/lit/ approved women authors

[Anonymous No.19333201]

Mentioned to a tinder date that I enjoyed reading so we talked about our favorite books. She came over eventually and started going through my bookshelf. She noticed that I did not have any women authors besides a few academia based textbooks. She asked me why I didn't have any authors and I said I just didn't find any I liked. I did read Pride and Prejudice and tried Agatha Christie books but I did not enjoy those. Are there any modern women authors that I should read so I can put them on my bookshelf if I like them?

[Anonymous No.19333217]

>>19333201
Shirley Jackson
Carson McCullers
Flannery O'Connor
Patricia Highsmith
George Eliot
Virginia Woolf
Brontë Sisters

[Anonymous No.19333232]

>Incel bookshelf
Based

[Anonymous No.19333235]

Fleur Jaeggy
Marie Darrieussecq

[Anonymous No.19333237]

>>19333232
You're stupid.

[Anonymous No.19333266]

Carson McCullers and Sylvia Plath and don't bother with Faggery O'Connor either unless your going for a tradcath larp but I doubt it since you met the girl on tinder.

[Anonymous No.19333274]

>>19333266
Your constant attacks on Flannery O'Connor in favor of the much inferior one-note McCullers are one of the most tiresome things do come out of 2021's /lit/.

[Anonymous No.19333307]

>>19333274
Cmon bro don't start this again...

That one note inspired Faggery O'Connor's entire collection of work and she still only managed to replicate it well in short stories + she will never be as cute as little miss McCullers so go suck my dick you tradcath faggot.

[Anonymous No.19333321]

>>19333307
>Shits on a canonically great author
>Gets called out on it
>Don...don't start this again anon!
You started it, asshole.

[Anonymous No.19333335]

>>19333201
ann ryand, if she seethes, she's officially been filtered.
ok but seriously have a fucking spine, if there are the books you like, then they are the books you like, there is no reason to fulfill some faggot diversity quota for a WOMAN no less

[Anonymous No.19333348]

>>19333266
Slyvia Plath is dogshit. Ted Hughes, her husband, was a better poet.

[Anonymous No.19333372]

>>19333217
Dont forget Mary Shelley

[Anonymous No.19333379]

>>19333321
I'm entitled to my opinion and I will offer it out at every possible opportunity, and just because 'people' say she's good doesn't mean she is. Personally I think she is boring and unoriginal and too reliant on religion for depth.

>>19333348
Classic /lit/ post, stupid opinion with no substance. I'm at a loss for words.

[Anonymous No.19333380]

>>19333379
>Classic /lit/ post, stupid opinion with no substance. I'm at a loss for words.
Pot, kettle, black. Your lack of self-awareness is staggering.

[Anonymous No.19333418]

>>19333380
Check the archives faggot, I've been very vocal about my opinions and I would be happy to expand on any of them if you would like. And even after my invitation you don't want to tell me why Hughes is better than Plath, as I said before, classic /lit/. Sad!

[Anonymous No.19333471]

Women should only receive an elementary school education, they have no business engaging with any form of written letters save that of recipe books and chores lists.

[Anonymous No.19333814]

Hard agree.

[Anonymous No.19333987]

>>19333201
As of this very moment, my wife and I have tried to find one... But female writers are all garbage.
>>19333217
>Virginia Woolf
An actual dumpster fire and garbage writer.

[Anonymous No.19333993]

>>19333418
>check the archives, my opinion is there!
lol fucking brainlet. Women writers suck, especially the "classics".

[Anonymous No.19333994]

[Anonymous No.19334003]

>>19333994
Oh, how could I have forgotten? I retract my statements.
>>19333993
>>19333987
All hail Savitri Devi.

[Anonymous No.19334012]

deal with it

[Anonymous No.19334022]

>>19333987
>An actual dumpster fire and garbage writer.
Filtered by a foid, good riddance!

[Anonymous No.19334031]

>>19334022
>mfw it was the exact cope I expected
I'm better than you, retard. I understood it, it was just poor writing with an even worse story about blaise nonsense and muh "mental wellbeing". It is catcher in the rye for womemes, with 1/10th the substance.

[Anonymous No.19334591]

>>19333987
>>Virginia Woolf
>An actual dumpster fire and garbage writer.
Would love to hear your opinions on why you think so, anon.

