The Guardian demands an answer

[Anonymous No.18618007]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/jul/09/why-do-so-few-men-read-books-by-women

Explain yourselves incels

[Anonymous No.18618026]

>>18618007
Women write sentimental trash, even the good ones, even Bronte is filled with kitsch words and melodrama. Even Anne Carson.
Virgia Woolf, Dickinson etc. are rare exceptions, and even they also sometimes fall into that mistake.

Naipaul was overall correct, like it or not.
If your pro-sentimentalism, though, women writers are a good choice. It's all a matter of taste, in the end.

[Anonymous No.18618029]

Because they are generally shit. I suggest you take this grievance up with the black community. Go to a prison or a ghetto and demand that they start reading Jewish feminist bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18618033]

>>18618026
>you're

Fix'd.

[Anonymous No.18618036]

Women have written books?

[Anonymous No.18618043]

Men really struggle with empathy. They simply cannot place themselves in the shoes of someone not literally themselves (or who they perceive themselves capable of being). I think it’s quite cruel to criticise them for it though, they can’t help it.

[Anonymous No.18618046]

>>18618007
>Margaret Atwood, a writer who should be on the bookshelves of anyone who cares about literary fiction.

Why do Anglos overrate their crap so much?

[Anonymous No.18618047]

>>18618007
I have scum manifesto, that was based. I really wish all moids feminists were like this.

[Anonymous No.18618056]

>>18618007
Didn't read the rubbish but /lit/ is merely 1% of male population and whatever I think she said is correct.

[Anonymous No.18618058]

>>18618007
Because I want to read literature and not a woman's whining. No need to buy a book full of that.

[Anonymous No.18618062]

“It opens their eyes to what it’s like to live as a woman in the world, the first step to learning empathy.”

Why do so many middle class white women think that they deserve empathy?

[Anonymous No.18618083]

>>18618062
foids are under the impression that anyone deserves anything. They believe in the myth of natural rights. Fundamentally weak creatures who couldn't fend for themselves in a natural, non-coddling environment. I'm not a rightist so I have no reverence for or attachment to the west, and welcome its demise. I look forward to seeing how strong and independent women will be when they're no longer protected by their meek laws.

[Anonymous No.18618105]

I've been forcing myself to read Jane Austen to correct this
I've read Pride and Prejudice and am 100 pages into Emma
Also reading Dickinson, planning to read charlotte and Emily Bronte as well as George Elliot
That said I've read a lot of fanfiction written by women, mostly F/M enemies to lovers and M/M erotica

[Anonymous No.18618116]

Reading is about noticing style and structure, not about 'feeling empathy'. If you need a book to feel this so-called 'empathy', you are a psychopath. Not that there's anything wrong with being a psychopath.
Still, as Nabokov said, only a child would identify with a character in a book.
I tend to dislike women authors because their style quickly descends into kitsch, even when it's original and well-structured.

[Anonymous No.18618117]

>>1861800
It's because they write shit.
No need to overcomplicate things.

[Anonymous No.18618123]

>>18618062
*unreciprocated empathy
To middle class white women I don't exist

[Anonymous No.18618137]

>>18618043
The way men and women empathize is definitely different. A man is far more depersonalized and sees a situation not as an individual in that situation but as an observer. This is true both for situations not involving the man or situations where he is directly involved.
Women, by contrast, sees each situation as an individual. In a situation where she, herself, is involved, she may simply see it as herself but in situations where she is not involved, instead of being a passive observer like the man, sees the situation through the perspectives of the other individuals.
For that reason, one might say that a man might define a situation through objective reality whereas to the female, the situation is defined through those involved.

[Anonymous No.18618144]

>>18618007
Bit hard to read stuff that doesn't exist

[Anonymous No.18618156]

There is a mill, an ancient one,
Brown with rain, and dry with sun,
The miller's house is joined with it,
And in July the swallows flit
To and fro, in and out,
Round the windows, all about;
The mill wheel whirrs and the waters roar
Out of the dark arch by the door,
The willows toss their silver heads,
And the phloxes in the garden beds
Turn red, turn grey,
With the time of day,
And smell sweet in the rain, then die away.

[Anonymous No.18618158]

They don't write books about old hunters meditating on their life while stalking deer in the mountains.

[Anonymous No.18618168]

so far this year, 26 of the 62 books i've read have been by women

[Anonymous No.18618171]

>>18618043
Indeed. Women bred men to be that way, after all

[Anonymous No.18618178]

>>18618171
>>18618168
>>18618158
>>18618156
>>18618144
>>18618137
>>18618123
>>18618117
>>18618105
>>18618083
>>18618062
>>18618058
>>18618056
>>18618047
>>18618046
>>18618043
>>18618036
>>18618033
>>18618029
>>18618026
>>18618007
Women are quite possibly the worst writers on earth. All they write is smut, drama and fantasy.

