/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11959748]

Alright /lit/ recommend me some love novels by female authors.

[Anonymous No.11959791]

>>11959748
Anything by the Brönte sisters.

[Anonymous No.11959801]

>>11959791
Be more original. Everyone knows those.

[Anonymous No.11959805]

>>11959748
Masterful painting. God I wish that were me etc. The aesthetics of my age are so fucking shit. I'm convinced they are an intentional aggression against the Soul by a supranatural power organized for the sole sake of a holistic demoralization and decimation of all that is Human within each person born today. Weaponized ugliness. Maybe suicide will put me into the painting. Maybe..
also to answer opee's question: Emily Bronte, Jane Austen, the list goes on...

[Anonymous No.11959909]

>>11959805
It's called Satan anon. He's all over the place.

[Anonymous No.11959941]

>>11959909
It's just so crystal clear. And saddening. No person could look at that painting and compare it to today and not see a striking decline in every possible aspect. The architecture. The clothing. The social relations between the sexes. It is ostentatiously evident that our day and age is so grossly impoverished compared to even the immediately preceding one. I think it was a mistake. Whoever was orchestrating this did not mean for there to be such a glaring dichotomy. Or maybe they did. Maybe they were betting on people being too engrossed within the haze of the incessant stream of comfort that has swallowed us all. Pulverized with sugary sweets and mundane entertainment as a replacement for genuine arts. It is undeniable: we are living our lives out in a Wasteland not even Eliot with all his poetic prowess could have sketched. So much beauty has been lost. And the avenues to restore it diminish with each passing hour.

[Anonymous No.11959955]

>>11959748
Han Kang
Human Acts and The Vegetarian are both amazing and I've heard good things about her newest book.

[Anonymous No.11959964]

>>11959941
That painting and what it depicts both look like shit. Fuck off /pol/

[Anonymous No.11959973]

@11959964
Wonderful refutation, you crude simpleton. I'm in no way interested or from /pol/. You don't deserve a reply beyond that.

[Anonymous No.11960095]

>>11959805
>the list goes on
bitch you only named two and they were the two most obvious

what does "the list goes on" mean anyways, obviously the list goes on, there's a lot of female authors. OP didn't ask "do love novels by female authors exist", he's asking for specific recommendations, which presupposes that the fucking list goes fucking on

as a linguistic convention you ought to provide at least three examples before saying that, you're plainly disguising a lack of actual knowledge and the fact that you dare to do so pretentiously is astounding to me

>grossly impoverished compared to even the immediately preceding one
“Ours is certainly the dullest and most prosaic century possible” - Oscar Wilde

it wasn't special people always bitch about the times, nothing changes, it's always fine. It's an arbitrary decision whether or not to embrace the current state of affairs

[Anonymous No.11960113]

>>11959748
Why is the woman painted in such a position? Looks uncomfortable. Like a meek JJBA character.

[Anonymous No.11960140]

>>11960113
The first time I saw it I thought she was tied to the post.

[Anonymous No.11960169]

>>11959748
Do any have steamy erotic scenes without being tasteless smut?

[Anonymous No.11960650]

>>11959805
>>11959941
If rembrandt were alive today you'd have zero awareness of him and probably wouldn't respect his work if you did. The general state of art in the modern age is actually pretty healthy, however that's not visible to anyone who isn't giving it attention, obviously, because all you'll be exposed to is the snide public references to the shallow end of the avant-garde ("lol look at this dumb art ho pissing on a canvas").

The irony is that there are without a doubt way more people inclined towards "genuine arts" then there were in the past, and to a more advanced degree. Much better resources.

[Anonymous No.11960922]

>>11960650
I don't argue with this, since I think you've missed what I am trying to accomplish. What I am saying is that the painting contains an obvious visual proof of decay. Just compare the fashion of those in the painting (and those of that time period) with ours today. It is a total decline. It is a reduction towards the casual as principle. The formality and decor that even in the 20th century had faded to a thin ersatz varnish of what it had once been is still decidedly superior to the current state of things. Think cargo shorts. Think septum piercings. Think yoga pants while in line for Chic-fil-A. Every suburban or city man used to wear a suit, or some sort of formal wear. Think of that. And of course the upper class still do. It is only the mid to lower classes that have been demeaned into wearing T-shirts and converse shoes. I am just distraught by this casualization of all things. Architecture, social graces, communication. Because it is a dimmer mode of expression. It is a weaker form of culture. It is all about what Taiwanese sweat-shops can churn out for Amazon to sell with a 10% discount. Artistry is quickly leaving all aspects of human life.
Perhaps my point was obscured, but I am not suggesting that I think the painting in question is the apotheosis of visual art or that all visual art should stagnate to that state, I was just struck with the stark difference between all of the little things that added up to the culture that the painting presents a snapshot of and our own. Surely you wouldn't deny that everything is becoming far more casual, and perhaps in-tandem, uglier.
and to apologize for highjacking your thread, op, even though it's a very stupid topic for a thread I'll recommend as well "Rebecca" by Daphne du Maurier and "The Lover" by Marguerite Duras

[Anonymous No.11961758]

The Lover, Marguerite Duras

[Anonymous No.11961845]

>>11959801
Most here still haven’t read them even if they are aware of them

Tenant of Wildfell Hall is great

[Anonymous No.11961937]

>>11959805
>representation of the stiltedness and emotional seperation in a bourgeois marriage
>god I wish that was me

[Anonymous No.11962142]

>>11959941
>>11959805
The man on the right stubbed his toe and proceeded to die a painful death from cellulitis as his foot rotted off and he went into septic shock. The woman on the left died in childbirth, the child was born deformed due to congenital syphilis and starved to death.

