[ 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: 30 KB, 266x302, anne_rice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3286752 No.3286752[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What's /lit/ opinion of Anne Rice?

>> No.3286753

I prefer my curries with an naan

>> No.3286755

Personally, I see her as an oddball on the scene, much like JRR Tolkien; unlike other writers, she focuses on elements that were considered important up to the 19th century, and which are still considered important by people who read: story, plot, characters, no fourth-wall-breaking cynicism.

That is why, I think, Rice has many readers, and it's the same reason why Tolkien still has many readers. Novels with uninteresting plots and ordinary characters may allow for "high brow" prowess of literary knowledge and skills, but at the end of the day, it's just a well-crafted pretentious turd that nobody enjoys reading.

That said, I only read three Rice novels, the first three vampire books.

>interview was OK, not bad at all
>lestat book was the best I've read so far
>queen was mostly a pain in the cunt and made me stop reading her stuff altogether

Does it get better or what?

>> No.3286761

Eh, it seems obvious that she was masturbating for long portions of the grand "writing process", but that's true for lots of authors. Her books aren't the worst thing to happen to vampires, and I respect her willingness to be kind of ambitious in taking the story to ridiculous places, but I guess I should hold her at least partly responsible for being a big component in the events leading to Twilight.

Her actual writing is not great, but not as bad as some people make it out to be. I don't think her books will endure; they're already thoroughly dated, but there's something endearing about them all the same, a little nostalgic wax to burn for light on certain nights.

>> No.3286764

>>3286761
After posting it, I realized that the wax metaphor could be a lot better. I'm gonna take it back and use again for something more interesting later on.

>> No.3286770

>>3286764
Even the best nostalgic wax can wane eventually. It's the wick of the matter that's most important.

>> No.3286777

>>3286770
Dammit man, that's impressive and all, but now I feel like I'll just ruin it.

I hope you're happy, you've burned through all my Nostalgic Wax metaphor. Like some kind of candle-based shark that eats all the...shit, I'm really off my metaphor game today.

Fuck.

>> No.3286789

>>3286761
>in the events leading to Twilight.

I wouldn't say that, but I might be wrong. Vampires were bigh in the 70's already; all she did was take the most original and interesting approach to them, I find. Rice made vampire humans, Meyer made them teenagers. Each his responsibility.

I think her writing was already outdated in the 1970's, and that's because she never cared much for post-modernism. That may be a reason why she'll endure while 20st century "stylists" will not, because in the long run, if people don't enjoy reading the book, it won't remain.

>> No.3286796

I really liked her autobiography.

>> No.3286797

>>3286789
I don't agree with the idea that Rice made vampires human. She gave them impetus, but for the most part they aren't at all human. She did give them a spectrum though.

Old Central European Vampire Tales
then Nosferatu style hideous monsters
then Bram Stokers Elegant Monster
Then Anne Rices Elegant Confused Ubermensch Monster
Then some unimportant deviations
Then Twilight neutered superheros

if anything is to blame for Twilight it's superman. Having superpowers, but never abusing them and constantly using them to save one chick.

>> No.3286798

>>3286797
>then Bram Stokers Elegant Monster

Wrong as fuck. And you got them in the wrong order too. Nosferatu is a movie adaptation of Stoker's Dracula you FUCKING IDIOT. They didn't get the rights so they renamed it.

Stoker's Dracula was never elegant, he was a serial rapist/killer who killed for reasons unknown. You only watched the shit movie and assumed you read the book. Cunt.

Louis was exactly what a human as a vampire would be, which is what he fucking was.

Rice used the vampire stuff to take a grander look at the human condition.

>> No.3286799

>>3286789
She's just a major touchstone in helping to take vampires from "SEXUALLY INTIMIDATING MONSTERS" to "SEXUALLY VULNERABLE GUYS WITH PURSED LIPS".

She might outlast the dollar-general po-mo crowd, but I think she'll fade faster than the folks who've really taken advantage of the good parts in post modern what-have-you.