All of the great men have already written their great works. Great men still continue to write science fiction to prepare people for the future. Women don't care about the future. They care about discord, drama, and other frivolous bullshit.

[Anonymous No.18618184]

>>18618007
>why-do-so-few-men-read-books-by-women
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_of_Norwich#Revelations_of_Divine_Love
Because there ain't that many good books in the first place.
The older the book, the better - but there weren't that many writing females during Antiquity and Middle Ages.

[Anonymous No.18618189]

>>18618007
I just read, anon. Some happen to be written by women and others not.

[Anonymous No.18618191]

>>18618083
Ayn Rand midwit detected.

[Anonymous No.18618193]

>>18618007
As soon as women talk about stuff that interests me, I will read them. I read Ayn Rand's We the Living and liked it a lot, it's not hard.

[Anonymous No.18618196]

>>18618007
Obsessive reading is a sedentary activity for women and academic bugmen no suprise here. Real men go out into the world and grapple with life itself, needing only a handful of the few worthwile books to orient and guide themselves. Reading autists like Kant and Hegel is probably even more harmful than femoids who read romance novels, because they will cluter your mind with nonsense and numbing abstractions. And reading for pleasure is just escapism on the same level as anime and video games, in fact it might even be worse. Now excuse me, while I enjoy my illustrated copy of the Odyssey and go pump some iron and have sex with a prostitute.

[Anonymous No.18618198]

>Margaret Atwood, a writer who should be on the bookshelves of anyone who cares about literary fiction
she's trash

[Anonymous No.18618200]

I don’t want to read YA

[Anonymous No.18618202]

>>18618198
>Margaret Atwood
>literary fiction

Those people are insane.

[Anonymous No.18618203]

Because I read books by people who have something interesting to say

[Anonymous No.18618205]

>>18618007
Why does it matter the gender? There shouldn't be some imaginary quota to who you should read. That said I have enjoyed works by women authors for what they wrote not the gender they are.

[Anonymous No.18618210]

Men aren't inherently averse to female authors. Most millennial males grew up on Harry Potter, and you'll find plenty of male readers of people like Rand, Susanna Clarke, Margaret Weiss, Isabel Allende and so on.

When those people say "read more female authors" what they really mean is "read feminist ideologues and bow to their worldview."

[Anonymous No.18618227]

>>18618205
>Why does it matter the gender?
http://libgen.gs/item/index.php?md5=5F45946DE14D9E8D8C967EC9298D78FE
Women write "I"-sentences and verbs more, accentuate on social aspect more, and focus on emotional stuff. Males are more goal-oriented.

[Anonymous No.18618233]

What's a female author that touches on theme like Dostoevsky or Tolstoy? Or who does something similar to Borges or Eco? Not even being ironic here.

[Anonymous No.18618253]

>>18618191
>Ayn Rand
kek. utter dogshit. Also I don't read books written by women

[Anonymous No.18618260]

>>18618233
There was a friend of Borges who was a writer. She was Bioy's wife. Silvina Ocampo. Haven't read her stuff, but Borges liked it. People say it's quite good.
She, Woolf, and Murasaki were the only three female writers Borges liked, according to himself.

[Anonymous No.18618263]

I love women and truly hold no hate in my heart towards them. They possess skills that are absolutely invaluable to the proper function of society. Women play an instrumental role in properly socializing children.

Now that that is out of the way, there are vast biological differences between men and women. Men are simply much more biologically suited towards deep intellectual thought and creative pursuits.
There is a reason that all great philosophers, all great great painters, and (almost) all great writers are men. It’s not because women are prevented from doing those things. It’s because they don’t have the tools to do those things, nor do they have any desire to do those things.
Females simply do not sit around pondering the nature of reality. It’s not how they are wired. That’s okay. It doesn’t mean they are stupid—it makes no sense to call women stupid for not doing things that they’re not built for.
No reasonable man would attempt to force a nail into a piece of wood by hitting it with the tip of a screwdriver and then say “wow, this hammer sucks!”

[Anonymous No.18618275]

>>18618263
For the love of God have sex

[Anonymous No.18618285]

>Margaret Atwood, a writer who should be on the bookshelves of anyone who cares about literary fiction

That is a rather presumptuous statement, no?

[Anonymous No.18618292]

>>18618275
typical foid response. I'm not that anon but let me tell you this, nothing made me look down on women more than having sex with them. sex is a meme and absolutely overrated. It is an emperor without clothes.

[Anonymous No.18618303]

>>18618007
Well I like the great books written by sci fi and literary women. And obviously I read the seminal texts and major recent monographs by women in my sub discipline research specialisation.

So I guess I read books by women when the books are good and available and of interest. That’s why I read books by women.