[Anonymous No.19334600]

>>19334031
>I understood it
Understood what, exactly? Were you under the impression she wrote a single piece of literature and then died?

[Anonymous No.19335049]

>>19334031
Again...filtered by a foid! Good riddance!

[Anonymous No.19335061]

>>19333987
>An actual dumpster fire and garbage writer.
I liked The Waves and Orlando. Very comfy. Didn't care for To the Lighthouse.

[Anonymous No.19335250]

oyrx and crake by atwood is the greatest sci fi dystopian fiction of the last century

[Anonymous No.19335475]

>>19333266
Do the world a favor, either kill yourself or shut the fuck up about Flannery O Connor. You are that same cunt that threw her book in waste basket.

[Anonymous No.19335491]

>>19333201
>are there any modern women authors that I should read

No.

[Anonymous No.19335498]

>>19333201
This is a bait thread and the situation described in OP never happened

[Anonymous No.19335502]

>>19333418
>And even after my invitation you don't want to tell me why Hughes is better than Plath, as I said before, classic /lit/.
The thematic range, the imagery, the music, the quality of poetry. He's better in every way.
>Sylvia Plath: Me be le sads wymin! Waaa waa why you left me for a hotter wymin, Teddy??
>Ted Hughes: Death, chaos, the universe, sex, war, westerns, power, old age, massacre, nature, love, hate, humanity, etc.

[Anonymous No.19335514]

>>19335498
Similar thing happened to me. I am also interested in hearing what female lit is recommended by the masterminds here on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.19335561]

As others have said, Carson McCullers is brilliant. George Eliot was a genius. I think that she is Britain's best novelist

[Anonymous No.19335572]

>>19333201
Marguerite Yourcenar
Flannery O'Connor
Virginia Woolf
Iris Murdoch
Simone Weil
Katherine Mansfield
Elizabeth Jolley
Sappho
HD

[Anonymous No.19335581]

>>19333201
Modern female authors are just, ‘look girls can twirl light sabers better than boys. Girls rule boys drool. Don’t waste your time.

[Anonymouṡ No.19335677]

>>19333266
Flannery O'Connor can write, no question about it, but I find her whole perspective just weird and unappealing. Probably it's something to do with her particular brand of Catholicism.

The good writer /lit/ unfairly ignores in favour of FO'C isn't Carson McCullers, though, it's Eudora Welty.

[Anonymous No.19335689]

>>19335581
Are any modern male writers good though? My wife was making fun of me yesterday for having only read one book by someone still alive all year. It wasn't a conscious thing on my part, but now she has mentioned it I can only think of one contemporary novelist that I like

[Anonymouṡ No.19335712]

>>19333348
No, Sylvia Plath can really write. The problem is that her world-view is extremely limited and unbalanced. She's just too shrill and too self-pitying and too vicious.

I think biggest fault is that she has no sense of humour. A powerful mind with no sense of humour is like a powerful engine running with no oil. In the end it just blows up. If you compare her with, say, Philip Larkin, you see the difference quite starkly, Larkin too is self-obsessed and self-pitying, but it's leavened by an edge of ironic detatchment. He's a screw-up, but he KNOWS he's a screw-up, and he knows how he's a screw-up, and his poems allow for that. Plath is a screw-up who thinks she's sane.

[Anonymouṡ No.19335724]

>>19333348
>Sylvia Plath is dogshit
No, that's unfair. Sylvia Plath can definitely write. The problem is that her world-view is extremely limited and unbalanced. She's just too shrill and too self-pitying and too vicious.

I think biggest fault is that she has no sense of humour. A powerful mind with no sense of humour is like a powerful engine running with no oil. In the end it just blows up. If you compare her with, say, Philip Larkin, you see the difference quite starkly, Larkin too is self-obsessed and self-pitying, but it's leavened by an edge of ironic detatchment. He's a screw-up, but he knows he's a screw-up, and he knows *how* he's a screw-up, and his poems allow for that. Plath is a screw-up who thinks she's sane.

It's very easy to hate Plath because of the feminist fanbase that's grown up around her, but you have to dissociate her from them.

Here's a pretty decent poem showing Plath's good and bad points. You might not like the self-pity, but it does what it sets out to do.

