/lit/ - Literature

>woman
Stopped reading here.

you sound cool fun and smart

>>6057570

Thanks.

>>6057563
depends, if the recomendation suits my taste or not.

>>6057577

You see it doesn't even matter, it could be totally in line with my taste, it's just that I see women as decorative any opinion they have goes in one ear and out the other.

>being this much of a misogynist
fuck off virgins

>>6057599

It's not misogynist.

>>6057563
I don't take recs from anyone. Literature is pretty much my only interest and I have huge backlogs of things to read. I don't have time to read something someone else recommends. Chances are I've already heard of it and decided anyway.

>>6057809

Yeah, true for me also. It's not just books it's everything, I hate recommendations.

>>6057563
depends on the woman and the book

librarians and professors can have great tastes in books and are often women

The fact that /lit/ still considers female writers inherently inferior to male writers is symbolic of how far we are away from having respectable and knowledgeable opinions and discourses.

>>6057860
That was my first thought too. I've never been to a library that did not have a ton of women on staff.

Man, I can't tell if /lit/ is a bunch of trolls trolling each other or a bunch of people being legitimate faggots.

>>6057869
QUICK: name fifteen female writers of greater literary value than the fifteen greatest male authors!

If you can't, you know the way to reddit.

>>6057880
I can't name fifteen -g-r-e-a-t--w-r-i-t-e-r-s--w-r-i-t-e-r-s--women

>>6057880
I suggest you go and read A Room of One's Own.

The fact you use that as a argument is hilariously misled.

>>6057563
My friend recommended Demian to me the other day. Should I disregard her opinion?

>>6057892
Quick! Time is running out and you have done nothing but offering me to read a book and writing a sentence that barely attempted at any form of signification!

>>6057899
Stop shitposting you fucking swine.

I do not need to do more than recommend you a book because it can explain your uninformed opinions better than I can summarise. It's a rather short book, so you should be able to finish it rather quickly, as you seem to think time is running out.

>>6057899
Maybe there are fewer great woman writers because there are fewer woman writers. Maybe there are fewer woman writers because of misogynist attitudes about the skill of women as writers and what career paths they should be choosing. Maybe there haven't been a lot of woman writers because they've historically been denied education. Etc etc, never have kids.

>>6057906
A short book you seem unable to explain to me, and no great woman writer you seem able to mention! What's happening, pal? --- did ideology fail to meet the expectations of reality???6?

>>6057563
I didn't take 50 shades of gray seriously the last time it was suggested to me by a woman.

Mainly because she was vanilla and just curious, while my female friends who are into bdsm regularly thinks it's reddit.

>>6057880
>using this retarded argument
Do you even The Second Sex?

>>6057914
Maybe there are fewer female writers because they aren't as good.

>>6057921
Your attempt to undermine me by having the last reply won't work.

Your shitposts are void of substance or personality.

>>6057880
>name fifteen female writers of greater literary value than the fifteen greatest male authors!

Well, I can't. The greatest 15 male writers are all greater than the best female writers I can think of. But this doesn't mean women can't be great writers, it just means that the greatest writers happen to be men. Eliot and Woolf are infinitely greater than many of the great male writers and are rightfully recognized as such.

>>6057936
Maybe you should consider the place of women in a society both presently and historically.

>>6057914
Maybes, maybes, maybes, --- conjectures and no proof! --- was anyone actually /there/?

>>6057935
No I don't! smh doe I don't read pedophiles who enjoy raping teenagers with their death camp supporting husband

>>6057914
I know you're being ironic, but I know that somewhere out there, somebody actually thinks like this. It is a sad world we live in.

>>6057951
>no proof

lmao are you retarded?

i have lost all respect for you now

i used to think however rude you were at least you had valid opinions

now you have ceased to be of any importance

>>6057563
Yes, because women only read children's books.

>>6057951
>>6057953
>>6057936
OK it's official, /lit/ is king troll.

Praise be to your name, O Faggot my Faggot.

>>6057953
kill yourself

>>6057956
>women were shitty writers due to sociological reasons
>ask for the sociological reasons, as I have no stance on the subject
>pure ideologists go batshit

Yes, this is indeed, the /lit/ we browse nowadays.

>>6057966
Keep spewing memes you fucking sped.
Just remember you are an uneducated charlatan with an ugly mind.

>>6057978
>being a bitch ass niqqa

>>6057965
But why?, female writers are not as good as male writers, no need to get upset about the truth.

>>6057996
The only thing I'm upset about is your shitposting.

>>6057978
>with an ugly mind.
Is this trolling on /lit/?

Trying to lurk, but I'm not sure I understand.

>>6057999
Alright. Whatever reasons you might give to it, male writers are superior to female writers, when the whole course of history is considered, and even if solely the present is considered.

There might be an explanation to it, there might be reasons; perhaps oppression and all that jazz, but the fact is there, before your eyes, and you cannot run from reality.

>>6058014
Male writers are only superior to female writers in terms of quantity.

>>6058018
You are right. Pride and Prejudice is as good as The Brothers Karamazov, mea culpa!.

>>6058018
Where's your female Shakespeare, your female Milton, your female Racine, Villon, Homer, Ovid, Hugo, Joyce, Kafka, etc. in terms of quality?

Open your eyes; reality's outside waiting for you.

>>6058018
>Male writers are only superior to female writers in terms of quantity.
Source?

>>6058023
That is a matter of personal taste.
>>6058025
A Room of One's Own actually delves into Shakespeare's sister.
I am not going to list any writers because no matter who I say I will be met with attacks.

>>6058031
What do you mean source?

>>6058001
/lit/ has no genuine content, it's literally just trolling everywhere, and then the people who don't understand that.

>>6058025
jane austen is the best english novelist. she's pretty close to as good as kafka

>>6058023
it's probably better tbh

>>6058032
>That is a matter of personal taste.
For fucks sake. Quality is a matter of personal taste?.

>>6058040
>jane austen is the best english novelist. she's pretty close to as good as kafka

oh am i laffin.

