/lit/ - Literature

JCO JCO JCO

USA USA USA

I'm actually reading The Collected Stories of Lydia Davis, but that's just because I heard Tao Lin mention her.

>>3740504
>i'm sick of books written by men

dat bigotry

I read what looks interesting.

I don't care who wrote it.

But most of the books I've read were written by men.

Men, I prefer to have sex with. Women, who are geniuses, I prefer to admire.

>if he reads a lot of lady writers, he will — if he wants it — get so much more pussy.


Like, maybe I'm more of a prude than I thought, but who the fuck thinks about getting their kid laid when he's one? Or getting their kid laid at all?

>>3740504
Yes, because after I put down a book I really loved, the first thing I think is "If only the author wasn't a man, oppressing me with his masterful imagery, well crafted characters, and his big, wordy penis."

I'm glad I don't have a twitter

>>3740565
Basically this. There just don't seem to be all that many good female authors. I hear Hilary Mantel is a bit of a sensation, but I never read historical fiction unless the series is finished, so I'll be waiting for a while on that.

>>3740504
>Let's only read women's writing, that'll show them who's immature and patriarchal!
10$ will say that anyone who says this probably still hasn't read Tales of Genji

I apply affirmative action to my reading and make sure the diversity of my authors are all well represented.

Do people really care this much about the gender of the author? What the fuck? Surely there are other things they can focus their attention on.

>>3740601
sex is good

>I excuse my narcissism, as exposed on my incapacity of comprehending and enjoying any book not written by someone like MYSELF, with pseudo-feminism.

There isn't any "oppressing" on woman today worse than the one coming from themselves.

I only read romantic poems written in Latin by transgendered militant Aborigines.

Gives me a lot of free time to browse /lit/

>>3740504
I don't. I find it that I go to the bookstore, find a classic, usually wander off into other shelves and pick up and read what it has to offer from the back, and if I found it interesting I will haul it in along with the others. I don't discriminate by gender, but I have had only 1 female author in my shelf suck and that is Jane Austen. The rest were on par with a lot of the male authors whose titles I own.

Not really, but on occasion I've wanted some insight into that other sex, and looked for books by them. Since I normally read hyper-masculine big manly man novels (like Swann's Way?) I only occasionally run into female authors in the normal course of looking for something I'd like to read. And by occasionally, I mean I once felt like reading The Bell Jar.

My favourite part was where she discussed how she and her husband are indoctrinating their young son. These are probably the same people who rail against the poisoning of young minds by religious education.

>>3740621
Oh, and I forgot to add in Anne Frank for the suck list as well, so that makes it 2.

I go out of my way to avoid female authors, they have never written anything of interest to men.

>>3740625
You're lucky. I actually started to use "female author" as a criteria when I was younger. I didn't want to read shitty romance subplots. Now I have a really hard time not judging.

>>3740637
Well, I don't know, some of the female authors I have read like the Bronte Sisters, Elliot and Wharton does use an element of Romance in their prose, but I've never found it to get in the way, even better is when they use it as a vehicle to convey rather startling issues in their society without being overwrought drivel like Austen. I must also admit I was surprised to have read female authors with a masculine literary style like Pearl S. Buck, Virginia Woolf and Joyce Carol Oates.

So, let's make this a thread about female authors who have some serious merit that has nothing to do with their gender:

Ursala Le Guin
Alice Munro
Virginia Woolf
George Eliot
Clarice Lispector
Djuna Barnes
Toni Morrison
Gertrude Stein
Willa Cather
Carson McCullers
Flannery O'Connor

>>3740714
Karen Blixen

Why is it that men are sexist for wanting only to read men, but women are progressive for wanting to read women?

>>3740610
>>I excuse my narcissism, as exposed on my incapacity of comprehending and enjoying any book not written by someone like MYSELF, with pseudo-feminism.

This bitch can't even write. Why would anyone take her opinion seriously.

>>3740590
The tweet doesn't say that at all. She's complaining that what gets covered in the ~literary media~ is practically only men's writing, and she's getting tired of it being only that. Stop looking for things to nerd rage over, you'll make yourself look stupid.

She probably hasn't read Tales of Genji though

>>3740746
welcome to the 21st century. enjoy your stay (unless you're a white male, in which case you should spend your whole life feeling guilty for your 'privilege' [the social democratic equivalent of original sin]).

>>3740755
In the few literary publications I read, women seem to be pretty well represented. Anyway, is it really so implausible that there are just more good male writers than female?

>>3740746
Double standards. Same reason calling a black man a nigger is racism, but calling a white man a cracker is "just" slang, even though they are both used in the same contexts. Left-wing academia seems to be full of these kinds of odd double standards, which is quite infuriating. Is it too much to ask to want to empower the proletariat without subscribing to radical identity politics?

>>3740762
as much as i agree with your idea, i think the conflation of gender and racial politics needs to stop in general. they're not particularly similar, despite what social justice warriors seem to think.

>>3740657
>masculine literary style
there's nothing masculine about their literary style

>>3740762

I think empowering the proletariat is the last thing the modern "progressive" wants. If they learn to look out for their own interests, they won't need a parasitic class to do it for them.

More relevantly, did I misread the link or did the lady in question write an essay on how book X, objectively, is shit, but because it was written by a woman she will force her son to read it?

>>3740762
>which is quite infuriating.
lol

>>3740791
>tumblr

Appropriate.

