for the outsider, such a community sucks balls. Being in such a community as a member is a whole different experience. Which is what most of the terminally online atoms on here really crave.

>>18913200
You can fuck off, Balzaquist imbecile.
My criticism of that stupid post has nothing to do with sex, but with the attempt by that other imbecile who supposedly has read "extensively" (compared to who?) to forge rules for literary creation.
You can completely invert the sexes and its going to be the same. There is nothing wrong with a female author creating a male character who's there merely for sex, which is what Borges does to many of his female characters. There is nothing wrong with a female author creating anatomic impossibilities, and so on.
It all depends, *it entirely depends on what the novel is asking for*. If the novel is asking for a strange anatomy, **which is precisely, for instance, what Beckett's Trilogy, the best book in the French AND the English languages since WWII, asks of him**, then it would be completely imbecilic to give the character a normal anatomy. Beckett's The Unnamable would be weakened if the character looked just like me and you. If the novel is asking for the opposite, however, then yes, you should give him a normal anatomy.
It all depends on what kind of book you're trying to write. Some books may ask for certain rules, other books may ask for others. It is entirely stupid to assume that there are general rules for literature unless you're talking to money-hungry ''authors'' who want to write for the NYT best-sellers list, Hollywood, or whatever.

>>18913023
>Their bodies are inherently sexual and so are their minds. It's called puberty. All healthy men find 15-year-old girls to be sexually attractive. Their bodies are healthy and young and can conceive. Minority is a legal concept, not a biological reality.
Some girls begin their menses at 8 or 9 and can theoretically conceive then. Are they also sexually attractive? Legal concepts are built upon moral ones, and should a moral person look at a minor with sexual attraction? No.
>Not everyone needs to be relevant to the plot. Believe it or not, there's nothing wrong with having a woman who is only present for a paragraph or two and describing her in a way that's sexually pleasing. Stop demonising male sexuality just because it makes you uncomfortable.
It should depend entirely on context and intended readership as to how much you're sexualising anyone in your work. You shouldn't just throw it in gratuitously to stroke your own dick, especially if it doesn't fit the rest of the narrative.

OP literally posted:
>How are you supposed to write women without pissing off the hordes of entitled menopausal hags out there?
I gave an answer that should help with, you know, not pissing off hordes of entitled menopausal hags.

>>18909681
>You don't want to look like that one French idiot who wrote about women's pee getting lost in the maze of their insides

Here is the passage:

>"But she was, for the bathroom door didn't altogether close, due to the old frame of the house settling over the centuries, and she had to sit on the toilet some minutes waiting for the pee to come. Men, they were able to conjure it up immediately, that was one of their powers, that thunderous splashing as they stood lordly above the bowl. Everything about them was more direct, their insides weren't the maze women's were, for the pee to find its way through."

That's by John Updike. You may read as "extensively" (compared to who? your classmates?) as you want, and you will never, not in your entire life, write a book as good as his worst one.
People who judge books using real life as a standard would be surprised by how many inaccuracies there are in their own favorite works. Everyone should be familiar with Nabokov's list of impossible situations in Madame Bovary, which many consider the foremost work of literary ''realism''.
Women are free to pee as fast as my fattest cow, if so they wish, but inside that Updike novel, that's how they pee, that's a part of the world he built, a world which you are free to dislike, but *which has nothing to do with real life, except in superficial appearance*, and shouldn't be judged according to it. Homer's talking horses, not to mention his gods and his pigmen, would like to have a word with any idiot who disagrees.

>>18910411
this should be a copypasta

>>18910403
>all the greatest artists were coomers
shut the fuck up and kill yourself you disgusting piece of shit
Every time one of you disgusting husks says this I wish I could bitch slap you into the ground

>>18913567
>Some girls begin their menses at 8 or 9 and can theoretically conceive then. Are they also sexually attractive?
No, they're what we call outliers. This is much different than feeling sexual attraction to a sixteen-year-old girl who's body is developed and who is already sexually active. I'm a Canadian, so a sixteen year-old girl is even legal age in my country. Get over it.
>I gave an answer that should help with, you know, not pissing off hordes of entitled menopausal hags.
OP is a coward for capitulating to these yahoos.

