>it's like guys are incapable of writing bad books
You haven't read many books, eh?

I.... I do the same exact thing.

You're an idiotic misogynist?

I mean, that's probably it. Have you checked that possibility yet?

/lit/ - The only place where Virginia Woolf is less talented than Dan Brown.

>>2635773
I've read about 400 something books.

>>2635779
>virginia woolf

>>2635776
I don't hate the opposite sex, I usually just can't finish a book written by a female. I don't even read the author's name, I only do that if a book is purely awful or really good. Can somebody reccomend a good book written by a female?

because life is trivial from a girl's point of view

You're probably looking for profound stuff

>>2635779
quoting this

quoting this shit right here

>>2635785
And you've never read ANY bad book written by a man? Ever? Disregarding whether women can write good books (I think they can, but that's beside the point) you actually said you don't think men can write bad books.
>>2635792
The Dispossessed is pretty good, if you have any interest in the subject matter.

>>2635792

read short stories by amy hempel and lydia davis

>>2635796
Christopher pike is pretty fucking terrible.

yeah pretty much just chalks up to you being a chauvinist who can't separate his sexism from rationalism.

unless you have really good luck with books written by men, and really poor luck with books by women. because I promise you, there are a great deal of extremely talented woman writers.

>>2635806
>using woman as an adjective

gross

women are only concerned with the piddling and frivolous. they don't have the scope of vision of men.

>>2635797
>Amy Hempel.

Oh God noooooo.

Amy Hempel is like a very inconsistent Raymond Carver.

Also-

>"These quotable, unsettling stories stay with you; they seem to change the ions in a room."—Amy Hempel

Can't trust this bitch, mang.

Maybe try reading stuff by Alice Munro, if we're talking short stories by female writers. Should be some of her stuff floating around on the New Yorker's site.

>>2635889
Whoops. Addendum. That green text is Hempel's kind words regarding James Franco's horrible fucking book of short stories.

>>2635889
well, you see, cash rules everything around amy hempel.

are you asking for suggestions Mr. OP? I'm sure we can give you plenty. Or is this just another "im a misogynist but i feel guilty make me feel better internet" thread.

>it's like guys are incapable of writing bad books.

>>2635913

Hey, he's at least better than Virginia Woolf.

Female writers are good.

>>2635917
"Nooooooo," she cries, thinking you meant to stop, but you savagely slam back in, rocking her body and making her petite, precum-glazed tits jiggle pleasantly. Her 'no' turns into an 'OHHH' in that split second, and before she can stop or catch her breath, you start fucking hard, watching her cum-shined breasts wobble underneath you. So much lubricant splatters from her cunt that your thighs, belly, and balls are soon sticky with the stuff, but it only spurs you on to fuck her harder.

>>2635811
While your point is valid I really fucking hate people like you. You smug know nothing toff. Either you're taking the piss that he's used 'woman' as an adjective, or you're upset that he's not used the plural. Considering you've said "using woman as an adjective" without determining its case, I'll assume you're talking about the use of woman as an attributive adjective in any instance is revolting, in which case you were too stupid to realise he used the wrong word. Either way it makes you a petty low life who takes superficial attacks at people's grammatical events because you're too stupid to attack ideas. Grow up you don't know anything.

Bitches rarely have a way with words. Often they don't need to.

>>2635785
That's not many books. I read about that many in a year.

That aside, very few female writers are able to go middle ground, and dislocate themselves from a female standpoint. This statement is coming from a feminon.

I do find my reference toward male writers in fiction, although nonfiction and memoirs are split with a reference 60-40 to females.

>>2635962

>400 books
>in a year

shut the fuck up. if you're going to lie, make it believeable. Nobody has the fucking time to read that many books in a year, unless we're talking about Goosebumps and I Spy.

>>2635966
>>2635962
I don't see why it's admirable to read 400 books in a year. Hardly something to brag about. You really only need to study a few good novels all year to get a good understanding of them. Otherwise you just have a superficial understanding. What an awful notion. 400 books a year. Awful.

>>2635966
I work in a bookstore, I get paid to read and refer people to new authors. Yeah, some of them are 190 page padding day reads, while others take a few days.