But I'll concede that you might be right. I certainly won't complain if there's some kind of backlash against the childishness of the Twilight series and its descendents in favor of the more ambitious and interesting Rice material. Any step in the right direction, you know?

>> No.3286801
File: 115 KB, 315x389, 2-beret.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3286801

Her work might be readable if she dropped the vampire crap.

>> No.3286803

>>3286799

I wonder. For now, I feel like vampires are both tar-babies and cash-cows. For the audience and industry, respectively.

We can only hope for a return of the brutal vampire sort, but that was already done, unsuccessfully in 1998 with Carpenter Vampires, in which vampires are just dumb brutes. Shit sucked a bit though.

They must become evil again, but not dumb.

Dumb vampires are jusz zombies (both originate in the exact same folklore, one went the brute way, the other the evil, elegant, sexual, way).

>>3286801

She dropped it ages ago. She wrote Jesus books now, novels about Our Savior's life, and it's oddly similar to her vampire stuff.

>> No.3286811

>>3286761
>>3286789
>>3286797

Wait, why do we need to 'blame' someone for Twilight?
Every generation has it's shit literature, it's just that before the proliferation of mass media, these things would tend to fade into obscurity after a while.

>> No.3286812

>>3286798
not the samefag. You have to admit that Stoker's vampire was somewhat of Wildean dandy. Indeed, the vampire ritual is highly sexualised and Dracula epitomises a 'threat' the the supposed Victorian/Christian values of the time. Hence Lucy's transformation from a Victorian virgin to a wanton slut following her death - a point that was completely missed in that god-awful filmic adaptation.

>> No.3286815

>>3286803
I have to say, I'm still a sucker for a good brutal vampire. Movies like Let The Right One In, or even better (in my view) Thirst, proved that there's room for these characters to be savage but still emotionally compelling, and okay, we can compromise and let them be pretty as well.

And I know that more than a little savagery is still in Rice's books, it's just... Honestly, at this point, it's the baggage that comes with it. Knowing that if I really want to branch out from her vampires into similar stuff, it's just diminishing returns of sexy bloodsuckers sucking sexy blood.

It all makes me wish that I could read the books back when they were coming out, when it really was interesting and undiluted by reality. But I guess that's the case with most of these trends, right?

>> No.3286820

>>3286811
If I can blame somebody, then I feel like in the future, I might be able to see it coming and kill someone to stop it from happening.

Also, I really don't want to live in a universe where something like Twilight can just "happen". This isn't the pet rock or pastel t-shirts under seersucker with the sleeves rolled up, this wasn't something ironically dumb that spread like wildfire. It's willfully bad writing that tricked millions of people into some kind of sincere attachment. That shit frightens me.

>> No.3286824

>>3286815
Read Stoker's Dracula...perhaps it is nostalgia from having encountered the novel at such a young age but god I love it!

>> No.3286829

>>3286812
>not the samefag. You have to admit that Stoker's vampire was somewhat of Wildean dandy

In the MOVIE.

>> No.3286835

>>3286815

I fucking hated that Norwegian piece of fucking shit. Just because it's a vampire, everyone turns their brains off and are all like "DAAAWWWW IT'S SO CUTE!" No! it's fucking not! It's a whore and her pussy Norwegian feminised boy who kill people just because. That shit was shit.

Rice went so far that there's still time. Lestat meets Jesus fucking Christ, after all, so why the fuck not? There'll be a good long time before Bella meets Jesus and falls in love with His ass.

>> No.3286838

>>3286824
I've had it on my list for ages. I swear, I'm going to do it, I just need more time!

>> No.3286842

>>3286820

The SOURCE OF TWILIGHT is very simple:

It's women's unacknowledged desire for men who can kill, men who are authoritarian, who have and use power.

Twilight's CULPRIT IS FEMINISM. Women, more than anyone else, hate feminism. They don't give a fuck about men who "respect" women by not taking care of them, not handling their moods, not fucking them like animals.

Trust me, that's why the book is a success and why 99% of its readers are women. Women NEED men that act like men, even though Edward is a faggot, he's a faggot that can kill.