>>3740791
>mfw probably 90+% of people who have reblogged that gif are white undergrads

>>3740504
>mfw my favorite author all-time is woman but she's hated by women because it's "complicated" and filled with "weird" prose and "accent"

>>3740846
Who is it, then. Djuna Barnes?

>>3740854
I'm a swede, Sara Lidman

>>3740861
A female Swedish author who supported the Communist movement? How did she not win a Nobel Prize?

>>3740504
>if he reads a lot of lady writers, he will — if he wants it — get so much more pussy.
That feminist delusion. Oh god, it makes me physically cringe.

>>3740714
George Eliot? That's a man, you know.

>>3740869
Being this pleb.

>>3740869
Yeah, replace him with Evelyn Waugh. Now she was a quality author.

>>3740780

i think i had a 'red-pill' moment when i realised that much of identity politics is essentially a logical apotheosis of mankinds continued attemps to justify getting stuff at someone elses expense.

>>3740866
Nah bro, she was a 68. She wasn't a communist in that sense. I guess the plight of farmers isn't that interesting but also, she's pretty much impossible to translate.

>>3740869

/lit/ can be so nice when /pol/ isn't here trashing up the place with their lovable immunity to nuance. Oh, who am I kidding. They're always here.

>>3740616
I bet you that isnt even a thing

>>3740504
Gosh darn it, no, that would be sexist!

>>3740881
>implying /lit/ hasn't always had this stance toward women authors

>>3740888
Always already here?

>>3740888
Most readers have this attitude towards female authors.

>>3740881
Have you ever considered that some people on /lit/ have different views from you? Jesus, I'm sick of this ''/pol/ PLS GET THE FUCK OUT11! UGHHH NAZZI'S'' whenever people aren't leftists.

>>3740881
Nuance is some extremely cool shit. Even when you have no points to make, you can just make a statement then add a dozen pointless clarifications for no reason and the rest of your classmates will think you're smarter, plus if you do it in writing form it's like an extra 3 paragraphs for every real one you write, so you can breeze through book reports in no time. However, my view of nuance is slightly more complex than that, given that I believe it has been used by myriad groups to render opaque the societal colloquy on any number of subjects, not only seldom, but on a fairly quotidian basis.

If the last book you read wasn't written by a woman, you're a sexist.
If the last book you read wasn't written by a minority, you're a racist.
If the last book you read wasn't written by a homosexual, you're a homophobe.

IT'S REALLY THAT SIMPLE!

>>3740894
Never crossed my mind.

>>3740894
that doesn't happen 'whenever people aren't leftists'. If you don't want to be made into a strawman, dont make strawmen out of other people. All it does is fuck up your own perspective

>>3740896

Jokes on you, I last read Ayn Rand.

>>3740894
yea... there's a difference between not being a leftist and people with racist, sexist, homophobic views. or at least I hope there is.

>>3740762

Calling a black man nigger is like kicking a man in the balls.
Calling a white man cracker is like kicking a woman in the clam.

They both hurt, but one hurts a hell of a lot more than the other.

>>3740895
I see. Folks have an agenda. Huh.

>>3740902
It's possible to break bones if you cunt-punt hard enough.

>>3740901

what do we really mean when we say 'racist, sexist, or homophobic'? clearly we are all unique in different ways, were not all going to be the same in the same areas.

>>3740762
>Double standards. Same reason calling a black man a nigger is racism, but calling a white man a cracker is "just" slang, even though they are both used in the same contexts.

racism is power + privilege

learn to contextualise shithead. calling a white man a cracker only results in hurt feelings, calling a black man a nigger is an expression of a society which currently and historically systemically oppresses their race through violence and hatred.

>>3740902
Given that Africans were the ones who actually enslaved and sold other Africans into slavery, why is it worse when whites (simply the purchasers) use the term than when other blacks (the actual enslavers) use it?

>>3740911

>>3740910
>what do we really mean when we say 'racist, sexist, or homophobic'?

Usually hating on people based on race, sex, or sexual orientation. The reason some folks don't like it is because we are all unique in different ways, and aren't all going to be the same in the same areas.

>>3740911

>redefining emotionaly charged words so they better fit a narrative.

post modernism.

Men are 95% of the time better writers than women. It's not sexist to immerse yourself in great literature.

>I don't think most people understand me, but that is life. I am often portrayed as an anti-feminist. Of course, I am not against women's equal rights in society. It would be madness and unintelligent not to support that. What I am against is applying a political agenda to literature. It kills it.

Bloom nails it.

>>3740916
post racial.

I don't see race. I'm colourblind.

>>3740917
muh feminist agenda. muh gay agenda. muh freedoms. muh art

>>3740920

in otherwords, willfully ignorant.

>>3740923
>implying he's wrong
>muh muh

>>3740923
this kills the western canon

>>3740920

sorry friend, your minority fellows dont agree.

>>3740929
there's politics inherently in literature or it'd be worthless garbage. wanting to divorce it of that so you can live in your post-sexism, post-racial utopia and revert back to a pre-school language of discourse and criticism is beyond retarded. but you can live in the past of the great white men if you feel safe there.

>>3740924

No, just lying to make themselves feel and look better.

>>3740944
the only people i've ever heard getting pissed at someone for saying they don't see race have been white people. i heard one white girl lecture this black guy for saying it, too.

the modern social justice movement is a joke.

>>3740950

so then, racism is technically impossible.

>>3740946
So your saying you want gay, female or black author's just for the sake of it?

>I mean, hey, he writes like shit but as long as he's black he's good in my book!
Yeah, I'd much prefer living back in the past with the great white author's.