>>18913758
>that's a part of the world he built, a world which you are free to dislike, but *which has nothing to do with real life, except in superficial appearance*, and shouldn't be judged according to it.
If the poster we're both replying to had even half a brain, they'd realize that in that passage Updike was symbolically representing perceived female complexity when it comes to romance and sex in contrast with perceived male simplicity. Updike wasn't going for anatomical realism with that passage.

>>18913212
thanks for the effortpost anon. above I amended my
>is soulless, because it is coomer.
to my own criteria of soullessness coming from the fact that it's JUST coomer, i.e. coomer in a shallow way. If I were to write "today I saw anime tiddies", I would call statement by itself soulless.

to your second point that great authors defy conventional rules, I definitely agree. But great authors sometimes follow them too, don't they? Im not as well read as you seem to be, but would you say the wife in Dubliners succeeds in matching? either way, again,
>I admit I personally read too little fiction with women in them to produce more refutations.
so I'm not an authoritative source on this topic.

>>18914302
dubliners' the dead*

>>18912944
What's the book? I've read this line recently and can't recall where.

>>18911943
>anything that spurs self-examination is considered offensive
well put

>>18910740
that's why this place is the best

>>18910811
I don't disagree, I just think their ideology sucks and I think they have to be sub 80-IQ for not realizing this.

>>18909567
Why do people willingly subject themselves to such saccharine politeness? I feel more warmth from the insults thrown around here than I ever could from those kind of posts.

>>18909567
Yet another reddit screenshot upsetting the tired White men of 4chan.

It's quite simple. Write women you want to be and not women you think exists or you want to fuck.

>>18911943
/thread

>>18909903
Just post a screenshot lol, you can just make a new account after. Unless the reason you won't is because you post in some of the cringiest subreddits.

>>18909681
Most men see women as objects or animals. At the very least they don't understand them and can't simulate the inner life of a woman's mind in their own minds. If my aim is to write a book for men to read, shouldn't the women in the book reflect reality as we see it? I know women are humans in their own minds, and possibly also to each other, but they're not my intended audience.

>>18914374
Rivers of London/Midnight Riot

>>18910811
The problem with Reddit is that it's astroturfed as all fuck to hell. There are tons of 'influencing' accounts and mods which try to get people to act a particular way and which destroy any independent thought or action unless you can find good subreddits that aren't yet taken over. The 'contrarian' nature of 4chan is much healthier in general.

I wonder if you could post some legit good writing on that reddit, with some vague bait title to see if they would start criticizing the text just on reaction not on any actual criteria.

>>18909916
Kek
>>18913953
Based
>>18915236
This would work.

>>18909681
Very good post anon, especially 4. Retards don't understand women are also human.

>>18909567
>It's like they all tiptoe on eggshells around each other.
Reddit represents the society at large, and those people are NPCs. Since today's society has become polarized so much that people are afraid of saying what they think, for fear of societal retribution, so are people on Reddit wary of what they say for fear of downvotes

>>18909681
>Can she be replaced with a disinterested animal, or an inanimate object
Based. There really is no reason to ecven include female characters in writing

>>18909552
>we don’t like the way men write women
>ok, so how do you want us to write women?
>stop asking I want to be mad and hate you

>>18909567
it's called operant conditioning, look it up

>>18915594
Interesting point, Anon! You've improved a tired black mans week.

>>18909567
Fucking Christ, I'd sooner take being called a faggot on here any day. It's ironic how detaching ourselves from a consistent persona through anonymity actually makes the interaction feel more real and personal

>>18909681
They hated him because he spoke the truth

>>18912216
Is that text actually from reddit? I'm not surprised in the least if so. Those faggots are parodies of themselves

>>18909903
>still has not provided any evidence
and into the trash your comments go

>>18910811
>Tight knit small community
2k upvotes. That's on the level of a city in reddit terms. The actual small reddit subs are based