If you're a man, give up on the idea that you can understand women through empathy, you can't. You really, really can't.

Women are turned on by the idea of a man being able to kill them. Sounds crazy? It's fucking true, retarded but true. If you can kill a woman, it means you can kill others, and protect her, and that shit makes them fucking wild.

Women never needed logic to survive, they just needed the strongest/most logical man around.

>> No.3286843

>>3286838
>>3286824

It's good shit. It's a novel that is one of those rare books that could be "as is" and still remain realistic, because the book is made by the characters themselves: compiling diary entries, letters, and transcriptions of recordings, etc. Characters actually record themselves speaking into some device and another character types it down. This is awesome shit.

It's well-written, dark, and fuck yes.

>> No.3286847

>>3286829
I'd argue that he was somewhat in the book also. Though the move really took hold and turned him into Dorian Gray.

>> No.3286852

>>3286843
I first read it at 9 or 10 and obviously missed some of the 'invasion' themes of eastern Europe that threatened the industrialised 19th century England but the writing style changed what I thought literature was capable of. It really gives you a nice insight into some of the technology of the time - things like phonograph recordings etc.

>> No.3286855

>>3286842
You sound totally reasonable and not at all bitter.

>> No.3286858

>>3286847

Some argue that Dracula was counter-colonising England.

>> No.3286864

>>3286855

Bitter? Why would I be bitter? Self-projecting, you are. I'm not bashing women, I'm explain women to you.

It's nothing to be bitter about, you just have to realise these things and act accordingly, as a man.

>> No.3286865

>>3286852

Exactly.

>> No.3286870

>>3286842
>You sound totally reasonable and not at all bitter.
ahahahahaha, women psychology from the basement

>> No.3286880

>>3286870

That was actually my thought, but I decided to be civil.

>write from experience and discussions with many women, intimately, which most women never get a chance to do with other women

>feedback is "you must be bitter and hate women"

Women, this may come as a shock to you, but most of us know your kind better than you do yourself because we have intimate relationships with you, which you don't, and when you do, it's lesbians, which aren't the same as heterosexual women. So unless you're in the majority, you don't actually know women for being one. Do you understand?

You don't know women until a woman tells you she wishes you were a killer and raped her every now and then. True story.

>> No.3286885

>>3286858
And I would agree. Dracula represented all that industrialised 19th century Britain feared. A sexually unbridled enigma that science could not explain. It is always funny when people assume Dracula is from Transylvania...he is from an unknown\undefinable location on the border of three countries that isn't mapped. ie: a threat, the psychoanalytical 'Other'. He just happens to be an 'Other' with extremely good taste who is described in terms that appear effeminate.

>> No.3286890

>>3286885
samefag correcting his post. Dracula represented all that STOKER'S industrialised 19th century Britain feared.

>> No.3286893

>>3286885

Nice post.

> A sexually unbridled enigma that science could not explain

Sounds like God to me.

>> No.3286896

>>3286890

Correction unrequired. Sexuality was as feared in the 19th century as racism is feared in our century.

>> No.3286899

This board is so embarrassing.

>> No.3286904

>>3286880
I didn't say that you hate women, but I'm fairly comfortable assuming that you have your own issues with "women" (in the collective sense) that lead to a lot of overbroad and questionable ideas about et cetera and so forth.

Suffice to say, I'm not making it my business to seem like a rapist and/or serial killer in my immediate future, thanks.

Addendum: your "civil" routine needs some work.

>> No.3286905

>>3286880
>You don't know women until a woman tells you she wishes you were a killer and raped her every now and then.
Except that's a tautology.
And no-one wants to be raped, because that's a contradiction in terms. Have you considered that perhaps it's not all women who feel like that, just the ones who have such low self esteem they'll share something so intimate with you?

>> No.3286918

>>3286904
>you have your own issues with "women"

Why would you assume that? Is it the same logic that dictates that if anyone is critical of Israel's politics, they must "have issues with Jews"? What kind of witch-hunting McCarthy are you?

