/lit/ - Literature

>>7227333
because they are dumb
idiot

>>7227333
hey you stole my picture thats not great

because nothing exists.

>>7227333
Because they mostly find the kind of satisfaction in childrearing and social engineering that many men have to resort to art and conquest to feel.

Jane Austen
Emily Bronte
Virginia Woolf

It would be great to see /lit/ just ignore these threads.

>>7227333
>>7227344
>>7227377
checked

>>7227400
On second thought, a thread like this does serve a containment function.

>>7227373
not helping your case

There are though.

>>7227373
Dickinson
Shelly
Biblical authors, according to bloom


>sadie smith

>>7227333
plath

>>7227341
Is the picture not great or is the fact he stole it not great? Grammar man!

>>7227333
Are there good female writers? Certainly. Are there as many good female writers as male writers? No.

Women write nothing but autobiographies of the years before they had children. I'm not even exaggerating, all these women have done >>7227373 and then go check any literary award from the last few years and look up the books women wrote.


Men's writing is also biographical but it's usually less obvious and that stuff is used to explore themes bigger than their own lives - ideas of politics, ethics, and nation.

I get the feeling women see novels as another of getting people to pay attention to them. Not paying attention to them through their art, but to pay attention to the the writer.

>>7227492
yes

>>7227497
>Women write nothing but autobiographies of the years before they had children
Patricia Highsmith and Shirley Jackson were serial killers? Has anyone found the bodies yet?

>>7227497
If you look at the time period of the author you mentioned, you'll realize your comment applies to men pretty much to the same extent (that is, using the same level of cherrypicking).

Next time read Christine of Pisan, Sappho, Therese of Avila, Olympe de Gouges and Mary Wollstonecraft before you post (De Beauvoir, Arendt, Anscombe and Hildegarde of Bigen might also be up your alley).


If you're going to spout bullshit at least be professional about it, you monkey.

>>7227497
this tbh

>>7227525

It's not cherrypicking. It's not my list. It was just convenient that they all fit.

It's kind of ironic that my comment was obviously not meant to be taken literally, and yet your list of 'good female writers' features obscure writers and I'm not sure how many of them even write fiction, or are known for their fiction anyway.

>>7227525
>>7227566
whatever device makes both your posts fuck up line spacing like that makes it look like a phone company is targeting superficial retards

>>7227497

>The complete woman indulges in literature just as she indulges in a small sin: as an experiment, in passing, looking around to see if anybody notices it — and so that somebody notices it.

>>7227566
>It's not cherrypicking. It's not my list.

It's the only list you provide so it doesn't make any difference.

>It's kind of ironic that my comment was obviously not meant to be taken literally

So if I'm showing you're wrong, you're not literally wrong because your claim was never to be taken "literally" in the first place ? You can also say "okay those writer doesn't fit the pattern" and throw some vague speech about considering the average or whatever. That'll work just as well.

>and yet your list of 'good female writers'

It's actually a list of female writers that provide counter evidence to your point.

>obscure writers

If you're ignorant enough almost anybody will be obscure. Sappho is literally the reason the word lesbian exists, Wollstonecraft has long counted among the feminist writers most famous over the internet, Therese of Avila is mentioned even in tv shows, De Beauvoir is practically a household name and Arendt pops up in every other WWII discussion (which sometimes is about 30% of all discussions in American media). Anscombe is one of the most referenced philosopher writing in English in the past decades, and Hildegarde of Bigen has recently been declared Doctor of the Church, a title held only by a few dozens saints. The only way they're obscure is if you're mostly ignorant about female writers.

>I'm not sure how many of them even write fiction

Since when is writing only about fiction ? Does OP's bait specifically excludes non-fiction ? Is non-)fiction forbidden on /lit ? Do you think Tacitus doesn't count as a literary writer because he's mostly known for his non-fiction ?

You're getting more retarded by the line. But at least for once we got to mention female writers in a thread about female writers, so thanks for that.

>>7227572
It think the device in question is your computer m8.

>>7227608
*don't fit the pattern

bump for answers

>>7227608

You're being a silly billy and you know you are. I'm not going to reply to your nonsense directly because you know I was talking about fiction.

But just think, if you asked most non-autistic people (sorry) they would struggle to list even 10 'good' literary female (fiction) authors that weren't famous for some kind of coming-of-age novel (no sci-fi and murder mystery doesn't count). Whereas they could do that for men without even looking it up.

>>7227613
it doesn't double space for most anons. i don't really care if it's one dude samefagging a wikipedia category list understanding of male/female authors to make it seem like a debate, it only spoils the suspension of disbelief a little to format them the same. if it's two different anons with that level of understanding both thinking they're right though, it would explain why they make the same shitty choice in cell phones and i'd like to believe in that because it's hilarious.

>>7227333
How many female writers have you read?

>>7227650

>because you know I was talking about fiction.


I didn't, actually. That would have been difficult since you argued women only write autobiographies so people can look at them, which suggest thinly veiled non-fiction at best.
Again you assume everyone is as narrow-minded as you and act surprised when someone suddenly isn't.

But at least you can give yourself good excuses to not adress my point, and on a site like 4chan I can't deny it's important.

> if you asked most non-autistic people (sorry)

My point exactly. "Autist" on 4chan means "doesn't have the behavior/tastes of a stereotype normie" (I mean the 4chan stereotype of a normie, not actual normal people who actually know things sometimes).

You're talking out of ignorance and your only retort is "but people are ignorant so you're wrong". It's not even relevant to the argument.

