[ 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: 5 KB, 206x250, 1374444243449.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4104879 No.4104879[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

hey guys /tv/ here. I decided that I should push myself into reading since I'm beginning to feel like an idiot from all those shows. Now I am pretty open to new genres and new things and I can accept mediocrity but I don't want recommendations or anything I just wanna ask:

Should I just go ahead and ignore everything written by a woman? I mean sure there's some good stuff out there written by women but over all would it be less consuming of time and have a higher chance of reading something worthwhile I I do?

>> No.4104884

You should rather read books about women. It's fun to explore things one knows nothing about.

>> No.4104888

>>4104884
>lol womyn mysterious ccreatures so deep XD

>> No.4104895

>>4104879
You know that one of the most important writers of the last 200 years is a woman, right? And not because "oh, a woman did write!" but because Virginia Woolf did things other can only dream.

Welcome anyway, if you don't want to be anymore an edgy teenager read Crime and Punishment by Dostoevsky (but before just read something ligher).

>> No.4104897

What do you plan on reading? What genres do you read?

>> No.4104899

>>4104895
>Virginia Woolf more important than titans like Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Joyce, Sartre, Nabokov, Wilde, Marquez, and all the other boys
You have no idea how stretched out your argument is

>> No.4104900

>>4104884
I don't hate women or anything it's just based on my experience that none of them capable of thinking of anything other than romance and shirtless men. What's with all those book covers with stuff like His Hidden Dick by Middleage Womyn I see everywhere? And the majority of women films/shows for women were absolute crap but then again the non-women stuff are also mostly shit so I don't know. That's why I pushing towards books.

>> No.4104901

>>4104884
/thread

>> No.4104905

>>4104897
I was originally a fantasy guy but I am pushing my things toward new things.

I thought I'd try some western so I started reading Louis L'amour books.

I'm also planning on Historical Fiction and maybe some horrorish crime stuff.

>> No.4104906

>>4104884
Heh, burned.

>> No.4104907

>>4104905
>Historical Fiction

Try Wolf Hall and Bring Up The Bodies by Hilary Mantel

>> No.4104908

>>4104906
>burned
We say rekt now, grandpa
>>4104907
I wasn't asking for recommendations but thanks, I might if I remember. I was just asking if I should generally stay away from women books to save time or not.

>> No.4104913

>>4104888

>oh fuck I just got told into oblivion
>damage control damage control fuckfuckfuck

>> No.4104914

>>4104899
>one of the most important
>most important

learn2read

>> No.4104916

>>4104913
that guy wasn't OP

>> No.4104918
File: 248 KB, 538x621, 1365767967257.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4104918

>>4104899

>Sartre
>important

>> No.4104923

>>4104916
Hello op

>> No.4104928

>>4104923
hi

that guy wasn't me.

>> No.4104929

>>4104913
i'm just not a betakid who never interacted with women thus thinks they are some kind of mystic grails. women are ez m8

>> No.4104934

>>4104929

>i'm n-not a b-b-beta kid o-okay

>> No.4104932

>>4104899
George Eliot is more important than almost all of those guys. You're wrong and ignorant if you disagree. She's also a better novelist than any of them except Joyce and Tolstoy.

>> No.4104935

>>4104934
nice greentext kid

>> No.4104944

>>4104932

>more important than almost all

Uh. She's great and all, but no.

>Dostoyevsky
>Tolstoy
>Joyce
>Wilde

The others are open to debate, but these writers more important than her by such a large margin that you'd have to be clueless beyond the point of saving to honestly think otherwise.

Hardly "almost all".

>> No.4104951

>>4104950
>She's definitely a better novelist than Dostoyevsky and Wilde.
oh lawd

>> No.4104950

>>4104944
She's definitely a better novelist than Dostoyevsky and Wilde. She's also the most important English Novelist other than Dickens. You think this isn't arguable, but Harold Bloom (famous opponent of feminism in literary analysis) placed her in higher regards than Dostoyevsky or Wilde (even though Wilde is his personal hero, he recognized Eliot was a stronger genius), and he knows a shit-ton about importance and doesn't give authors brownie points for being female.