>>6058042
No, an opinion of whether you prefer Pride and Prejudice or The Brothers Karamazov is a matter of personal taste.
Both are revered for being works of outstanding quality, the magnum opuses of both writers.

>>6058036
Since you are saying that male writers are only superior to female writers in terms of quantity, I'm assuming you have something to back this up.

>>6058040
>>6058044

Fuck off you samefagging shit.
Your attempt to derail what I am arguing is pathetic.

>>6058014
you haven't even made a full argument lol. you are supposed to be arguing that female writers are inherently worse but you've just offered this awkward sentence:

>There might be an explanation to it, there might be reasons; perhaps oppression and all that jazz, but the fact is there, before your eyes, and you cannot run from reality.

which doesn't even matter to the argument. even admitting that there is no female author as good as shakespeare doesn't mean women are inherently worse writers. just like the fact that there is no french author as good as shakespeare doesn't mean the french are worse than the english

>>6058042
>Quality is a matter of personal taste?.

Uh, yes. Are you not aware of the philosophy and science of the past 3 centuries?

>>6058025
That's because women couldn't read or write when a lot of them were around, and also nobody would care about anything they wrote.

This is reality, yo

>>6058044
"There have been several revolutions of taste during the last century and a quarter of English literature, and through them all perhaps only two reputations have never been affected by the shifts of fashion: Shakespeare's and Jane Austen's... She has compelled the amazed admiration of writers of the most diverse kinds."

i know that plebs don't like austen because they need to be able to relate to the main characters and they can't stand reading about anything that isn't shouted in a shrill voice but jane austen's achievements are pretty undeniable. joint invention of free indirect speech alone makes her ridiculous important, mastery of fis makes her godlike

btw middlemarch is also probably the greatest english novel, though that's tougher to determine

>>6058025
can't you pick better names

i mean c'mon kafka before dante u srs brah?

>>6058084

Wait, there are people who really think christian fanfiction is better than the most sublime representation of the perpetual angst of human life within constructs and spooks?

>>6058103
yes, they are people who aren't obsessively worried over "angst" that they can relate to and instead are actually looking for things that are well written. these people actually read for aesthetics and not to glean from a text a philosophy about their meaningless lives to tell their friends about.

>>6057599
>Being this much of a twink

>>6057935
>hasn't learned to meme arrow
Gtfo

is tallis a manlet?

>>6058040
My fucking sides. Joyce, Melville, and James are all better.

Hell, she's not even the best female writer, as Eliot beats her out.

>>6057563
>if a woman recommends a book

i automatically disregard it

>>6058152
so when did joyce or melville or james become english novelists

i love eliot too but would still pick austen

>>6057609

>>6057860

yeah right, especially on the professor tip.

>>6057937
you are no better than he is

>>6057869

Facts are facts, it's not just female writer's, most male writer's are inferior to the greats as well.

>>6058158
He obviously thought you meant English language.

>>6058146
he looks p manlet ish here im going to say yes judging by this and his internet persona

>>6058166
yes and he was wrong and should have also known from context

>>6057563
No, are you retarded?

http://www.oprah.com/oprahsbookclub/Your-Guide-to-Understanding-Tolstoys-Anna-Karenina

>>6057914
>Maybe there are fewer woman writers because of misogynist attitudes about the skill of women as writers and what career paths they should be choosing.

Male writer's faced the same shit. Their dad's hated them for disgracing the family for choosing writing etc. It's not like becoming a writer is easy, maybe that's why there aren't a lot of women writers of note, because it's not easy.

>>6058172
>anna karenina
>sexy
uh idk

>>6057935

>implying that anyone but liberal dyke professor's think that is a good book.

>woman
>book
Cosmopolitan's no book.

>>6057944

Flannery O'Connor is better than those two. Those two are pretty shit to be honest.

>>6058177
http://www.cosmopolitan.com/entertainment/books/a4960/twentysomething-women-books/

>>6057978

Mate you are getting truly rekt, no need to resort to name calling, what are you a woman?

>>6058177
if you're going to be a le trole put some effort in

>>6058025

How about the woman who wrote the best selling book of all time- a lite Harry Potter, you might know it?

I think that means women are the best at writing. I don't see Joyce selling millions.

>>6058152
>James
kek mate, just stop.

>>6058189
>Cosmopolitan published a list of books therefore Cosmopolitan is a book
tits or gtfo

i'm actually likely to put it on my to-read list, considering contemporary women are waaay more well-read than men.

>>6058196
Game of thrones since pop culture trash is your last leg

>>6058196
How about the man who wrote the best selling book of all time - The Bible, you might know it?

I think that means men are the best at writing. I don't see Rowling selling billions.

>>6058223
>well-read
>my to-read list
>can't even spell "I" correctly
Whatever you say, honey.

look im just gonna say it

women aren't as smart as men and lack the ability to think logically.

>>6058233
virgin

>>6058240

lol, that's all you have to say

proving you can't think logically

>>6058233
Be careful, you might trigger somebody.

>>6058226

bible is free

It's like, why are you even talking to me like you're an equal?

lol know you are place.

>>6058230
i'm a guy, and you're mad that you're falling behind most women readers. sorry, bud.

>>6058250
seems more logical that you're a virgin, tbh.

>>6058203
>disliking Henry James
Why can't I hold all this pleb?

>>6058261

keep spouting

>>6058261
>recognition of female intellectual inferiority implies virginity
Iron-clad woman logic right there.

Best retard fight in a while. Rage on my little spergers of all orientations. Keep up that nonstandard orthography. Fight that good fight. +1

>>6058226
but harold bloom said the yahwist was female tallis

>>6058272
tell me about your first sexual experience using your real name with inclusion of sensory details, setting, etc., then i'll believe you.

until then, you are an ugly, stupid virgin.

>>6058274
I am just making inflammatory comments and watching the fireworks while having a good laff, m8.

>>6058233
you don't need to think logically to write literature tho

>>6058281
until then, you are an ugly, stupid virgin
Whatever you say, hun.

>until then, you are an ugly, stupid virgin
Whatever you say, hun.

