/lit/ - Literature

>>5208951
:^)

>>5208967
?

Toni Morrison and Gwendolyn Brooks.

stephanie meyer

>>5208983
;`d

Most of these authors don't really stand on their own that well but are widely read because hey we need to be equal and give female writers more time

>>5209024

you;re an idiot, that may be true for many females but the ones OP listed are generally great

This easily.

Toni Morrison. Maybe Zora Neale Hurston and Alice Walker.

Harper Lee?

didn't realize she was a woman after i finished the book
but then, i also didn't realize scout was a girl until halfway into the book
should have checked my privilige

>>5208941
Margaret Atwood and Alice Munro.

Also, you forgot the best English language female writer (some might argue that this would be Woolf but whatever), George Eliot.

>>5208941
They all wrote for women, and are thus nowhere near their male counterparts, who had to actually write to an audience in possession of their wits, ruled by logic, and immersed in reason.

>>5209077

I learned from a high school teacher that Scout is sexist because she didn't embrace her femininity or something.

Ursula K. Le Guin
Rebecca West
Susan Sontag
Simone de Beauvoir
Hannah Arendt
Mary Wollstonecraft
Carson McCullers
Tove Jansson

>>5209050
Was going to say.

>>5209089
This.
Female writers write about "psychology". Male writers write about anything.

>>5209089
> They all wrote for women
Yeah that is probably why Austen, Bronte Sisters, Dickinson and George Eliot released all of their works under pseudonyms initially, mosts' sex being made public only after their death..

Gertude Stein.

>>5209082
>Margaret Atwood
pls

>>5208941

I have serious reservations about Austen being included in this list. She certainly has a facility for satire and language, but whenever I try to read her all I can think of is the quote "Irony is the song of a bird that has come to love its cage."

>>5208941
>Jane Austen

>>5209082
>George Eliot.

That's a guy you idiot. Seriously? George?

Anyway I can't believe Evelyn Waugh hasn't been mentioned yet. She's my favorite female writer.

>>5209101
Wasn't she just a young lesbian? Like Frankie.

Ayn Rand
JK Rowling
Your mom

>>5209122
Mary Ann Evans (22 November 1819 – 22 December 1880; alternatively "Mary Anne" or "Marian"), known by her pen name George Eliot, was an English novelist, journalist, translator and one of the leading writers of the Victorian era.

>>5209024
stupid fuck

>>5209089
no they didnt write FOR women, you uneducated philistine

women nearly always seem to write about things involving strong female characters, just like black guys always have to write about black people. srs just write stories and people will read them

>>5209120
>that's the only name on the list i know so ill greentext it

>>5208941
She looks a bit like me from the side

>>5208951

is white teeth good? NW was not, but I found white teeth at a charity shop and bought it.

>>5209089
Just for fun, give us a list of male authors who "wrote for" women.

>>5209141
There's a gap to that no penis can.

>>5209141
this is so inaccurate its not funny

stop looking at it from pulp novels, which are always guilty of something

educate yourself instead of throwing around baseless opinions

>>5209156
>There's a gap to that which no penis can fill.

(Arrg. Not feeling well)

>>5209158
>come to 4chan
>expect based opinions

>>5209168
sometimes i like to fantasise that /lit/ can be the exception to this
but then i read comments like these:
>>5209141
>>5209112
>>5209106
>>5209089
>>5209024

>>5209156
Men don't write for men or women. They can write for a certain social class, not for a specific gender.

>>5209154
White Teeth is the best thing she's written. That doesn't answer your question, but I think you should give it a shot.

>>5209141
white males tend to write about white males too!

>>5209104
Horrible list. I would only have accepted Margaret Weis, and that only in collusion with her male counterpart.

>>5209178
none of those writers in the OP write FOR women, they write because that is what they were born to do

why do you think all women writers have some sort of equality/superiority agenda? men are just as guilty of propagating this and you know it

>>5209177
Cry

Harder

>>5209178
>not for a specific gender.
Nehehe HAHAHAHAH Oh man. Like ever? Yeah right!