I can read about 200-400 pages a day depending on my mood. I rarely watch the tv, and take public transport, so that leaves about 1-2 hours daily of just sitting there.

Tell me I'm lying again. Assume people are just the same as you and are incapable of doing something you're not familiar with.

One of my co workers watches no tv, and reads about 800 books a year. It's amazing what you can choose to do with your time.

>>2635966
Not all short books are kids books or retarded. Get out and read more.

> on /lit/
> told that reading too much is awful
> tfw

>>2635984

It is when it prevents you from being a well-rounded person. If he can read 400 books a year and be well-rounded, fine, but I sorta doubt it. There are good books to read and there are other things to do with your time.

>>2635984
Don't read any Ezra Pound, he says the same thing

>>2635977
Yeah 800 books a year. All that skimming. Really living the book. What are you reading? Pamphlets? How many minutes did it take you to read War and Peace oh great one?

>>2635977

Not the same anon, but I'll second this. I took English Lit at university and I'd easily read 10 books a week during term time. Nowadays I don't watch TV very much, and I probably read 5-6 books a week, but it's not my job anymore.

>>2635987
It doesn't consume my life. I go to school, work, work out, practice burlesque, go camping and to festivals, concerts, sew, draw, garden etc. Just stuff I can think of from the top of my mind.

Still confused to think that reading so much would eliminate social life and ability to deconstruct plot and themes.

>>2635995

That's a weird English program. I've never had to read more than 2 or 3 a week and I'm a senior.

>>2635998

You're confused as to why we think reading 800 books a year would be a bit consuming?

>>2635993
I didn't say I read 800, my co worker does. I do half of that.

I do believe there is a point at which it is not reading, and just skimming. Although the threshold is taken by each individual.

I keep forgetting how young /lit/ is.

What are you guys? 15-22? I suppose age doesn't matter, but when I see a discussion thread on things I've read years ago, I get the feeling that I am more able to connect to people irl on reading material.

>>2636002
Yeah I agree. I've studied in Australia, England, and France at senior level and I've never known anyone to have to read 10 books a week. I just don't believe it.

>>2636006
400 books a year. Let's say 200 pages per day.

What is that? 50 pages an hour? That's four hours daily of reading books. As in, you work 8 hours, you sleep 6 hours, and of the remaining 10 hours, 4 are dedicated to reading.

Literally 40% of your non-working, waking life is spent reading.

>>2635943
when would you ever say men writers or man writers?

never

I agree about stupid grammatical things but this is beyond stupid. deal with it

>guys I watched 800 animes last year isn't that awesome
>guys I watched 2000 films last year isn't that awesome
>guys I watched 2000 hours of television last year isn't that awesome

Why is it that when we change it to books it becomes a virtue?

>>2636006
On what basis have you decided to bring up the age of /lit/? I mean, other than forming a weak ad hominem diversion because you're caught up in a lie...hardly see the relevance, noone has brought up any titles you may or may not have skimmed years ago

>>2636003
400...

The reading comprehension on this board is awful.

Or it's filled with trolls.

>>2636011
Honestly? Because no one reads. And people still are under the misconception that books make you smarter.

>>2636009
That's a pretty valid equation. I'll admit somethings go smoother than others.

Maybe I'll re evaluate my reading this year and see what it is. It might have gone down.

>>2636008
University lit has much more than 2-3 books and lit pieces a week. I read at least 3 books a week, 3 short stories, and countless poems, writing at least one response a week. Granted most of those books were novellas and half of them less than 100 pages. And that was my sophomore British lit course, with me being an animal science major.

>>2636017
Reading makes you smarter, idiot. Not books themselves.

>>2636010
Well you don't say man writer because it's not the natural equivalent. We would say 'male writer' instead—especially if the topic were about male writers, but this isn't about male writers. So there's no need to say it. Would you prefer 'female writer'? How would you like the specificity to be determined? How are we meant to someone talk about women without using the word?
This isn't one of those times where it's being used unnecessarily, such as 'woman doctor'. The topic is specifically about women, so you should withdraw your 'gross' comment. You're confused.