>>6057563

>exgf started reading hunger games
>alright thats cool and all, at least you're reading gfy
>tells me that i should read it and that i'd like it

except i miss her because she had humongous boobs

>>6058285
No need to explain how your intentionality keeps you different, anonymous user #57, you are doing your God's work, no doubt.

>>6058281
back to the kitchen you go

>>6058261
>self loathing males
>opinions worth listening to

keks 4 days

>>6058307
>females
>worth listening to
top lel

>almost all of the recommendations given on /lit/'s recommendations wiki were made by a few women
>/lit/ is taking recs unawares from women even if they hate women

ITT

immaturity

>>6058275
Yeah but he shaky

>>6058335
Make yourself useful, woman, and fix me a sandwich.

>>6058343
im not sure he believes it either he just likes to have fun that rascal

>>6058350
how would he even prove that kind of shit

>>6058323
Yes, listing the classics of literature is so fucking controversial, I'm sure this indirect representation of the wills of male academics is a victory for le wymynz.

>>6058296
I have no God, mister.

>>6058351
well i mean you couldn't prove it and i dont even remember why he thinks that

>>6058356
>I have never looked at the wiki

>>6058360
I am sorry someone stole from your care package, anon57; I hope they replaced it with something sweet and caffeinated so you are not at a complete loss.

>>6057563
A woman recommended me Kundera, another Thomas Mann, so, uh, no. Fuck no.
>>6058223
This is also my experience. Men tend to make more of a fuzz about the books they read, though, and how it makes them something better. I know this because I myself am unable to completely stop doing that.

>>6058362
old fuck needs to troll some fags here and there

this whole woman bible shit is like literally in contradiction with his thoughts about ideology in literary analysis

and he did it

the absolute madman!...

>>6058371
What do you mean by "care package", Anon?. I didn't quite understand what you were trying to say.

>>6058375
don't lie and say you wouldn't shitpost like that too if you were a famous jewish academic who learned english by reading blake out loud to himself in an all yiddish household

>>6058382
>harold bloom is an irl funposter
>with an irl trip
>and is jewish

>>6058380
>Anon
HOW DO YOU KNOW MY NAME?!?

>>6058389
this is why the jews are the real master race

>>6057925
>female friends who are into bdsm

Wheer do you get those?

>>6058391
It was a wild guess. Good night, Anon.

>i'm a guy

Afraid of being seen as a girl? Sounds like you agree.

>>6058411

>where do you get those?

you have to not be a desperate virgin who doesn't know how to keep friends

>>6058380
this that modern warfare 2 memeposting

>>6058421
I better not look into it too much.

>>6058434
No, it is nighttime and it best if you camp out in thread now or else you will be eaten by a grue or some such god fearing beast you are unequipped to handle with no god in your care package.

>>6058444
Okay, Anon.

>>6058457
That was clearly trips not anon, can't you numbers?

>>6058172
lmao

>>6057570
(i meant the opposite of this)

>>6058550
Don't be mean; you deserve a full uppercase capital I, just like everyone else, even when you're in parentheses.

I recommend this trash board stuff all the time and you love it.

>>6058183
they have different styles and work in different forms entirely, is this a joke post, like

George Saunders is better than [Charles Dickens and Proust]. Those two are pretty shit to be honest.

>>6058591
Nobody likes 50 Shades, but you're right about it being trash board stuff. Please stop recommending it.

>>6058602

Proust is pretty shit tho

>>6057563
>woman
>book
Women can't read.

>Tfw both men and women keep recommending me The Hunger Games at work while I'm reading in the break room.
I'm just trying to enjoy Dune over here. I don't need to hear about how Cat-Ness is the most badass protagonist ever put to paper for the third time today.

>>6058708
lol
they'll take you a day to read if you aren't a dumbo (I mean, you're bragging about reading Dune...(if this is a real post)), get over yourself

>>6058719
I'm not "bragging" about reading Dune. That's just the book I'm currently reading. Also, why would I spend a day reading a book I don't want to read? Why would I waste my time? Why am I wasting my time now with you?

>>6057609
It is textbook misogyny.

>>6057599
This is such an ineffectual insult, argument. You can't actually be this retarded but I see it here regularly. Please be the same no life troll. Please.

>mfw this comment spurns more of this regularly from some fat MRA samefag

Imagine a life where you have never been great at anything, never felt the urge to be great at anything, never felt that magnetic admiration to someone who was great at something, wanted to imitate and ultimately defeat him. Just nothing. Literally all you do in life is exist. Occupy space. pass the time. You're a chick.

You're bored,tweeting about your fucking hair and not even feeling any kind of happiness from it, just soothing your constant need to be bitter and cunty and petty toward other women. Every single thing you've done in the past year was mundane, shallow, and boring. You spent the last six hours reading kinda-interesting Reddit stories about people who made interesting Halloween hats for their kids or some stupid bullshit that you think is interesting and you may say is interesting but you're not really sure if it's really interesting. You're just fucking sitting there, gestating, fermenting, with a moist hole between your legs that guarantees you'll at least never have to get up and move around and work to support yourself.

And then you see men, over in some corner, having fun. You've never seen this before. What are they even doing? Instead of their consciousnesses merely sitting in their thick skull and revolving around itself, they are imbuing their conscious energy and intentionality into external objects, crafts, goals, projects. All the bitterness and cuntiness you feel nonstop seems to be absent, as they congratulate each other for being victorious, and happily learn from someone who defeated them. These creatures are truly content to be alive. They have found purpose in a purposeless universe.

And your gaze turns back on itself, on your self, and you realise you've never had that. You can never have it. You're just a stupid cunt.

So you get up, you walk over there, and you fucking ruin everything. Just ruin the whole fucking thing. The five seconds of attention you get will be worth destroying it. Because you're a woman.

>this thread still exists

I don't understand why it's offensive and terrible to say that women are bad at something but everyone is happy with saying that men are bad at something
Fuck off with this preferential treatment, if you want egalitarianism then you better take some fucking criticism. Women are better at a number of careers and skillsets but writing is not one of them. Men are superior writers by a huge majority. Is that sexist now?

