/lit/ - Literature

>>18978417
Sounds based

>>18978417
This is a very, very, terrible bait.
But to answer it: books made by women are quite..... how can you put this? Boring.

>>18978417
GMVH

>>18978417
>odyssey ranked higher than the illiad

>>18978417
>women

I didn't vote for this shit. There should be 0

>>18978444
Did you find American Psycho boring?

>>18978565
As it should be, Nostos > Kleos

>>18978417
>Is /lit/ sexist?
Yes

>>18980174
no

>>18978444
>posts patrick bateman
>gets trips
nice

>>18978417
Woman should only focus on pleasing their husbands and raising children, the idea of them doing anything else, even more such a intelectual things as writing is hilarious.

>>18978417
>not using the c o r r e c t edition of moby dick for the chart

>>18978417
What do you mean?? Anna Karenina is in there!

>You need to include more female authors
>Why?
>Because they're women

>>18978417
>moby dick at number 1
why would you ever read past that to find out many women are there? the list is clearly garbage anyway

>>18980174
Based

Books are a solved problem by now, like chess.

>>18980154
No, but if it was made by a woman I would.

>>18978417
>Wilde
>Bronte
>Rowling
Whom am I missing?

>>18981029
God, presumably.

>trial higher than divine comedy
pseud list

>>18978417
Nice meme chart

>>18978417
Look, i don't even necessarily think women are genetically mentally inferior to men, but even i can't deny that the history of literature they haven't really written much shit at all, the reason why is up to you whehter it's cultural and societal pressure or not but it's undeniable that the vast majority of intellectualism was dominated by men

>>18978417
>western religions always delegitimized women
>western society becomes atheist by the XIX century
>western society becomes consumeristic by the XX century
>pseud books become famous over consumeristic literature because authors and critics circlejerk each other into oblivion
>women don't participate in the circlejerking
No, /lit/ isn't sexist. They are just pseuds. I've started reading unknown female authors, and let me tell you, they are absolute gods.
A good example is nonohara usata, whose worldbuilding puts to shame tolkien's.

>>18980988
The movie was directed by a woman though

>>18981203
You will never be women.

>>18981203
>A good example is nonohara usata, whose worldbuilding puts to shame tolkien's.

>weebshit
>putting actual literature to shame
Nice joke, tr/a/nny

/lit/ is mainly interested in gaslighting western men with mental illness and political extremism. Women are far more responsible and less neurotic than men so not as useful to the internationale psyop that runs this shithole. Where are the healthy influences is the real question.

>>18981326
>Women are far more responsible and less neurotic than men
No man who had been in a relationship with woman would claim this.

>>18981274
Thank God i will never be a woman
>>18981324
>argomentum ad hominem to disprove my claim
>implying /a/ reads
>implying trannies read
>implying LNs are the only based japanese literature
Kill yourself faggotranny

>>18981354
>implying LNs are not the only based japanese literature*

>>18978565
These lists are the worst charts and only newfags and plebbit care about them

>>18981249
how will he ever recover

>>18978417
I've often wondered why there haven't been very many highly prolific female authors. In traditional society woman have much more free time to devote reading and writing. You would expect that there would be an overwhelming amount of writing done by middle age women who's children are grown and their husband are still working, but there isn't. I can't simply be a matter of literacy, because we know that woman read books, sometimes a a higher rate than men. But why do they so rarely write anything of literary merit? I've come to the conclusion that it's a simple matter of biology. Women from a biologic and evolutionary standpoint don't want to rock the boat. It's in their best interest to not challenge society and stick with the status quo. This translates to writing very milk toast fiction about the female experience.

>>18981374
>milk toast
what an absolute faggot

No Palpillon
Gay list

>>18978417
>is /lit/ sexist
No, women just suck.

>>18978417
>is /lit/ sexist?
No lit has standards

>>18978417
>Is /lit/ sexist?
Yes, we are the smartest board after all.

>>18981029
Woolf

>>18978417
I think 4 books by women is too many for a top 100 list.
On the bright side there weren’t any in the top 50.
And the inclusion of Rowling was probably just a joke to try to upset the tranny enough to self harm

>>18981374
It's because women are almost entirely a race of midwits. Men who decide to make books, make good books, rarely bad ones.

>>18981649
>Woolf
>Woman
Have you seen him?

>>18980411
Anon was asking if we excluded them because they are women not saying that we should include them just because they are women

>>18978417
off course

>>18981713
imagine being this retarded

>>18981753
Woolf's mother was known for her beauty while Virginia wasn't. Knowledge of that autobiographical note adds depth to her writing. (Also, The Waves is 63 and To the Lighthouse is 68...she's isn't missing from the list).

>>18981326
>>18981366
C'mon then enlighten us plebiscites with what books you consider 'healthy influences'. Promise we won't be mean.

>>18983142
Name one book made by a man that was bad.

>>18980154
not the op, but yes
it's about a 6/10.
Not really that profound, with a botched ending.

>>18983555
It's profundity is severely diluted if you're already familiar with it's topics, so depending on when/how much you know when you read it will determine your opinion on it.

>>18978417
>and one of them is JK Rowling
Nah they're just retarded