/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20611993]

Why does she make /lit/ seethe so much? Her books are really good.

[Anonymous No.20612024]

>>20611993
who?

[Anonymous No.20612139]

>>20611993
well, you just answered it. She's an excellent writer, and that makes /lit/ seethe with jealously because they're sexless and mediocre.

[Anonymous No.20612147]

>>20611993
I love her.
But lets be honest op, most of the posters here are miserable spergs.

[Anonymous No.20612154]

>>20612139
>>20612147
literally who? do you simps even know her name?

[Anonymous No.20612171]

>the new crop of 4chan posters can't figure out how to read a filename
god help us

[Anonymous No.20612249]

>>20612154
Ayn Rand?

[Anonymous No.20612436]

>>20612154
Java Dizadeh you fucking retard read the filename

[Anonymous No.20612452]

Her books are great but she was unfortunate in that all the books published when she was active were even better. Wrong time.

[Anonymous No.20612465]

>>20611993
Because she writes and /lit/ doesn't.

[Anonymous No.20612496]

>>20612452
Truth be told the only modernists I've read extensively are Woolf and Kafka, liked both though. Who among their contemporaries would you recommend next? I have Joyce, Hemingway and Steinbeck (if he even counts) in my to read stack

[Anonymous No.20612498]

>>20612496
You absolutely should read Faulkner as well.

[Anonymous No.20612501]

>>20611993
They're sort of boring, rich people being whiny

[Anonymous No.20612509]

>>20612501
yeah far too winy with lack of proper justification and build up. Assumes itself to be inherently interesting.

[Anonymous No.20612563]

>>20612498
I had to read one of Faulkner's books for school and disliked it, but I was much younger and less attentive then so I think I ought to give it another go. Which book would you recommend?
For some reason, I've got the notion in my head that for someone who wants to read stream of consciousness books, the pipeline should be Woolf -> Faulkner -> Joyce, in terms of difficulty. Would you call that accurate?

[Anonymous No.20612647]

>>20612563
Joyce's first two books (which are really good) are same level as Woolf.

[Anonymous No.20612649]

>>20612563
read Beckett also

[Anonymous No.20612651]

>>20612563

Read some of Faulkner's short stories first

>A Rose for Emily
>Barn Burning
>Spotted Horses

Then try either As I Lay Dying or Light in August, two of his more accessible novels. I would save The Sound and the Fury until you really appreciate his style, but there's a reason it's considered his seminal work so it's worth getting to eventually.

[Anonymous No.20612660]

>>20611993
There are better writers from the same time period.
Orwell's worst books are better than her best books.
Patrick Hamilton is better.
Hemingway is vastly better.
W. Somerset Maugham is so far above her in terms of talent.
The only reason she is even remembered is because "muh feminism" and the fact she killed herself.

[Anonymous No.20612675]

>>20612660
>Orwell's worst books are better than her best books.
Either filtered or bait.

[Anonymous No.20612683]

>>20612660
>Orwell
stopped reading there

[Anonymous No.20612699]

>>20612563
Absalom, Absalom! is some of the best stream of consciousness I've ever read. I think it has the edge on Woolf but that's not to take anything away from her, To The Lighthouse is a monumental achievement. The way she probes her characters is seriously impressive. Very intelligent woman no doubt.

[Anonymous No.20612744]

>>20612647
I have Dubliners and Portrait of an Artist ready to be read, a precursory glance made Dubliners seem easier than Woolf's writing and Portrait seem harder to parse.
>>20612649
>>20612651
Noted, thanks for the recs
>>20612699
To The Lighthouse is currently one of my favorite novels ever. I find that authors' most praised works tend to be their most autobiographical (To The Lighthouse, Ulysses, The Metamorphosis etc.)

[Anonymous No.20612898]

>>20612660
>Orwell
This post is a crime against humanity

[Anonymous No.20613008]

>>20612660
Orwell's best works are Brave New World's Janetty and a point for point retelling of the Russian Revolution with animals, you can't be serious

[Anonymous No.20613813]

>>20611993
> Why does she make /lit/ seethe so much? Her books are really good.
Because she's a woman.

[Anonymous No.20613836]

>>20611993
>Why does she make /lit/ seethe so much? Her books are really good.
Because she's not a man. And /lit/ wouldn't know that her books are good since nobody here reads.

[Anonymous No.20613864]

>>20611993
>Why does she make /lit/ seethe so much?
Because she's not a man.

[Anonymous No.20613957]

>>20612154
Mr.

