/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6950622]

Why do people assume girls don't read good books? Just because it's rare or because of bigotry?
>Inb4 "Only on 4chan"
>Inb4 "Op isn't a girl, girls don't exist!"

[Anonymous No.6950633]

Most readers I've known were female. To read and understand whats written, thats another discussion.

[Anonymous No.6950639]

LONDON
O
N
D
O
N

[Anonymous No.6950642]

>>6950633
Why do you think they don't understand it?

[Anonymous No.6950643]

>>6950622
Because many girls try to be part of cultural "elites". There's an abundance of artsy/nerdy typed girls who act more than their part and make men skeptical.

[Anonymous No.6950644]

Because /pol/ is a blight on this board

Report shit threads, sage shit threads, hide shit threads

[Anonymous No.6950645]

>>6950644
>opinions I don't like are /pol/ and should be banned

Get a load of this fascist, gb2 /pol/, nazi.

[Anonymous No.6950648]

>>6950645
This is a board about literature, thus any thread that's even vaguely /pol/ should be reported, saged, hidden

[Anonymous No.6950657]

>>6950648
>this is an apolitical board
>ergo my political opinions should be law without question

[Anonymous No.6950660]

>>6950622
>that pic
savage af, probably one of schope's illegitimate children.
Probably because it's both something that's "rare", as you say, and something along the lines of >>6950633. Of course there's women who don't read trash, but you'll find more girls who read and read trash than guys who read and read trash. The guys who read and don't read trash probably outnumber the girls who read and don't read trash.
OP, post pic of something girly.

>>6950633
Don't forget
>shitty self-insert YA books
it's like guys being manga-anime weebs: girl edition
>garbage like 50 shades of dumb
speaks for itself
One should 360 and walk away.

[Anonymous No.6950664]

>>6950622

In my experience girls read more, but those who read mostly read crap. All the guys I know that read solely concentrate on literature.

The actual percentage of girls and boys who read literature may be the same, but more girls read in general so they are associated with crap.

[Anonymous No.6950666]

>>6950660
You're right, I feel like part of the problem is how much shitty literature is marketed to just women.
Girly stuff? Girly books or what?

[Anonymous No.6950671]

>>6950657
nope, my own political opinions have nothing much to do here either; I report blatant /pol/ threads not because I agree or disagree, they just have no place here

[Anonymous No.6950674]

>>6950664
It's probably that the most vocal and visible female readers are annoying and pretentious, so we have a bit of a survivorship bias.

The side women can't really see, but men do, is how often women use "I looove reading", or other hollow affects when dating to make themselves seem deep. Like a fat girl who calls herself "outdoorsy". You can often see right through it and since we can be anonymous on 4chan we express our cynicism here.

Doesn't mean girls can't be good readers.

[Anonymous No.6950675]

>>6950671
This isn't a blatant /pol/ thread.

[Anonymous No.6950676]

>>6950664
Thats fair enough, every girl I know from shool who's a "reader" reads either Mortal Instruments tier garbage or oversentimental meme stuff like The Help. But I don't think they should be shat on for that, most girls just arent expected to read so they're never exposed to the good stuff.

[Anonymous No.6950683]

>>6950622
As someone who studies English, I can say that predominantly females partake in the literature courses. So in my experience, women read more than men.

[Anonymous No.6950685]

>>6950674
Am I not supposed to tell people I love reading? I do read a few hours a day, most is lit approved stuff. But some people see it as a red flag, like indicative of being an edgy faggot or something.

[Anonymous No.6950687]

>>6950666
That's true. The marketing aspect also holds true in the movie industry. Think of all the bad action movies or even worse comedies. Many guys watch those. That isn't to say there aren't dumb "chick flicks" of course.
I'm not sure why it is exactly that girls for some reason read more, I'd guess it's because the books girls are interested in are calmer and character and relationship driven(YAs) so there's somewhere to invest all that daydreaming of being "THE girl" in regards to social groups and a special boy. Books offer that perfectly by drawing you in and all the descriptions and so on and so on. For boys however, what is there to draw boys to books which they can't receive from cartoons and movies, and in recent times, video games? I don't think this is something that's bound to change any time soon. If anything, more effort should be invested to introduce adults to more worthwhile literature. It's fine to read trash when you're a child, but at some point you should leave all that behind and try to take literature seriously because there's a lot to gain from reading. Twilight fan-fiction like 50 Shades of Trash, even though it's "adult" because it's "erotic", is absolute garbage. Might as well read the depraved stories people write Online instead of the vanilla mainstream books.