>>3740950
wow. you just shattered the entire modern social justice movement with that one example.

>>3740955
>So your saying you want gay, female or black author's just for the sake of it?
explain the convoluted thought process that created that conclusion?

>>3740956
wow. you just shattered my worldview with biting sarcasm, and the way you didn't even care enough to capitalize has really shaken my convictions. it's like you could just be p much chill and make fun of my hetero cissexual racism at the same time. damn.

Oh look, the only reason why Pride and Prejudice and Frankenstein are so beloved. To answer your question OP, I generally go out of my way to avoid reading books that are only held in high regard for being written by a female, mainly because they're overrated.

> (In my household, the phrase, “a novel of ideas,” is followed by an eye-roll. Such books are made for humorless people who don’t like television, candy, and/or dancing.)
Huh?

>>3740968
Why does she even bother to read? Why would fat anti-intellectuals write book reviews?

>>3740966
what's the difference between overrated white women and overrated white men?

>>3740504
>muhgender

reallybitch?

>>3740968

litterally a low information prole.

how did it come to people like this being seen as 'leaders' and 'progressive'.

>>3740968
Please tell me this was supposed to be ironic.

capcha: cannot hinrtle

>>3740978

whats the difference between non-sequiturs and having a certain set of criteria by which one could anticipate the relative merit of a literary work.

>>3741004
what's the difference between you not knowing what a non-sequitur means and not being able to judge women by said criteria of literary merit without designating it "overrated crap" just because it was written by a woman?

I only read fiction books with a male protagonist. I'm not bothered if the author is male or female though.

>>3740912
Read me

>>3740911
Racism is racism.

Now you can say white racism against blacks is WORSE in the sense of having more negative social ramifications to blacks than racism against whites towards blacks is. Which would happen to be true. But there's no reason to go around redefining words so your arguments turn out how you want them.

>>3741008


whats the difference between selectively reading the word 'woman' and then jumping to a conclusion with an unrelated question intended to lead the respondee, and being on topic?

>>3740911
>black guys ganging up on white guy

I think the white guy doesn't have any "power" then

>>3741054
no one's redefining words. just because you've been living under a /pol/ rock for the past decades and haven't picked up a book on racism, doesn't mean everyone's pulling one over you.

>>3741061
being against social justice fags =/= /pol/

>>3740578
Women are more interested in sex than men. It defines them their entire life while men reach about ~40 and start not giving a shit.

>>3741061
lol come on man, /pol/ are a bunch of chumps and i know it. i am decidedly a leftist and yeah that social justice stuff overly concerned with race is sort of cool when you're like 16 years old but lets move past it.

racism is racism, but it is not equally bad whenever it is perpetrated by one group against another. racism by whites against blacks is worse than racism against blacks by whites because whites are the majority and their general view of things will influence political reality much more than the other way around.

but racism is still racism, that is preferential treatment based on race, doing various sorts of harm to others because of their race, etc. this happens to whites from blacks and it is a bad thing when it happens. its not a social problem on the level white racism v. blacks is(although even THAT is over blown by the social justice types) but when it happens it IS racism.

also white privileged effectively does not exist

>>3741075
Interested in sex and what it entails and what it can get them.

I don't like this idea that somehow that means they are down to fuck more often than men.

>>3741068
wow look at you fighting against those evil social justice "fags". keep fighting the good fight brother. make sure you don't read a book on racism anytime soon or try to verse yourself in the subject so you don't look like a fool. we need more brave white people like you. not afraid of being un-PC and everything.

All women are bitches and whores at heart.


science bitch

>>3741079
>Whites are the majority
This isn't the 19th century anymore.

>>3741061

you wont get far in the power structure with that attitude.

>the word racism is often precognitively associated with 'bad' in the zeitgeist

>use of certain words is important because it shapes the context of the debate

>in this case, defining racism so as to only apply to certain subsets of the population allows for conflation (a corner stone of postmodern normative justification), where the new definition combined with the old precognitive associations facilitates successful doublethink


the word 'conspiracy' is another example of such associations, hampering useful discussions of certain topics before facts, logic, or reason even enter the debate.

>>3740902
If you get hurt by words, you really have no business in the literary field. If you get insulted when some idiot calls you a nigger or cracker, you have issues yourself. They are just words.

>>3741091
spoken like a true cracker

>>3740902
In every circle I've been in, the only people who ever get offended when I say nigger are the white people.

Every black person I've ever met rises above that shit.

>>3741097
>Every black person I've ever met rises above that shit.

God bless John Cena for inspiring them.

>>3740956
When everyone that isn't brainwashed by the SJ movement has experiences like those, it tends to poison the well. Social Justice warriors are not attracting anyone, especially meritorious leaders.

>>3741097
wow. you've just ended racism with that made up example of you and your imaginary black friends. where can I contact you to give you a nobel peace prize for your outstanding efforts on eliminating racism by expecting poc to "rise above that shit" truly revolutionary work anon

>>3741097
>Every black person I've ever met rises above that shit.

But anon, that's only because they don't know any better. They ARE victims, and it's our duty as privileged white people to pound that FACT into them, by God!

>>3741095

trolling isint something that happens to one, it is something one does to oneself.

>>3740968
What the hell is a novel that isn't ideas? Disconnected thoughts quickly scribbled down before they form complete sentences?

>>3741061
Are you implying the definition of racism as power + privilege has been accepted by anyone but the sociology crowd, and even then going farther to imply that no one in the sociology crowd has protested said definition?

