[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 47 KB, 365x575, pride-prejudice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1826248 No.1826248 [Reply] [Original]

>jane austen
>worst popular author ever

pick two

>> No.1826258

alright nigger, listen here...


Nevermind, you have trisomy. That's all I want to tell you.

>> No.1826261

If you're a woman, you'll like Jane Austen. If you're a man and you like Austen, you haven't read enough male authors.

>> No.1826262

I bet you think you are clever, don't you?

Jane Austin is pretty alright, I guess. I read Pride and Prejudice, but I got bored where as when I read Wuthering Heights, I thought it was actually interesting. I tried to make a comparison of times. Sense and Sensibility is worse though, god, I was bored.

>> No.1826270

>>1826262
>Austen
>Wuthering Heights

???

>> No.1826278

>>1826258

Actually, I feel like explaining this shit to you.

>>1826261
wrong, neckbeard, wrong. You're not masculine enough to make a comment like that; Jane Austen is epicene; and if you were masculine enough to make a comment like that you would know better not to, et cetera et cetera...

>>1826262

you are what is wrong with modern readers of literature.
Essential your failure is >I was bored.
You can and should walk to the nearest gas station and buy the book with the shiniest, brightest color you can find, if your only criteria is 'being entertained.'

Reflect on the words of Samuel Johnson, if you please.
"the pleasures of sudden wonder are soon exhausted, and the mind can only repose on the stability of truth."

>> No.1826286

>>1826278
I am what is wrong? The fact that I am reading for entertainment and also transformation? The fact that as I read Austen's work, I didn't feel either of these? Maybe I am too pleased with 20th century literature, or even late 19th century, but all these works have fantastic messages that complexly interweave with the story. I used Wuthering Heights as an example because not only does the Gothic nature of the story make for an overall better story, by Bronte uses this story so much better than Austen to develop characters and to make a overall point that it makes the book very satisfying and I still look back on it for insight on many ideas, and other great novels to develop myself. You're criticizing me for not enjoying a novel and not seeing really anything of interest? Well, I am fucking sorry. I am just used to reading more complex works than simple things like Jane Austen. She is overrated so much. The Bronte sisters did so much more with similar topics.

So I guess I am what's wrong with Modern readers if I read for greater entertainment and transformation of my personality. Thanks for point that out.

>> No.1826290

>>1826278
hahahahaha, be quiet woman. You can't write, and neither can your fav women writers.

>> No.1826292

>>1826286
You forget that this is 4chan; even /lit/ has its retards. Try not to let them upset you.

>> No.1826302

>>1826292
Oh, sorry, I got over worked!

>> No.1826307

I rarely quite books, but Persuasion by Jane Austen, sucked eggs so hard that I quit the book (even though it isn't very long at all).

I will read pride and prejudice, for the mere fact of having it in under my belt.

>> No.1826331

>>1826286

No, sir, you said 'bored.'
'Bored' has nothing to do with 'transformation of my personality.' What does 'transformation of my personality' even mean? Maybe you can explain it to me, because it sounds like you think Literature can be reduced to a collection of self help books...

>I am what is wrong?
I should have answered your first question first. Yes, you're what's wrong.

[...] I'd also like to point out that Literature is aesthetic and not utilitarian.

Searching for 'fantastic messages' in a work of art borders on a utilitarian reading (mainly because the word message is so broad), a reading that hails Jane Austen as some kind of proto-feminist visionary, a reading that at once attracts a large population of barely literate women to Austen and repels an equally large (although only slightly more literate) population of men. This, of course, is a generalization, and I'm sure that the dissent surrounding Austen is not simply sexual.

The way I see it, Jane Austen was the closest incarnation of the female Shakespeare prophesied by Virginia Woolf in A Room of One's Own. Shakespeare's sexuality, religion, political convictions are unknown to us (the anti-Stratfordians will go so far as to tell you he was not even the author of the plays or poems), yet, as it so happens, these details of his life are totally irrelevant to reading his work. Admittedly, his anonymity was forced upon us for lack of extant documentation. Jane Austen had the misfortune of leading a better documented life, and so differentiating the genius from the person is more difficult.