[Anonymous No.18618306]

>>18618292
Try having it with a woman with no clothes next time, anon

[Anonymous No.18618309]

>>18618026
Flannery O'Connor is another rare exception too

[Anonymous No.18618316]

>>18618007
This is a sad, sad thread, filled with sad, sad men. Deliver yourself from your hatred towards women, get therapy.

I bet most of you have barely tried to read books by women. It's not that hard, just google it.

[Anonymous No.18618321]

I heard this is good. Does it count even though the author is a man using a female pseudonym?

[Anonymous No.18618346]

>>18618316
Well I have read JK Rowlings series, Ursula Le Guin and a lot of manga authors

[Anonymous No.18618349]

>>18618321
Low quality bait regarding the author. If you're actually looking for an answer to your question, it's a nice view into what Naples was like at the time, it's well written, but not much more than that.

[Anonymous No.18618354]

>>18618346
Is that supposed to counter what I said about barely trying?

[Anonymous No.18618362]

>>18618263
>It’s not because women are prevented from doing those things. It’s because they don’t have the tools to do those things,
It's because women usually dislike striving for leadership (instead, using covert tactics and shifting responsibility). And philosophy, etc. is basically the way to shout "see how great I am!", i.e. an open dominance display.

There is a reason, why people think that Einstein's wife contributed significantly to Einstein's research. And in Ancient Greece, Aspasia was the brain behind the Pericles.

[Anonymous No.18618363]

>>18618306
that response doesn't even make sense. it literally said the emperor has no clothes

[Anonymous No.18618364]

>>18618354
No, I'm just really upset atm and thought of a pointless response to your post, sorry

[Anonymous No.18618377]

>>18618306
What will happen next? More dread after post-nut? More worries that you are slave of your instinct? A sudden realization that you're a worm in some primitive evolution Conspiracy?

[Anonymous No.18618390]

>>18618354
you wrote some extremely stupid projecting bullshit about therapy lol. Shame on that other anon for responding to you in good faith. It's vastly more than you deserve.

[Anonymous No.18618405]

>>18618263
>Females simply do not sit around pondering the nature of reality. It’s not how they are wired. That’s okay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damaris_Cudworth_Masham
>Damaris Cudworth Masham's work and correspondence with many of the great philosophers of the Enlightenment may be argued to have influenced their resulting published works. Most notably, it is surmised that she influenced Locke's second revision of An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.

[Anonymous No.18618434]

>>18618316

[Anonymous No.18618446]

>>18618434
Kek

[Anonymous No.18618467]

I only read women (or woman in singular I should say) who were ashamed so ashamed of the natural inferiority of their sex that they decided to write under a male pseudonym

[Anonymous No.18618470]

>>18618349
Elena Ferrante is the pen name of Domenico Starnone.

[Anonymous No.18618472]

>>18618116
>Still, as Nabokov said, only a child would identify with a character in a book.
Nabokov is myopic in that regard.

[Anonymous No.18618557]

>>18618364
That's okay, it happens to the best of us.
>>18618390
If you hate women, or any other group of people, because of some misguided belief that they are inferior, then I'd wager to say that you are probably depressed, suffer for some kind of mental illness (which can mean a whole lot of things, not necessarily something extreme), or you are a child/teenager.
>>18618434
Does this seem like a smart meme or even a smart argument to you? Would you be proud to speak its meaning out loud?
>>18618470
Looks like you read that one BS article and somehow believed it.

[Anonymous No.18618589]

>>18618557
>Looks like you read that one BS article and somehow believed it.
Multiple universities all did different studies using AI to analyze the writing styles of many different Italian authors and all of their studies pointed to him. It’s not BS, it’s a statistical certainty

[I hate women No.18618592]

>>18618196
>Now excuse me, while I enjoy my illustrated copy of the Odyssey and go pump some iron and have sex with a prostitute.
kek, another soiboy redditor turned redpiller thinking he is superior for simply lifting weights and reading a book for sophomores in hs. ngmi desu

[Anonymous No.18618605]

>>18618589
I googled that for two minutes and found that it could just as well be Anita Raja. Comparing writing styles doesn't count as proof, especially when your sample is so small.

[Anonymous No.18618618]

>>18618026
?
Dostoyevsky is sentimental trash.

[Anonymous No.18618635]

>>18618260
He also liked a short story by May Sinclair.

[Anonymous No.18618650]

>>18618405
Is this supposed to disprove anything? For instance, I could also find someone born with two heads, yet even though this creature would exist we would still say that humans are wired to have one head.

[Anonymous No.18618660]

>>18618007
I've read The Lottery by Shirley Jackson and some poems by Dickinson :)

Modern stuff sucks, though.

[Anonymous No.18618703]

I liked the Milkman.

[Anonymous No.18618759]

I think it’s a question of focus.
Male writers tend to focus more on creating things that I love and enjoy.
Female writers tend to focus on taking things I love and enjoy away from me.