>>5209106

>women writers:
>"She felt that he felt that her feelings felt toward the feelings of her feeling's feelings."

>ITT: women getting angry over facts

>>5209197
all women writers?

>>5209204

#yesallwomen

>>5209202
what facts?

>>5209195
what sort of response is this? what are you hoping to achieve? you are only further highlighting your ignorance

>>5209196
The fact that their main characters are males rarely affect the content. Maupassant doesn't write about men, he writes about society.

>>5209217
And where is your proof that women have not done this also?

>>5209177

My post (>>5209112) didn't have anything to do with her being a woman or women writers' predilection towards any specific subject or style, you silly fuck. It was about her specifically. So unless you are objecting to the general fact that people have different feelings about writers, I'm not sure if I understand your red-hot buttpain.

>>5209207
Trigger warning please

>>5209219
I'm talking about most of the female writers mentioned in this thread. None of them could have done works like Balzac's La Comédie Humaine which cover numerous fields like sociology, philosophy, psychology etc.

>>5209233
>None of them could have done works like Balzac's La Comédie Humaine which cover numerous fields like sociology, philosophy, psychology etc.

What... Why not? Do you actually believe women have not written about these things?

The best female authors still rank below the best male authors. It's a simple fact that a woman's thoughts have no value to a man.

>>5209195
kek

>>5209244
*should have said rank below the worst male authors.

>>5209191
Never heard of her.

>>5209217
I don't go around condemning male writers. This >>5209219

>>5209244
I agree, good sir!

>>5209127

He was joking.

If you don't think that Louise Erdrich is the best female write you must be smoking rocks, god damn

>>5209241
Give me some examples.
As I told you, I'm just talking about the writers mentioned in this thread.

>>5209266
how about... all the writers in the OP?

>>5209270
None of them wrote something as dense and complete as La Comédie Humaine or even Belami. If History remembered male writers, it's because they are usually more talented. Don't give me your "oppression" bullshit, aristocrats had a free access to education, whether they were men or women. Moreover, women had more time to write than men.

>>5209244
>dat primary homosexuality

>>5209289
>None of them wrote something as dense and complete as La Comédie Humaine or even Belami.
Completely subjective (and I'll add, uneducated) opinion.

>If History remembered male writers, it's because they are usually more talented.

But history also remembers female writers, so what is your point?

>Don't give me your "oppression" bullshit, aristocrats had a free access to education, whether they were men or women. Moreover, women had more time to write than men.

What has this got to do with anything?

Christ you're stupid.

Jesus, this thread is bad.

For South American female writers,
Silvina Ocampo
and Clarice Lispector
are great, and certainly deserve a place on the list.

Marianne Moore
Gertrude Stein

>>5209233
>A woman will never write like my Balzac, A woman will never write about sociology, philosophy, psychology, at the same, in just the same way my Balzac did.

We have ourselves a fanboy in here.
>>5209266
>Give me some examples
No two writers are the same, numbnuts. Just go away already.

>inb4 it's for kids so it can't be good

>>5209306
>TheComédie humaineconsists of 91 finished works (stories, novels or analytical essays)
It's dense and complete. Subjectivity has nothing to do with that. I don't see how this makes my opinion uneducated.
I won't answer the rest of your post. It's nothing more than feigned ignorance and strawman arguments.

>>5209370
>one man wrote a load of books
>this discredits any woman's work over his or mans!

stop throwing incorrectly used buzzwords at me

how can a work be 'complete'?

John Stuart Mill ;^)

>>5209244
You're right. The best female writers can't even achieve a score higher than 75 writing points when competing with a below-average Upper League male writer.

>>5209338
>No two writers are the same, numbnuts. Just go away already

No shit.
Can't you just give me some names of writers able to cover these subjects like a male would? Why are so vile and frustrated?

