/lit/ - Literature

>>>/b/
>>>/pol/
>>>/hm/

>>3339959
so mad.

>>3339959
don't you now need a separate section for authors of every different special interest group thats not white male

I thought that myself to be honest; writers should be read by virtue of being good at what they do, not because they are a particular demographic.

>>3339978
it would be one thing if it were "books about heroine women" ; but its just female authors. How is it a bigger deal if a chick writes a murder mystery.

or if authorship matters, it would be, like authors who wrote despite a particular oppression; like slaves, or jews in nazi germany, or women authors under the taliban. but just fucking women. are we assuming all women authors are special because of a vagina

Because we're a bunch of immature and sexually frustrated males (with some females) and also Jane Austen wrote shit and probably ate shit. I'm glad she's not on that list.

Can someone tell me about Carson McCullers? The Heart is a Lonely Hunter was great but I heard from an English teacher and another friend that the rest of McCullers stuff is balls. Anyone know?

>>3339941
>/lit/
>bombarded by "lyl fuq feminazism xDXDXD women folk cant rite libral fagots!!!!!!!!!!!!" trolls all day erry day
>/lit/ composes lists / that big ass thread of great women writers
>"So why does lit recommended reading list need a separate section for female authors. is lit run by a progressive feminist college department"
>/lit/

>>3339941
>>3339965
>>3339972
>>3339978
Op, stop samefagging and leave.

>>3340001
OP here, the ones that were me were:
>>3339972
>>3339995
and not the others

>>3339995
It's a Wiki. Make your own list if you're so mad. Female authors still frequently get the short end, so it's worth highlighting some good literary ones.

>>3339996
>Because we're a bunch of immature and sexually frustrated males

how about we do "hot" women authors. at least the list will be shorter and can feel triumphant upon finishing

>>3339995
We have most fringe interests; Spanish authors, Drug books, Female authors, African Americans...

>>3340011
>Female authors still frequently get the short end
how is that true. seems like in this case they are getting the longer end (no double entendre intended)

>>3340001
/lit/ gets bombarded with militant feminist tumblr trolls on a regular basis.

>>3339996
It's an incredible book

>>3340017
>/lit/ gets bombarded with militant feminist tumblr trolls on a regular basis.

we need more girlwriteswhat chicks

The reason why the list was created was because every time some one mentioned a woman author like Virgina Woolf it was followed by greentext saying "women writers"

It is annoying and childish. So people made that list in protest which I see no problem with.

Also women authors are always underrepresented on /lit/ and if you think that any book on /lit/ gets popular mainly based on merits then you must be crazy.

Because /pol/ comes in occasionally with some "women suck because all the best books were written by me" bullshit and demands that we name good female authors. That list is incredible, and many of those books/authors make it onto many other category lists organized by nationality/genre etc. Women have contributed significantly to literature in all its forms, and this list is for those that don't believe it, or want to broaden their horizons.

>>3340014
That's because you notice when they're being highlighted and not when they're being omitted. Not suggesting we need absolute gender parity but this suggests that there's a problem: http://www.vidaweb.org/the-2011-count

>>3340017
I know. Which is why I said as much in my post that you hyper-linked.

>>3340023
The simple fact is that more men write novels, more men write good novels, and more men get published. It's hardly surprising that men are talked about more frequently. It's like more men can parallel park, it's just accepted fact, there's nothing wrong with it.

>>3340040
>this is what misogynists actually think

>>3340040
Not entirely true. People are still discovering work from women in 1920s that hasn't been read in years. They were published once then entirely lost because it was not an equal playing field.

It is true that men get published more often but that does not mean that they are better writers. Historically it has been shown that men have an advantage in publishing.

>>3340032
ya i know, women are paid less then men blah blah blah

>>3340040
>It's like more men can parallel park, it's just accepted fact, there's nothing wrong with it.

women write better romance novels

>>3340054
Sources on that? I'm interested.

>>3340060

You think this? Holy fuck.

>>3340060
And women write better teen fiction. The last three major books - Twilight, Harry Potter, Hunger Games, and 50 shades - all written by women.

>>3340073
Please don't put those women together with the ones in the chart... please don't.

>>3340082
>mysoginist

chicks get so many special advantages the west , and now i come to 4chan and they get a special list.

>>3340073
>four major books
>major
I don't really see any Man Booker prize winners. No Hugo. No Nobel. No Orange.
go fuck yourself.

>>3340073
i would categorize twilight and hunger games as bascially teen romance

>>3340089
I don't hate women you idiot. The chart we have here is one about amazing works of literature. I don't care if a book is written by a man or a woman, what I care about is the quality of the work.

And the last three 'major books' are all shit and have no redeeming quality. That doesn't make me a misogynist.

>>3340101
If you criticize anything to do with women, you're a misogynist. You'll be given a leash and paraded around a slutwalk.

>>3340040
Actually it's more to do with men having a much easier path to publishing than women, why the fuck do you think the likes of Shelley, Edgeworth and Eliot all submitted their work as men?

>>3340094
lol

>>3340126
oh right, you're actually just a shitty troll nvm

>>3340101
Have you read Katherine Mansfield or Virgina Woolf's work? There are plenty of great women writers you are ignoring them on purpose.

>>3340073
I know this argument's been had and only a fringe will agree with me, but it pains me to see Rowling lumped in with that tripe...

>>3340146
Did you direct this at the wrong post? It makes no sense right now.

Why is the female cover art so shit-tier? It's all either the author or just some random lady looking off ~iNtO tHe DiStAnCe~

>>3340062
Not that guy and not sure what he's talking about, but in the feminist critics of the eighties and nineties were responsible for a lot of canon-shaking (which hasn't exactly lasted). You might check the work of Elaine Showalter and the catalog of Broadview editions. Of course, there's lots of decent literary stuff by men that is utterly forgotten and long out of print as well,