>>6058794
>i'm so bitter: the post

>>6058836
> everyone is happy with saying that men are bad at something
who exactly is happy with this

>have you read ______
>yeah!
>rush to store and buy ______
>get home
>read it all night
>look up articles and opinions
>wait for her to bring it up
>she never does

>>6058851
Then bring it up, yourself, you socially deficient.
>Hey! I've read the book you recommended.

>>6058836
This is a thread about good readers, not good writers.

Women are better readers.

>>6058866
No they're not, idiot.

>>6058861
no you see, I lie and say I've read it when I haven't, and to bring it up later after shutting it down so quickly previously is suspicious

>>6058845
Have you never heard a woman say how men are this and that and every man in the room agree with her? Hell just the other day a friend was saying hoe we are all ugly and terrible and why would women even bother with us. Men are so far up feminist ass it's astounding. And of course everyone who stands up to it is a bitter virgin and similar memes.

>>6058869
Almost all scholars, translators and secondary writers on literature are women, and women read more than men by a significant margin.

What do you think makes a better reader, then?

>>6058883
Not a woman, fag.

>>6058883
ability to shitpost on an anime website's literature sub-board

>>6058883
Look at all those fields being ruined by women. Truly terrifying.

Imagine being one of the two or three men left in one of them, actually trying to produce scholarship and write a magnum opus, and you're surrounded by queefing tacos.

>>6058883
Wow, physics graduation by women is incredibly low. Clearly universities need to start reserving half the entry positions for women (perhaps even lower the entry requirements for women to encourage them to enter these fields?) in order to repair the gender disparity!

>>6058883
70% in Psychology?
Shit, we are going to have male re-education camps within 20 years.

>>6058883
Guess what women read.
In fact, why don't you try and look up some booktube channels?
They practically all read the lowest of literature.

ITT: male tears

>>6058919
It is only because physicists are misogynists! They wear shirts that discourage women from trying to discover the laws of nature.

Those neckbeards need to have their privilege checked.

>>6058883
>better male authors
>itz le epic patriarchy hurr it's a conspiracy

>better female readers
>

>>6058883
Literature now consists of imagining what a gender queer landwhale paraplegic wetback is feeling as nothing happens. Great job superior women readers.

>>6057957
pls don't insult children's books.

>>6058018
and quantity

>>6058056
>just like the fact that there is no french author as good as shakespeare doesn't mean the french are worse than the english

Shaky's comedies are inferior to Molierè's though.
Molierè>Shakespeare

Trolls trolling trolls, ebin memes and casual shitposting

>/lit/ is now /v/

>>6057563
No. Because there are lots of women who don't read shitty books, or the last best seller that everyone gets and never reads again.

>>6057563
Yes, exept one particular woman does this as she has some fucking taste

>>6058196
THE DECISION to give the National Book Foundation's annual award for "distinguished contribution" to Stephen King is extraordinary, another low in the shocking process of dumbing down our cultural life. I've described King in the past as a writer of penny dreadfuls, but perhaps even that is too kind. He shares nothing with Edgar Allan Poe. What he is is an immensely inadequate writer on a sentence-by-sentence, paragraph-by-paragraph, book-by-book basis. The publishing industry has stooped terribly low to bestow on King a lifetime award that has previously gone to the novelists Saul Bellow and Philip Roth and to playwright Arthur Miller. By awarding it to King they recognize nothing but the commercial value of his books, which sell in the millions but do little more for humanity than keep the publishing world afloat. If this is going to be the criterion in the future, then perhaps next year the committee should give its award for distinguished contribution to Danielle Steel, and surely the Nobel Prize for literature should go to J.K. Rowling.


What's happening is part of a phenomenon I wrote about a couple of years ago when I was asked to comment on Rowling. I went to the Yale University bookstore and bought and read a copy of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone." I suffered a great deal in the process. The writing was dreadful; the book was terrible. As I read, I noticed that every time a character went for a walk, the author wrote instead that the character "stretched his legs." I began marking on the back of an envelope every time that phrase was repeated. I stopped only after I had marked the envelope several dozen times. I was incredulous. Rowling's mind is so governed by cliches and dead metaphors that she has no other style of writing.

But when I wrote that in a newspaper, I was denounced. I was told that children would now read only J.K. Rowling, and I was asked whether that wasn't, after all, better than reading nothing at all? If Rowling was what it took to make them pick up a book, wasn't that a good thing?

It is not. "Harry Potter" will not lead our children on to Kipling's "Just So Stories" or his "Jungle Book." It will not lead them to Thurber's "Thirteen Clocks" or Kenneth Grahame's "Wind in the Willows" or Lewis Carroll's "Alice."

Later I read a lavish, loving review of Harry Potter by the same Stephen King. He wrote something to the effect of, "If these kids are reading Harry Potter at 11 or 12, then when they get older they will go on to read Stephen King." And he was quite right. He was not being ironic. When you read "Harry Potter" you are, in fact, trained to read Stephen King.

Our society and our literature and our culture are being dumbed down, and the causes are very complex.

>>6058794
If this isn't pasta, you need to get yourself sorted out.

>>6059279
>stop liking what i don't like: the post

>>6059261
You're kidding yourself, M. Frogman.

>>6059261
lmao

>>6057563
Depends on the woman/person really. I tend to judge people's taste based on their opinions on books but they and I have read.

>>6059279
Lmao, I appreciate this thoughtful contribution. But seriously? HP are in fact children's books, nothing more and nothing less.
They are not great works of literary worth, but whatever. It's a cool story for children.

I read JK Rownling growing up and now I enjoy Nabokov, Goethe, Wilde and the likes.
Fuck, HP really ruined my taste.

>>6058900
>imagine the horror of being one man among dozens of nubile women?

Are you a faggot?

>>6058900
I study English in the best university in my country. The university admission is based on quotas.
It admitted 70 women and only 30 men.

We are then divided into 5 groups. From my group only me and one more guy attend regularly, one comes once every other week, and the others decided to drop out.