[Anonymous No.11962149]

>>11959805
Capitalizing the first letter of one word does not give it a more profound meaning

[Motoko No.11962197]

>>11959805
You sound like you're 19 years old but want to sound like you're 40 years old.

[Anonymous No.11962202]

>>11962197
he's a, dare I say it, 19 year old boomer?

[Motoko No.11962204]

>>11962202
He's just a big fat faggot pseud n*igger

[Anonymous No.11962243]

>>11960650
>The general state of art in the modern age is actually pretty healthy
give us some examples then

[Anonymous No.11962298]

>>11962243
what makes it healthy is that the common rabble (i.e. people like you) remain ignorant

[Anonymous No.11962353]

>>11959748
The Liveship Traders Triliogy

[Anonymous No.11962660]

I Capture the Castle by Dodie Smith. The film is good too.

[Anonymous No.11962832]

Kristin Lavransdattar

[Anonymous No.11963672]

>>11962142
Death is a natural part of life.
The excessive technology and science that pervades our world only delays the inevitable.
Luxury and comfort won't save our souls.

[Anonymous No.11963958]

[Anonymous No.11963975]

>>11959805
>Weaponized ugliness
is that what they called you in high school LOL ugly dipshit

[Anonymous No.11964339]

>>11962142
Your argument is stupid.

[Anonymous No.11964351]

>>11960113
she was repulsed by the man because he was not black.

[Anonymous No.11964478]

>>11964339
The argument is that this type of art is really no different from north korean/ soviet propaganda pieces, it presents an idealized view which would be repulsive and laughable if you would have actually lived in that era.
Contemporary art, for all it's ugliness, is more honest and actually respects the reality of pain and suffering.

[Anonymous No.11964844]

>>11964478
>implying aesthetics aren't nessecary to remind people that there is beauty in the world and that life is still worth living

Beauty gives us something to aspire to.

[Anonymous No.11964854]

>>11964844
yes comrade, although your layman eyes can't distinguish kitsch from beauty

[Anonymous No.11964872]

>>11964854
OP's image isn't kitsch.

It's not high art either, but it's not kitsch.

[Anonymous No.11964878]

>>11964854
Well, the painting in the OP belongs to a collection of works from the nordic national romanticism movement. It conjures up certain feelings, as is generally the goal of art, that might be most strongly felt by scandinavians, as opposed to people with no connection to the scenery or the context of the painting.

It certainly isn't fucking kitsch.

[Anonymous No.11964890]

>>11964854
are a screenwriter for Rick and Morty?

[Anonymous No.11964899]

>>11964878
>nordic national romanticism good
>soviet national romanticism bad

it's appeal is on the same cheap and naive level as kitsch, I wouldn't even go so far as to call it art

[Anonymous No.11964915]

>>11964899
The Soviet image strikes me as propaganda, but the Nordic image gives me a very melancholic feeling. The distance between the man and the woman implies some sort of longing and the beautiful scenery helps draw out those sensations. That's a juxtaposition I'd call far from being naive.

Romanticism is arguably the furthest thing from being naive. In order to create an ideal fantasy, you have to highlight the grim reality as a contrast.

[Anonymous No.11964923]

>>11964899
>he thinks national romanticism as an art movement is the same as political nationalism
Why you'd even compare a romantic art movement to propaganda created for a regime, even including the head of government/state in the painting, is fucking beyond me.

[Anonymous No.11964943]

>>11964915
>Romanticism is arguably the furthest thing from being naive
I wonder what you consider naive then?

[Anonymous No.11964996]

>>11964943
Unironically Irony is the most naive.

>DUDE, WHAT IF WE COMPLETELY LACKED SINCERITY IN EVERYTHING! WE'RE TOTALLY NOT TRYING TO COMPENSATE FOR THE FACT WE'RE SPIRITUALLY DEAD INSIDE!

[Anonymous No.11965019]

>>11959805
These are as basic as figures and scenery can get. Maxfield Parish did it way better (and this isn't even one of my favorite paintings)

[Anonymous No.11965038]

>>11965019
>columns lack doric fluting
disgusting

[Anonymous No.11965067]

>>11965038
But that would make them look worse. You wouldn't get the smooth color gradient

[OP No.11965926]

Thanks guys. I've got like four recommendations (two of which I've already read) in a thread with 46 replies. /lit/ is truly the best place on the internet to discuss literature. Han Kang seems cool though. I'll check her out.

[Anonymous No.11966211]

>>11965926
you and your stupid needs are not important faggot, this isn't some forum where we have to stay on topic or big bad mod is gonna flex

[Anonymous No.11966222]

>>11965926
You’re a faggot

[Anonymous No.11966293]

>>11965926
He'res another for your victim complex chart

[Anonymous No.11967433]

>>11960095
>Being this upset at an old meme.

[Anonymous No.11967615]

>>11960922
>Think cargo shorts. Think septum piercings. Think yoga pants while in line for Chic-fil-A. Every suburban or city man used to wear a suit, or some sort of formal wear. Think of that.
Yes you're right everyone living in a city used to wear fancy expensive dresses with intricate designs on them regardless of their financial standing

[Anonymous No.11967633]

>>11967615
don;t be such a mongchild and look up those old pictures of men in suits in /fa/ - most are working class or lower middle class, and they are all overdressed by today's standards. Why? Simply because people did not wear mass produced crap, and tailored clothes, no matter the fabric, always look better than off-the-rack crap.

[Anonymous No.11968041]

>>11967633
Why the bitterness anon? What's wrong with shorts and polo shirts? Is the sight of female legs in yoga pants too much for you? Just let people be.

[Anonymous No.11968074]

>>11960922
t. wears a 3-piece suit to his community college classes

[Anonymous No.11968101]

>>11968074
I'd rather have students dressed in suits than in hoodies