>>5209394
We already provided you with a list in the OP, dude.
If you don't think they can cover 'subjects' (?) like a male can, you clearly haven't read them.

>>5209394
The thread is full of them, dear.
But you don't like them. Fine. Walk away.

>>5209377
I'm just telling you that none of the writers mentioned in this thread can produce something like Balzac, Tolstoy or Zola. Why are you purposefully modifying my argument?

Dear Harry,

You're a peach.

- J.

>>5209406
How am I modifying your argument?

You provided me with an opinion that Balzac (now Tolstoy and Zola) can write better than any woman. An opinion. You do not represent anyone but yourself. You aren't convincing anyone but yourself.

Patricia Highsmith! Sappho!

>>5209397
>>5209404
None of them have written something as important as Dosto', Tolstoy, Joyce, Pound, Shakespeare, Racine, Corneille etc. They aren't relevant. We rarely talk about them. Nobody gives a shit.
>inb4 muh subjectivity
Says the frustrated females who try to defend writers who produced nothing more than shits about 'muh feelings'

>>5209411
Yet my opinion seems more accurate since History remembered these guys. Face it, women aren't as creative as men.

>>5209431
>None of them have written something as important as
Again, YOUR opinion.
This just isn't your thread

>>5209431
>Pound
Err, he's a little out of place there, don't you think?

What do you mean we rarely talk about them? Certainly Austen, the Brontë sisters, Woolf, Dickinson, O'Connor and their masterpieces are discussed at great length. Maybe not as much as Shakespeare or Tolstoy or Joyce, etc. but that's beside the point when at the end of the day, it's a matter of opinion.
Protip: 'inb4ing' something is an indication you yourself know your argument is flawed.

>Says the frustrated females who try to defend writers who produced nothing more than shits about 'muh feelings'
But plenty of highly respected male authors talk about 'muh feelings'? And if you think that's all women talk about, again, you are showing your lack of knowledge.

>>5209431
Tolstoy sucks.

>>5209406

but what about J.K. Rowling kek

>>5209449
And history remembers female writers, too.

>>5209460
Who's regarded as more important by critics, academics and writers? The writers I mentioned or the ones mentioned by OP?

>>5209470

your mom sucks.

>>5209489
No she fucks. How do you think I got here?

>>5209480
Well I'd say it would come down to the personal opinion of the writer firstly.
Critics, again personally.
Academics? Well, it would depend on the context of what they are researching, wouldn't it?

>>5209089

>ruled by logic, reason

why are you outing yourself as a fedoratheist who doesn't understand art?

>take literature at uni because I'm a failure
>sitting in lecture theater on my own because I have no friends
>80% of lit students are female
>a girl behind me starts talking to another girl sat beside her
>"I bet almost all of the guys on this course are gay"

Why has this attitude developed when over 90% of celebrated authors are male?

>>5209431
>>5209431
What a ridiculous comment.

>"Muh feelings"
Really? We are discussing literature here.

>>5209431

>muh feels

what the fuck are the authors you listed then?

>>5209480

Harold Bloom lists Woolf, Austen, Dickenson and Eliot among the 26 most important authors in the western canon. I doesn't matter if they're less respected by whatever margin, they're still respected

>>5209517
Why did you have to say fedora? What do you think you'll achieve? You're no better than him you fucking idiot.

>>5209528
Because the high school lit reading list has been thoroughly feminized, is my guess.

The overwhelming impression of those who aren't that well read is that literature is all Jane Austen and Kate Chopin. They don't even know how manly literature really is

>>5209468
>Austen, the Brontë sisters, Woolf, Dickinson, O'Connor
They are not relevant anymore. They don't tell us anything new about society then. Male writers did it before them. These writers are interesting in a way because they tell us about social relationships but their range is still limited.

Ezra Pound is a favourite of mine. What he says about usury is still relevant today. I guess he's ignored by academics because of his antisemitism.

>But plenty of highly respected male authors talk about 'muh feelings'?
Yeah. But they're not focused on that. It's usually only one of the numerous aspects of their works. Women are much more limited.

