>women can't wri-ACK

You couldn't write such masterpiece not even if you were born twice as a man!

>>24544415 (OP)
her husband wrote it for her

i never knew there was a prejudice against women writers or that it was somehow unbelievable for a woman to write a book until coming to 4chan
i think it's some sort of american thing

>>24544538
Women succeeding makes certain men angry because it forces them to question their own biases that state "Women are lesser". Even if they say "She is an exception", it still angers them despite whatever their countenance displays.

>>24544415 (OP)
>genre fiction sci-fi slop

>>24544415 (OP)
>You couldn't write such masterpiece not even if you were born twice as a man!
Good morning saar!

>>24544552
>Here haue I cause, in men iust blame to find,
>That in their proper prayse too partiall bee,
>And not indifferent to woman kind,
>To whom no share in armes and cheualrie
>They do impart, ne maken memorie
>Of their braue gestes and prowesse martiall;
>Scarse do they spare to one or two or three,
>Rowme in their writs; yet the same writing small
>Does all their deeds deface, and dims their glories all.

>>24544444
OMNI CHECK!!!

>>24544444
Checked.

>>24544538
/lit/ is simply a homo board

>>24544444
quints so it's true now

>>24544415 (OP)
>>24544444
>Greatest work written by a woman
>Unironically written by a man
God has an immense sense of humor

Even with all the new genders, most of which are batshit insane, women are still the least entertaining and least interesting gender ever.

The language is overflown and the thoughts are freemasonic are checkered in black and white and it's completely obvious that it was written by a teenager, however precocious, the arrogance of youthful self belief makes for bad reading in each and every case

>>24544538
>never knew there was a prejudice against women writers or that it was somehow unbelievable for a woman to write a book until coming to 4chan
i think it's some sort of american thing

To be fair, female writers were always hostile little shits

>>24544415 (OP)
>>24544444
>>24544538
>>24545712

>>24544538
most books published nowadays are written by women and the suck because women have dim souls

>can’t even outwrite her own husband
"womyn excellence"
fiction readers are such fking retards

>>24544444
Shiieeet

>>24545152
I genuinely find Chaucer easier to read this, and I don’t mean the spelling

>>24545737
everytime you post this i will remind you thatcyou were filtered by both cather and tolstoy.

Prose so sharp I shave with it each morning

>>24545806
post an excerpt, then.

>>24545737
why do people always pick the least interesting london?

>>24545827
the iron heel?

September 1530: the cardinal leaves Southwell, travelling by easy stages of York. The next part of his progress becomes a triumphal procession. People from all other the countryside flock to him, ambushing him at wayside crosses so that he can lay his magical hands on their children; they call it 'confirmation', but it seems to be some older sacrament. They pour in by the thousand, to gape at him; and he prays from them all.
'The council has the cardinal under observation,' Gardiner says, swishing past him. 'They have had the ports closed.'
Norfolk says, 'Tell him if I ever see him again, I will chew him up, bones, flesh and gristle.' He writes it down just so and sends it up-country: 'bones, flesh and gristle.' He can hear the crunch and snap of the duke's teeth.
On 2 October the cardinal reaches his palace as Cawood, ten miles from York. His enthronement is planned for 7 November. News comes that he has called a convocation of the northern church; it is to meet at York the day after his enthronement. It is a signal of his independence; some may think it is a signal of revolt. He has not informed the king, he has not informed old Warham, Archbishop of Canterbury; he can hear the cardinal's voice, soft and amused, saying, now, Thomas, why do they need to know?

>>24545815
>>24545869

Loving typed out for you

>>24545870
thank you. i can see why you called it sharp. it reads almost like the minutes of a meeting. for myself, i prefer things with a little more color to them.

>>24545869
wish it were far better so i could praise it, but i find this below average, and riddled with what i hope are typos. it's as if you've marred the work. i can't even trust the punctuation at this rate. you've done a terrible job but i don't say this to spite you or anything. i don't think the prose is all that sharp. there is a voice but nothing penetrative, nothing with any marked edge, it just has almost no flavor. where is the style?

>>24544415 (OP)
Why on earth did you pick Frankenstein as the image for this post? It is not a book that is significant for the quality of its writing (which is pedestrian), but rather it is significant for its place in the history of literary genre (it provided a template for subsequent Gothic novels, that revolved around Byronic hero protagonists, and its also an early example of science fiction). Also, the book is mainly remembered because Frankenstein's monster became a general cultural signifier for Halloween (which again has little to do with the quality of Mary Shelley's writing, and instead indicates that she developed a character with cultural resonance).

Your post would have been much more engaging bait if you had posted Virginia Woolf or Emily Dickinson.

>>24545712
she's right

>>24545801
spenser's easy
now skelton, he's a cunt to read blind

>>24545892
She was right to go for a swim with rocks in her pockets

Obvious troll thread is obvious

>>24545712
Women want to silence men.
Men are okay with women yapping away. We know how to ignore them.

>>24544444

>>24545806
Those three books are by far the best I've ever read, when I am bored and got nothing to read I just open one up at a randon page and go from there.