>>18913250
It's just general advice, cretin. You can deconstruct all creative advice to 'well there are no rules, it just depends on what you want to create' but then any form of impersonal guidance becomes worthless. Do you also expect drawing tutors to tell their students 'there is nothing wrong with creating anatomic impossibilities'? Of course not, they should learn to depict real-world objects accurately before stylising their work and experimenting with abstract forms. While obviously impossible drawings are created all the time, there is a difference between intentionally disregarding a convention for the purposes of your creation and just doing it because you don't know any better. It's the same with writing a novel. The advice posted earlier is intended for someone who doesn't know how to write a female character at all, telling them 'anything goes it's all subjective bro' is unhelpful and reductive. Convention exists for a reason.

You are correct in pointing out that the exact same advice could be given to a woman learning to write male characters.

>>18909567
I don't know why anyone would choose to communicate like you're emailing HR at work.

>>18915979
Actually made me laugh.

>>18909681
post dyed hair

>>18909681
Kill yourself roastie. Every realistic female character could be replaced by animal and they would act the same

>>18916728
Cope. You think this because it is your coping method

>>18916491
I understand the point you are making, but there is no convention for these things in literature in the way that there is for something like drawing. If someone draws a ridiculously misformed human, we can point to a normal person and say "that's what it is meant to look like". Literature can have certain conventions for the actual style or form of the text, but there is no objective aspect of humanity we can point to and say "there, that's the way a human should act" or "there, that's how people think".
You might say that the "convention" in this case is writing a character that a real woman would relate to, and that approximation of reality should serve as the "standard" from which a writer can deviate once he has more mastery over the form. But that would put "realism" on a pedestal which it doesn't deserve, given that literature has, throughout history, focused far more on the fantastical and outlandish than on purely reflective depictions of humanity. It also presupposes that there is some objective realism that can be aimed at. With art there certainly is an objective physical reality that can be represented, but I wouldn't say there is in literature, unless your idea of good writing is a third person omniscient recounting of atomic facts without nuance or selectiveness.

They always insist that trans women are women but they're utterly incapable of telling you what a woman is. At best they might list off some superficial behaviors like wearing dresses or having long hair. They can't point to the sexual organs being ordered to specific ends because would undermine their trans horseshit.

>>18916821
It's energetic

>>18916821
Gender is performative and doesn't exist

>>18909681
Good post. Also based for assblasting incel tourists.

>>18916748
Disagree. Example: music has very clear formalised conventions despite being completely abstract and subjective, e.g. there is no inherent reason why you shouldn't play two notes a semitone apart from one another, beyond the fact that it sounds discordant and people generally don't like that. I'm not saying realism should be on a pedestal at all, but that people should generally start with familiar tropes and styles before experimenting, regardless of the medium. When writing a novel, the analogy would also suit a three-act narrative structure, or having character development. Yes, you could intentionally write a book in such a way that the characters don't develop at all, or that there aren't even characters, but unless you have mastered writing already by creating more generic works, the odds are that what you create won't be defying convention in a very good way. Similarly, great composers intentionally add out-of-key elements to music, but it wouldn't be advisable to do this without first developing an understanding of what musical key are and why they work well in the first place. Expectation should be subverted in a controlled and deliberate way.

I do understand what you mean about there not being an 'objective' human behaviour that we can all derive from, but some of the points originally made were about things like having your descriptions of female anatomy be correct, which is nothing to do with behaviour. Besides, it's unavoidable that art will be looked at through the lens of the culture that surrounds it; when we listen to a piece of music, our sense of coherence between the different elements is largely based upon learned cues that wouldn't exist if we had been born into another culture. In the same way, we infer the emotions and thoughts of a character based on what we know already, unless the writer explicitly tells us otherwise. If a writer says 'John rolled his eyes', we assume this is a sign of exasperation, even though that's a cultural tic that might have a different meaning in the setting of the novel. You could come up with all sorts of justifications for poor writing in this way ('this novel actually takes place in a world where female anatomy works slightly differently, the author just never bothered to mention it!'). So I don't think there's such a distinction between the 'objective' aspects of grammar and structure and the subjectivity of character behaviour.