I don't know, cute stuff.

[Anonymous No.6950688]

>>6950683
And with more, I also mean good books. I am not talking about Fifty Shades or something.

[Anonymous No.6950692]

>>6950687
>>6950660
>>6950643

aaaand /thread.

[Anonymous No.6950693]

>>6950676
>most girls just arent expected to read so they're never exposed to the good stuff.
Maybe I'm just an asshole but most people I think really don't respect this excuse. No, guys are not "expected" more than girls to read good literature.

[Anonymous No.6950694]

Females have small brains, female have different behavior etc

Do you want proof that you deserve to be treated this way? Your thread is stupid, your behavior is social, emotional, not logical

[Anonymous No.6950695]

>>6950622
nah

[Anonymous No.6950697]

>>6950685
Because most women (people too) who say that are edgy faggots.

[Anonymous No.6950704]

>>6950683
>>6950688
There was an interesting thread a couple of days ago about a guy who was in a poetry class and almost all the students were women, one of the guys was a dunce, and another was well-read(OP himself considered himself to be along the same lines of the well-read one). He expressed confusion over how many of the women did not seek to truly understand and get under the skin of the poetry but simply to get it done and move on. And further: when attempting to understand the work, they implemented their own personal views and feelings, heavily relying on modern values, so for example if there was a poem where a woman was being married away in an arranged marriage, they'd focus on the "oppression" aspect, misogyny, sexism, and so on.
I would imagine the same would hold true for your classes, at least to some extent. Have you experienced something similar?

>>6950685
When you say
>tell people I love reading
do you mean actually saying
>"I love reading"
because that's what's going to get you grouped with those who go
>"omg i looooooove reading!"
not the fact that you read. It's just an aspect to think about.
Don't reveal your "power-level".

[Anonymous No.6950713]

>>6950687
Exactly. Most of what's written/released today tends to be pretty gendered, people see it as a girl's thing or a boy's thing. Good literature either goes beyond that or is from a time where you just didn't write about girls. More recent and popular authors like Pynchon have gained traction because their novels aren't just an angsty boy finding himself OR a 2d self insert girl doing magical things; both male and female characters are more or less presented like real people so it appeals to a wider circle. I mean, I'm completely generalizing but if you look at lit accepted children's fiction vs. normie this is definitely a trend.
Also need more elaboration on "cute stuff"

[Anonymous No.6950714]

>>6950704
My experiences with literature classes are pretty much the same. Women often have trouble not self-inserting into every story they read. It boggles my mind sometime.

Often if you gently explain the context and perspective, you'll be seen as some genius.

I also find that women in my classes seemed less interested in the construction and what's "behind" or "the essence of" good poetry.

I think the main difference is, at least in undergrad, the proportion of men to women is really small, so the only men you see tend to be more passionate whereas you get more women who care less. Also the dumb women are infectious to the smarter ones.

[Anonymous No.6950716]

>>6950713
>Good literature either goes beyond that or is from a time where you just didn't write about girls.
Girls are present all the time in good literature.

[Anonymous No.6950722]

>>6950704
Lol, what aspect of an arranged marriage are you supposed to focus on?
Also, yeah I wouldn't say it without a follow-up, more like something along the lines of
>"I love reading! I'm in the middle of xyz right now, what's your favorite book?"
I try not to reveal my power level, thank you for the advice.

[Anonymous No.6950729]

>>6950716
That was my point? Good literature generally has well rounded female characters. I wouldn't expect Herman Melville to have amazing nonsexist portrayals of modern women

[Anonymous No.6950731]

>>6950704
I have to say that in my Literature classes the same holds true. Quite a few of the women rely on feminist readings and therefore apply those feminist qualities to whatever they read.

One other thing that infuriates me is when people sell the books they had to read. For instance, The Norton. It's a great collection of stories and books from all times, some well-known, others lesser known, but all essential. And these people just sell that book after the end of the year because they are done with the course. But, in essence, yes. I do have the same experience. The few women that do read books regularly are able to give deep insights, but I have heard some absolute drivel as well.

[Anonymous No.6950737]

>>6950642
Personal experience. I've known lots of girls that read the "big books" in Law school but when asked about their content they weren't able to say anything of worth.