Everything I've said is based on experience with women. If it sounds questionable to you, you might be among the less womanly women, and that's likely an advantage, just don't assume you're in the majority.

My civil route needs fucking nothing because I'm on an anonymous board where I'm free to say anything.

I'm not stupid. I know I can't say any of this stuff out there, and women know that too, which is why only your girlfriend will tell you about these things, and that's why you, as a woman, will never hear another woman say these things, and in the rare case that this happens, you'll think her a nut and a rarity.

>> No.3286919

>>3286904
>overbroad

I think you're the "overbroad."

>fat

>> No.3286936

>>3286905
>And no-one wants to be raped, because that's a contradiction in terms

Women are a contradiction in terms, imbecile. They want to be raped, willingly, which is not raped, yet is, because the rapist isn't supposed to know. I never said it was a simple concept, and I never said that women who want to be raped will actually enjoy it once it's happening. They usually don't, but they're still turned on by the idea of being raped.

I used to fantasise about sex with women and assumed it would be the greatest thing. I too was sorely disappointed, but that doesn't change the fact that I fantasised about it too.

>> No.3286943

>>3286918
I want you to know that if you're a troll, I kind of love you. You're leaping to fantastic conclusions from just a few words, and making all sorts of claims, and I want to say, it's a fabulous character.

If you're a real person, then I think you've hitched your horse to some wagons carrying a whole lot of crazy.

I have my own reasons to believe women are not rape and murder-obsessed hormone machines.

>>3286919
Eh, I think you can do better.

>> No.3286945

>>3286936
I don't think you understand language, let alone women.

>> No.3286952

>>3286918
I actually think there is some truth to what you are saying for some women. I don't know whether we can generalise to the entire gender however please elaborate further as I am enjoying your posts.

>> No.3286969

>>3286952
> I actually think there is some truth to what you are saying for some women.

It's true for the vast majority of American women, but absolutely false for the majority of women if we look globally.

Yes, the American collective psyche is fucked beyond belief.

>> No.3286978

>>3286943

I want you to know that your post reeks of womanhood. I'm not sure how, but I'm 100% certain you're a woman.

>just a few words

That's what I typed here. In the same way, E = MC2 are just a few signs, that doesn't mean there's no work and experience behind it. Do you understand?

Of all the women I have met, most, and I mean MOST were turned on by the idea of rape. Similarly, I doubt any of them would enjoy real rape. Are you going to call me a sexist if I assume women want what they don't really want? At bottom, it's just biology and evolution. Men evolved to be the center of everything and women evolved around them, so they adapted to that, which is why women's logic rarely makes sense: it's not based on actual logic, it's based on men.

If you doubt what I say, consider serial killers and the obscene amount of women who want to marry/fuck them. That is truly astonishing and has no equivalent amongst men.

Richard Ramirez received more pictures of naked women (sent by themselves) than his CELL can contain! That's in the thousands and more. He even married one of them, and she believes he's innocent because... Fuck knows, she finds him cute.

I wish it weren't like that, but it is.

Day to day life with women has taught me all these things that women try to hide, and should hide, because I don't know a single man who gains respect for women because of this knowledge.

That's also why mature men respect women less than younger men; and that is why, ironically, women prefer mature men. They don't want "respect", they want a man who has power/money, acts like a boss, and fucks them hard in bed.

Yeah, I used to be a romantic boy, then I met women.

>> No.3286980

>>3286945

I even understand analytica logic and linguistics. The point remains: you're a total virgin.

>> No.3286982

>>3286952

Thanks, I'm glad I'm not entirely pissing against the wind here.

>> No.3286990

>>3286980
While I realise this isn't a formal debate, the more you throw ad hominem and baseless accusations around the less anyone will take your argument seriously. I'm actually amused that you think calling someone a virgin is offensive or undermines my points. It really is adolescent insult through and through.

>> No.3286987

>>3286969
>It's true for the vast majority of American women, but absolutely false for the majority of women if we look globally.
>Yes, the American collective psyche is fucked beyond belief.