MIRROR

I am silver and exact. I have no preconceptions.
Whatever I see I swallow immediately
Just as it is, unmisted by love or dislike.
I am not cruel, only truthful‚
The eye of a little god, four-cornered.
Most of the time I meditate on the opposite wall.
It is pink, with speckles. I have looked at it so long
I think it is part of my heart. But it flickers.
Faces and darkness separate us over and over.

Now I am a lake. A woman bends over me,
Searching my reaches for what she really is.
Then she turns to those liars, the candles or the moon.
I see her back, and reflect it faithfully.
She rewards me with tears and an agitation of hands.
I am important to her. She comes and goes.
Each morning it is her face that replaces the darkness.
In me she has drowned a young girl, and in me an old woman
Rises toward her day after day, like a terrible fish.

[Anonymouṡ No.19335798]

>>19333418
Plath is probably (at least) as good as Hughes on a technical level on the small scale. She comes out with dozens of superb, intense phrases and lines. The start of Ariel for example (about riding a horse):
>Stasis in darkness.
>And then the substanceless blue
>Pour of tor and distances.
"Pour of tor and distances" is such a great way of saying the landscape blurs past you when you start going fast.

Where she's not as good as Hughes is in universality. If you put all her work together you're not really left with any coherent world-view that's any use to anyone. Crow is a serious attempt to look at the world and say, this is how it is, for good and bad; let's accept it and see what we can start building. And Plath couldn't have written it in a hundred years.

This guy
>>19335502
is right. Hughes is concerned with the whole world. Men and women have to interact, yes, and households have to be run and children raised, but also trees have to be felled and crops harvested and roads mended and sewers maintained and cars built and foreign countries traded with. Hughes, however indirectly or tacitly, acknowledges the importance of all this. Plath is blithely unconcerned with everything that keeps the world going if it's not directly related to her own feels. In the end, that matters.

[Anonymouṡ No.19335808]

>>19333418
Plath is probably (at least) as good as Hughes on a technical level on the small scale. She comes out with dozens of superb, intense phrases and lines. The start of Ariel for example (about riding a horse):
>Stasis in darkness.
>And then the substanceless blue
>Pour of tor and distances.
"Pour of tor and distances" is such a great way of saying the landscape blurs past you when you start going fast.

Where she's not as good as Hughes is in universality. If you put all her work together you're not really left with any coherent world-view that's any use to anyone. Crow is a serious attempt to look at the world and say: this is how it is, for good and bad; let's accept it and see what we can start building. And Plath couldn't have written it in a hundred years.

This guy
>>19335502
is right. Hughes is concerned with the whole world. Men and women have to interact, yes, and households have to be run and children raised, but also trees have to be felled and crops harvested and roads mended and sewers maintained and cars built and foreign countries traded with. Hughes, however indirectly or tacitly, acknowledges the importance of all this. Plath is blithely unconcerned with everything that keeps the world going that's not directly related to her own feels. In the end, it matters.

[Anonymouṡ No.19335853]

>>19333201
>modern women authors
There are women authors it wouldn't hurt you to read. People have mentioned most of them already. Emily Dickinson is the big name which seems to have been forgotten.

*Modern* women authors is another matter. The problem with modern writing is not that's sure to be bad, but that it's NOT sure to be good. Life's too short to read crap, and most of everything is crap, and it takes at least a generation to even begin to judge what's worth reading.

The last book I read by an active female author was Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel (historical novel about Henry the Eighth & Thomas Cromwell). It was very highly-praised and a family member urged me to read it. It's good on the small scale (lots of perceptive stuff) but I suspect it doesn't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things. All in all, it was probably time wasted. I would have gained more from re-reading Euripides or something.

[Anonymous No.19335865]

>>19335689
>Are any modern male writers good though

Four or five. They will all be dead soon though

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

[Anonymous No.19335871]

>>19333266
>don't bother with Faggery O'Connor either unless your going for a tradcath larp

???

Doesn't make sense at all.

[Anonymous No.19335904]

>>19335865
Excellent

[Anonymouṡ No.19335914]

>>19335689
Reading one (fiction) book per year by a living author is plenty (unless you're an academia or something where reading fiction is your job). In fact I would say it's on the edge of being too many. Every hour you spend on a contemporary book which might be good (but probably won't be) is an hour you aren't spending on an older book of proven worth.