'I hear you will bring in a law,' Kingston says. 'It seems harsh, to make them commit a crime in retrospect.
They explain it to the constable. A prince cannot be impeded by temporal distinctions: past, present, future. Nor can he excuse the past, just for being over and done. He can't say, 'all water under the bridges'; the past is always trickling under the soil, a slow leak you can't trace. Often, meaning is only revealed retrospectively. The will of God, for instance, is brought to light these days by more skillful translators. As for the future, the king's desires move swiftly and the law must run to keep up. 'Bear in mind his Majesty's remarkable foresight, at the trial of the late queen. He knew the sentence before the verdict was in.'
'True,' Kingston says. 'The executioner was already on the sea.'
Kingston has been a councillor long enough. He should know how the King's mind works. Once Henry says, 'This is my wish,' it becomes so dear and familiar a wish that he thinks he has always wanted it. He names his need, and he wants it supplied.

The marvellous thing about Wolf Hall is that despite all the hype and acclaim it actually is that good. The best historical novel in English? It’s better than anything by Scott or O’Brien. It’s better than Romola or The French Lieutenants Woman. It’s better than Robert Graves. It’s Tale of Two Cities or Vanity Fair tier

>>24544444

>>24545806
despite the state of this board i still get some great recs from here sometimes
cheers anon

>>24544444
The problem I have with her as the author is that in everything else she ever did, she perfectly encapsulates the standard sexist criticism of female authors.

All her other novels feature self inserts or stand ins for her late husband, "biography transmuted for the purposes of fiction" (one of her critics). There are of course female authors who aren't like this, it just doesn't seem that she was one of them.
Frankenstein is comparably detached and abstract, commenting on the spirit of the age.

>>24547162
I'd understand the criticism in regards to her shorts but A Place of Greater Safety is even more of an ensemble and selfless than Wolf Hall and it's sequels and Beyond Black feels no more a self interpretation than any other novel.

>>24544415 (OP)
Rate this review of Frankenstein from czech goodreads. I found it interesting. It sounds both like it's written by liberal feminist and tranny hater, lol.

>A novel about men, written by a woman. It sounds like a horror story, but it isn’t.
>Frankenstein is (for me) a book about two relationships: the relationship between mother and child, and the relationship between human and God. The novelty of the book lies in who these relationships are between. In the novel, these relationships are depicted through the central pair of characters—Victor Frankenstein and his nameless creation—the monster (the creature, the fiend, the horror), which Frankenstein assembles and brings to life. And here’s the interesting part: the role of mother and God is taken on by a man, while the role of child and human is filled by his monster, a being cobbled together from dead bodies and reanimated through alchemy and science.
>Under the influence of his ego, Victor Frankenstein constructs his monster exactly the way he sees fit. But Frankenstein is neither a woman nor a god—he is only a man. Once he brings his unnatural creation to life, he finds it utterly repulsive and rejects it. The monster lives—and worse, begins to feel and think.
>The monster’s tragic fate stems not only from its natural desire for love, but also from the fact that neither it nor its individual parts ever wished to be brought back to life—no one even asked. Nonetheless, the creator condemned them to live. The nameless monster must exist and must live, but it is in no way prepared for that role—just as Victor Frankenstein was not prepared for the role of God or mother. No one taught the monster how or why to live, and from both its creator and human society (which, in essence, humans created to protect themselves from predators), it receives only one answer: “You are a hideous abomination.”

1/2

>>24547187
>The turning point in the novel is when Frankenstein’s monster asks its creator to make it a mate. This is the height of irony—just as no one asked the monster whether it wanted to live, no one now asks the hypothetical female monster whether she wants to exist. Even more, no one questions whether she would ever love the creature of her own free will. In this moment, the monster behaves just as selfishly as its creator. Frankenstein ultimately refuses this request. The monster then vows revenge and deliberately embraces the identity forced upon it by others, becoming a truly horrifying, murderous beast.

>Here lies (in my opinion) the central and timeless question of the entire work: Does the monster become a monster because it was destined to, or because of the hatred it encounters from the outside world? The monster is a mirror of its creator and of its surroundings. The monster, Frankenstein, and society all take on the role of the monster because they find themselves in an extreme situation for which they were not created by nature to resolve peacefully. Are we born as what we are, or do we become it? And are we responsible for what we are, or is it the influence of others?

>A man does not give life—only a woman can do that. It is therefore the author who gives the monster true life, not Victor Frankenstein. Victor animates matter on the pages of the novel, but it is Shelley, through letters and words, who makes the monster a human being we can sympathize with. Because just as Victor Frankenstein rejected his monster, so too might it seem to us that God, horrified, rejected his own monster—humanity—after creating it in his own image.

>Likewise, when an author writes a book, they lose control over it. And so, popular culture has turned Frankenstein’s monster into a grotesque figure with green skin and a tall forehead. But that’s actually a good thing—because if the reader holds this prejudice, the emotional impact is even greater when they find themselves sympathizing with the creature. Even within the novel itself, Shelley (and Victor Frankenstein) deliberately builds up negative bias in the reader toward the monster—this is why it is never given a name; it is not humanized on the outside, only on the inside. Inside every monster, there is a human being.

2/2, used internet translator to translate

>>24544444
>novel is about giving birth to life without a female intermediary
>a woman (WHO WAS DEFINATELY NOT A GAY MAN) wrote this!

>>24547191
>The turning point in the novel is when Frankenstein’s monster asks its creator to make it a mate.
It would be really weird if the author's husband (who wild sexist conspiracy schizos say wrote it) had a (boy)friend who ran off to be with a woman. That would be quite a coincidence.