>>5209539
Not OP, but Harold Bloom also lists >>5209408 as perhaps the most important writer in history.

>>5209547
hows virginity treating you?

>>5209547
>They don't tell us anything new about society then.

You think it's the purpose of fiction to enlighten us what a certain time period was like?

>>5209539
>Harold Bloom lists Woolf, Austen, Dickenson and Eliot among the 26 most important authors in the western canon. I doesn't matter if they're less respected by whatever margin, they're still respected
do you have a link of that?

>>5209089

>>5209562
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Western-Canon-Books-School/dp/1573225142

>>5209547
ten-four!

>>5209562
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Western_Canon:_The_Books_and_School_of_the_Ages

>le spoonfeeding retards face

>>5209528
The same reason you see droves of threads on the male dominated website 4chan talking about the STEM master race. There is a prevailing cultural belief that learning about science is for men and learning about art is for women. Thanks sexism!

>>5209499
The more you know about a subject, the more accurate are your opinions. A correlation in their opinions reveals something.

>>5209156
>give us a list of male authors who "wrote for" women
Thomas Hardy, etc... The list is fucking enormous. Just read a book, you moron.

>>5209555
Why are you so empty? Do you think you are contributing anything?

>>5209540

because it's the exact vocabulary used by those types. how autistic does one have to be to bring up "logic and reason" when discussing literature?

>>5209561
Actually, yes.
If it doesn't tell us anything, it's useless. Even aesthetics tell us something.

>>5209547
>Woolf
>Dickinson
>not relevant anymore
8/10 made me rage. You're still wrong, though. Woolf's accomplishments on interpersonal relationships, mashing of stream of consciousness with dialogue and general steely outlook on modern life has not been matched by any writer to this day, male or female.

I'm less familiar with Dickenson but her meditations on death and melancholy are something that has had a lasting impact on literature.

Either way, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and are hyping up >muh gender superiority because you don't have anything in your personal life to be proud of except apparently your gender.

>>5209547

HAHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHA THIS IS A REAL LIFE NECKBEARD

EVERYBODY LOOK AT HIM! LOOK AT HIM AND LAUGH!!

AHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHA

NICE ARGUMENTS, DICKHEAD

YOU COULDN'T BE MORE STUPID IF YOU TRIED

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

>>5209584
lol virgin

>These butthurt femanons and white knights
>Using the fedora meme when I'm not even an agnostic or an atheist.
Jesus, /lit/...

>>5209597
>My arguments are so retarded and uninformed people are making fun of me
>Dang those 4chan meemees!

>>5209555
>>5209563
>>5209573
>>5209591
>>5209592
The day the neckbeard got #BTFO

good shit, /lit/

>>5209597

you really don't understand what you're arguing about. I think women are inferior to men but i'm not going to deny that the writers in OP are extremely talented. stop thinking in black and white

>>5209591
Heh, I actually admire women. I just think we're different in every ways.
I won't respond to the rest of your post. It's clearly biased by your admiration for Woolfe.

>>5209584
What exactly are you contributing?

>>5209612
says the ballsack lover

>>5209612
Woolf you fucking moron.

And it's "biased" because she's a great author, and it's not just me who thinks that, but rather all of academia for the last half century. I think you won't answer because you can't. Because you haven't actually read enough of her works to intelligently talk on her, but that apparently doesn't stop you from shittalking her works on the interet

>>5209602
>These samefags who won't even respond to me with a clear argumentation.
>'hey dude it's just your opinion. Let me tell you how MY opinion is more accute. My opinion my, me, me, I, I

We're on /lit/. Not /pol/

>>5208941
Margaret Atwood.

>>5209620
>You misspelled her name, you moron, I hate you
Muh feels
>My opinion is biased because she's great
HAHAHA OH WOW

>>5208941
Sappho
Penelope Fitzgerald

>>5209621
autism

>>5209112
I'm sure that most writers have some similarly dissuading quotes. Just because you don't like that one doesn't mean she can't be a great writer.