>>3741080
>Interested in sex and what it entails and what it can get them.
Yes, very well put. they are not down to fuck as much as men are, but they are constantly aware of what they can gain by flaunting their sexuallity. Attractiveness is one of their, if not the biggest, mental machinations. You can see how core it runs in their character when feminists parade poster boards of giant pussies around to protest things. It is laughably ironic.

>>3741095
You got me. Your butthurt actually fuels my oppression machine that I keep hidden in the darkest recesses of my mind.

>>3741108
wow. you have p much convinced me yet again of the greatness of the social justice movement, because not only are they right about politics, but also they are so chill and relax and make really good jokes by talking like black people ironically on twitter.

>>3741108

its about as equally valid as people forming their opinions of minorities based on their college experiences, ones who are by definition above the average.


>race dont real because i knew a smart black guy

>>3741108
I just ended racism? THANK GOD!

It was my privilege.

>>3741124
racism is a sociological concept so yes it is defined by sociologists. if you want to be anti-intellectual then there's a board specifically for you >>>/b/ or >>>/pol/
your choice.

>>3740762
Cracker isn't the same level.
It's like comparing calling someone a cocksucker and someone else a jerk.

It's not about double standards, if you want to complain about double standards I won't bother you. But cracker is nowhere near the severity of nigger.

I've read Woolf and Rand but that's it, most of the books I enjoy are written by men

I read what appeals to me, I'm not interested in the mythos of the author/artist if the subject matter doesn't appeal to me

>>3741141

if post-modernists are so intellectual why do they hate science so much.

>>3741158
this is satire, right

>>3741132
>>3741133
what are either of you even talking about?

>>3741135
where can I get you that cheque your privilege? it was all mine.

>>3741158
This still gets me.

Here's a nice read for people wondering about the kind of insanity displayed in that pic (hint: it's real)

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/sokal/nagel.html

>>3741154
Read Silko. Ceremony is a story worth experiencing.

>>3741141
>it is defined by sociologists
They cannot agree to the definition. If you want to make a word that is power+privilege, make up your own fucking word like everyone else ever has done.

>>3741185
do you read anything beyond pleb fiction? any philosophy? sociology? anything at all?

>>3741082
>wow look at you fighting against those evil social justice "fags". keep fighting the good fight brother. make sure you don't read a book on racism anytime soon or try to verse yourself in the subject so you don't look like a fool. we need more brave white people like you. not afraid of being un-PC and everything.

holy fuck this is new drivel. Are you new to /lit/? Are we being tumblrd?

>>3740906
>It's possible to break bones if you cunt-punt hard enough.
It's possible to break anything if you kick hard enough.

>>3741184
Silko's actually worse than all the black-writer-famous-for-being-black<wbr> writers combined. She's literally the only "Native American" writer academia could drum up, so she makes it in by default.

Pity, her writing is bland and her plots look like she's making it up as she goes (p.s. she is).

>>3741162

http://netwar.wordpress.com/2007/07/03/feminist-epistemology/

http://www.scibooks.org/archives/sciencewars.html


as the saying goes, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

>>3741198
I don't know, why don't you tell me when did /pol/ decide to raid /lit/?

>>3741193
You know, your only "argument" so far has been the questioning of his intellectual credentials. Guess what, buddy, on an anonymous messageboard credentials mean jack shit. Either construct an argument or admit defeat.

And in point of fact, he is absolutely right when he says that sociologists do not have any consensus definition of racism. Also, the ones defining it as "power + privilege" are a distinct minority.

>racism is a sociological concept so yes it is defined by sociologists

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>>3741200

but what if ogg kick so hard, ogg break himself.

ogg witness zen.

>>3741198
I don't have it on me but someone had a picture like this but replaced the jew with a nazi and replaced the swastika with "cis scum"

>>3741184
I'll look into it, thanks for the recc. What does she usually write about?

>>3741205
>using the word "pity"
It's like you're trying to drown me in snobbery.
>implying she's the only native american writer academia could drum up
Sherman Alexie
Janet Campbell Hale
Paula Gunn Allen
Vine Deloria Jr.
N. Scott Momaday
Duane Niatum

>>3740913
>equivocating

>>3741212
wait are we having an argument? i thought you were just being retarded and I was just laughing at you.

so what's your take on the word "discourse" since that obviously is only used in the "distinct minority" so I guess Butler and Foucault did all that work for nothing creating a new method of looking at communication. discourse and racism don't exist since it's used in the minority. this is some american populist thinking.

>>3741205
>fight me
How is her writing bland?

>>3741218
Experience Bij.

>>3740917
>literature isn't political
this nigga serious?

>>3741225
Ceremony is about a WWII veteran's struggle to maintain his identity in the squalid reservation, and to conquer both the demons of ptsd and alcoholism.

>>3741235
>so what's your take on the word "discourse" since that obviously is only used in the "distinct minority" so I guess Butler and Foucault did all that work for nothing creating a new method of looking at communication. discourse and racism don't exist since it's used in the minority. this is some american populist thinking.

How are you even supposed to reply to something this idiotic?

>>3741245
Yup. You can actually read literature for pleasure and enjoyment of the art.

>>3740950
nah, i'm mexican and i'm not okay with people saying shit like that.
also
>one person of color was okay with it one time, so it's okay
is fucking racist, because we're not all the same. some of us are fucking stupid.

>>3741245
literature exists in some art netherworld with no social consequence or interaction with the plebeian world of social politics we live in. that's the white guy way of "objective literary merit".

>>3740917
>95% of the time
>implying the canon wasn't determined by white upper class men
Get your Kantian universal subjectivity out of my face.