[Anonymous No.18618768]

>>18618759
1>4>2>3

[Anonymous No.18618804]

>>18618557
Holy shit go back to bunkerchan you fucking trannie faggot.

[Anonymous No.18618807]

>>18618007
I dont read books

[Anonymous No.18618891]

>>18618434
Based

[Anonymous No.18618900]

Not only are women shitty writers, but the fact that "celebrated authors" like Margaret Atwood only have 21% male readers goes to show just how nepotistic and cancerous the publishing industry is. Women writers don't get published because they're good, they get published because they're women. It's female agents pushing female writers by publishing houses run by women, which then get feminist book awards from feminist judges. It's a nepotistic circle jerk of feminists jerking off other feminists. And we see the failure of their nepotism and propaganda when it comes to actual sales. Like oh my god! I'm a strong independent woman and I'm publishing literature by strong independent women and other strong independent women all agree it's the greatest thing ever written, but people outside my echo chamber aren't buying it! HOW?!

Maybe, just maybe, Margaret Atwood isn't the end all be all of literature. Maybe supporting authors based on their gender is fucking sexism and you don't deserve any fucking sales you stupid cunts. Because if it wasn't for liberal colleges assigning Margaret Atwood in college indoctrination camps I bet her sales would fucking plummet down to fucking dinosaur bones.

[Anonymous No.18618921]

>>18618557
>If you hate women, or any other group of people, because of some misguided belief that they are inferior,
i don't hate women because I think they're inferior. I hate them because of what they're like. I hate men too, for different reasons. Not all hate is founded in bigotry, I don't have to think of myself as superior to everything I hate. I can hate people who are better than me. Seems to me like you've never known what it's like to truly hate something

[Anonymous No.18618927]

>>18618007
if more women writer's kept better care of their feet, more men would consider reading their work, period

[Anonymous No.18618940]

women writers are only worth it for smut or sentimental trash, nobody picks a female writer if they want something genuinely good

[Anonymous No.18618955]

>>18618940
you will when i write my book

[Anonymous No.18618968]

>>18618007
I read Harry Potter when I was a kid. Get off my dick.

[Anonymous No.18618969]

>>18618955
I might read your book but you will never be a woman, sir tranny

[Anonymous No.18618971]

>>18618955
Feet pics please
Or she penis pics if more convenient

[Anonymous No.18619024]

>>18618007
>on the bookshelves of anyone who cares about literary fiction.
i don't care about literary fiction. Funnily enough, about 75% of my reads are from women authors

[Anonymous No.18619120]

>>18618955
ywnbaw

[Anonymous No.18619192]

Pic related has a couple of explicit sex scenes—as one would expect from a female writer—but besides those the book is very good. Besides, even those serve a purpose, even if they didn't need to be as detailed.
It's basically Lydgate in decolonialising Africa where he desperately tries to keep a hospital in a Quaker missionary centre.

[Anonymous No.18619203]

Read A Man Cannot Cry. It has a couple of explicit sex scenes—as one would expect from a female writer—but besides those the book is very good. Besides, even those serve a purpose, even if they didn't need to be as detailed.
It's basically Lydgate in decolonialising Africa where he desperately tries to keep a hospital in a Quaker missionary centre.

[Anonymous No.18619209]

>>18618900
Jk Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, and that bitch that wrote 50 shades made millions upon millions in sales. In fact, I'm pretty sure Rowling is a billionaire. So, your point is pretty moot. In addition, the most recent winner of the Hugo was a woman. I went in thinking that it was probably woke nepotism that got her the award, but then I read the book. It's phenomenal. Incredible worldbuilding and prose. I'm all for shitting on people groups here and there, but to call all female writers unsellable and bad at writing just makes you sound childish, retarded or involuntarily celibate

[Anonymous No.18619223]

>>18618007
I've read Sally Rooney and I want to eat her poosie.

[Anonymous No.18619279]

>>18619209
>Jk Rowling, Stephanie Meyer, and that bitch that wrote 50 shades
Kids writer, shit writer, and a softcore porn writer
>winner of the Hugo was a woman
sci fi is onions in book form (with very few exceptions, non modern)

[Anonymous No.18619280]

This is such bullshit lol. It's basically a bunch of women writing literature especifically for women, while saying men don't read them because sexism.
I've read many books by women, it's just that they are not necessarily top ten best sellers, they haven't won any Booker prizes, or are even americans. I guess only women that fit that criteria count.
One of my favorite poets is Gabriela Mistral. She won the first nobel prize in Latin America and is widely loved and read throughout the continent. Her poems are very feminine and motherly, but i don't need to be either to be amazed by them. Does the author of the article know her? Probably not.
Just because i don't wanna read fuking Danielle Steel doesn't mean i am repulsed by female authors.

[Anonymous No.18619323]

If you take all the works of literature produced in the history of mankind, what percentage of those works are written by women?