>>5209631
>Femanons going batshit insane over me, insulting me with le fedora meme XD
>I'm the autist
I'm not even trying to troll

>>5209127
Evelyn Waugh is a male writer with a feminine name. They were making a joke (albeit not a very funny one).

>>5209627
Now this is shitposting

Well congrats on tanking a decent thread. I would suggest you actually read some good female writers, though. Any study in 20th century lit is incomplete without Woolf and Atwood. Also, then you might be able to talk about these authors on 4chins without making a fool of yourself :^)

>>5209643
autism

>>5209604
You have no attachment to anything do you? Violence sustains your shallow thoughts and peace of mind. Nothing else.

>>5209646
>Assuming I didn't read them because my opinion is different.
>:^)

>>5209645
i nominate "albeit" as the most annoying word in english, followed closely by "whilst"

>>5209658
You refused to engage me on the merits of Woolf. It's a pretty safe assumption. Unless you would like to discuss them at this time? I just re-read Mrs. Dalloway, but would also love to chat about The Waves or to the Lighthouse.

>>5209479
Statistically to a lesser degree, I believe. I can't prove it, but something like that could be provable

>>5209671
Joyce or even Faulkner made a better use of stream of consciousness. The rest is nothing more than your opinion. See what I mean? :)

>just opinions!
>posts an opinon

>>5209699
ha. B+ for effort in faking it. Anyways I'm off for the day. Thanks for reminding me that the Anons talking shit about female authors haven't actually read any of them.

How do these threads always devolve into questions about a woman's ability to produce good literature? Obviously there is something ideological underlying this constant derailment, related to frustration toward "SJW"s and their generally atrocious takeover of all online literary discourse...but how have you let yourself end up on the opposite extreme? Have you never been around intelligent women? Greentext and say "no." Okay, but perhaps your experience isn't representative of the world? Don't let your ideology turn you into a blind idiot.

>>5209717
The fact that we don't agree doesn't mean that I'm a troll

>>5209659
Albeit expresses something that (in my opinion) "though" doesn't. Whilst is alright when used in the proper context, but it tends to just communicate pretension and a lack of education (like "good sir"). Personally, I'd nominate "utilise" when used as a synonym for "use".

>>5209718
But it helps me deal with my consuming sexual frustration and crippling self-esteem issues.

>Be me
>On Facebook (because I'm lonely)
>"50 Coolest Writers of All Time"
>What a stupid fucking title.
>Small summary of each author and why they're cool
>Really only people from the past century and a half
>Check comments
>"There's only 9 women and 41 men!"
>No one brings up the time frame of the list, one guy brings up the nationality of the authors.
>Woman says there have been as many great authors as men.
>mfw
>"Women still have to use pseudonyms in writing because they're not respected. Like J.K. Rowling"
>Guy puts a challenge out, name all the best female authors you can
>Even with doubles, no one reaches 50.

>>5209643
>I'm not even trying to troll
So a sincere idiot.

>>5209745
Your point?

>>5209718
It has nothing to do with ideology. This thread is clearly trying to divide writers into two categories and oppose them. Male writers tend to be more creative and efficient

>>5209750
>An attention whore who can't respond with proper arguments calls me a 'sincere idiot'.
I guess you're an ironic retard?

>>5209745
>expecting anyone on one of those clickbait hellholes to know anything about anything
God damn do I hate all those social justice/progress sites. They destroy souls.

>>5209127
you are so dense

>>5209764
They really do feed off of some of the worst modern tendencies in people. Especially tendencies to feel "informed" and "cultured."

"Literature is your new fetish of choice? Here is a list that feeds off of that fetish while also helping you avoid any work related to actually reading literature!"

Mary Shelley and Agatha Christie...

How could you forget Frankenstein and the best selling author behind Shakespeare?