>>3741247
I don't know. I had to reply to you're, I don't know anything about sociology but Imma pretend I do so let's pretend that racism has no definition because it's a point of discussion and isn't real because it's used by a minority of intellectuals argument. I think you can manage.

>>3741235

lets cut to the chase friend, this all boils down to people wanting stuff and control, and upset that they dont.

how do you presume to define who gets owed what?

further, given that we are all unique in different ways, it would seem not only prefferable, but inevitable that people would make rational selections based on what information they have (be it race, creed, or otherwise). what say you?

>>3741091
discourse shapes reality, if you don't understand that, you really have no business in the literary field.

>>3741258
What are you even trying to do. Are you trying to suggest that racism isn't a thing?

>ITT: white people try to redefine racism so they're not racist
it's okay guys. calm down. no one's going to take your privilege cards away

>>3741256
>>implying the canon wasn't determined by white upper class men
>race doesn't exist, all humans are the same underneath their skin
>differences between races are so great that intellectuals from each would choose a significantly different canon of the greatest works of literature

How do you handle the cognitive dissonance?

>>3741267
no

>>3741262

incorrection, discourse shapes perception of reality.

but of course, distorted perception results in bad ting.

>>3741252
>I'm mexican

That's your argument?

>>3741246
From the Amazon description it sounds very Aboriginal centric, I'm admittedly ignorant on the subject. I got "The Last of the Mohicans" as a gift a while back but have yet to crack it open. What's your opinion on it?

>>3741279
what exactly is yours cracker?

>>3741258
>I don't know. I had to reply to you're, I don't know anything about sociology but Imma pretend I do so let's pretend that racism has no definition because it's a point of discussion and isn't real because it's used by a minority of intellectuals argument. I think you can manage.

How is it possible to so completely misinterpret the conversation up to this point? Am I right in thinking that English is not your first language?

>>3741279
way to read the whole post, gg

>>3741279
Well it wouldn't be an argument that I can't back up in anyway

>>3741280
I haven't read Mohicans. Ceremony is a wonderful read, in my opinion. Also, one of the legends that Silko draws upon deals with the creation of white people. I won't spoil it for you, but it's a fun section. Whole book's racially minded, if not racist. Appropriate, i'd say, for the characters and time period.

I have about 250 books in my bookshelf and only two female authors. Jane Austen and Lisa Randall. Didn't really occur to me before just now.

>>3741294
That's because you are racist white pecker

>>3741294
>reading jane austen
>ever
Upper class white bitch pursues marriage. Upper class white bitch acquires marriage.

>>3741296

Am I supposed to actively seek out female authors?

>>3741294
Christ. At least grab some Hurston.

>>3741298
if you want to experience a variety of different viewpoints and enrich yourself, then no. stick to straight white male authors only.

>>3741299

Who?

I think I have some 600 books in my wishlist online and the only female author I can think of among them is Ursula K. Le Guin. There might be one or two more but that's about it.

>>3741298
Yes. The white male perspective is hardly an all-encompassing. You're doing yourself a disservice, both as a writer and a reader, if you restrict yourself to that perspective.

>>3741304
>who
Oh my god, you are making me angry and I know you're not trying to which is making me angrier. Zora Neale Hurston.

>>3741298
No. Because you act from a position of privilege and power you will search out bad authors that only will serve to reinforce your patriarchic mindset it would only further the damage, I suggest you talk to woman and let her tell you what to read. Only then can the vicious cycle of mens violence and mockery of womens culture be turned around.

>>3741306

I.. don't really think there is such a thing as "the white male perspective."

>>3741303
It's not like all "white male authors" agree with each other and write the same shit and all of them grew up with privilge.

What the hell?

>>3741306
It's ridiculous to suggest that the race of the author is anything but an extremely minor influence on the "perspective" of a book.

>>3741309

So I'm pretty sure this is a troll.

>>3741307

No clue who that is.

But I know now. Thanks.

>>3741304
Are you serious? This place is filled with racists!!

>>3741312
You're adorable.

>>3741307
>Zora Neale Hurston.

As a black female ZNH gets an automatic pass in academia. You can't take her fandom seriously.

>>3741317

you say that like its a bad thing.

>>3741321
Thanks :D

>>3741317
>no women
>those racists!
Still, he probably doesn't have many writers of color either.

>>3741312
and you would know this how?

>>3741317

I can't tell if serious, but I don't think there's anything racist about it. I don't care about gender or skin color or shit like that when I buy books. I read the description and if it sounds interesting, I'll get it. Not my problem if 9/10 times it turns out to be a white male having written it.

>>3741327
>as a black female
No. Hurston gets a pass with me because she's a phenomenal writer.

>>3741332

Becaus what the fuck does race have to do with anything?

>>3741331

Not many, no. A few.

>>3741334
Well, then I guess you're just content with having a whitewashed relationship with literature. Congarts.

>>3741332
Because otherwise, all books written by white people would be pretty much the same, all books written by Asians would be pretty much the same, etc.

This is manifestly not the case.

>>3741339

What does that even mean?

>>3741311
>doesn't think there's a white male perspective
Because it's your perspective.

>>3741344
Circular logic!

>>3741344

You know... not all white men are the same and have the same perspective.

Man, this is ridiculously stupid. I can't tell if people are being serious here.

>>3741311
yes. that exactly is what it means. if you're white and you're a man you have white male privilege. a radical concept that is so hard for white guys to understand or accept that they'll create mountains of hurr durr tumblr, derp social justice fags, to circumvent a simple fact. it's kind of funny in some desperate pathetic way.