The only reason why you would expect to read an equal amount of male and female authors is if you only read things written in the past 10 years.

[Anonymous No.18619369]

>>18618007
Classics? Due to various socio-economic factors, women wrote considerably less than men, but what we have is usually decent and I have read it. Contemporary? Self-righteous, indulgent, gender as a core theme, overzealous or simply shit (rom novels etc. - to be faird here, men write a lot of this crap too, but it's usually a thriller).

So, where does that leave us? Due to historical contingency, we have very little works and what's being written today simply isn't readable (excluding a handful of female authors and my hat's off to them - they are transcending social expectations and the hivemind of their gender that's prevaled in the media). This is mostly due to the latter point, they are overcompensating and naturally aren't able to produce quality literature, until they dig themselves out of that gutter? Will they? Only time will tell, and I'm leaning towards yes.

[Anonymous No.18619379]

>>18619279
>"woman make no money off books!"
>here are some that made lots of money
>"Women can't write for shit!"
>actually, some are very talented, such as...
>"That genre is (buzzwords)"
Nice argument.

[Anonymous No.18619389]

Vanessa place is the only living female fiction author worth reading
Also fuck lucy ellman

[Anonymous No.18619442]

>>18618007
BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE BOOKS. JOJO MOYES??? DANIELLE STEEL?? WHY EVEN INCLUDE THEM IN THIS ARTICLE. STOP FORCING THIS CRAP. REEEE

[Anonymous No.18619467]

>>18618363
Are you retarded? How does that make the joke nonsensical?

[Anonymous No.18619499]

>>18618007
"literary fiction" just doesn't mean anything anymore doesn't it?
Also I don't care about who wrote a book if the book itself interests me, I'm not gonna go and pick up shit that i don't care about to fill some meaningless quota
and can Atwood just fuck off? she's peak middlebrow/midwit-core, nothing more, and I'm tired of her taking all the place in Canada's literary space

[Anonymous No.18619615]

>>18619467
and this reply right here answers the thread

[Anonymous No.18619621]

>>18618007
It's written for women and really boring. It's anime fanservice tier a lot of the time. Even the good writers still write in a very narrow and indulgent range of feminine interest (though worth reading). I have broad experience because when I first started reading I only read my mother's books which are about 2/3 female authors.

>>18618043
I don't think so. Men write and read more varied and totally unrelated characters and topics without putting them in a box or needing something personal from them. A big thing for women is getting something that sates them from the characters and 'relating', as well as imposing moral judgements and getting invested in a character such that they genuinely hate or love them. This is not empathy as they are highly intolerant of anyone unalike them or breaking from tropes. Although, another difference not mentioned is that women read more so you have a large audience who treats reading as any other entertainment media and so the quality suffers as they need to be catered to. I think they're also more inclined to spend money on physical books.

[Anonymous No.18619649]

>>18618321
The author, who is probably a man, is most certainly getting most of the story from a female, most likely his wife.

[Anonymous No.18619651]

>>18618759
do you think the young girl in the middle on the left (from our pov) with big boobs and a nice smile will go out with me ?

[Anonymous No.18619657]

>>18618940
also why are women so good at smut?

[Anonymous No.18619712]

like my nigga Plato said: Women can do everything a man does, just not as good

[Anonymous No.18619763]

>>18619712
except get me hard. although technologically enhanced femboys might take care of that in the future.

[Anonymous No.18619817]

I don't care. I just read things.

[Anonymous No.18619835]

>>18618007
>Margaret Atwood, a writer who should be on the bookshelves of anyone who cares about literary fiction,
opinion discarded. she writes feminist genre fiction.

[Anonymous No.18619859]

>>18618007
People actually give a shit about wether the author has balls?

[Anonymous No.18619863]

>>18619657
They’re only good for sex

[Anonymous No.18620040]

This reminds me of that other Guardian article where they wondered what happened to the male writer. As in, where did they go.

I’m the UK the publishing industry is made up mostly of women. This wasn’t an accident. Women have always read more than men. Once that data became ingrained in the industry it only made sense to focus on that demographic. Unfortunately they leaned to hard into it. In this article there was one line about female authors missing out on money from male readers, which is ultimately what this is about.

Women and men want to read different things. There is nothing wrong with that. When the industry collectively decided to no longer publish new books aimed at men, they made the decision they no longer want male readers. It was a short sighted financial move and instead of trying to expand their portfolio they are finger wagging and blaming men.

In the previous guardian article I mentioned the writer (a woman) pointed out that there was one year in the Uk where only one book was published where the author was a black man. Just one.

[Anonymous No.18620073]

>>18619615
>t.

[Anonymous No.18620419]

>>18618007
Cause their brains are smaller than mine.

[Anonymous No.18620673]

>>18619280
Gabriela Mistral es una puta mierda que ya nadie lee.