Sir, I've never had a relationship with an American woman. I think it's far worse elsewhere.

Example:

19th century Russia: women who aren't beaten by their husbands are resentful of it because they are under the impression that their husbands don't care much about them.

Even Texas women don't do that, so please lose the American Exceptionalism. You people are humans like the rest of us, and we're very fucking similar.

USA: You're not special.

>> No.3286996

>>3286798
do you feel better? Can't u express yourself in a none virulent way so we could actually have a conversation rather than a pissing contest?

>> No.3287001

>>3286990
>the less anyone will take your argument seriously

I'm aware of that and I don't mind. You can think me a fool and all you want: my arguments are to be judged for themselves, not for whom uttered them.

You'll indulge me my cavalier attitude as I'm on the Internet and figure a few lols won't harm anybody.

That said, it wasn't an ad hominem: I didn't use a thing related to you to prove a point. Rather, I concluded on your virginity for a reason: you don't seem intimately learned about women.

>> No.3287003

>>3286996

NO I CAN'T BECAUSE I'M FCKING AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANGRY.

I apologise to you and take back everything I said that overly offensive. And I mean it.

>raised Italian, mamma mia, fuck everyone, etc, also pasta

>> No.3287012

If there are any women here (maybe 10%?) and any amongst them who have read Twilight (maybe 10% of those 10%?), please speak your mind.

Another case in point:

>50 Shades of Grey

It's another rape fantasy story for women. It's super popular for the exact same reasons. Prove me wrong.

>> No.3287031

>>3286987
>19th century Russia: women who aren't beaten by their husbands are resentful of it because they are under the impression that their husbands don't care much about them.

Not true. This is actually a mistranslation of an offensive joke.

The original context was that a woman shouldn't complain that her husband beats her because that shows he at least isn't totally indifferent to his wife.

It was an offensive misogynist joke back in the day, similar to how people today joke that when a woman is raped that she 'was acting like a slut and asking for it'.

>> No.3287033
File: 18 KB, 200x300, leethompson.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3287033

>>3287001
Go to bed Lee. You're fucked in the head.

>> No.3287039

>>3287031
>similar to how people today joke that when a woman is raped that she 'was acting like a slut and asking for it'.

Suddenly, I'm accused of doing that. Pretty damn sure you're a woman. Not too sure about it being a bad joke back then, because I hear similar things from Eastern women themselves nowadays. So much for being a bad joke. Women are a bad joke, though.

>> No.3287040

>>3287033

Who the hell is that?

>inb4 Google is your fuckbuddy

>> No.3287048

>>3287040
It's you mate.

>> No.3287052

>>3287048

Wikipedia didn't help. It's an American psychologist woman.

>> No.3287055

>>3287052
>2012 late
>can't reverse image search

>> No.3287058

>>3287055

I can't, I'm a 75-year-old woman living in Pennsylvania. I am fairly new to the Internet but my grandson told me about this place. My husband died recently and I've been alone ever since, so my grandson, Mike, knowing I loved literature, suggested I checked this place.

He warned me about /b/ and the likes, and exlained the general mindset. Being old, I thought it was pretty funny so I don't mind at all and I learned to speak like you: faggot, OP sucks dicks, etc. It's all lols to me.

But you are right, that is why I don't know how to reverse images and such.

>> No.3287061

>>3287058
>hurrr
Watch this (1-5) if you can bear to.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ57HoTqNU4
It's you. Maybe it's not you right now, but it's what you're going to be if you carry on like this.
Consider me the Ghost in the Machine of Christmas Future.

>> No.3287065

>>3287061
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ57HoTqNU4

Well, my girlfriend thinks I'm an amazing person and I sure treat her with respect and give her all the help I can.

I'm not sure what you're assuming about me, but I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

My girlfriend is a feminist, but she hates women more than any misogynist I've ever met (I met 1).

If you have any questions, I'll answer. I don't feel like debating anymore. Nobody listens.

>> No.3287082

>>3287065
I haven't assumed anything, you've made it all explicit in this thread.
>some of my best friends are black
stop sleeping with girls who were molested as kids, Lee, maybe you'll get a less skewed view of human relationships.