So 2 males and about 12 females who actively attend. Out of those 12 women 10 are mediocre and only 2 are on par with me and the other male collegue.

The 2 girls are funny and can actually hold a conversation though.

It's funny, however, that they read various texts - from the HP, 50 Shades of Gray, and adventure shit to Joyce and Hardy.

Despite that they are more inclined towards liking the genre fic bs more than the Greats.

>>6057563
I've never had a woman recommend me a book since I'm smart enough not to associate with women, but if an online article someone links me or a book someone recommends me is written by a woman I'll almost definitely skip it.

>>6058883
Taking philosophy classes with a female majority made me an emotivist.

>>6059339
I think you can contact Bloom c/o Yale still, but he probably does not browse here.

>>6059345
>implying that won't all go for Chad and share him whilst ignoring you.

No, because I'd only ask a woman if I purposefully want some sort of YA novel.
If I'm tired (mind not at 100%) but want to read something I can grab those lower quality novels.
Why would you read great literature when you're not at 100%?

>>6058727
> why would I spend a day reading a book I don't want to read?
How do you know you wouldn't like the Hunger Games?

Also not defending it.
Young adult "literature" is by definition shit.
YA implies that it's dumbed down so younger people can understand it, definition of garbage literature.

I gave you a free reason to not read HG, ever.

>>6059427
>implying I'm an ugly autistic virgin who bitterly complains on /r9k/ about how women are sluts for not sleeping with me

>>6058128
lmao. so true

>>6057563
Depends, they generally recommend books on two gounds:

I. I'm thinking of fucking you but I wanna make sure we have common gournd (read)

2. I think you're pathetic, read this to find out why (don't read)

>>6059450
Read The Game.

One is clearly a shit test. If you fail it, you will be cucked.

>>6058189
>Nabokov's somewhat-grody classic teaches us the important lesson that even articulate, well-bred and scholarly men can be gross kiddie-touchers.

WHY DO WOMEN KEEP EMBARRASSING THEMSELVES HOLY SHIT

WTF is wrong with these kids? Half of your English profs are women, and their reading habits and knowledge are no different from men. I think all the women you "know" must be stereotyped bimbos from 80s teen movies or something. Who starts an entire thread like this just to point out he's an ignorant assclown?

I think the key is to just never allow yourself to be put into the position (that of women recommending you books) in the first place.

>>6057586
Is this bait or are you really a virgin? Maybe both

>>6059252
Children's books are fine.

If you're a child.

>>6057914
Let's not forget all the male writers who were actually women using pen names.

>>6059470
you mean stay here in the basement?

>>6059476
Not all though;
You will have a different view on The Little Prince or some stories by Hans C. Andersen like the Little Match Girl depending on what stage of your life you are.

I read some abriged version of Don Quixote as a kid and saw it as an adventure story; picked it up last year and i saw it as a tragic story. Now i started reading the unabriged version.

Srsly don't insult children books; women can't grasp even them.

>tfw a woman tries to name drop authors

I wonder how many men actually consider women their intellectual equals.

I'm not talking about intellectuals, or bitter virgins from /r9k/ or beta male white knight orbiters from Reddit, I mean men in general. Real life men, average Joes.

I mean, obviously most of them would never tell a woman they don't consider them their equals IRL or would even be against women have equal rights legally, but I wonder what they personally think.

>>6057964
back to /soc/, hoe

>>6059515
Male scientist, I work with 40% female scientists, all intellectually equal (some superior)

>>6059524
What area of "science"

>>6059527
Bioinformatics

>>6059515
Probably close to none of them.

>>6059538
Bullshit, every buddy of mine is either a very secretive sexist, i.e. not open about it even in an all male context, or not sexist at all.
Maybe I don't hang around retards enough.

>>6059515
I consider some women my intellectual equals(about 10%); very few as intelectually more advanced(~5%) and about the rest 85% I consider lower.

With men, I consider about 20% as my intellectual peers, 20% as superior, and 60% as lower.

And this is based on merit, not on their gender; I am just mentioning it since that was relevant to your post.

>>6059554
>actual percentages
How did you even arrive at those numbers?

>>6059560
He's obviously just making rough approximations, autist.

>>6059548
A good way to check this is this:
One of your male friends has a verbal fight with a female. Who wins? What odds do you give him?
The same male friend has a verbal fight with a male. Who wins? What odds do you give him?

Did the merit of arguments on his part change between the two? If yes, he might be pulling punches.

>>6059567
Yeah, but even those can only ever be statements about closer aquaintances, of which no one has enough for percentages to make any damn sense.

>>6059578
He only needs to know forty people, evenly split across genders, for it to work out without remainders as he plotted them.

>poster asks for 15 relevant female authors
>a whole page worth of posts flipping their shit, never, ever, not even once attempting to answer, just bullshit and weedle their way out of the argument unsuccessfully

lol

>>6059588
You could easily just look at the sticky.

>>6059592
outside of austen and shelley none of them are relevant besides the random foreign author who wrote a good book a few centuries ago

i'd say the only mildy relevant female author right is probably le guin or tolstoyana (or whatever her name is)

>>6058936
You are an absolute moron.

>look up booktubers
>look up the popular people on a popular medium talking about popular books
Ofcourse famous booktubers talk about shit books, they're popular. There are videos on literature, but they don't have any views, so you don't know about them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHoTEV5ncU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fniF3v9-1CU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyfcHJV-YK0

Brothers K, Darwin, Orwell, Twain, Joyce, Nabokov, Camus, Aristotle..

You're a faggot who should worry more about his own life rather than disparage others based on a cherry picked representation of their gender.

>>6059588
>Jane Austen
>Atwood
>Virginia Woolf
>Emily Bronte
>Doris Lessing
>Sylvia Plath
>Ursula K Le Guin
>Joyce Oates
>George Eliot
>Alice Munro
>Emily Dickinson
>Isabel Allende
>Simone de Beauvoir
>Margaret Cavendish
>Selma Lagerlof

BONUS
>Hrotsvith von Gandersheim

>inb4 some other anon dismisses one of these names for retarded reasons

>>6059578
The ones I've ment so far have been enough to form this representative quantity, which is proving to be right every day as I meet new people.