>>3741338
Race has everything to do with everything. If you can't see how the class element of race affects perspective, then I'd recommend you read some sociology.

>>3741341

it means hes upset that youre using your discretion to judge whether or not you think something is good.

>>3741353

So you essentially think that every one of my 250 books are from white, upper-middle class men who have never faced poverty, been the most privileged persons on the planet, and people who all have the same perspective on every social issue and so on?

If you really think so, you're retarded.

>>3741352

Again I'm seriously confused as to whether or not I should take this seriously or consider it a troll. Pls stop.

>>3741338
nothing at all if you're white and live in a white normative society. enjoy your ignorant bliss my lovely simple cracker

>>3741341
You're reading the literature of white men. Therefore, your conception of literature is one heavily informed by the experiences and ideas of white men.

>>3741353
What books do you recommend? I wouldn't want to end up reading something that might be patriarchal? Is there like a scale or tier-list you read through so you'll end up with non-oppressive lit?

>>3741352

yes we know, the evil cis white males (probably anglo-saxon to boot) have privilege.

and guess what, theyve merited it.

I'm a misogynist but I don't put much thought into the gender of authors. If a woman is somehow able to write something good, I'm not going to ignore it. However, don't expect my library to contain men and women equally, which would be an absurd forcing of myself to ignore quality and read more trash.

>>3741350
There is a degree of homogeneity that exists within the lives of white men in America. This homogeneity can be seen in the literature of white men.

>>3741359
god. you're just like that guy who was arguing that racism doesn't exist or isn't properly defined. pick up a book and learn what the fuck privilege is before opening your stupid trap.

>>3741367
In America? Are you saying that the western canon is mainly american?

>>3741363
I'm fond of Berger, but you're being an ass, so it's likely that you won't read what I suggest to you.

>>3741369
wait. you're probably that same idiot.

>>3741370
Never said that.

>>3741371
But he is a white male, attorney and professor, that attended Harvard law. Isn't that privileged?

>>3741369

I... what.... okay. Whatever. I'll just go on enjoying my books without thinking much about this shit. "Oh no, I'm reading a book by a white privileged male, what am I doing?!"

And I don't know how I'm arguing that "privilege" doesn't exist or isn't properly defined. I'm just saying that you're implying that I'm only getting one perspective. I seriously think otherwise.

>>3741367

Very few of my books are from American authors.

>>3741377
Yep. A privileged man with some solid ideas. Never said I didn't read white dudes.

>>3740583
I just won a new Vintage edition of The Great Gatsby on Twitter. As long as companies still fundamentally don't truly understand social media and just use it to naively and aggressively promote themselves, you only stand to gain.

>>3741352
>ad hominem

arent you supposed to be at a UofT rally?

>>3741385

thats the funny thing about social justice, the most well reasoned and idealistic proponents are almost invariably white males.

>>3741395
And the most educated chaps are almost invariably white males.

>>3741395
It's because they are white males and get privileged to better education, don't you see the wholes in your logic.

This privilege thing is fucking retarded.

>>3740966
Frankenstein is a quality novel regardless of the author's sex. Percy probably contributed a great deal to it anyway. Can't say the same of any Austen.

>>3741407
lol

>>3741401
Nope.

>>3741393
do you go to uoft?

>>3741395

>>3741420

just goes to show you how deluded post-modernists have become, its impossible to live without judgment, but thanks to the wonders of doublethink, we can see how its actually the dominant class thats inferior! they honestly think things would be better without whites.

>>3741380
>I seriously think otherwise.
and you would know this how?

>>3741428
Seriously. Imagine a world with where all white men were suddenly gone. What do you think is going to happen to women in largely white countries? These people are insane.

>>3741428
as a post-modernist, I resent this sentiment

>>3740881
OP here, I am most definitely not from /pol/. I only posted this because I have to admit that, in the moment, I was really pretty irate when I read that quote on Twitter. I did a cursory look at my bookcase and to be honest there aren't very many women on there, just Lorrie Moore, Dorothy Parker, and Edna St. Vincent Millay. I was just curious whether /lit/ has made any efforts to expand its usual reading base or whether it considered such expansions artificial.

I know who the moderator of /lit/ is.
Thread related.

>>3740932

>>3741446
The vast majority of great literature throughout history has been written by men. Whether or not this is due in part to female oppression does not change the facts. The disparity between the sexes in literature will never be erased, as women can never circumvent the literary history of men. As such, asking for someone to make sure they make sure to represent both sexes "fairly" is nonsense. If your library has an equal amount of men and women, chances are your library is full of shit. There are female authors worth reading, but compared to men their numbers are minimal. It is not shameful for your reading material to reflect this.

>>3741433
and you would know this how?

>>3741440

ive also been posting here >>3741088 and elsewhere in the thread


alot of these people are insults to leftism in general, its hard to classify them.

but still, they are simply taking their ideals to a further logical conclusion (i dont say 'the' conclusion, because as we know from godel, a system with a contradiction anywhere in its axioms can be used to prove any given statement as true).

I've noticed that the last few books the New York Times has really raved about have all been by women. The Middlesteins by Jami Attenberg, A Visit From The Goon Squad by Jennifer Egan (which one a Pulitzer), and lately The Flamethrowers by Rachel Kushner.

Haven't read Kushner yet but I read a little of The Middlesteins and it was like Franzen-lite. Similarly perused Goon Squad but just didn't see it. This is OP, btw.