I'm not saying men are all avid readers and they all understand what they read. Most guys I've known don't read at all. The difference I noticed is that (like this guy said >>6950687) men read less than women, yet, those few men that do, read it to understand.

Again, in Law School most girls bought those big philosophical books and read them (or at least said that they did). But none of these girls were able to explain what they've (supposedly) had read.

The male students, most of them, said that they didn't read those books and had no interest in reading them. However, the few guys that did read were able to explain what they understood.

Perhaps its all due to YA books being more appealing to women. I'll explain. Women like to read YA because of what this guy said >>6950687 . So, reading these books, they think of themselves as avid readers and imagine that all books (including those big philosophy books) are going to be as easy as the ones they've read (the YAs).

On the other hand, most guys don't read anything at all, so they aren't even motivated to go on and try to read those big books. They don't try, they don't fail - at least not in the public's eye.

Finally, lets talk about those few guys that do read and understand. Most of them, are men that like to read. But what do men that read like to read? Mostly non YA. Lots of them will read the average sci-fi and some will go further and read some entry level literature. These guys (some of them and with some effort) will be able to read and understand those big books.

So, all the difference is caused by YA being more attractive to women.

Sorry for the English, not a first language and I'm typing in a hurry.

[Anonymous No.6950739]

>>6950731
Well there you go, its not that women are incapable because they're women. People are just idiots because they're idiots.

[Anonymous No.6950748]

>>6950737
Your English is fine, don't worry. That's again fine. Its just frustrating to have to prove that I can analyze and read and whatever just because of being a girl.
But then again, it's not difficult to brush them off and read whatever the fuck I want.

[Anonymous No.6950749]

>>6950713
I think it's because it's gotten so easy to market it. Not just that, but to profit for something barely average. Really just scraping the bottom of the barrel and you're greeted with profit. I don't know how easy it was to get something published 40-50-60-100+ years ago, but I'd imagine it's a whole lot easier today and with that it brings a lot more trash. And with the trash, a lot more drilling into what's "in" at the current time. Remember when Twilight was a thing? I remember every girl had watched the first movie several times and bought the books. Even then, when I wasn't all that into reading, I couldn't fathom why they would want to read something so bad. I remember asking and they couldn't even give any proper explanation, just that "it's so good".
Like cute girl hair. Or elbows, but only if not too pointy.
>>6950716
The relationship between men and women is definitely in the top 3 of subjects. Always something about love. What's allowed to be written about girls, sex rather, was however something that was subject to a lot of change. I remember a part from a book we had to analyze in High School was about a young girl masturbating and how at the time of the release it was a big deal. Of course it wasn't written like masturbating, but the imagery was intense and vivid, something with flowers and sunlight.

>>6950722
I meant the arranged marriage part as in the arranged marriage part was only a fraction and was something completely normal and the feelings associated, say if it was a girl who was not happy to be married away, it can't be viewed with modern eyes but the historical context has to be taken into account and leave modern views out of it, otherwise too strong emotions, emotions which are not there in the poem, are added to it.
The way I'd say would be something along the lines of
>"Oh you read? Me too, I've recently read xyz and I enjoyed xyz in them"

[Anonymous No.6950753]

>>6950737
Good job

[Anonymous No.6950756]

>>6950714
>Often if you gently explain the context and perspective, you'll be seen as some genius.
I could imagine.
>I also find that women in my classes seemed less interested in the construction and what's "behind" or "the essence of" good poetry.
Exactly. It's more about the superficial "feeling", what's right there screaming out from the page, not a sublime message there's to be found throughout the whole of the poem.
>at least in undergrad, the proportion of men to women is really small, so the only men you see tend to be more passionate whereas you get more women who care less
Makes sense.

>>6950731
>feminist readings
360360360
>apply those feminist qualities to whatever they read
Absolutely dumb.
I think the part about selling off the books is really what draws the end of the line. Here's a book they've spent so much time with and they discard it when they aren't forced to use it any more, as if they didn't learn anything from it, as if there's nothing to gain from going back.