Nonetheless, its not that difficult, and I personally know plenty of intelligent readers of Jane Austen. I recommend to you, my misguided friend Anon, that you read Austen as you would Shakespeare: search for her irony and character development as you would for a Shakespearean pun (or character development).

>> No.1826346

HAD to read Mansfield Park for BA course and it was like pulling teeth.
I'll be charitable and say that JA scratches a place where I don't have an itch.

>> No.1826361

>>1826331

i think i've heard trisomy guy's speech about austen before...

>> No.1826378

trisomy guy confirmed for faggot

>> No.1826660

>>1826331
What the hell are you talking about?
Two things:
1. I am saying I don't like Austen for the reason:
2. I don't find her that brilliant. You are literally telling me why I am wrong about Asuten's brilliance, so I am sorry, I must be a neanderthal for not seeing her majestic characterization - and the statement of her has the next Shakespeare is misleading, especially from a woman who made the statement after Austen was long dead.

And the transformation of personality, that, that is something every reader should connect to on a personal level; the advancement of self, why would you read for anything other than that? You're telling my Austen is so great, but nothing on an emotional level, because Austen's characters aren't to relatable, and I get bored. So being bored do to a disconnection to the characters, that's a sad way to judge me and all the others of the "Modern readers". I know you apparently like Austen, but damn, I don't like her. It doesn't make you better than me - as it seems you're masturbation of Austen in the paragraph previous has tried to show - but really, I was just saying I think Austen is boring, and Sense and Sensibility is boring, and really, she is boring.

>> No.1826663

Jane Austen is rad, all yall can suck a dick

I see no reason to continue discussion from this point

>> No.1826667

Jane Austen isn't rad, y'all can suck a dick

That's why.

>> No.1826673

>>1826667
pretty terrible reason sorry you haven't convinced me

>> No.1826678

>>1826673
Aww, fuck, no convincing you, Imma gonna laeve now, bitches.

>> No.1826680

i rarely read old books

for the same reason i rarely watch black and white movies

people in the past were morons

>> No.1826685

>>1826678
victory is mine

>>1826680
look how fucking dumb you are

everyone, come and laugh at the fucking moron

>> No.1826694
File: 24 KB, 300x273, trollface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1826694

Then since everything is influenced from the past then everything must be a moron.

Including you.

Are you god damned retarded? "I rarely watch black an white movies" which are some of the best ones ever made? You know, I bet the person who made you is a god damned moron. You're father and mothers, and the entire damned tree you slack jawed motherfucker.

Go read some Twilight and fuck some Micheal bay, you stupid piece of shit.

>> No.1826722

>>1826660

Well, this is going nowhere.
Just so you know, though You have trisomy.


As for the rest of you, I'm disowning this thread because there are so many trisomic fucks up in hurrr.

>> No.1826742

>>1826722
What type do I have?

>> No.1826789

>>1826742

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warkany_syndrome_2

You're the fetus Nature wanted to abort but couldn't

>> No.1826863

Ah, god damn it.

>> No.1826866

ITT: we draw out all the butthurt women who cling to their Emily Dickinson and Jane Austen

>> No.1826870

>>1826866
fuck you, you sexist douchebag

spoiler: i'm a dude

>> No.1826871

>>1826866

Do not be silly. They are both excellent authors. Why is there such a need for disruption tonight?

>> No.1826876

>>1826722
dude why are you always saying that people have trisomy

cut that shit out and find a new disease

>> No.1826961

He read about it once and is too retarded to find another diseases that makes you mentally incapacitated.

>> No.1826967
File: 99 KB, 361x357, at.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1826967

>>1826876
...And you clearly have trisomy.