>they would struggle to list even 10 'good' literary female

See ? How is that relevant to the issue at hand. Are we talking about (your stereotype of) evedyday people's opinion, or about actual female writers ? And your whole answer is like that, being off your own original point. If you want to argue people only know female writer for coming of age novels, do it, but don't pretend that's all there is to female writers. I'd have better luck arguing that males only write to justify their own behavior and that of their peers.

Reread you first post and realize your all your answers since that are either disingenuous or utterly confused.

>>7227651
You're thinking way too much into this. Some computers are just different, and some people just like space a lot (we're crazies, I know).

>>7227496
>Using the simpson's paradox.

Well done sir

>>7227719
>You're thinking way too much into this
stop breaking the fourth wall and ruining my immersion worse, samefag, you're not good enough for that kind of postmodernism.

There are good female writers.
Great female writers though?...

F U C K O F F
U
C
K
O
F
F

>>7227735
If I can ruin your immersion just by breaking the fourth wall, it means you're not diving deep enough yet.


You think I'm not good enough for you, but in this sea I'm a fish and you're at best a dcuba diver.

Also you can't go around pretend I'm samefag, have some decency.

>>7227333
What difference does it make? It's not like you or any of us are going to read them if they actually existed.

Because the book always hinges on women's issues. They handicap themselves from the start.

>>7227770
props on the new sense of immersion but i preferred the neckbeard/sjw debate to just the smell of cats, illiteracy and loneliness. go back to pretending you're young enough to be entertaining, i'll get a director's chair

>>7227760
women detected

>>7227798
>>7227337
>>7227347
>>7227497
These guys know what's up. The other posters itt are not ready to accept some natural characteristics of men and women.

you just dont know shit. is "autobiography of red" just an autobiography of the years before anne carson had kids? are all of lydia davis's stories? you just dont know good women writers so you assume they dont exist

>>7227839
>>7227497

>>7227839
autobiography of red is the most overrated /lit/core shit. stop trying to make it a meme.

>>7227852
actually you just have bad taste

>>7227863
and you're a giant faggot who likes faggot stories.

>>7227872
if you dont like faggy shit you dont like literature. literature wasn't made for tuff fuccbois

>>7227803
You're having visions my friend. That "debate" (not really a debate, just me calling out an anon for being full of shit and that anon pretending to not be full of shit) was no samefagging (though I give you the space thing is rather funny and unsettling). And it was foolish of me to even engage in it in the first place, discussions on /lit are a waste of time and a cause of brain disease in 90% cases.

A typing oddity doesn't make an identity, and if you take the time to read the posts you'll realize our ways of arguing and even our vocabularies are different (I'd never use "silly billy" for instance). Your reasoning is sloppy as fuck here, but that's to be expected of 4chan.

I also don't see how the "debate" was sjw/neckbeard, you're thinking simplistically here. It was rather proudly ignorant guy/guy who at least knows the other guy is ignorant.

>go back to pretending you're young enough to be entertaining

It's not my job to entertain you, you're enough of a wanker to entertain yourself. You're just making up a troll inside your head because of a coincidence and imagining yourself as some audience for an internet show in the process. Which one of us is the clown here ?


But enough time wasted. You'll believe whatever you 4chan habits have got you used to believe and I'm being a shithead for even trying to change that. Good night and I hope I won't see any of you in this shithole tomorrow.

>>7227886
tl;dr- i said entertaining

bump

J.K. Rowling

>>7227886
>ywn be this butthurt
feels good tbh

>>7228038
He said good

Alice Munro's Dear Life was one of the best books I read last year.

this misogny looks more like a /b/ board. get your shilit together lit.

>>7228196
>misogny

>>7228196
>misogny
we hate everyone, anon, and -gny is not the greek suffix for "illiterate"

bump

>>7228196

>>reddit dot see oh em

>>7227497
So Frankenstein is autobiographical?

My favorite novel growing up was autobiographical?

Yes a large majority of women writers are as shallow as you said, as are many men who whore themselves out for attention on them by name.

>>7228395
Not that anon but yes Frankenstein was based off Shelley's experiences on the way to the villa, and the idea was based on a dream she had according to her, though she denied some of the clearly autobiographical references and attributed them to her own fantasy (e.g. witnessing experiments where electricity was applied to nerves to make severed limbs or dead animals "reanimate")

>Great women scholars like Jane Harrison and Gisela Richter were produced by the intellectual discipline of the masculine classical tradition, not the wishy-washy sentimentalism of clingy, all-forgiving sisterhood, from which no first-rate book has yet emerged. Every year, feminists provide more and more evidence for the old charge that women can neither think nor write.

Richard Chase declares, "No great poet has written so much bad verse as Emily Dickinson." He blames the Victorian cult of little women for the fact that "two thirds of her work" is seriously flawed: "Her coy and oddly childish poems of nature and female friendship are products of a time when one of the careers open to women was perpetual childhood." Dickinson's sentimental feminine poems remain neglected by embarrassed scholars. I would maintain, however, that her poetry is a closed system of sexual reference and that the mawkish poems are designed to dovetail with those of violence and suffering.

>>7227584
What is this quote from?

>>7228438
>Dickinson invented being a robot
seems legit, pure waifu/10

>>7228425
So male fiction authors are exempt from tossing life experiences into their works?

>>7228452
How did you get to that question from Frankenstein being autobiographical? Cool your tits.

>>7228463
>autobiographical references
What was I supposed to infer, then?

The whole novel is not an autobiography.

>>7228479
No, neither is The Vampyre strictly speaking but everyone read it as a biography of Byron rather than an autobiography of Polidori's idealised self. Frankenstein and many other works of those staying in the villa are autobiographical, you just picked a dumb book to defend as not autobiographical. Now please pretend you're male and leave the thread to read something about Mary Shelley so we can blame your emotional outburst on you just being butthurt about being wrong.