[Anonymous No.20613978]

>>20611993
>Her

[Anonymous No.20614143]

>>20612147
>>20612139
Whats with the personal attacks, no one on /lit/ even knew who she was.

>>20612563
Oh its a postmodernist. This is a
>waaah 4chins hates a woman for being a woman waaaaah fucking chuuuuds accept our retarded philosophy which isnt eben internally consistent if you refuse you are a SEXY-ist
thread, isnt it?

Why dont you NPCs never like a good woman author like Mary Shelley?

[Anonymous No.20614864]

>>20611993
She was cucked by Joyce existence.

[Anonymous No.20615063]

>>20614143
>postmodernist
Kek what. Only postmodernists I've read are Vonnegut (who I found lacking) and Pynchon (who is tedious but can be compelling)

[Anonymous No.20615676]

>>20611993
>make /lit/ seethe
She doesn't though; she's even on /lit/'s top 100 more than once.

[Anonymous No.20615736]

>>20615676
You're right, of course, but ideologues don't look at data to determine what the world is like, they look inside themselves to infer what the world must be like and insist that the data be compatible with their paranoid fantasies.
>Woolf is a woman and everyone who isn't a progressive secretly hates women, so all of /lit/ excepting the progressive vanguard hates Woolf.
There is a certain logic to it, if you're far gone enough.

[Anonymous No.20616359]

>>20615676
I'm aware, I think she's had 3 books on there at least once which is probably the most of any author after Joyce's 4.
But this is also the only thread I've seen people talk about her positively in.

[Anonymous No.20616386]

>>20614143
>WOOLF
>A POSTMODERNIST
the absolute state of this god forsaken board

[Anonymous No.20616389]

>>20616359
because you're on modern /lit/. Zoomzoom crossboarders don't read, and if they do read, they pick a 'pill', an identity to adopt, and read all the authors from that tradition while ignoring everything else. With the newfags we get now, unless they really are self-styled "feminists" who read books written by women, knowing from the outset that they will have to like what they read as part of the group identity they have chosen, they likely won't ever give female writers a chance, because they'll instead be part of some other tribe where woman authors are considered cringe by default. This is what the total politicization of discourse has resulted in.

[Anonymous No.20616391]

>>20616389
it reminds me of teenagers who only listen to rap or heavy metal or whatever because that is their identity.

[Anonymous No.20616415]

>>20616391
Yeah, difference being that this kind of identity is usually mostly aesthetic, but what we have right now isn't. 'Only listening to metal and acting like it's the one true music genre' is a harmless quirk, while 'only reading texts from one political tradition with religious fervour' amounts to self-indoctrination.

[Anonymous No.20616434]

>>20616415
true but everyone says stuff liek this but do you make sure to read some david brooks and thomas friedman neolib bullshit to make sure you aren't being indoctrinated into anti-globalization narratives? oh, no, it's the OTHER guys that need to read stuff they don't agree with ideologically, while i'll just keep reading trotskyists tracts.

[Anonymous No.20616438]

>>20616415
Replace "political tradition" with "pornograohic fuck Pynchon" and then it's accurate

[Anonymous No.20616478]

>>20616434
Not sure what you're on about. As an individualist, I engage with all kinds of political traditions. Christian apologetics, various right-wing thinkers, accelerationists, milquetoast social democratic sateism, a bit of critical theory, classically liberal and libertarian texts, you name it. Doesn't mean my perspective isn't limited, but I do try to challenge my preconceptions instead of doubling down on them.

[Anonymous No.20616505]

>>20616478

[Anonymous No.20616531]

>>20616505
>both sides
And what's the alternative, not exposing yourself to information so people can't lie to you?

[Anonymous No.20616680]

I can get Lily and the Ramsays but Bankes completely filters me when he comments on Mrs Ramsay

[Anonymous No.20616990]

>>20616680
I think Mr. Banks's "love" for Mrs. Ramsay was a respect for her ability to hold court over the whole family and to be an influence on so many lives, while he was an elderly bachelor that was never interested in that sort of thing.
I think Mr. Ramsay and Lily were the most compelling characters personally.

[Anonymous No.20617427]

>>20612660
>orwell

[Anonymous No.20617451]

>>20612496
Proust

[Anonymous No.20617613]

>>20617451
I have Swann's Way in my stack too but In Search of Lost Time is daunting

[Anonymous No.20617690]

>>20617613
Woolf loved Proust so I'm sure you'll enjoy it. The series is long, but it took 14 years for Proust to 'complete' it. You could read 1 book a year and still read it more consistently than someone a century ago.