>>18909552
>Doing anything on account of women, ever
ngmi

>>18909552
>she breasted boobily down the stairs
this does its job perfectly, i know exactly what they mean

>>18910713
BASED

>>18915594
Yes, rather than talking to each other, people are performing for the upvote/downvote system. Twitter is similar. And even 4chan is affected by the same culture to an extent, if someone gets in the habit of posting things to provoke (You)s.

>>18909552
>She breasted boobily down the stairs
This is peak English prose rivaled only by the King James Bible.

>>18909567
NIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGERNIGGER

>>18910811
Based retard

>>18918081
actually kind of evocative, the allitteration creates that bouncy feeling

The trick is to not care.
Failing that, you can delete any reddit/twitter accounts you might have.

impossible retards who criticize books like mauler exist

>>18910811
>You say you want a culturally homogenous community, but what if the culture that was homogenous was fucking gay and retarded?

>>18909952
That's retarded. I'm a guy and I check like 75% of the boxes you put for female characters. Having internal emotional struggles, repressing your actual desires, and being indecisive are well within the range of things a man can experience as well.

>>18909580
>no replies
/lit/ is full of virgins who have not read their Plato

>>18909552
All women hate all women. If you write a female character and women don't hate her, you haven't written her well.

>>18910411
I hope your week gets better, friend. We love you.

>>18910411

>>18920762
>(nel)
What the fuck does this even mean? Who even made this shit meme. I'll tell what you need to do; print this meme out on a piece of paper, dip it in lighter fluid, shove half of it up your ass and set the other half on fire. How about that?

>>18920773
Yikes this ain't it.

>>18920773
>What the fuck does this even mean?

>>18920773
>she doesn't remember when there was no 4channel

>>18918081
Absolutely. It sounds like of like something you'd expect to see in the novelisation of an Austin Powers film, and we all know what true pieces of art those are.

>>18920773
>he forgot about nel

>>18910811
Nobody wants this

I'm not a feminist, but how are women not completely in the right to bar trannies from the feminist movement? The entire point of feminism is that women are perceived to be a marginalized group undermined by the patriarchy, yet trannies (men) are so fringe that they ended up as an even more marginalized group than women, thus the female is subsequently one-upped by their very own oppressors.

>>18911111
True, that is one of the reasons LISA the Painful is so good

>>18920964
>I'm not a feminist, but how are women not completely in the right to bar trannies from the feminist movement?
Whether or not they would be, they're not doing it. The few who are get ostracised for it.

>>18920975
I'm simply saying if you're a feminist, you'd be a fucking idiot to let trannies worm their way in your circle, objectively.

>>18920991
If they weren't idiots, they wouldn't be feminists.

>>18921097
Do you expect me to reply "based" over this lame milquetoast twitterfag quip?

>>18909552
Just remember, toxic masculinity = strong femininity

>>18912944
The post is a year old brainlet

>>18916728
I’m going to write a pastiche or maybe even rewrite Anna Karenina, replacing Anna with a female dog.

>>18916956
>there is no inherent reason why you shouldn't
> the fact that it sounds discordant and people generally don't like that
You disprove yourself in the very same sentence.

>>18922010
Replace her with a male dog

>>18915227
can you stop talking like that it's actually incredibly annoying and i'm not white btw. if you think you're being nice and standing up for others or something i just don't feel that way.

>>18922179
Spastic meaningless post
>Not white
Opinion discarded

>>18922180
that's more like it

>>18922089
People generally don't like how it sounds, but it's not inherently wrong to use discordance when writing a piece of music. In the same way, you might intentionally make the protagonist of a novel unlikeable - people don't react well to that generally, but doing so might be part of what you're trying to express. I don't see how that's inconsistent at all. My whole point is that conventions are not absolute rules.

>>18912223
Dilate

>>18910411
KILL YOURSELF YOU FUCKING NIGGER

>>18916094
It is almost impossible overstate the significance of this

>>18916836
Much like bedicked "females"

>>18921117
If you accept the feminist premise that women can do the same things as men then you must also acknowledge that barring trannies from competing in female leagues is inconsistent with your ideology.
In fact, if women can do the same things men can it doesn’t make sense to have gender-segregated leagues at all.
Or are you acknowledging that there are biological differences, say upper body strength, that might give men an advantage over women?
If you do you’re a sexist pig btw.