>>5209752
>efficient
How is this a good thing in literature? If you wanted to be efficient you'd use bullet points and logical syllogism to make your point.

>>5209731
there is an american word, maybe it is in England or elsewhere, "although" which means exactly what albeit means but sounds about 1/3 as bad

i agree on utilise

>>5209779
>feeds off of that fetish while also helping you avoid any work related to actually reading literature

That reminds me of another place on the web...

>>5209752
>It has nothing to do with ideology.

Of course it does. One of the first replies is an accusation that some women writers are over-represented for the appearance of equality. However, many (though not all) of the writers on the list in the OP were celebrated and ranked along with male writers while they were still alive. Among the "best of male writers"? No. But it's utter stupidity to deny that women can write well.

And it's ego-sustaining ignorance to pretend there aren't biases at work which compel you to "divide writers into two categories and oppose them" like a fucking tabloid magazine.

>>5209790
h-hey come on now

>>5209790
True enough, in a sense. But at least 4chan is intended as a forum of open dialogue. It doesn't just present a plate full of objects (in the form of lists, images, and screencaps), knowing that you're looking specifically for them to feel "informed", and then call it a day.

>Sylvia Plath
Why do people rate depressed whining about everything as worthy of note?

>>5209834
>I have never read Sylvia Plath but I hate her anyway

>>5209834
>Why do people rate depressed whining about everything as worthy of note?
Schopenhauer?
Hamsun?
Depression is well worn theme in many writers. How transparent can you get? So you don't like Plath, so what?

No mention of Mansfield? Seriously?

>>5209580
>The more you know about a subject, the more accurate are your opinions.

Top. Fucking. Kek.

I would wager that Roger Ebert knows quite a bit more about cinema than I do, and yet:

>Blue Velvet - 1 star
>Scrooged - 1 star
>The Usual Suspects - 1 1/2 stars
>Raising Arizona - 1 1/2 stars
>A Clockwork Orange - 2 stars
>Brazil - 2 stars
>Unforgiven - 2 1/2 stars
>She Hate Me - 3 stars
>You Don't Mess with the Zohan - 3 stars
>Junior - 3 1/2 stars

Fuck off with your appeal to authority. It doesn't matter how much you know about a topic, you can still be completely off the pulse of common opinion.

Marie de France

>>5210528
>rejects appeal to authority
>appeals to the crowd

infinite pleb

I fucking love Virginia Woolf. Definitely my favorite and waifu. Who's with me?

>>5210861
>the point
>your head

>>5208941

The empty eyes of the woman in the picture!!

>>5209249
Didn't she say white people are a cancer who should be rid from the earth?

Why would you respect her?

>>5210528
I'm talking about critics as a whole. Also, Blue Velvet is shit.

>>5211190
Blue Velvet is a bit bloated, but has some amazing scenes. It's certainly worth more to its genre and medium than fucking Zohan. The point is, it doesn't matter how much you know about a topic, one man's opinion is one man's opinion. People try to drag objectivity into criticism and they're fucking retarded for it.

>>5209625

was just going to comment this

>>5208941
Sylvia Plath was just menstruating....

>>5211094
That's Woolf you stupid fuck

>>5211190
I think you mean Blue Velvet is THE shit. Everything from the moment Dennis Hopper catches that kid from Twin Peaks in the hall until the moment he leaves him bleeding on the ground outside of town is awesome.

>What kid of beer do you like?
>Heineken.
>Heineken!? Fuck that shit! Pabst Blue Ribbon!

>>5210528
Let's add JK Rowling to the list, since everything is oh so subjective. Why not rank Seuss with Shakespeare as well?

>>5212816
do NOT do this OP

>>5210528
A Clockword Orange is a fucking atrocious film

>>5212921
Fuck your shit.

>>5210528

damn Ebert has terrible taste

>>5210861
>reject appeal to the crowd
>lives in a democracy

>>5212921
How retarded are you

>>5212921
you lookin' to get tolchocked in the gulliver m8?

>>5208941
Dina Rubina