[Anonymous No.18620689]

Relax. Transmen will save literature from its precarious state

[Anonymous No.18620693]

>You need to read more female authors
>Why?
>Because they're female

No, thanks. If you write something interesting, then I'll read it. I'm not into reading someone due to their skin or sex.

[Anonymous No.18620754]

>>18618007
I'm honestly not sure, myself. I don't really have a problem with women or anything, there happens to be plenty of movies, comics, shows, and music written by women that I quite like. I suppose that maybe for literature in particular it must just attract a certain kind of woman?

[Anonymous No.18620854]

>>18618007
I'm only interested in reading good books.

[Anonymous No.18620902]

>>18618116
>Reading is about noticing style and structure
You're as retarded as the plotfags.

[Anonymous No.18620905]

>>18618618
Why would you bring him up and why are you so retarded?

[Anonymous No.18620907]

>>18618007
Men are much better at everything, including writing.

[Anonymous No.18621321]

>>18618007
Happenstance. If a book is good, I don't care what is the gender of the author (also don't care who wrote a bad book). Don't like Atwood, but there's Anne Carson, Amelie Nothomb, Ali Smith, Anna Kavan, Louise Erdich, and Ann Quin. And classic writers like Lady Murakami, George Eliot, Jane Austen, and Christina Rosseti.

[Anonymous No.18621336]

Everything has to be at exact parity or better than the population now. LGBT representation on TV is double what they are in the population, but it's never enough.

[Anonymous No.18621378]

mary shelley is good but who knows whether she really wrote Frankenstein

[Anonymous No.18621455]

>>18620673
Basado

[Anonymous No.18621524]

The greatest writer of my country was a woman. I bought I first edition copy of one of her books the other day at a second hand store.
Seethe Chuds.

[Anonymous No.18621537]

>>18621524
My deepest apologies on your countries cultural stunt

[Anonymous No.18621545]

>>18621524
>The greatest writer of my country was a woman.
clearly your country is devoid of talent.

[Anonymous No.18621603]

>>18618007
This is such a stupid article. Women read women's books because they subscribe to the hivemind "support all women" mentality. Men don't read women's book because they're irrelevant.

Any worthwhile book on philosophy and knowledge is always written by men. Women generally do not write or care for philosophy, which is why Ayn Rand is the only thing women talk about in that subject

For fiction, women do not write that well, which is evident by the fact that women do not have any classics. There is a reason why women are not in any lists of best books unless they need to add women in it.

[Anonymous No.18621609]

>>18620689
So beautiful

[Anonymous No.18621619]

I read this one earlier this year. It was pretty shit.

[Anonymous No.18621639]

>>18621603
I believe in an essential masculine and feminine, but I disagree. In English fiction, Jane Austen and George Eliot have been recognised for a long time before feminism. I perfectly understand why men don't want to engage with this perspective, it's even healthy, yet I genuinely believe Austen is a master of the female perspective and Pride and Prejudice is genuinely funny. It runs counter to my taste, but it's good as it is.

[Anonymous No.18621660]

>>18618046
It's not so much that; Atwood is a master of self-marketing. Her MO is jumping onto cultural trends and simplifying academic -isms for the sake of hot takes that make midwits "think." She's popular because of her accessibility and lack of depth and not because she's groundbreaking; she's been playing the mysogeny card for over 50 years now.

[Anonymous No.18621696]

>>18619209
>the most recent winner of the Hugo was a woman
You don't say. Well certainly the Hugo Awards isn't biased or nepotistic. Oh wait. Except they literally nominated the Nostalgia Chick for her first novel just because she fits in perfect with their insufferable SJW clique. The Hugo Awards is fucking dead. They'd rather give out no award than give one to a white man. Which is exactly what they did that one year with the Sad Puppies debacle.

[Anonymous No.18621704]

>>18618263
I think women are stupid as fuck and I hate them because feminism and capitalism has completely obliterated culture and here is why.
Women are brainwashed with the feminist ideal that they are just as good as men and deserve to be in the work place and have a voice. The problem is that in order for this to happen effectively men en masse are basically castrated by society as schools favour female centric learning structure then put men on ADHD meds or blame them for failing. Work places are toxic because women cause all sorts of drama and are generally not as effective as men but because of quotas many work places are forced to hire women and minorities regardless of their competancy. This then leads women to become arrogant because they believe they are now better than some men because of their make work career.

I even believe that women are largely worthless for socializing children because i experienced the exact opposite at my school where I found male teachers and principles much more effective and fair and intelligent in instilling balance. I mean maybe 4 year olds at maximum but I think afterwards women are trash. Women shouldnt have a voice in anything because they are wrong about everything and overwhelmingly take leftist viewpoints and are overall very selfish and avoidant from taking any sort of responsibility.