>>18919981
>I'm a guy and I check like 75% of the boxes you put for female characters
I'm sorry bro, I didn't want to be the one to tell you this, but... you're an egg

>>18909567
They gotta be careful if they those updoots for their precious karma.

>>18909552
The real question is, why do you give a shit what they think?

>>18909559
First post; best post.

>>18925552
Feminism is not about "there are no physical differences between women and men"

>>18925732
If there are significant differences between men and women shouldn't they be treated differently and perform different roles in society? Isn't that the default in all recorded societies?

>>18911989
>seeing as I am, in actual fact, a woman
Should have said that from the begginer so i wouldnt have wastred my time reading your dumbass opinion

>>18909578
There are Japanese gore artists who draw realistic pictures of women getting tortured, revolting shit that is legit difficult to look at, all under their real name, and the highest degree of resentment they get back at them from woke people - including women - is some mild comment of disapproval. If a white artist did one tenth under his real name his life would be finished in a nanosecond. I don't know the names of said gore artists but they're all famous and popular.

>>18925820
They actually don't because once you go far enough down that path women are into it. Just look at Dolcett. His fanbase is mostly female.

>>18921117
Do you think your mundane observation deserved a higher effort reply?

>>18918081
If you aren't going back at least as far as the ancient Greek version, are you even reading the Bible? King James and New King James may as well be entirely new books.

>>18925742
This only means that people's competence should be evaluated according to their capacity in the field they are applying for. Not evaluated according to their sex. In that way in fields where women perform worse than men, or men worse than women, they will be naturally weeded out anyway. In the current economic system people cannot be forcibly confined into restrictive social roles (i.e "must stay at home"), it is not realistic and will not happen. Social roles must be determined according to performance and meritocracy.

>>18925820
>>18925835
Women’s #1 fantasy is getting raped by a stranger.
It’s nice to know most girls share at least one fetish with me.
I would whisper “I love you” in her ear while tenderizing her stomach.

>>18925742
"Feminism" (depending on the branch) does not necessarily postulate that women and men should be treated the same. Absolutely not. The only unifying criteria for various "feminist" beliefs, none of which are the same, is granting personhood to the woman.

>>18910811
But I can’t say nigger on Reddit ?

>>18925835
>>18925966
My point was just the double standards, people definitely get a pass because of their race.

>>18909552
the problem is men are inherently more interesting as characters than women.

>>18926161
A few factors are at play here.
1. For obvious reasons Japanese porn artists aren’t well known outside Japan and are largely confined to Pixiv, meaning they pass under the radar.
2. Unless they get picked up by the twitter mob Western porn artists are also pretty obscure, few people have heard of Shadman and his antics outside of terminally online circles
3. Artists like Murakami get a free pass because the woke people have 0 control over the Japanese press but they do wield considerable influence on the western one, hence why a western author writing the same stuff runs the risk of getting cancelled if the Twitter mob catches a scent of them
But let’s face it, women still read and Schlick to that shit.

>>18911111
Holy shit; checked and based

>>18926648
>For obvious reasons Japanese porn artists aren’t well known outside Japan
the one I mentioned literally publishes art books, he's a big name
it's not proper porn just extremely well drawn and detailed scenes of women getting tortured
the resident weebs probably know who he is, he's one of a few and they're all pretty big
I think the worked on castlevania or something
but this case specifically doesn't matter, you can simply look at the average seasonal manga with 0 black people in it and CUTE GIRLS with BIG BOOBS and pinups of them in a bikini getting no backlash whatsoever while if a western artist publishes a comic where the women don't look like grotesque trannies and at least half the people aren't trans or black he gets burned at the stake (if he gets published at all)

>>18926679
They do get backlash, usually accusing japs of pedophilia.
The difference is no matter how much they bitch and moan the woke people have no influence on what gets published in Japan, they only have power in the West.