[Anonymous No.6950761]

>>6950749
You make a lot of good points, I'm glad I was never on the Twilight bandwagon.
Within a historical context, I love reading about different traditions and cultural practices. I bet that girl either had no idea it was common practice within the context of whatever it was you were reading, or she was a complete autist.
What kind of high school had you reading about girls masturbating? They don't even acknowledge that shit in health classes where I live.
Also have an elbow. Why not

[Anonymous No.6950766]

>>6950622
>girls reading
>rare
Dude, that's how they get off.

[Anonymous No.6950767]

>>6950766
Porn exists man. Not all of us are afraid of seeing a penis

[Anonymous No.6950772]

>>6950767
But they usually need the penis to have a dramatic backstory.

[Anonymous No.6950775]

>>6950761

What a soft fat squishy elbow.

[Anonymous No.6950777]

>>6950772
kek okay bud

[Anonymous No.6950782]

>>6950775
If you say so

[Anonymous No.6950817]

>>6950753
whats the praise for? what the mocking for?

[Anonymous No.6950818]

>>6950749
I never understood why things like a girl masturbating should be revolutionary. Ann Frank wrote about her "explorations" in her diary. It's something that hadn't existed in literature, but then what?

It doesn't really have significance to me. I dunno.

[Anonymous No.6950820]

>>6950767
What kind of porn do you DJ to?

[Anonymous No.6950822]

>>6950818
It really shouldn't be, but theres so much stigma surrounding it.

[Anonymous No.6950826]

>>6950818
>Ann Frank wrote about her "explorations" in her diary
Most of that got censored

[Anonymous No.6950829]

>>6950820
Don't laugh, a lot of it's foot fetish stuff. Usually just normal stuff I dont know how to describe it. Great lit thing to talk about

[Anonymous No.6950842]

>>6950829
like you get turned on by men/women licking women/men feet? In this scenario where do you place yourself?

[Anonymous No.6950847]

>>6950748
Simply realize and acknowledge that you don't have to actually go back and forth with someone. Needless to say, reading for others, or reading to be able to say you've read, is hollow. Read whatever you want, and if someone thinks you're a dumbass because you don't have a dick, then they're the ones who don't get it and they're the ones who, if they were well-read, lose out on someone they could have been able to discuss with and reach an even deeper understanding with.

>>6950761
It was a bitch to find, but I found it, it's called "Fru Marie Grubbe" by J.P. Jacobsen, it's from 1876. Here's the part we analyzed(she sits down at a table after having plucked a skirt-full of roses):
>Den sidste Rose var tagen, hun glattede Skjortets Folder og de lose Blomsterblade og de gronne Blade, der havde sat sig fast i Kjolens Luv, strog hun af, og blev saa siddende med Hænderne i Skjodet og saae paa Rosenfloret.
>Denne Blomsterlod, der krusede sig i Skjær og Skygger, fra Hvidt, der rodmer, til Rodt, der blaaner, fra fugtig Rosa, der næsten er tung, til et Lilla saa let, at det kommer og gaar som om det drev i Luften —. Hvert enkelt, rundet Blomsterblad, yndigt hvælvet, blodt i Skyggen, men i Lyset med tusinde neppe synlige Gnister og Blink; med alt sit favre Rosenblod samlet i Aarer og spredt i Huden ... og saa den tunge, sode Duft, den drivende Em af den rode Nektar, som koger i Blomsterets Bund.
>Hurtigt strog hun sine Ærmer op og lagde de nogne Arme ned i Rosernes milde, fugtige Kjolighed. Hun vred dem rundt i Roserne, der med loste Blade flagrede mod Jorden, saa sprang hun op og fejede med eet Strog Alt det bort, der var paa Bordet, og gik ud i Haven, rettende paa sine Ærmer.
Rough translation:
>The last rose was taken, she smoothed out the folds of the skirt and the loose flower petals and the green leaves, she stroked off that which had stuck to the soft end fabric of her dress, and remained seated with her hands in her lap and she watched the near full-bloomed roses
>This bundle of flowers, which curled in shades and shadows, from white, which blushes, to red, which darkens, from moist pink, which is almost heavy, to a pink so lithe, that it comes and goes as if it flew in the wind - Every single rounded flower petal, delightfully concaved, soft in the shadow, but in the light with thousands of hardly visible sparks and flickers; with all its fair rose-blood massed in veins and spread in the skin ... and then the heavy, sweet aroma, the compelling scent of the red nectar, which boils in the bottom of the flower
>Quickly she pulled up her sleeves and laid those naked arms down in the roses' mild, moist coolness. She twisted them round in the roses, who with loose leaves fluttered against the earth, she then sprang up and swept with one stroke all that away which laid on the table and went out into the garden, adjusting her sleeves.
Lewd as hell.
Also lewd elbow, not too pointy, just right.