>>6059572
Apart from the fact that guys generally seem to be more passionate about debating stuff, no, the merit of arguments doesn't change.

>>6059578
>>6059598
*met

>>6059593
>Sappho
>Woolf
>Shikibu
>not relevant
You're embarrassing yourself, mate.

>>6059596
atwood, lessing, munroe are shit

beauvoir is a lesser fiddle to her fuck-buddy sarte

i do give you points for not mentioning mary "ghostwritten by byron" shelley

>>6059603
>inb4 some other anon dismisses names for retarded reasons
>didn't even give reasons

>>6059602
who are those people besides the lighthouse chick

>>6059606
>doesn't know who Sappho is
>did not start with the Greeks

embarrassing

>>6059598
This may mean that you have insane skills at judging the intelligence of randomly encountered people compared to your own intelligence. Or it might mean you're a retard.

>>6059605
atwood has the barren flowery prose expected of an old canadian woman, with the thematic expertise of anyone else who is huge fan of oprah's book club. in fact, i'd say atwood is a MKULTRA project of the canadian government in order to be mildy relevant in the nich field of woman's literature so they can be kinda known for something besides maple syrup, rush, and those canadian cuckold memes.

I managed to dodge my ex's Coelho recommendations for the entire year of our relationship.

>>6059603
Atwood is pretty damn good, I think, but I guess that's a matter of opinion.

Beauvoir is far superior to Sartre, Sartre does nothing but plagiarize other philosophers such as Hegel and Heidegger. Beauvoir actually did something very fresh with their thinking by applying it to woman's condition over thousands of years and cross disciplining it with psychoanalysis, history and biology.

>>6059588
Woolf, Barnes, Tiptree, Sand, HD, Plath, Rossetti, O'Connor, Highsmith, Shelley, Lee, Parker, Sayers, Christie, Tsestaeva, Nin, oh look other anons made other lists and I haven't even got away from the modern age

>>6059594
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHoTEV5ncU

>not readign the annotations

>>6057563
depends on the woman

but usually yes

>>6059617
betcha nobody outside of your women's studies classes know who most of those are, besides the token plath, woolf, and shelley

Women keep recommending self-help books to me for some reason.

>>6059593
Thinking Tolstoyana is relevant while Tocarczuk, Smith, Morrison and Ozick are not is what outs you.

Who do you think are "mildly relevant" contemporary male authors right now?

>>6059625
who the fuck are those people

>>6059621
Are you actually judging merit by fame?

>>6059621
I've known quite a few girls who liked Nin too.

>>6059617
>Lee

First name? I hope you don't mean Laurie Lee, otherwise us men get to claim George Eliot in return.

>>6059628
Are you actually busting out names like a kid defending a genre with indie bands nobody has heard of?

>>6059621
Uh.., who the fuck doesn't know who Agatha Christie is? Life of Riley was a movie I believe, and most of them I picked because they're entry level. You being illiterate does not mean that I've ever taken a women's studies class (I don't think my country offers them), it just means you're ignorant. Are you a chick, because that would help your argument?

>>6059626
Are you think much of a pleb? Do you know of any authors besides those most of us learn about in grade school? I can only imagine what it sounds like when you talk about music.

>Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Stravinsky, the list goes on....

>>6059621
Then they're not very well-read. HD and Djuna Barnes are extremely well-known figures for their movements, and Sand influenced many generations of writers.

>>6059626
You're on a literature board. Why are you asking for names if you don't even read?

>>6059633
People actually read Agatha Christie? Woah.

>>6059629
Harper, the one every school kid would be exposed to.

>>6059635
How come I have never even seen some of these names before...and you people only post about them when I troll? This is why /lit/ sucks, I have to shitpost to get actual names out of people to read.

>>6059638
Oh, of course. I tend to forget about her because she's awful. Laurie Lee is great, btw.

>>6059614
4/10

tries to be amusing but fails, too much meme-ing

>>6059612
The last time someone on /lit/ questioned my judgement on things it was about recognizing the gender of the author by the way they wrote.

Some anon posted 2 tests; I got 9/10 on the first; then the anon said i got lucky; then I got 8/10 on the second one.
According to the results shown after you finish those tests only 1% of the results were correct 9/10 and 1% 10/10 on the first test;
and 5% were correct 8/10 while 1% being 9/10 and 10/10 on the second test.

I am not omniscient but some things are just perceivable.

Books are for women though

>>6059643
Read the fucking sticky you absolute pleb

>>6059643
You don't have to shitpost, because you could have easily used the resource that is linked at the top of the board. It's always there. The female authors chart was collected a few years back just for people like you.

There's even an image that goes further in depth, with comments and synopses from the thread it was created from.

You are capable of helping yourself to at least this degree.

>>6059651
Nobody reads the sticky. Nobody has read the sticky. People have gone on the internet for over 20 years, and will continue so until the apocalypse or we go into the VR, and they shall do so without reading the sticky.

>>6059647
What kind of tests were they? Because I've done something similar twice, and no one has ever got above 2/3 of the guessing correct.

I work for a publishing house and posted excerpts from unpublished writers.

>>6059654
I read Yourcenar, Hadrian's excellent. I read The Abyss and it was very meandering.

>According to statistics, 58 percent of readers are women and women purchase 65 percent of books.

>>6059655
You missed the complete fuss of the sticky getting over 2,000 upboats on reddit the other day.

/lit/ is the only group that doesn't read it.

>>6059655
No, that's what you tell yourself at night to justify your worthless ass wasting time and bandwidth here when you're more poorly educated than the average fourteen year old. If you think about it, it's much less effort than reading the books themselves would be. Fucking casual, you'll get kicked from VR and have to do something while you're bored, you might as well start now.