>> No.3287103
File: 24 KB, 497x313, 1331102641650.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3287103

>>3287082
>I haven't assumed anything, you've made it all explicit in this thread.

I've only talked of women, not myself, so you only assumed the rest. Logic.

I'm sorry you're about as alienated as I am when it comes to women.

As to human relationships, the madness dwells within and usually within the bed, and relationships, so I don't have a single problem with women at large.

There's one theory you never even looked at because of your feministic bias:

>I may have a crazy girlfriend

No, it's immediately, "You must be an asshole because you're a man."

>> No.3287109

>>3287103
You talked of what you believe of women. What that is says everything I know about you, Lee. There's no point in trying to argue with me, you need to get a little self awareness, or your future is set. You'll be getting facial tattoos in no time.

>> No.3287113

>>3287109
>You talked of what you believe of women.

No, I've faithfully reported what I've been told by women. Why do you want to put ME at the center of this? Women tell me of their likes and dislikes, and somehow it's all me assuming shit?

>> No.3287116

>>3287113
Everything everyone thinks is simply the view through their eyes. You're transparent, Lee.

>> No.3287128

>>3287116

Everyone = you

I don't think you're doing any good for the cause of women.

>> No.3287130

>>3287058
> 75 year old chick on 4chan

cool story bro

>> No.3287133

>>3287128
I think you're continuing to try to get the last word in as a minor victory as you're unable to make any substantial argument, Lee.

>> No.3287142

>>3287133

No, I'm just politely responding to you when you talk to me. I don't care for last words; what matters is what was said.

>> No.3287191

>>3287142
You quite obviously don't care what's been said, you make up outrageous lies to defend your stance and believe the ones your girlfriend tells you. There's no integrity there, just panicked scrabbling to maintain your shared delusion.

>> No.3287201

>>3287191

Lies? I report what I've been told; if these are lies, you can blame them on the women who spoke these lies to me. I personally don't think they were lying. In any case, I merely report.

(Use logic.)

I don't need to defend anything, since, as I just said, I'm reporting what others told me.

As to panicking, you're panicking. I have nothing at stake here. I'm telling you how it is, you don't like it, your reaction is insecure, and you're running out of anything to say to offer a counter you don't have.

Could it be these "lies" resonate within you in a manner that pleases you not?

>delusion

Yes, that is the word.

>> No.3287206

>>3287191

LOL AT THAT WHORE. OP makes perfect sense, doesn't claim to know the ultimate truth, and you keep being a bitch to him, not understanding a word he said.

Are you even trying?

I'm a woman and you shame me. OP is correct in everything he said about women. You're proof of it.

>> No.3287212

How about not derailing this thread any further?

I personally would like to know whether Rice is worth reading beyond the first three vampire novels.

>> No.3287231

>>3287206

So you want to be raped, you don't want to be respected, and you want to be treated like an animal?

>> No.3287244

>>3287231

Yes and no. I fantasise about being raped the way men fantasise about raping, but the actual thing itself, I wouldn't want it, nor do men who fantasise about this usually rape anybody either.

Being respected =/= having a boring, soft boyfriend. I want him to treat me well, but also to stand up for himself, and myself against others.

And yes, I want him to treat me like an animal in bed. Maybe that blows your mind, I don't know.

>> No.3287247

>>3287244
it's weird, i'm a man and i never fantasize about raping anyone, i guess i'm not a real man, i mean i don't get laid that much, maybe if i cultivate some raping fantasies i will do better with women

>> No.3287257

>>3287244

Alright.

Now please explain the line of logic that propels you to take your personal fetishes and project them onto the entirety of women (and men).

Because personally, I think you're just some dumb bitch on the internet. Does that turn you on? That disrespect? I know you say you want to be 'treated well', but that has nothing to do with respect. Can I call you a cunt if I buy you a nice car first? That would be treating you well, but I would have absolutely no fucking respect for you.