My general position is that if we are to have a modern civilization my dream utopia would be one with artificial wombs and genetically engineered population that is entirely gay men of the masculine orient and feminine orient.
I honestly think that femmy gay men are better at being women than women because they are raised as men and have male psychology without the whole entitlement or lack of responsibilty ethos build in. In fact many feminine gay men look to prove their masculinity.
Yes I think its perfectly fine to call something stupid as I have read about women and everywhere from Rome to 12th century Zen Bhuddists have complained about the nature of women.
I dislike women immensely and I hate the 21st century socio-political climate. Women are a weakness we cannot aford as they are the biggest bunch of consoomer blue pillers on the planet who protect the Khazars.
I'm honestly amazed that men and women are the same species.
I mean a simple social experiment would be what if we banned women from driving how would society improve or implemented Islams rules for controlling female behaviour?

The problem of saying dont hate women is that we no longer live in a Traditionalist or Chauvinist society where mens roles and womens roles are respected instead we live in a society where men are abused by the system and women are given intense privledges to be fuck ups because the system profits off them immensely. This then has a demoralzing effect on men where we have to work at least twice as hard to see the same recognition or rewards as women while also experiencing more social woes and scapegoated.

[Anonymous No.18621705]

>no one has mentioned the best female author, Willa Cather

[Anonymous No.18621729]

>>18621321
This

[Anonymous No.18621735]

>>18621705
The litany of
>I can't think of any worthwhile female authors
Should reveal how little /lit/ thinks about books in any capacity. It's fairly funny how utterly illiterate this board is. Judging on that, I'd suspect the average age is about 14.

[Anonymous No.18621745]

>>18621735
2 of the exact same threads are up baiting trash

[Anonymous No.18621754]

>>18618137
I can agree with this. Whenever a fight breaks out men just go blank and stare but women always scream stop and get involved

[Anonymous No.18621775]

>>18621745
The fact that this thread is 1) a shitpost and 2) part of a set is hardly relevant to my baiting.

[Anonymous No.18621779]

>>18619763
come on bb, you just haven't felt my touch yet
I'll take control of your body, make you feel pleasures no man should ever know

[Anonymous No.18621810]

>>18621639
Although I sort of agree, don't think it's just because men don't want to engage, it's because there is no reason for it.

Why do women read a lot of male writers? Why do men read from male writers? Because objectively most of the best and classics are by men. Dostoyevsky, Nabokov, Tolstoy, Orwell, Vonnegut, Faulkner, Mishima, and Celine are just a few of the greatest writers and all of them are men. Not to mention the (although seemingly) monopoly male writers have on philosophy and critical thinking. Kant, Aurelius, Nietzsche, Aristotle, Plato, Cioran, Schopenhauer, and even more. All men.

Are there outliers for this? Can women be good writers? Of course. But if we concern ourselves with classics and only the best, women writers rarely make it. More evident by the fact that most people only know about three woman writers, rather than the endless amount of books written by men.

Is this women fault? No, women write for women and generally they don't care for books that target men. Which is evident by the extreme lack of women in philosophy and philosophical dialogue.

[Anonymous No.18621823]

>>18621810
I agree completely.

[Anonymous No.18621835]

>>18621775

[Anonymous No.18621851]

>>18618007
Teaching women to read was a mistake. That's where the decline started.

[Anonymous No.18621863]

>>18618007
Because women are typically incapable of understanding the mindset and concerns of men.

[Anonymous No.18621878]

>>18618007
Women are shit at writing and have shitty ideas because they're stupid
/thread

[Anonymous No.18621879]

>>18621863
They then project that lack of understanding and use it as a scapegoat.

[Anonymous No.18621886]

>>18619209
>I'm pretty sure Rowling is a billionaire
And I'm even more sure that Rowling perpetrated the dullest franchise since the interminable cash-in sequelae to the Wizard of Oz. Seriously each episode following the boy wizard and his pals from Hogwarts Academy as they fight assorted villains has been indistinguishable from the others. Aside from the gloomy imagery, the series’ only consistency has been its lack of excitement and ineffective use of special effects, all to make magic unmagical, to make action seem inert.

Perhaps the die was cast when Rowling vetoed the idea of Spielberg directing the series; she made sure the series would never be mistaken for a work of art that meant anything to anybody; just ridiculously profitable cross-promotion for her books. The Harry Potter series might be anti-Christian (or not), but it’s certainly the anti-James Bond series in its refusal of wonder, beauty and excitement. No one wants to face that fact. Now, thankfully, they no longer have to.

>a-at least the books were good though

"No!"

The writing is 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. 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.

[Anonymous No.18621888]

>>18618007
I dislike her eyebrows.

[Anonymous No.18621891]

>>18618043

[Anonymous No.18621899]

>>18618043
I don't struggle with empathy
I simply struggle to empathize with womanly "struggles"

[Anonymous No.18621919]

>>18618043
It's reasonable. Who can empathize with objects?