[Anonymous No.19335918]

>>19335502
Finally it took a few replies but we got there in the end didn't we! Anyhow, I still discard your opinion because Plath speaks to me personally and Hughes doesn't. Plath might be limited in her scope but it happens that she did it very well and I love reading from it, and it's very disrespectful and close minded of you to reduce it down to what you did.

>>19335808
Plath's poetry was honest, intimate and emotional. I really don't care what the hills in Yorkshire look like, nothing Ted Hughes has written has spoken to me at all. And that other anon is not right, I don't have a problem if he likes Hughes more, he shouldn't be so dismissive of Plath because he doesn't share the same perspective. He should be able to appreciate from a distance and recognise it is good even if it doesn't affect him personally.

>>19335871
She relies very heavily on Catholicism, there is no point reading her novels if you are not religious or interested in religion.

[Anonymous No.19335920]

>>19335914
It was Remains of the Day and I was re reading it. Does that make it worse? It is pretty short at least

[Anonymous No.19335924]

I believe reading female authors without their explicit consent is rape.

[Anonymous No.19335984]

What’s /lit/s opinion of Conor Willis. I thought doomsday book and to say nothing of the dog were good reads.

Then there is Robbin hobb for fantasy

[Anonymous No.19335991]

>>19333266
Post your medication shelf, tranny

[Anonymous No.19336126]

>>19333348
Sylvia Plath is a good poet, but I thought The Bell Jar was a plain and boring story.

[Anonymouṡ No.19336130]

>>19335918
>Plath's poetry was honest, intimate and emotional.
Sure. I'm not saying Plath is not worth reading. If you were to keep only a score of post-WWII poets writing in English, she would be in there. That makes her very good indeed.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, I think her biggest weakness is she has practically no sense of humour. That's a big flaw. There are good humourless writers but not many. (I think that's why, for example, Milton is admired but not really liked.)

[Anonymous No.19336157]

Plath was the one who compared her father to Hitler because he yelled at her.
Most women are melodramatic mental patients

[Anonymouṡ No.19336162]

>>19335920
>I was re reading it. Does that make it worse?
Re-reading is not bad in itself. If a book isn't worth re-reading it wasn't worth reading in the first place.

"An unliterary man may be defined as one who reads books once only. There is hope for a man who has never read Malory or Boswell or Tristram Shandy or Shakespeare's Sonnets: but what can you do with a man who says he 'has read' them, meaning he has read them once, and thinks that this settles the matter?"
— C.S.Lewis, "On Stories"

The ideal ratio between reading and re-reading is an interesting question. As you get older you re-read more, of course, but how much more? These days it's probably 10:1 for me. (Re-reading:reading.)

[Anonymous No.19336194]

>>19336162
I would say about a quarter of novels I read I have read before. I read poetry a lot and that is likely almost all stuff that I
have read before many times, though I suppose that's common.
I believe Remains of the Day is worth reading and therefore it is worth re reading, as you say. That's a great quote by the way

[Anonymous No.19336202]

>>19335514
This never happened to me when I was single. I think the girls knew the answer.

[Anonymous No.19336234]

>>19336157
>melodramatic mental patient
literally me

[Anonymous No.19336507]

>>19335924
Not funny

[Anonymous No.19336513]

>>19335061
>Didn't care for To the Lighthouse.
Absolutely shit taste, my friend. Orlando is indisputably her worst novel and To the Lighthouse her best.

[Anonymous No.19336544]

>>19333335
Yeah, you're gonna be able to start a relationship today with THAT attitude. lol

[Anonymous No.19336567]

>>19336544
He's just posturing over 4chan. If a woman asked him if he read female writers he would stutter and say yes.

[Anonymous No.19336579]

>>19333201
After she noticed you didn’t have any women authors did you tell her that you immediately went to 4chan for advice? I bet she’d love that.

[Anonymous No.19336606]

>>19333201
thoughts on dickinson?