>> No.4104955

>>4104951
Dostoyevsky is an 8/10 novelist, but an amazing philosophical genius. This isn't even a controversial point. George Eliot wrote the best novel in English. Have you read it? I have read Dostoyevsky's great works.

>> No.4104960

>>4104955
Also, you are retarded if you think Wilde is a better novelist than Eliot. He has one novel, and it isn't even his best work. If you think that beats everything Eliot did, I don't even know what to say.

>> No.4104964

>>4104955
a. gave up halfway though middlemarch because it was stretching longer than she had to say
b. nabokov wrote the best english novel

i get it that you have a fetish for gender equality, but your original point was that she was more important than dostoyevsky and all the other guys. i don't give a shit about your scores to dostoyevsky's work

>> No.4104966

>>4104964
a. I don't have a fetish for gender equality at all. I was just remarking that George Eliot truly is one of the most amazing geniuses in literature.
b. Nabakov himself thought Dostoyevsky was a mediocre novelist.
c. Nabakov's may have written the best English novel (he didn't, but its close) but George Eliot is still the better novelist.

I get you only like works that are edgy. I don't give a shit that you can't appreciate Middlemarch.

>> No.4104968
File: 48 KB, 300x275, melville.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4104968

>>4104964

>nabokov wrote the best english novel

The fuck outta here with that ignorant bullshit.

>> No.4104973

>>4104966
sorry for picking on your girlfriend anon

>> No.4104975

>>4104968
Actually wait holy fuck I shouldn't have even said Nabakov was close. Moby Dick, Ulysses, Middlemarch, Bleak House are ALL so much better than Nabakov's works.

Fucking Moby Dick is so good goddamn.

>> No.4104977

>>4104968
>do i fit in yyeett?

>> No.4104978

>>4104973
omg this board omg

>> No.4104980

>>4104977

>damage_control.jpg

>> No.4104981

>>4104968
>thinking any English novel is better than Lolita.

>> No.4104983

>>4104980
>i sure told anon with my academic opinion hehehe

>> No.4104988

>>4104981

Melville reached Dante heights with that book.

As good as Lolita is it isn't even close to Moby-Dick.

>> No.4104992

>>4104988
Why? Is it because you like it more, or because it's older, longer, and more critically acclaimed?

>> No.4104997

>>4104988
>Melville reached Dante heights with that book.

brawhalahahahalehrhalrrotflmaorahwbralawwujgbrjee

>> No.4104999

>>4104895
Virginia Woolf is awful. Reading her is like watching a posh bourgeois woman enjoy the taste and smell of her own farts.

>> No.4105001

>>4104992

To say nothing of the beauty of the prose is displaying clear bias. It's not like I'm saying Lolita is bad, meanwhile you're taking shots at one of the greatest novels ever written for stupid reasons. Who is being the disingenuous one here?

It's okay to like things that are critically lauded, the other hipsters might scorn you and kick you out of the club but the people who genuinely give a shit about the craft won't care.

>> No.4105002

>>4104999

>being this bad at reading
>ever

>> No.4105006

>>4105001
By now, I'm actually wondering if you even read it

>> No.4105005

>>4105002
She's really bad due, get over it.

Jane Austen is a lot better than Woolf.

>> No.4105008

>>4105005
Austen was a shitty writer famous only because womin, Woolf rocks all the time!

>> No.4105011

>>4105008
>Austen was a shitty writer famous only because womin, Woolf rocks all the time!

It's the other way around.

>> No.4105012

OP there's like 5 good women writers. You can do without them anyway

>> No.4105013

>>4104960
>He has one novel, and it isn't even his best work
It is a testament to his consummate artistry that a man who was first and foremost a playwright, a poet and a dandy also managed to produce one of the best novels ever written.