[Anonymous No.18621927]

>>18621888
forget the eyebrows. what the FUCK is going on with her neck?

[Anonymous No.18621939]

>>18619209
>I went in thinking that it was probably woke nepotism that got her the award, but then I read the book. It's phenomenal.
Am I going to a special literary hell because my brain kept rendering the Emperor's name as One Direction?

>Yes, you are going to a special literary hell, but you won't be alone there. I realized fairly early on that Emperor Six Direction was, er, Reminiscent of a certain band. And yet I couldn't bring myself to change it, because it's such a perfect name for a Teixcalaanli emperor: All six of their directions! North, south, east, west, earth, sky. Emperor of everything, stretching out in all directions!

>On the other hand, my friend Max Gladstone and I ended up giving all the One Direction boys Teixcalaanli names as a kind of preemptive self-defense, so I am not sure whether I regret or am gleeful about my choices here.

>Editor's note: For the record, Martine says Harry actually IS named One Direction in Teixcalaanli. Zayn is One Amaryllis, Niall is One Lathe, Louis is One Silicon — or maybe Semiconductor — and Liam is One Expanding Insulation Foam. She also says you can consider this canon.

Truly amazing prose anon. I too love pop culture references like that! So based and exciting.

[Anonymous No.18621955]

>>18620673
>muh popularity
kys pleb

[Anonymous No.18621961]

>>18621321
Lady Murasaki*

[Anonymous No.18621964]

>>18621939
>North, south, east, west, earth, sky. Emperor of everything, stretching out in all directions!
Sounds like a ripoff of The Six Directions of Space by Alastair Reynolds

[Anonymous No.18622032]

I'm only interested in reading good books.

[Anonymous No.18622046]

I don't read.

[Anonymous No.18622065]

There are some good books by women but not many. Women just aren't that interesting, ambitious, or willing to suffer for their craft for the most part. When this is pointed out to them, they whine about it and demand you give them special consideration simply because they are women, proving the point, and handily demonstrating why they rarely do much.

Why do anything if you can always just pull the woman card and start whining, and it will actually work?

[Anonymous No.18622073]

>>18618007
Because women are a meme.

[Anonymous No.18622086]

>>18622073
I hate this meme

[Anonymous No.18622098]

>>18621919
If you can't empathize with objects you are not a real artist

[Anonymous No.18622105]

>>18618116
If he was still living and could, Nabokov would shoot you with a gun for wildly misrepresenting him.

[Anonymous No.18622109]

>>18618178
George Eliot is one of the best novelists to have ever lived, as good as tolstoy, better than cervantes.

[Anonymous No.18622226]

>>18618043
When was the last time you did something for a struggling man?

Women are literally incapable of empathizing with men.
That's why you think we're evil.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/machiavellians-gulling-the-rubes/201610/briffaults-law-women-rule

[Anonymous No.18622230]

>>18620902
>>18618472
Nabokov is entirely correct.
Of course, one has to qualify that statement by saying: "reading literature for literature's sake".
Ideas, etc. are non-literary objects. If a passage in a novel has a great idea in it, it might still be bad, *from a literary perspective*, because it might not *fit* into the *structure* or the *style*. Example: if Tolstoy had put a theorem in Anna Karenina, it would have made him look good, but it would be bad for the book from a literary perspective. Of course, he could have changed the structure and style of the book in such a manner that a theorem would be essential to it, but then it wouldn't be Anna Karenina anymore, which is the book I'm talking about.
Literature, *as distinguished from other areas*, is about style and structure. It can be about a million things, but not while *distinguished from other areas*.

As for identification with the character, well, it does happen, certainly, but only at the lower level of reading. You're supposed to be able to transcend that very easily. A good reader does not support Achilles vs. Hector or Hector vs. Achilles, he simply enjoys the melopeia, phanopeia and logopeia of Homer's writing. *You might even cry when Hector dies, but it''s not because it is Hector dying, otherwise any monkey writer would be able to make you cry too.* It's because of the style Homer uses when describing Hector's death that you cry; unless, of course, you are a child, in which case any monkey writer will be able to move you indeed.

[Anonymous No.18622238]

>>18622230
>A good reader does not support Achilles vs. Hector or Hector vs. Achilles
Fuck you faggot
Hector 4 lyfe
I bet you're a filthy A*hilles shitter

[Anonymous No.18622243]

>>18618026
>your
yeah i am totally going to listen to you're opinion

[Anonymous No.18622247]

>>18619280
>>18620673
>>18621455
>>18621955
Mistral is a great example of women writing unreadable, over-sentimental dross.

[Anonymous No.18622265]

>>18622243
your an retard

[Anonymous No.18622385]

>>18618768
You’re sleepin on 2’s titties m8