>>6059661
>all artistic pursuits failing and falling into a fatal post-modern maelstrom of superficiality and new sincerity

no wonder tao-lin/DFW's popular, women don't even like women authors

>>6059658
Well I dont remember from what sites they were but when I was finished and it showed me the results I think only 1-2 of the authors` names were familiar to me, however, I had not read any of their works.

I've been reading a book a week on average for the last five years and the only female authors I've read are Shelley, Austen, Charlotte and Emily Bronte at school, and O'Connor, Plath, Lispector, Dickinson and Rhys for leisure reading. Rhys is the only one I particularly liked.

>>6059663
that makes me want to read it less

>>6059666
is /v/ your main board lol

>>6059678
>I'm an idiot who keeps digging a deeper hole

Fly, you fool

>>6059682
Ban me bitch

>>6059672
Ah, that's a different kind of test. I had posted excerpts that were 100% un-Googleable both times, to prevent anyone from cheating by searching the excerpts.

Here's one of the threads; trying to find the earlier one I made.

>>/lit/thread/S5574150#p5575385

>>6059683
Shut up woman.
>inb4 but I'm a man
By your standards of literature, you are a female, so shut up and make us some sammiches while we enjoy our books.

>>6059685
I didn't google the texts; I did it out of curiosity and it happened to prove my point.
btw those texts you linked are too long.
The two tests I mentioned had each excerpt hardly any longer than this post.

>>6059699
I don't think they're too long. You'd need a good bit to accurately guess.

You could try it with those just for the first few sentences, but I've already given the answers in that thread.

>>6059702
Maybe some other time :^)
Retiring from /lit/ for today; I have an exam tomorrow; have to study.

>>6059702
>>6059707
read only some of this text
>Terry was released for good behavior after two and a half years.
and I got it right

No, I'd probably at least look it up and see if it's something interesting. Even if it wasn't something I'd originally read, I may still read it in order to discuss it with the person who recommended it.

>>6058747
ahhhhhh

this fella

>>6059655
>tfw read the sticky
The sticky has more value than months of /lit/ posts combined, but keep telling yourself nobody reads it, you illiterate scrub.

>>6057563
No woman has ever recommended a book to me, and if one ever did I would probably ignore that recomendation because it would be an endorsement of young adult lit.

>>6059702
Might as well make another one tho. It's hard finding texts that are obscure enough for this anymore. I've done it on /r9k/ a lot more with Facebook posts.

I have a pastebin made with the answers, which will be dated before I make this post. I'll un-private and link it when some people have guessed.

>"All I can see is the effect and its consequence; it's established that my soul has lost its balance, something in it is buckled and broken, the inner fountains have dried up. I can't even guess at the reason for this, the reason for my own particular case, and the worst of it is, I can't see anything which might change my hopeless state, not even slightly. For my inner emptiness is complete, systematic as it were, the result of a lamentable lack of any sort of chaotic elements."

>"In a world in which silence is still an active force, a thing is related more with silence than with other things. It stands on its own, belongs to itself more than in the world without silence, where things are interconnected but no longer in relation to silence."

>"The door of the junk shop was locked from the outside after a bundle of old clothes had been hastily thrown, probably because of the advanced evening hour, onto a chair. A small object had fallen to the floor. The street lamp cast a yellow light onto the room and allowed a thimble, which had rolled a few feet away, to become discernible."

>"It was nothing but that, that was it. It offered absolutely no interest, but life was like that. Drugs were only life, but they were life. Their self-destructive intensity shows that there is only the identity of everything in everything. There is no knowledge since there is nothing to understand, there is only certainty."

>"Only it's darkness, black blood, that streams into the room, flooding every¬where, so that he's drowning in it. He can't see properly and tries to call for more light, but now he can't get out a word. In front of his eyes his wife's face turns into a pallid clock face, solemnly ticking. He feels he is dying of thirst, his throat and mouth dry as sand. The whisky bottle appears before him, three times larger than life; but when he reaches out for it his arm breaks off at the shoulder."

>>6059729
I'll give out book titles too, for anyone curious. One of them is one of my favorite books. Just happens to not be an ebook yet.

>>6059655
There's a lot of people who read the sticky. You know, the kind of people who are interested in literature.

i'm sleeping with a married woman who recommended I read Immortality by Milan Kundera because it made her who she is and formed a lot of her opinions.

I read it in the original czech and it's embarrassingly mediocre but it was clear which parts were formative to her attitudes and personality.

This is maybe the only value in such books.

>>6059380
You have sex quotas?
Fuck man that is discrimination. Why not addmit people on their fucking skill and results?

>>6059647
That sounds a lot easier than judging the intelligence of strangers, the two aren't even comparable. I could probably do that, too, if I wanted to, but that's because the expression of emotion is indeed often gender specific.

>>6059600
I've rarely heard a woman do anything other than appeal to emotion in arguments.

>>6059729
>everyone posts that they can totally distinguish genders based on language and how males are so much better blabla
>anon posts a few short unknown excerpts of unknown genders
>no-one replies

cool dude that 4chan-guy

>>6059761
Why not try it out then?

I posted some to guess at >>6059729.

>>6059729
>M
>M
>F
>M
>F
?

>>6059763
Not in my experience, but what do my assertions about my experience prove to you? The sme as your assertions prove to me, fuck all.
>>6059766
Why not?
Because it's a boring exercize, I already know that men and women are different.

>>6059776
Come on, it's only three or four sentences each. Less effort than writing another post to excuse yourself.

>>6059782
Well, fuck it, what this guy said, >>6059772
with a little more uncertainty on the first one.

>>6059792
The book in the first one is always uncertain for people, which I think is pretty curious. It's an expressionist work, which I think may be it.

Not gonna post answers till more guesses, since it was way too much work searching them out.

>>6059772
>>6059792
>>6059796
I am not sure about it too; buckled and broken sounds male but dried fountain not so much.
Inner emptiness is both Male and female but complete makes me lean to male.

The lamentable lack of any sort of chaotic elements can be both a highly eloquent male who knows what he is saying, a high-school student or a woman who has watched discovery or read Metamorphoses.

Still leanign towards male though.

>>6059807
I should have specified, these aren't from the publishing house I work at. They're all authors from the past century. Just not as famous or published as some others.

