/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.9417073]

Can a book be misogynist?

Obviously an author, a character, or a reader can be, but that doesn't necessarily mean a book can be.

[Anonymous No.9417094]

Describing a book arguing for misogyny as misogynist would be as correct as describing a book arguing for socialism as a socialist text. I'm sure there's still a nitpicking argument to be made against such usage of words but who cares.

[Anonymous No.9417104]

>>9417073
>Obviously an author, a character, or a reader can be, but that doesn't necessarily mean a book can be.

True, but in this materialistic perspective a book cannot be anything other than ink on paper. Content/meaning/intent are in this perspective not inherent to the book itself, but to either the writer or the reader.

[Anonymous No.9417146]

>>9417104
Cringiest post on /lit/ right now, you felt really damn smug when you wrote this shit didn't you?

[Anonymous No.9417153]

>>9417146
No, he's right. The OP is being a nitpicking retard. First post and second post in this thread are pretty much all that's to be said on this topic, within the bounds of rational thinking of course.

[Anonymous No.9417157]

>>9417153
>OP is being a nitpicking retard
Yet the guy I replied to is like "book is just cellulose and chemicals hehe, nothing really exists so there is no such thing as meaning in a book, got you"

[Anonymous No.9417169]

>>9417073
Who actually gives a shit? Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.9417176]

>>9417157
Deez nuts exist

[Anonymous No.9417186]

>>9417094
>>9417153
>a book arguing for
>all that can be said within my bounds

You're just evading the question. What if a book doesn't argue for misogyny? On the Road, The Fountainhead, American Psycho, Gone Girl, etc.

Or are you saying that all books that portray women unflatteringly or inadequately or with contempt do argue for misogyny?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sls5H4xVHys

[Anonymous No.9417220]

>>9417157
try actually reading the post you illiterate fuck, it says "in this perspective", meaning in the case that OP describes.

[few !!16o4bCWqhNL No.9417233]

>>9417073
The premise of your question is founded on the lazy misuse of language. When people use an adjective like 'misogynist' to describe a book, they aren't refering to the book but to its contents - the ideas of the author, or assuming those contents appeal to its readers.

stop being a lazy reader/writer, and call out laziness when you see it

[Anonymous No.9417234]

>>9417220
If you're gonna be a hyperanalytic fuckface, then a person can't be misogynistic either since we're all chemicals dudeee, gtfo the board you pompous moron

[Anonymous No.9417238]

hit a woman with a book unprovoked, its now misogynist

[Anonymous No.9417241]

>>9417234
either you're trolling, you didn't read your own post/OP's post, or you're an ignorant cunt

[few !!16o4bCWqhNL No.9417243]

>>9417238
the book had no agency in the act of hitting the woman. it is still just a book.

[Anonymous No.9417244]

>>9417234
let me walk you through this slowly.
IF it's the case that a book cannot in itself be misogynistic, and only its author and readers can be, THEN the meaning of a text resides with its author and readers only, and not in the text itself. If the antecedent is not the case, then the consequent is not the case.

[Anonymous No.9417246]

>>9417104
>>9417073
read wittgenstein, he solves dumb questions like these

[Anonymous No.9417253]

Making everything into a gendered issue is pure narcissism, there's no other word for it.

[Anonymous No.9417260]

>>9417243
It was a willing proponent in the attack, making it guilty by association.

[Anonymous No.9417264]

>>9417244
That's retarded, how the fuck would you consider a text without it's relation to the reader or the author? That question is so useless and inane, that's why I think what OP meant was can a single work by an author be considered misogynistic. I think that it is a given that OP did NOT mean that literal ink on paper can or can not be misogynistic. But what do I know, OP should clarify that.

[few !!16o4bCWqhNL No.9417266]

>>9417260
>It was a willing proponent
I really want to hear a story about a book with a will.

I'm imagining this book is one of those old fabric covers, grimy and yellowed, with a fedora and a cartoon face yellin YEA SHE DESERVED IT, SEE as he is dragged away to book jail aka the library.

[Anonymous No.9417271]

>>9417246
>what a dumb question, it took thousands of years of philosophy and one of the most dense and complex philosophical works ever to answer it, an answer which i won't give you btw but i'll smugly namedrop the author

[Anonymous No.9417280]

>>9417264
Why would what the author intended the text to say be relevant to what the text actually says?

Why would what the reader thinks it says be relevant to what the text actually says?

[Anonymous No.9417290]

>>9417280
>t. Derrida

[Anonymous No.9417297]

>>9417280
in a trivial sense, interpretation is necessary for the text to say anything at all. in my opinion, there is no proper "meaning" in the text at all. it's a diffucult question to answer though

[Anonymous No.9417302]

>>9417266
This book is not encouraging nor denouncing the act, the book is a proponent simply by the circumstance that he has no will that can interfere

[Anonymous No.9417357]

>>9417297
I see your meaning about emus being dinosaurs but I think you're wrong to claim that platypuses are not mammals just because they lay eggs.

[Anonymous No.9417368]

>no text can be interpreted
How about this

I am sitting on a chair bought in IKEA.

[Anonymous No.9417389]

>>9417368
you are sitting on a chair purchased (likely by yourself) in (not necessarily from) IKEA
>or
you are sitting on a chair in IKEA (that was purchased by someone, presumably IKEA)
>or it's gay slang for
you are dildoing your bum

[Anonymous No.9417392]

>>9417357

[Anonymous No.9417400]

>>9417389
It's the last one, nice

[Anonymous No.9417410]

>>9417186
>You're just evading the question
no

[Anonymous No.9417412]

>>9417400
Oh good. I thought it was just a lame metaphor about being in a perpetual consumerist mindset even as are really laying down on the virgin sand of a private beach watching the sun filter through the palm trees that are shading you, but that really isn't faggy enough for /lit/.

[Anonymous No.9417413]

I hope you all die for seriously responding to this piece of shit thread.

[Anonymous No.9417423]

>>9417413
>the birth of the reader must be ransomed by the death of the autist

really makes you think

[Anonymous No.9417427]

>>9417264
You might be on the wrong board brainlet

[few !!16o4bCWqhNL No.9417508]

mfw >>9417413 is objectively the worst post in the thread

[Anonymous No.9417538]

>>9417508
>tripfag accusing anyone of being the worst poster

[Anonymous No.9417545]

>>9417427
What the fuck you gonna do about it pussy?