[Anonymous No.19336659]

>>19335918
>She relies very heavily on Catholicism, there is no point reading her novels if you are not religious or interested in religion.
I feel that's too reductive a reading of O'Connor's oeuvre. Sure, there are elements of Catholicism within her work, both thematically and symbolically, but that's not all there is to them. Her short stories were, as other writers in the tradition of so-called "Southern Gothic" literature, critiques of the society and time in which she lived. Try as you might you can't really divorce religion from Southern society. Though O'Connor may have occasionally ascribed too many of the South's shortcomings to what she saw as a kind of spiritual and moral vacuum left in the wake of the Civil War, her words were and remain a source of great insight, and it'd be ridiculous to disregard them as unimportant. Moreover, one has to remember she was not afforded the same amount of time most authors are given to develop their ideas and grow as writers. She died very young, after all.
>he shouldn't be so dismissive of Plath because he doesn't share the same perspective. He should be able to appreciate from a distance and recognise it is good even if it doesn't affect him personally.
I'm not the anon you were arguing with, but I have to say that I wish you would show the same respect to an author as well-regarded as O'Connor that you demand others show to Plath, even if you happen to personally dislike her writing. It seems to me like you're more concerned with being incendiary.

[Anonymous No.19336673]

A girl recently told me that I remind her of a character written by a woman. What did she mean by this, anons?

[Anonymous No.19336680]

NO ONE'S MENTIONED CHRISTINA ROSSETTI YET

[Anonymous No.19336682]

>>19335918
>She relies very heavily on Catholicism, there is no point reading her novels if you are not religious or interested in religion.
Imagine being this retarded.

[Anonymous No.19336706]

>>19335918
And I just want to read a good poem with good imagery. I don't give a shit if you're in a mood because of your period, or if you're le sads and express it in the most boring of ways, or if your husband left you for a hotter, younger, better woman and you suck at life.

If you want a good female poet, read Emily Dickinson, not Plath.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!bGBGaUpA8kS No.19336730]

>>19336673
Didn’t you ask what book?

[Anonymous No.19336773]

>>19336659
I didn't say it wasn't important, I'm sure if you're religious then you would love O'Connor but outside of that interest there isn't much to her. Her short stories I don't have a problem with, I enjoyed reading those, but Wise Blood was boring, shallow and uninteresting to me, presumable because I'm not religious and I haven't read the bible so the majority of the novel was lost on me but the fact that the novel is so bare when you take away religion really shows how limited it is. I really don't understand how anyone could hold up that book and say it was any better than anything McCullers has written. And why I'm so scornful of her, pic rel is a quote about Carson McCullers that rubbed me the wrong way, for a woman who wrote a very average novel and made her career on short stories, she is very bold to talk in that way about her more successful contemporary, she seemed bitter a lesbian could write better than her while largely ignoring the church and theology.

Also her fans on this website are annoying and I take pleasure in baiting them but I don't take mind to them so much.

>>19336706
Imagery without emotion. Utterly soulless.

[Anonymous No.19336789]

>>19336773
>Imagery without emotion. Utterly soulless.
Wrong.

[Anonymous No.19336819]

>>19336789
Have you, by any chance, previously answered to, or been addressed as, a so called 'protofag'?

[Anonymous No.19336832]

>>19336773
>I'm sure if you're religious then you would love O'Connor but outside of that interest there isn't much to her.
This is precisely what I mean, there's more to O'Connor than her religion and reducing her writing to that one aspect is an incredibly myopic view of things. She wrote about religion partially because of her own convictions, but also because she knew it to be an important part of the contemporary Southern condition. As for her novels, I actually happen to agree they weren't very good, at least compared to her short fiction, though that doesn't change the fact she was an incredible writer. I don't care much for the ballyhoo of inter-authorial politics, and frankly I think allowing something like a snide remark mar your opinion of a great writer is a tragedy. I will say, however, that I don't think McCullers' preference for what lies between the legs had anything to do with O'Connor's statement there.

[Anonymous No.19337061]

>>19336832
>there's more to O'Connor than her religion
Ok but I didn't see it. When I finished Wise Blood I didn't know what to think, I just thought it was boring and dull and after /lit/ told me how great O'Connor was I thought I was missing something so I read criticism on jstor and everything on there was about religion. I skimmed through a couple of essays and gave up after I saw nothing but blasphemy and materialism so it's not just me who doesn't see much else. Also Catholics are the worst sect of Christianity, I was raised Catholic and went to a Catholic school so I'm familiar with the sorts of people that associate with it and I am certain McCullers' sexuality would have absolutely been a been an issue for O'Connor. Catholics are the women of Christianity, and I think it is well documented by the behaviour of the tradcath rats that infest this board, and even some in this thread, who always write no more than 30 words to call me a tranny or tell me to take meds every time I post.