>>2636022

>University lit has much more than 2-3 books and lit pieces a week. I read at least 3 books a week, 3 short stories, and countless poems, writing at least one response a week. Granted most of those books were novellas and half of them less than 100 pages. And that was my sophomore British lit course, with me being an animal science major.

I wasn't lying when I said I was a senior.

That reading load sounds really strange to me. How do you properly cover that much material a week?

When I said 2-3 books a week, I meant that over the span of 3 or 4 simultaneous classes. I've never been assigned more than 1 book as a time for any one class I was taking. And even then I felt like we didn't have time to properly discuss the book most of the time.

>>2636023
yes female writers makes sense

are you saying we're walking about women as opposed to little girls? That's retarded

>>2636012
For sure, we have gotten off topic, and after going over my list, last year I read 323 books. I rounded too much.

The age has nothing to do with the debate. I just get a little angry when a person's personal opinion and factors cut into someone else's experience.

So why don't we go back to why most female writers are intolerable to read for the most part, seeing as I agreed, an would like some recommendations on new female authors in the diction section.

>>2636022
I don't quite understand what you're saying. What do you mean university lit? I've studied literature around the world for 5 years at elite universities in 3 countries, and a great deal of the work is theoretical. Throwing novels at you to read isn't really teaching you anything. A great deal of the work is theoretical -- articles, grammatical analysis, close reading. Perhaps we study in two different approaches to literature. In a comparative lit course I took last semester we had 2 books a week or so, but it was quite superficial, and this is one of the best universities in France. Anyway...

>>2636027
Yeah don't worry man, we're just enjoying taking the piss out of people. It's great if you enjoy reading that much, don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Wish I could recommend some women authors...sorry

>>2636017
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8447247

It can, in fact, make you smarter if you feel a broad vocabulary, education on specific subject matters, and proper grammar are indicatives of intelligence.

There's also a correlation/causation thing going on. Reading educates intelligence, and intelligent people tend to read more. You cannot say that reading has absolutely nothing to do with intelligence.

>>2635776
go b ack to tumblr

look at history

what's the ratio of female accomplishments to male?

>>2636026
Are you an idiot? You took issue with the use of 'woman' as an adjective. Not because it was incorrectly used in its singular form, but because you resent the sound and implications of it. I've just said you're confused, you thought it was being used in an insulting way to indicate inferiority or some such think, but it's actually just being used for specificity. Obviously female writers makes sense, but so does women writers. What difference does it make?

>>2636028
You responded to someone that was a high school senior, thus I assumed when you said senior you meant the same thing. Sorry for misunderstanding.

That's part of the reason why I hated my lit class so much. It took all the time away from my science courses, and much of it was short crap or poetry books. I may have been required to read too much, I feel many general level university courses in the US preach quantity rather than quality. I'd rather spend weeks studying a longer, more enriching/entertaining piece rather than a bunch of short, boring [mildly interesting at the most] pieces that I have to write 5 1/2 page diatribes of bullshit about.

>>2636036
because I am complaining at how the word is used.....

It sounds dumb. It's a noun used as an adjective because dumbass feminists think female is a dirty word

>>2635998
baahahahah "practice burlesque"
HOW DO YOU HAVE THE TIME?
HOW DOES ANYONE HAVE THE TIME?

>>2636043
It can be used as a verb and an adjective too. Not involved in this but you're wrong about it being only a noun.

>>2636043
But you get the great alliteration...and female is also a noun, so it's no different. You should rethink the grossness of the word. Maybe you have something against women?

>>2636051
That's true, but I would take issue with it being called a 'verb.' It's a bit of a far stretch to call any objective uses real cases of verbs

>>2636055
I don't think they should have their own grammar

men writers

>>2636067
They don't have their own grammar. It's correct perfectly normal and widely used grammar. Women is often used like that.

George Eliot
Carson McCullers
Eudora Welty
Susan Sontag
Virginia Wolff
Flannery O'Connor
Zora Neale Hurston
Charlotte Gilman
Edith Wharton

I hate the comment that women "can't separate themselves from their femininity." This view sets up masculinity as the universal experience, with womanhood just being an offshoot, which is obviously ridiculous.

>>2636022
>Reading makes you smarter, idiot. Not books themselves.
Oh good. I'll keep reading nothing but the labels of shampoo bottles while defecating.