[Anonymous No.6950849]

>>6950842
Not licking? Just foot jobs and stuff. I don't have a penis or anything so yeah the woman

[Anonymous No.6950858]

>>6950847
Correction:
>fra fugtig Rosa, der næsten er tung, til et Lilla saa let
>from moist pink, which is almost heavy, to a pink so lithe,
It's
>from moist pink, which is almost heavy, to a purple so lithe,

[Anonymous No.6950859]

>>6950847
Thanks! Advice helped.
Also, that seems like a really cool book. I'll check it out.
Do you have an elbow fetish or something? That's so interesting

[Anonymous No.6950874]

>>6950859
Now I know why I couldn't find an English translation, they changed the name, it's:
>Marie Grubbe. A Lady of the Seventeenth Century
don't know if there's a pdf or something like that online but at least a translation exists.
It's based on a real person too apparently.

Nah, it's just nonsense. You know
>elbows too pointy
But I guess anything can be erotic if you try hard enough.

[Anonymous No.6950878]

>>6950622
Personal experience mostly.
Have I spoken to a lot of girls who read and understand quality? No. I've kind of met one or two that kinda qualify.

[Anonymous No.6950883]

>>6950874
Lol okay its all good. I'll probably buy it eventually and add it to the backlog.

[Anonymous No.6950885]

>>6950716
I agree, most great works must dabble in the subject a little to be taken seriously because as Geothe said: The Eternal Feminine draws us on.

[Anonymous No.6950900]

>>6950822
I guess, maybe I just have a weird circle of friends and family. I think most cultures find sex to be a nervous topic so it's not brought up in polite discourse.

[Anonymous No.6950905]

The problem with woman is that their vaginas begin to stink too much which affects their neurotransmitters and doesn't allow them to think as much as a man does which ends up with them being 2nd grade humans.
Diogenes had no sense of smell and wasn't affected by his own odor, which explains him away.

>this is what lit sounds like

[Anonymous No.6950906]

>>6950900
Yeah, like I would never talk about it with my family but with my friends I feel comfortable to talk about anything.

[Anonymous No.6950907]

>>6950829
I had no idea women got off on that. TIL

[Anonymous No.6950912]

>>6950905
Confirmed for not reading the thread.

[Anonymous No.6950917]

>>6950907
>women have fetishes too
I'm happy for you

[Anonymous No.6950920]

Literally have never met a guy who reads for fun other than scifi/fantasy. Only have found male readers in English PhDs/undergrads.
But I've met girls who read classics and other stuff for fun.

[Anonymous No.6950922]

>>6950660
>One should 360 and walk away.
>360
>bumps straight into dumb girl

[Anonymous No.6950926]

In all cultural or intellectual pursuits you'll find that men occupy the more extreme ends of the bell curve while women more consistently hold the middle ground. In my opinion it's because men are just left to sink or swim of their own accord, whereas women are somewhat pampered.

[Anonymous No.6950935]

>>6950922
And don't you forget: It's Hemmingway. Now sod off, you're making me sore.

[Anonymous No.6950953]

>>6950885
Yup, it was kind of eye-opening when I realized how often I do things because of the opinion of women. I still do those things but it's made me less pretentious haha hopefully

[Anonymous No.6950963]

>>6950935
>LOOK WHERE HIS FOOT IS

[Anonymous No.6950964]

Literally never met a man as well read as me in real life, and still encounter this prejudice from guys who have read Gatsby, or salinger once and think they are some fucking genius.

What really makes me mad though is the accusation that women read for a men's benefit, to appear "intellectual" and therefore desirable to men. I am pretty sure most of the men I've met were too interested in my breasts to care about my bookcase, so I'm not sure why I'd pretend to like Dostoyevsky.

[Anonymous No.6950969]

>>6950917
Of course I knew that, I just never thought rubbing a man's penis with your feet would be that erotic.

Then again I've never ever understood the feet fetish so maybe I'm just weird (normal?)

[Anonymous No.6950973]

>>6950964
Post breasts, yes they are interesting.

JK, but only kind of.