>>6059812
just give us the answers and call us charlatan faggots

Women have about as much worth as black people, meaning none. They're subhuman. They're here purely for our pleasure as men, and giving them or their opinions any mind is insulting yourself as a man.

>>6059819
>>6059796

patience, anon

>>6059754
Probably because there are more women in high-schools too. My class was 12 boys, 12 girls but I think there was some statistics that showed that high-school pupils are 40% male 60% female, and it is normal for males to start working after high-school.

It is like that in all the humanitary majors.
All language studies admit about twice as many women based on quotas. Only if the quota of one gender is not fulfiled there might be accepted more of the other gender to fill the gap. (which doesn't happen for the popular majors)

Only Law, Politology and the Economy majors are kind of fair, even though more women are admitted for the major Economy + French. Chemistry, and Biology also accepts about twice as many women than men.

Maths and Physics are about 65%male 35% female.

>>6059828
>black people are here purely for our pleasure as men

cuck detected

>>6059839
hurry; this will probably get closed soon.

>>6059910
Yeah, bump limit reached, but it's kind of disappointing to get just two answers when it took that long.

Let me shitpost it elsewhere to sate curiosity first. This won't fall off the board for a bit, with how slow /lit/ is.

>>6059910
>>6059912
If you wanna follow

>>>/r9k/16030174

Figures it'd be more active on the genders wars board.

>>6059600
Do the odds on who wins change?

Assuming you're >>6059776 also, if the outcome does not change and the merit of argument remains the same, do you mind me asking which country you are from, and how small or large your friend group is and if it is based in a formally shared interest?

[I ask because it would make you somewhat abnormative without certain social conditions]

>>6059969
What certain social conditions? Not him, but curious. I don't believe I see the merits change, or any pulled punches in my peer group, but my position is biased.

>>6057599
Uh-oh. PTSD contaminant.
>>>/tumblr/

>>6059910
In case it's not you in the /r9k/ thread, the reveal's at

>pastebin.com/cRtgELLL

>Tubustch by Albert Ehrenstein (male, German Expressionist writer)
>The World of Silence by Max Picard (male, best book on rhetoric of silence)
>In the Junk Shop and Other Stories by Bertha Pappenheim (female)
>Will o' the Wisp by Pierre Rochelle (male)
>Who Are You? by Anna Kavan (female)

I thought your 100% was pretty bizarre, so I wanted to get some controls from /r9k/ first--obviously nobody there saw answers or guessed correctly though. Your pretty good with it, anon. I've never got a chance to guess at it myself, since I'm the one who makes them.

>>6060026
>>6059807
You saw my way of analysis. Usually the syntax used says more than the theme of the text.
What man would ever say 'a junk shop' for example. And English is not my first language too.

>>6059252
I agree with this Anon.
>>6057957
Most women won't even understand the main point of "The little prince".

>>6060046
Yeah, you've definitely got a good method going on.

What are the "chaotic elements" though? In my mind, the last one by Kavan had many of those.

ESL status may have to do with it--I know I'm better at close reading in my other reading language, but gender is exceptionally easy to identify in it (Japanese) anyway.

>>6060069


>black blood, that streams into the room
a man probably wouldn't hyperbolize stream that much

>can't get out a word
doesn't seem like a male expression

and regarding theme, I associate thirst with females

>>6060102
>>can't get out a word
>doesn't seem like a male expression

That's a really apt analysis. Are you doing anything with literature in university?

Is your native language gendered?

>>6060119
>Are you doing anything with literature in university?
Not yet.

I am a freshman in English.

We finished lectures for the first semester; we didn;t study literature though, only Lit. Theory. We will start studying Victorian Literature the second semester.

>Is your native language gendered?
Yes

>>6060150
Thanks for the interesting discussion, anon. You're probably going to go very far in university.

>>6060156
Thank you; so far I am amongst the best in my group. Best in some subjects.

I received high praise from my Lit. Theory assistent prof. for my lecture on Rolan Barthes` >Structural Analysis of the Narrative

>boasting with no aparent reason

>>6059983
Individual selection bias can produce it in small groups. Shared values culturally for a form of argument can produce it in larger groups, which is usually based in a systemic acceptance of those forms; for an easily understandable instance, a formal debate club would not attract or keep people who did not keep their arguments within the rules of debate.

On a broader scale, the most interesting dynamic change is the Soviet bloc: before the fall of Communism, egalitarian ideals and a systemic disapproval of dissent or difference reduced, but did not eliminate entirely, gendered, and all other, modes of argument, where women were meant to be both good comrades and good mothers, but also good legislators who were genderblind, apart from the motherhood parts where the argument of females roles as mothers and workers was accepted by both male and female legislators as the only argument.

After the fall, gendered difference was cultivated in speech and behaviour to a much greater extent than before, where the legislators who were female in the Duma stopped addressing all issues, and stuck to gender essentialist ones which hyper feminised their focus, compared to the already present gender essentialist split modified by egalitarian forms of argument. Less women became legislators, but, of those who stayed or became members of the Duma, they dedicated themselves to solely "women's issues", where before they would have had more range and a broader structure to their arguments. The neotraditionalist gender roles are emphasised to to lend more merit to their smaller remit, but remove their merit in arguments beyond that, where a broader interest in legislation in general for a female becomes a traditional, and therefore Communist and repressive, role which many women are loathe to adopt and the hyper masculinity of male legislators kept in check also.

Embracing these new, though from western eyes, regressive, gender roles is why Putin's army of half naked female supporters is stronger than the female legislators, and why female legislators arguments are more limited, more gendered, and legislators who are female are themselves less common than they were under Communist systems.

Obviously that dynamic shift is hard to reproduce without another Lenin and another Gorbachev, but social conditions which reduce, or increase, gendered difference in argument are present in other cultures and countries just not in such sudden flux, and rarely to the point of no difference in gendered merits.

[For more on gender in the exSoviet world, "Living Gender after Communism", ed. Johnson and Robinson, 2007, Indiana Press]