Sociology is in dire need of another Parsons to grind down and dust out the unsavoury pondscum that has piled up in it's corners.

>>3741465
Thanks for sharing your opinion on the 4chan Literature board

>>3741481
Do you have a problem with what I said? Was any of it untrue?

>>3741476

My graduation quote was almost from Ho Chi Minh. Almost. I thank God I reverted to my Yeats safety at the last minute.

>>3741491
>Not quoting Mao.

>>3741469
>because as we know from godel, a system with a contradiction anywhere in its axioms can be used to prove any given statement as true
A MATHEMATICAL SYSTEM.
Fucking hell. This is a perfect example of what those "insults to leftism" do.

>>3741419
Nope, York but I was witness to the shit flinging at the most recent "big" protest

>>3741499
Are you saying logical axioms cannot be introduced to literary criticism?

>>3741491
>2013
>not decentralizing authority with your high school yearbook quote

>>3741505
>logical axioms
Even just skimming wikipedia will tell you he only ever proved it for self-consistent recursive axiomatic systems that can handle arithmetic operations on natural numbers.
That's math speak for: formally proving basic math operations and their results.
I fucking hate it when people who never had to take the most basic of math logic classes bring up Gödel.

>>3741506

Actually the quote I was planning to use was: "Love other human beings as you would love yourself."

>My editor wanted to me cut about 20,000 words for my forthcoming novel California, which I did because the criticism was spot-on, the book was longer than it needed to be; still, I couldn’t help but wonder (aloud and all the time) if Eugenides, Franzen, and Harbach had also been edited for length.

Maybe they weren't edited down because they're better writers than she is. I doubt she's ever considered this.

>>3741526
I doubt others would appreciate it if I tried to masturbate them when I'm bored.

>>3740504
Jaquenine Carey, who's a bit erotic fantasy, but better than Ann Rice.

>>3741527
Eugenides and Franzen aren't better writers than anyone. I'd even say Tao Lin is better, and he's a little kitsch weasel.

Dunno about Harbach.

>>3740586

I enjoyed Wolf Hall and Bring Up the Bodies. Both were smart, engaging novels.

Along with Ursula le Guin and Flannery O'Conner, she's on the slim list of female authors whose works I genuinely enjoy.

>>3740714

> toni morrison
> serious merit

highest lel

>>3741307

Dislike most female authors, but I really liked Their Eyes Were Watching God. Think it's one of the few novels where dialect is applied in a way that's not overwhelming.

I left three hours ago and this thread is now the biggest thread on /lit/. Why must we have this thread every week?

>>3741401

> don't you see the wholes in your logic
> wholes in your logic
> wholes

>>3741551
/pol pls go

>>3741551
Get out.

>>3741572
Her and Faulkner both.

>>3741577
Because it's a volatile topic.

>>3741611
Women are volatile in general.

>>3741614
>generalizing

>>3741617
Who wouldn't want to become a general?

>>3741625
>generalizing
Not everyone wants to wear stars on their helmet. That's gay as shit.

>>3740714
Jhumpa Lahiri

>>3741627
I'll wear as many stars on my helmet as they want if it means I can command a full battalion to march into your house and kill your dog.

If I tell everyone I'm gay with a tragic fetish for straight white men, can I publicly and vocally proclaim the dominance of straight white male authors without fear of liberal retribution?

If yes, what level of gay do I have to pretend to be? Andy Dick-gay? Charles Nelson Reilly-gay?

>>3741633

> muh new yorker multicult

>>3741637
Yes. Richard Simmons gay.

>>3740504
>not going out of your way for my waifu

Hands off!

>>3741644
I don't understand what you're implying. She's from India and lives in Massachusetts.

>>3741647

Sweating to the Border Trilogy

>>3741669
Haha. Seriously laughed out loud.

>>3741656
He's implying he's /pol/ish

>>3741651
I often masturbate to the thought of Zadie delicately enunciating the word "fellatio."

>>3741644
>multicult
Haven't you heard? Indians are Caucasian.

>>3741689
Here she is standing below a tower of books.

[out of frame]
Harold Bloom standing atop the tower.

>>3741656

Her success rests exclusively on local color. Lahiri is a mediocre writer who mined the story of her parents' immigration to the US. Since around the time that Wallace Shawn was ousted as chief editor, TNY fiction section's become increasingly "multicultural" (as well as increasingly boring and irrelevant.) Lahiri's success is solely due to this shift in focus.

>>3741697
>>3741651
She looks like one of those voodoo witches.
Would not bang.

Also, she's clearly channeling DFW with that unnecessary head scarf thing.

>>3741699
Have you read Interpreter of Maladies? Lahiri is a good author. Granted, I haven't read any of her other work, but that collection of short stories is fantastic.

My wife is a fairly prominent female novelist.

>>3741706

Yep. I'm not saying she's a bad author. She's just not exceptional. Like most women authors, she shies from greatness.

>>3741714

Go to bed, Nick Laird.

>>3741703
>dat sexy jiggle dance

>>3741637
wow. you don't hear about Charles Nelson Reilly much anymore.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IIkZS_06Nw

>>3741716
That's fair, I guess.

>>3740867
And I wonder, how is that phrase not sexist?

>>3741724
He was in the second-best episode of X-Files!

>>3741728
Feminism's encouragement of women to sleep around like whores has ironically (but not surprisingly) increased their sexual objectification. A woman is now "pussy" to be gotten. People don't say, "I'm going to sleep with a woman," they say, "I'm going to go get some pussy," because that's all women are to them. I'm not surprised some of that language has seeped into feminist usage, as its a problem they've created.