[Anonymous No.19337135]

>>19336730
No, and from what I gather she's not particularly well-read, either. My guess would be a Jane Austen novel or something similar.

[Anonymous No.19337147]

>>19333201
>75 posts in
>ctrl-F Munro
>0 results
This board is a joke.

[Anonymous No.19337182]

>76 posts
>ctrl-f McCullers
>10 results
based

[Anonymous No.19337201]

>>19337061
As I said before, I don't care much for her novels, either. But you can take a look at any number of her short fictions and see for yourself what else she has to offer. "The Artificial Nigger", for instance, (which I also happen to believe is her finest work, not "A Good Man is Hard to Find") illustrates remarkably well the anxieties of lower-class Southern whites in an age where freedoms which previously distinguished them from black populations were gradually being afforded the former slave class. I think of her, really, as a great short story writer who may have, had she lived longer, also been a great novelist. Since this thread is about great female "writers", though, I feel pretty confident in saying O'Connor is among them.
>Also Catholics are the worst sect of Christianity
This is neither here nor there but I'd like to respectfully disagree. There are a lot of bigoted and disreputable people among any religious group, and of course the Church is no exception, though in my experience Catholics tend to be a more tolerant bunch than most (excepting the "Protestants" who are Christians in name only). And maybe I'm just biased since I was raised Catholic, but I think there's real beauty in the old dignity and ritual of the Faith. I understand where you're coming from, though.

[Anonymous No.19337207]

>>19337147
I've only read a single thing from Munro, sorry. Anything you'd recommend for someone looking to get more acquainted with her? I quite liked "Boys and Girls", even though I thought the themes were a bit shallow.

[Anonymous No.19337212]

>>19333372
>Thank you!

[Anonymous No.19337240]

Sally Rooney

[Anonymous No.19337245]

>>19337201
>"The Artificial Nigger"
I haven't read read that one but I like the sound of it. I did mistakenly buy a copy of her collected works so I might go through some more of her short stories but thank you for the suggestion.

[Anonymous No.19337352]

>>19337207
The Lives of Girls and Women cycle is very good, one of my favourites.

[Anonymous No.19337384]

>>19333217
Has anyone here read Jean Rhys?

[Anonymous No.19337441]

Jo Walton

[Anonymous No.19337480]

>>19333201
Presumably Rowling is approved here now because she hates trans people

[Anonymous No.19337739]

>>19336157
>Plath was the one who compared her father to Hitler because he yelled at her.
>Hitler attempted to fix Germany (and actually did until the central bank lost their shit and forced a war)
>Her father was attempting to fix her
What a nice comparison, but she isn't Germany. I see your point.

[Anonymous No.19338016]

>>19333201
Olivia Köglbauer

[Anonymous No.19338117]

>>19333201
>meet whore on tinder
>let her convince you that you need to read more women
God you are a fucking pathetic faggot, going to denounce your white male privilege next and become a tranny?

[Anonymous No.19338144]

>>19338117
God you people are exhausting

[Anonymous No.19339044]

>>19333201
Sister Miriam Joseph
Edith Hamilton

[Anonymous No.19339109]

>>19338144
exhausting is the word for it, is this really the only literature space on the world wide web?

but OP, you're a fool if you don't like Marilynne Robinson, Toni Morrison is great, Anne Proulx is phenominal too. Normies love Didion in a way that made me think I'd hate her but of course I didn't. Just picked up a copy of Octavia Butler's short stories she's supposedly great. Plath can write her ass off idc etc etc

not liking any female authors is definitely a red flag for being a dimwit, stop telling people you read.

[Anonymous No.19339466]

>>19339109
>Normies love Didion in a way that made me think I'd hate her but of course I didn't.
Where to start with Didion?

[Anonymous No.19339692]

>>19336162
> An unliterary man may be defined as one who reads books once only. There is hope for a man who has never read Malory or Boswell or Tristram Shandy or Shakespeare's Sonnets: but what can you do with a man who says he 'has read' them, meaning he has read them once, and thinks that this settles the matter?
why should anyone care what some total mediocrity like C.S. Lewis thinks. where do people like him get off on smugly judging other people like this.

[Anonymous No.19341244]

>>19337384
I read wide sargasso sea, it was an interesting read.