/lit/ - Literature

nothing

I haven't read it so I can't judge it.

Because you're forced to read it freshman year and you're almost never going to enjoy a book when its forced on you.

It's one of my favorite books of all time.

I'm starting to believe that female authors are better than their male counterparts

>Write one book ever
>Pulitzer Prize, 30 mil copies, "Best Novel of the Century"

Did she really write it?

>>3548093

One book is all it takes.

>>3548076
>Homer
>Shakespeare
>Cervantes
>Proust
>Joyce
>mfw

It's alright, but I prefer the author's other book -- In Cold Blood.

>>3548130

Two of those authors are better than Virginia Woolf and Flannery O'Connor

>>3548134
wat

>>3548134
I believe it's "In Cold Blood" by Truman Capote

>>3548134

In Cold Blood is nowhere near the quality of Mockingbird

>>3548138
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

>>3548150

Bloom reaction pics betray you as a sheep.

What do you think of the film adaptation?

>>3548152
Nah but seriously though, it is vastly superior. Far more nuanced and not so morally simplistic. & Capote's prose is sex.

>>3548165
Capote or Mockingbird?

>>3548076

Whell whell whell. Aren't you the little non-normative pumpkin today? Who are these great women authors and what are the male counterparts they are so much better than?

>>3548187

Carson McCullers
Flannery O'Connor
Virginia Woolf
Dorothy Allison
Jane Austen
George Eliot

Easily better than most male authors. There are a few exceptions.

Here's an idea for a thread...
Great female authors (non-topless)

>>3548042

It's a good book. Don't have anything against it besides the fact that it's a little too direct with its message. I mean, a trial is a super convenient narrative device for an author because they can sort of pit the ideals of society up against popular opinion and have the lawyer or a witness get up and preach for a good few pages about the moral implications of this dichotomy. Nobody is really feeling the shit though, it's just a nice mouth peace for the author. However, I think the book manages to be good DESPITE that.

>>3548042
Atticus Finch's is what every human in this world
should strive to be...

>>3548212
Finch**

>>3548156
woa bro so profound

>>3548138
>Virginia Woolf
I've tried so hard to enjoy her books. So very hard. And yet the only conclusion I can reach is that To the Lighthouse is the worst piece of fiction I have ever laid eyes upon.

Also, please don't turn this into man versus woman /lit/. You're better than this!

>>3548204
>Carson McCullers
average
>Flannery O'Connor
average
>Virginia Woolf
pretty good
>Dorothy Allison
haven't read
>Jane Austen
zzzzzz
>George Eliot
zzzzzz

>>3548204

William Faulkner
Ernest Hemingway
James Joyce
Walt Whitman
Leo Tolstoy
John Steinbeck
George Bernard Shaw
Shakespeare
Arthur Miller
Samuel Becket

I eventually got tired of making a list of all the male authors that are better than the female authors you have listed. And I even like Flannelette O'Connor quite a bit.

>>3548224
>he now thinks he actually wrote a meaningful post with valid criticism

>>3548224

Okay.

>>3548219

I guess taste is a dynamic thing. I've never read a better book than To The Lighthouse.

>>3548229
>I've never read a better book than To The Lighthouse.

So you haven't read The Waves yet, then.

>>3548227

>Hemingway
>Joyce
>Whitman
>Steinbeck
>Miller

This post is a joke, right?

>>3548237

That is true.

>>3548238
What the fuck did you just say about Steinbeck you fucking bitch?

>>3548241

He has one great book. The rest are hardly worth reading.

>>3548238
>implying Wolfe isn't just Joyce minus the wit

>>3548238

To insinuate that there is anything less than first rate about those authors (which you seem to be doing) must only mean that you have some major bug up your ass about modernism. There is literally no respectable critical stance you could take that would allow you to convincingly argue that there is anything about including those authors in a list of superlatives of male writing that could be considered joke worthy.

>>3548248
Let me gues... are you talking about the only one you've read from him?

>>3548263
>There is literally no respectable critical stance you could take that would allow you to convincingly argue that there is anything about including those authors in a list of superlatives of male writing that could be considered joke worthy.
Beautiful sentence yo

>>3548248

translation: read one of Steinbeck's books with the aid of a teacher telling OP what everything meant. Tried to read another book of Steinbeck's independently. Failed. Deduced that Steinbeck was shit.

>>3548263
>To insinuate that there is anything less than first rate about those authors (which you seem to be doing) must only mean that you have some major bug up your ass about modernism.
I'm not that guy, but
> Miller
> first-rate
Nigga, you're a retard.

>>3548179
Mockingbird.

>>3548268
>>3548275

I've read most of his fiction.

>>3548263

>respectable critical stance

Kill yourself.

>>3548283

So you're going to honestly make the argument that, depsite the fact that you only think he has one good book, you toughed it out and read the rest of his canon? I've taken Steinbeck classes in college and haven't read "most of his literature".

>>3548277

You just can't be helped.

>>3548296

I've read about seven of his books. 'Most' is incorrect. I love The Grapes of Wrath but I'm not a fan of anything else he's done.