>> No.3287258

>>3287247

I would think so to. Women get turned on by knowing a man REALLY wants them, almost to the point of rape. It's not actual rape that turns them on, but your desire, so if you have none, they'll know and won't be turned on.

OP is right when he says women evolved around men in the sense that how they work is based on how men work, while men work based on how the world works.

>> No.3287265

>>3287258

So when women dress nicely, it's trying to incite men to rape? Why are they surprised or hurt when someone actually does it?

>> No.3287275

>>3287265

I think women don't understand how men work, and misunderstand them a lot. For instance, women have NO CLUE how men feel when they see a sexy woman. Women assume men are just evil pigs. Women don't see the connection betwee dressing sexy and sex.

None of them assume it's an invitation to rape. They just want to look hot and rarely see beyond that.

>> No.3287282

>>3287275

So they're just fucking dumb animals with blinders on?

Okay.

>> No.3287285

>>3287282

Many of them, yes. Go to any club.

>> No.3287289

>>3287285

Oh no, don't give me this 'many of them' bullshit. All of them.

>> No.3287293

>>3287275
when i see a chick dressed like a hooker i just assume she's a whore who likes dick from proletarian scumbags, i have pretty much no desire to know her or even rape her, i just think "wow she has to resort to that, sad"

>> No.3287296

>>3287289

Some don't go to clubs because they're too fat and ugly.

>> No.3287298

>>3287293

Yes, but you're a man using world-logic; she's a woman using man-centered logic. She doesn't understand these subtleties. She just thinks men are idiots and that's what they like. They don't realise that only some men are idiots. The result is: they only attract morons and assume all men are morons.

It's a perfect circle.

>> No.3287303

>>3287296

But they all want men to rape them. And thus they all try to incite it. But they get upset when it happens, because they have the minds of children who don't understand that touching a stove when it's hot will burn you.

Dumb. Fucking. Animals.

>> No.3287305

>>3287298

Why do we allow these people to have rights, exactly? They're not fit for the larger world.

>> No.3287307

>>3287303

Pretty much correct.

>> No.3287311

>>3287305

We used to not allow them rights. We were smarter. Read any ancient texts, back to when political correctness hadn't infected our societies. We had a healthy, man-based system that worked perfectly.

Now we have feminised faggots and women in charge. Everything's going to the dogs.

>> No.3287314

I like how the woman in this thread has gone suddenly silent.

Too much truth overload your simple little mind?

>> No.3287325

>>3287314

They try to play on the men's ground, but every time they fail utterly.

Sorry ladies, know your place.

>> No.3287331

>>3287201
I really can't be bothered with you any more, Lee. Enjoy your lonely future.

>> No.3287332

Is this /lit/ or fucking /pol/? Jesus Christ, you're all fucking embarrassing... Do any of you read?

>> No.3287339

>>3287332
books are just materialistic consumer bullshit, until you give up reading and just watch tv u can never truly experience self-knowledge bro, prove me wrong

>> No.3287342

>>3287331

OP said he had a great relationship already, are you not listening?

Everyone else in this thread saw your bullshit.

You talk of last words for last words' sake, yet that's exactly what you're doing. You brought nothing new to the debate, you're just acting like the average bitch.

>> No.3287345
File: 38 KB, 252x240, 1331429390414.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3287345

>>3287339

Laughed out loud.

>> No.3287351

officially never coming back to this awful board again

>> No.3287354

>>3287332

I take it by your non-statement that you don't actually have a problem with the truth of what's being said about women, you just don't like it being said.

Why are you a coward?

>> No.3287355

>>3287342
He also said he's a 75-year-old woman living in Pennsylvania, that women are tautologies, that he understand analytica logic and linguistics, that his girlfriend is a feminist who hates women, that his girlfriend speaks for all women and I could go on but really I wouldn't be surprised if you're him so you should really know all this by now. Even if not, I've already acknowledged that he may have a girlfriend, are you not listening?

The pair of you have gone from ad hominem to accusing me of being a virgin to accusing me of being female ... is anyone ever aware that they're clutching at straws?