I'm not accusing all women of reading to impress, I'm saying that's what's most visible to men in general. Men don't see women reading Dostoevsky at home.

[Anonymous No.6950979]

>>6950969
It's not really about feet for me, just being able to fullfill someone else's fetish and making them satisfied.
I have size 11w feet so the foot fetish is the most accessable for me

[Anonymous No.6950985]

>>6950979
Oh okay, that makes sense.

[Anonymous No.6951002]

>>6950622
Men are mostly right about girls, tbh. It's other men that they mostly overestimate, and themselves. Still, from what I've experienced, I'd guess that men tend to enjoy literature—mostly a by-men-for-men kind of thing even now, but especially so in the past—a little more correctly than women do (that is, as its male authors intended it to be enjoyed), on average. This is not, of course, to say women can't be good readers. Anyone who hasn't read some seriously good literary criticism written by women has just not read much literary criticism.

[Anonymous No.6951009]

>>6951002
lots of commas and hyphens for no reason/10

[Anonymous No.6951018]

>>6950963
And? You've never done something like that when sitting with friends? It's a good sitting position, especially if you lean in over your leg to talk shit face-to-face to the friend sitting there.

>>6950964
>What really makes me mad though is the accusation that women read for a men's benefit, to appear "intellectual" and therefore desirable to men.
That could also be turned around though, that all that men do is for the attention of women. What's that quote again from that writer or philosopher, whoever it was, who said something along those lines?
Also post breasts. And bookcase. At the same time. Or just one of them.

>>6951009
Should have stopped at
>tbh
No point in reading the rest of the post if he resorts to using that.

[Anonymous No.6951023]

>>6950687

Men just realize that fiction, all fiction from Proust to Potter, is in a very significant sense pointless, especially in light of light of the other fictional entertainment options (to your point).

When actually reading, men are a bit more drawn to non-fiction, whether it's something related to their career, a history, etc.

Men and women also seem to derive real, personal pleasure from a host of "Mary Sue self-insert" pasttimes, in different ways. Women can self-insert in large sections of a general bookstore that men never browse: Romance and YA. Fujoshits just love to read fanfiction about their favorite yaoi couple, etc (not always self-insertion as-such in this case, but...) Social media in general is catnip to women, since you can set up a sort of avatar of the real you and be flooded with attention as long as you're not fat or hideous. Where the woman is concerned even in this case, the principal pleasure is not visual, but "literary" (likes and messages equal validation).

Men are a bit more visual and, for lack of a better word, autistic with their Mary-Sue self inserts. This could be a voluntary self-cuckening with porn, playing vidya, or fantasy football. In terms of low culture, these are the different places where each sex goes to "shit". When men are finally in the mood to "eat" some higher culture, they'll pick up some Great Book.

[Anonymous No.6951031]

>>6951023
Back this up with stats/sources. This is funny

[Anonymous No.6951037]

>>6950964
Post your bookcase whore

[Anonymous No.6951040]

>>6951018
>especially if you lean in over your leg to talk shit face-to-face to the friend
We know he's gay, but I've never heard a scat accusation until now.

[Anonymous No.6951045]

>>6950964
you're an idiot and no one's interested in your saggy cow tits you worthless slut

and the reason you don't like Dostoevsky us because you're as shallow as the pathetic puddle of gunk your cunt spits out once every month you prematurely dried up prude

[Anonymous No.6951048]

>>6951040
You're really making me sore; I'll punch your face off.

[Anonymous No.6951049]

>>6950687
>>6951023

Adding to this, in terms of "eating" culture, it really, truly is not necessary for men to read most of the /fiction/ that /lit/ cares about, outside of a few core texts that can't be precisely described as fiction as-such (I'm thinking of the Gospels and a bit of Shakespeare, for the English speaking world-this was enough for Lincoln for much of his life, that and some non-fiction about grammar). We're swimming in fictional narratives as it is, which can become tiresome.

I've always been a bit annoyed that outside of the odd history and philosophy in general, this place never talks about other genres of non-fiction: the art book, history in general, etc.

[Anonymous No.6951050]

>>6951045
>you worthless slut
>you prematurely dried up prude
I know you're trying to meme it up, but at least make an effort, this is /lit/ not /tv/

[Anonymous No.6951051]

>>6951049
>the art book
There's art threads.
>history in general
I guess that would make sense actually.