>> No.4105018

>>4105006

...This is your post equivalent of a poker tell, isn't it? You haven't even read the fucking thing, have you?

If you actually had you'd know how formidable the prose is. But no, you're just talking out of your ass. Figures.

>> No.4105022

>>4105013
I'm not saying it's not good. I'm just saying that Picture of Dorian Gray ALONE is not better than ALL of Eliot's output. Nobody thinks that.

I agree that it's a great novel; Wilde was a genius, he just wasn't of the stature of novelist that Eliot was. I don't understand why there should be any dispute about this.

>> No.4105021

>>4104884

Got any suggestions?

>> No.4105019

>>4105018
>NO U
Gotcha

>> No.4105023

>>4105022
>it may be better, but my fav writer wrote more!

>> No.4105025

>>4105019

Okay, I can see you've just zoned out now because you've got nothing. Cool.

>> No.4105027

>>4105013
Picture of Dorian Gray is great because it showed how Wilde was a closet Christian, showing through the metaphor of the degrading portrait that each act focused on merely physical beauty and appearances degrades the soul of the man.
If you read The Soul of Man Under Socialism you will also get the impression that Wilde was a moralist at heart.

>> No.4105029

>>4105023
It's not better than Middlemarch, also. I was just trying to be nice. But whatever. Have you read Middlemarch?

>> No.4105030

>>4105027
>closet Christian
o boy

>> No.4105036

>>4105029
>tfw nobody has read Middlemarch

>> No.4105045

>>4105036
it's still more important than dostoyevsky's works nevertheless

>> No.4105047

>>4105045
oh i agree it just proves my suspicions that /lit/ posters just reread the same books every year and never branch out

>> No.4105051

>>4105047
i was joking

>> No.4105054

>>4105051
lol i was talking about /lit/ so if you think /lit/ matters for what is important or not than you are bonkers

>> No.4105060

>>4105045
As a novel, yes. Philosophically, probably not.

>> No.4105061

>>4105060
dostoyevsky is more acclaimed for his deep psychological understanding, rather than his "philosophies"

>> No.4105062
File: 90 KB, 1200x930, 1898391-trout-going-for-the-bait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4105062

>This thread.

>> No.4105070

>>4105061
Not really? His psychological understanding is what drives him to an 8/10 novelist though (his style is not all that, and his plots aren't that well done). But his psychological understanding drives his philosophical thinking. They are tied together. I don't see why you would separate them like that. The Grand Inquisitor is interesting because his psychological portrait implicitly helps carry forward philosophical ideas.

>> No.4105114

>>4104884
>>4104884

Got any recommendations? Only got The Second Sex so far.

>> No.4105133

>>4104888
you completely missed the point of that post didn't you?

>> No.4105134

>>4105114
read the sticky retard

>> No.4105137 [DELETED] 

>>4104884
Bro, I have had lots of girlfriends. Suffice to say /tv/ users are more normalfag than /lit/ autists. Fuck off

>> No.4105147

>>4105137
>being this defensive
lel beta perma-virgin detected
and there's more to women than them being your make believe girlfriends my fedora-loving friend

>> No.4105158

>>4104879
yo /tv/ was going to make a thread there but since you are here.....
How did the Percy Jackson sequel and the Mortal Instruments do at the box office?
Please say they both flopped.

>> No.4105168

Woolf is very definitely worth reading, especially The Waves and Mrs Dalloway. And Jane Austen can be very witty if you're into that sort of thing.

Asides from that yeah you can more or less ignore women.

>> No.4105190

Amelie Nothomb is a fabulous writer
There's a fair share of dialogue in her books which will keep you on your toes. She's really witty too

>> No.4105283

>>4105133
How so?

>> No.4105284

>>4105190
who

>> No.4105494

>>4105019
>>4105006
>>4104992
>throwing up such slop
Just give up already.

>> No.4107059

>>4105158
I don't know for sure, but I heard they both did pretty bad.