>> No.3287359

>>3287355

That was a different anon, obviously. Are you dumb or a woman?

>> No.3287363

>>328735

Like I said, I can't be bothered with you.

>> No.3287380

>>3287354

I get that you think you're a really subtle and effective troll, but you're not. Stop embarrassing yourself.

>> No.3287385

>>3287354

Nobody here thinks you're smart.

>> No.3287388

>>3287380

I don't think anything about my posts has been subtle. What use is subtlety here?

Frankly, I'm more shocked that not a single person has contested any of this woman hating. I mean yeah I wasn't being sincere at all, but I'm starting to agree with my bullshit because no one has said otherwise, a couple people apparently agree, and even the woman didn't have anything to say.

So maybe I'm wrong? I'm beginning to wonder now. Maybe it's legitimate to hate women.

>> No.3287416

ITT: women are whores. All of them.

>> No.3287419

>>3287388

Nobody has contested your nonsense because there is really very little to respond to. I mean, it's just typical misogynist bullshit from some anonymous poster. Nothing distinguishes you from the common /b/tard.

>> No.3287469

>>3287388
yeah, i used to be a super leftist delighting in identity politics and hating anybody successful other than famous leftist intellectuals who i of course celebrated with abandon...now i'm starting to swing back and realize that shit is just angsty people who don't want to face reality. escaping reality through leftism is no better than escaping through religion, of course capitalism has problems but most of the shit people complain about regarding capitalism are just petty jeolousies and self-hate turned outward.

>> No.3287482

>>3287469
>people who don't want to face reality.

Same thing here, exact same thing.

>> No.3287487

>>3287388
sorry no one wants to logically "refute" an entire thread of dumb internet slapfighting

that doesn't make you right though. being so unbearable that no one wants to deal with you is not the same as being right.

>> No.3287490

>>3287487
but if he's so wrong it can't be that hard to offer a brief refutation of his fallacies amirite?

>> No.3287500

>>3287490
honestly i can't even find a solid assertion of his argument, i just keep clicking up and find more dumb internet arguing and insults and "THAT'S NOT ACTUALLY A REFUTATION" and "YOU'RE JUST A BIG DUMBHEAD". i can't be bothered to click back through a million posts to tell another fucking misogynist that he's wrong. my point, i guess, is that doesn't make him right. it doesn't make him wrong either (he's wrong, but it's not because he's unbearable). people not responding to his trolling bullshit is not indicative of rightness or wrongness.

>> No.3287502

>>3287487

Typical whore. You can't say anything logical, but you're so used to people listening to you because you have a cunt that you don't realise how inane and pointless you truly are.

Here, nobody gives a fuck what you look like, or even that you're female.

I hope that's an epiphany for you, bitch.

>> No.3287506

>>3287500
>another fucking misogynist

You're the reason why they exist. As a woman, I can't blame them, I'd hate you too.

>> No.3287514

>>3287502
i'm a dude

just not a total dickhead

also i find this worship of "logic" hilarious, because it's not as though there's anything particularly logical about your presentation or argument, it's just, having staked out your position, you use logic as a stick to beat down anyone who tries to answer you. logic is a requirement to get to a good argument, but you make your argument before you make logic a requirement, so you get in free. it's a good strategy.

>> No.3287522

>>3287514

You're not a dude, but nice try. Actually no, not nice.

>saging on /lit/

That proves you're a dumb whore. Guess who of you and I is not single? Indeed.

>> No.3287529

>>3287506
lol sorry i'm not interested in another argument with a misogynist on 4chan. sorry this has happened a million times and it will happen again and it will never change and it's all pointless. sorry i don't want to talk to an idiot who has the same views as a million other idiots i've argued with on here. sorry i don't "respect" yet another person spamming the same dumb shit and stroking his dick about it.

(i'm not actually sorry) (in case that wasn't clear)

>>3287522
w/e dude, keep being an idiot if you want, that ain't on me

>> No.3287537

>>3287529

LOL YOU'RE A HOMOSEXUAL!