[Anonymous No.6951065]

>>6951048
Erotic.

[Anonymous No.6951157]

>>6951045
Found the 14 year old.

[Anonymous No.6951179]

>>6951018
Sartre comes to mind. Foucault, too.

[Anonymous No.6951250]

>>6950622
Cause most girls I know read shit like John green, twilight, GOT, or those unknown sci-fi/fantasy books. I never saw a girl read a book for its cultural impact like with 1984 unless it was for school

[Anonymous No.6951262]

>>6951250
>read a book for its cultural impact
How boring. I read books for their impact on me. I can see the cultural impact of 1984 in our language (Big Brother), in our political thought (the fear of the police state), and even in our media (I remember watching cartoons as a kid with references to that book).

[Anonymous No.6951264]

>>6950622
its kind of an inside joke/meme by now. I sincerely doubt the people who schoppenpost would actually treat women in real life worse.

[Anonymous No.6951272]

>>6951262
>me again
My fiance's favorite authors are Danielewski, DFW, Dave Eggers, and Niel Gaiman. Fuck you guys and your misogynistic shit.

[Anonymous No.6951282]

>>6951262
I read them for that reason as well, but I'm a history major so I just put a different value to notable books and enjoy taking something from the books that effects my perspective.

[Anonymous No.6951287]

>>6951272
Yess good shit. Proud of you

[Anonymous No.6951288]

tbh I barely know any guys who read good books either

[Anonymous No.6951293]

>>6951272
Most people here are smart enough to use the phrase most girls, instead of just girls, so calm down and thanks for your exception

[Anonymous No.6951303]

>>6951272
>My fiance's favorite authors are Danielewski, DFW, Dave Eggers, and Niel Gaiman

Case in point. And you're probably a pleb too, so kindly gtfo.

[The cats No.6951305]

>>6951293
You got baited hard

[Anonymous No.6951310]

>>6950622

As far as I can see women read much, much more than men. The women who read good books are about as common as men who read good books (not very).

Reading trashy novels is a socially accepted and expected thing for women to do. Men, instead of that, tend to play video games or follow sports. This is the reason you'll come across fangirls of shitty books a lot more often than fanboys. Still, reading of any kind is, in my mind, a positive thing. Some of the people reading cheap romance novels will, eventually, turn into actual readers of literature.

[Anonymous No.6951322]

>>6950622
>>Inb4 "Op isn't a girl, girls don't exist!"
'girls don't exist on the internet' has given way to >>6950639

[Anonymous No.6951324]

>>6951303
I wish i had an image of one of those fish staring at bait.

[Anonymous No.6951346]

>>6951272
>Danielewski, DFW, Dave Eggers, and Niel Gaiman
kek @ this plebcore
That's too grand, could it be a ruse? if so 10/10

[Anonymous No.6951374]

>>6951346
I've been off 4chan for a long time, but I've been here for about 6 years total (not trying to be an oldfag or whatever, just giving info). It's really interesting how what was once "patrician" (/lit/ used to belittle people who used this term) has become "pleb" and vice versa.

[Anonymous No.6951379]

>>6950963
when in Paris

[Anonymous No.6951485]

>>6950692
I think this >>6950664 is also /thread material. Otherwise, yep.

[Anonymous No.6951489]

>>6950694
>your behavior is social, emotional, not logical
0/10

[Anonymous No.6951514]

>>6950817
Great Job !!!

[Anonymous No.6951582]

My mum is a published author with bookshelves full of interesting books.
My dad is a pleb who only reads Vonnegut and Pratchett

[Anonymous No.6951597]

>>6951582
Remy?

[Anonymous No.6951601]

Literature has been pretty male-dominated for centuries, so that becomes a vicious cycle. Women feel excluded from 'serious' literature and/or are not interested in it because it's not written for them or about them.

On the other hand, middle-/low-brow books targeted at women are thriving. There are plenty of these for men too (Andy McNab, Dan Brown etc), but the market for women is probably even bigger.

So people assume women don't read serious books. So women don't get into serious books and end up writing them themselves. So people continue to assume women don't read serious books. And so on.

Of course these are generalisations and some women buck the trend. But that's the explanation for why, on the whole, girls indeed don't read good books.

[Anonymous No.6951606]

>>6951597
?

[Anonymous No.6952677]

>>6951606
Nevermind. This guy I know with a mom author