>>3740577
>Women, who are geniuses, I prefer to admire.
s-surely you don't mean that all women are geniuses? because that's what you wrote. probably because you're a stupid woman. or at best a fag.

>>3741745
Yes, this is much worse than the time when women were essentially valuable goods to be bought & sold, when marriage was essentially a mercantile contract. Things have really gone down hill because of feminism.

Let's not confuse things here; the change in the status of women is one thing, and the increase in sexual freedom, and especially in anonymous or short-term sexual relationships (or at least the increasing social freedom to talk about and regard such relationships instead of hiding them away or just getting married), are not necessarily the same thing, although they might be related. And I think it's the latter that leads to the "just getting pussy" thing, not feminism and the change in the status of women.

>>3741414
It's boring. It became an icon later because of the films that are nothing like it.

>>3741768
When you start sleeping around like a slut don't be surprised when that's what people start to look at you as. Feminism is like a machine creating an endless supply of pump'n'dump receptacles for men. It's similar to how the demand to work has turned women into wage slaves throwing their children into daycares because they can't properly raise them anymore. The more you try to "fix" things the more they're going to turn around and hurt you, because you're trying to break women out of their natural order. All of the "advances" are going to crash and burn eventually, as society cannot sustain them.

>>3741699
I honestly have yet to read a fiction piece from The New Yorker that I holds my attention for more than a page (being generous).

>>3741714
Go to bed, James Wood.

>>3741775
yes, okay, whatever, blah blah blah, human beings are reducible entirely to their evolutionary forebears and their behavior can be entirely explained by just-so-stories about paleolithic era

>>3741768

> ignores how women's privilege and independence grew during the decline of the roman empire
> ignores the increase of sexual promiscuity and liberalism that happened over the same period
> disregards the moral and political instability this "gender revolution" caused

>>3741785
>Paleolithic era

Try all of human civilization until the 19th century.

>>3741778

Me neither. Not even authors who are published in TNY read the fiction section.

It's what happens when you value works based on how well they hew to neoliberal ideology.

>>3741788
Yep. Feminism is a childish ideology for the same reason that men's rights is: they advocate (at least ostensibly) for gender equality. A patriarchal social order is a necessity, despite the fact that it is unfair to *both* sexes. Society is in large part dependent upon people understanding that they have a set role and accepting it, for the well-being of society as a whole, and to a lesser extent, themselves. Neither feminists nor MRAs wish to do this.

>>3741775

Every girl I've dated has been a professed feminist. They've all craved being dominated and maltreated in bed. The next morning, they put on a "strong face" to go to work. When they come home, they complain about how much they hate their jobs, hate the endless competition, hate how empty they feel.

I used to support feminism. I used to buy into the third-wave notion that women just have vestigial sexual "quirks" from pre-history that can easily be satisfied in safe relationships. If they love getting choked, tied up, slapped -- that doesn't mean they're naturally submissive. It's just an indication of a common "quirk" that can be met, serviced, and dispelled.

What changed my mind was the fact that all these women were miserable. Half were anxious wrecks. None were any different than their girlfriends.

The real victim of feminism isn't men -- it's the women who've been pressured into pursuing a life that can never satisfy them. It's fucking tragic.

>>3741812

Agreed. Men's Rights a victory for the new left. It's ridiculous. Needlessly factional.

>>3741816
>The real victim of feminism isn't men -- it's the women who've been pressured into pursuing a life that can never satisfy them. It's fucking tragic.

Yes, it is, and it's the fault of neo-liberal corporate capitalism and modern industrialism, and at root not anything to do with feminism. It's a pretty farcical joke that feminism has been the dupe of modern capitalism, but that's what's happened.

(and just to be clear, I am in no way, shape, form, or fashion a Marxist, socialist, or communist of any sort)

>>3741823
Here's a good video on it, if you haven't seen it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do5zrdTb-yI

>>3741816
I agree that women are the primary victim. Feminism teaches them that they are not to lead the type of lives that are natural for them, which will lead to them being happy and fulfilled, and has for most made doing so much more difficult if not impossible, should a woman accurately understand her needs. A similar situation exists for men, of course. As they break from their natural role they experience increased alienation and unhappiness. Many people now simply feel that they don't have a place in society, and it's because they don't; the places where they should be have been destroyed.

>>3741824
Don't agree with his characterization of feminism; he's confusing one feminist ideology with feminism itself. From skimming the rest of the video, though, he seems like he's mostly sensible. Which isn't surprising, because the process by which this has happened is quite obvious for anyone with eyes to see.

I'm female, and no I don't. I read what's interesting.

What is interesting, however, is that I know of more good women poets than fiction writers: Emily Dickinson, Gertrude Stein, Sylvia Plath...

some good scifi + fantasy: Olivia Butler, Storm Constantine, Ursula LeGuin

For some reason I can't think of any female non-genre non-poetry writers that I like...

>>3741691
>Indians are Caucasian

Maybe, but they aren't White.

>>3741774

Not the person you replied to, but I disagree. I thought Frankenstein was very interesting--I remember reading it all in one sitting, beginning in early afternoon and finishing around 2 AM.

>>3740875
I just suffered catastrophic organ failure.
The best part is that those people are uniquely detrimental to the concept of feminism.

>>3741816
pretty much this. I've got a similar story.

>>3741892

>http://nplusonemag.com/white-indians

>>3741695
I wanna shove all those books up her vagina