Thread 24692290

She’d be regarded higher than Joyce had she been a man.

ok put your money where your mouth is. post an except. let's go except for except.

>>24692299
>Except
Except what, retard?

>>24692303
kek
>>24692290 (OP)
she'd be regarded higher if she was a man (incels seethe all you want it's true) but not higher than joyce; woolf is astonishing don't get me wrong but it was joyce who truly blew open the novel

she'd be less regarded without her editor

People who can't offer anything deeper than "my favorite author is better than you favorite author" are not worth considering.

>>24692328
Post your favorite author

>>24692307
>who truly blew open the novel
People say this about Joyce (and to a lesser extent, Pynchon) but I never understand what they mean.

I get that they wrote stories that did away with the conventions of the novel and were still incredible works of art, but I don't understand how that translates to blowing up the novel. It's still a format that exists, and the existence of Ulysses or Gravity's Rainbow doesn't really make Moby Dick look any worse.

Am I missing something crucial? Maybe I'm just a brainlet.

>>24692329
I would probably go with Sherwood Anderson but I am not sure I have a favorite.
>>24692347
Ulysses and GR changed how we understood the novel, pushed the novel past the conventions of the time.

>>24692394
How did we understand the novel before? How do we understand it now?

>>24692311
underwhelming
>>24692290 (OP)
good bait
>>24692394
> how we understood the novel, pushed the novel past the conventions of the time
Reread this statement to yourself and realize how stupid you sound. This is like saying "Beethoven changed how we understood the sonata, pushed the sonata past the conventions of the time." Even if its technically true its the wrong way to look at things. Joyces pioneering of the novel as a minute psychological excavation did not change how we understand "the novel", which isn't some kind of abstract institution. He advanced of the techniques of Dujardin and Stein and others; if anything one wonders if he killed the novel, though I'm less of that opinion

>>24692425
>How do we understand it now?
The novel is dead isn't it? Who really wants to read new novels? Novels used to have this function of archetypal reportage but Social media is an autonomous machine for this kind of analysis. What could a 500 page social novel today actually tell us? Honest question

>>24692465
>if anything one wonders if he killed the novel, though I'm less of that opinion
reread this statement aloud and maybe you'll realize you sound like a tryharding pseud

>>24692472
Sassy lol, did I hurt your feelings? There is nothing wrong with that statement, except that "I am" would sound better. Tell me, Joycel, what does the post-Joyce revolutionized novel mean to us now?

>>24692465
>it's stupid because it's technically true
OK. At most you can say I did not give a full answer, but neither did you and you seem to have assumed I said Joyce and Pynchon acted alone and were originals to the point they had no influences but their will to create, I did not even imply that.

https://campuspress.yale.edu/modernismlab/woolfs-reading-of-joyces-ulysses-1922-1941/

>I . . . have been amused, stimulated, charmed interested by the first 2 or 3 chapters–to the end of the Cemetery scene; & then puzzled, bored, irritated, & disillusioned as by a queasy undergraduate scratching his pimples. And Tom, great Tom, thinks this on a par with War & Peace! An illiterate, underbred book it seems to me: the book of a self-taught working man, & we all know how distressing they are, how egotistic, insistent, raw, striking, & ultimately nauseating. When one can have cooked flesh, why have the raw? But I think if you are anaemic, as Tom is, there is glory in blood. Being fairly normal myself I am soon ready for the classics again. I may revise this later. I do not compromise my critical sagacity. I plant a stick in the ground to mark page 200. (D 2: 188-89)"

I like her, but this is hilarious seething and cope.

>>24692290 (OP)
Well yeah, obviously.

If she was a man she would've been a better writer. So of course she'd be regarded higher.

These sentiments of "x woman would've been more succesful had she been a man" actually send the opposite message of what you intend

You're essentially admitting that whatever woman you're talking about wasn't skillful enough to gain identical recognition to her male peers, in spite of her being a woman

In other words, she wasn't good enough to outperform whatever sexist social expectations you think are in effect

>>24693103
For the most part she only had good things to say about writers who had nothing in common with her as a writer. The more in common the work of writer had with hers the more she seethed. If you read her letters and diary it is fairly obvious that she seethed out of jealousy. She obviously understood the purpose of a diary and personal letters. Looking at your link, the previous article looks to also be suggesting this:

>More than twenty years ago, Suzette Henke challenged what was then the reigning view of Virginia Woolf’s response to James Joyce’s Ulysses. To judge this response by Woolf’s most damning comments on the book and its author, Henke argued, is to overlook what she said about it in her reading notes on Ulysses, which–together with her final comment on Joyce at the time of his death–show that “she had always regarded [him] as a kind of artistic ‘double,’ a male ally in the modernist battle for psychological realism.”

>>24692290 (OP)
High-tier Angloid lady-in-waiting phenotype. Possessed of a shrill temper, an impoverished bosom, and a dry and dropless coot. Perhaps the bane of a many a young unlanded knight. Certainly an expert eavesdropper. For such a proficient gossiper, the later migration towards novel-dom was quite inevitable. All birds fly south.

>>24692290 (OP)
Au contraire, the fact that she was a woman is the only reason why she is relevant to lireray circles, since she makes fora wonderful token female representation in a list of greatest novels along austen and bronte
Had she been a man she would join madox ford among the forgotten modernists of their times and her place in the canon would be taken by stein
Then again maybe Orlando would still make her relevant to queer representation

>>24693404
Stein was too experimental to take such a role. Also, The Waves and To The Lighthouse are undeniably great.

>>24693419
I am not denying that, I really like woolf despite her being a woman
All I'm saying is that there will always been room in the canon for token representation for minority authors, while undeniably great modernist authors are forced to sit outside of it so not to clutter your listicle with old white guys reinventing the novel

>>24693426
So anyone who is not a white male is a token? There is not a set number of slots in the canon, her being included does not take someone elses seat. You don't seem to understand what canon is.

>>24693440
>So anyone who is not a white male is a token?
Pretty much
>There is not a set number of slots
Every authoritative and not so authoritative discussion hub for literature will come up with a top 100
Usually you'll see women and minorities pop up halfway through it because that is usually when people who submit their picks remember that they should feature some diversity (or they are forced to)

>>24692290 (OP)
Most of the modernist women are better than Joyce: Woolf, H.D., Stein, Butts, Loy &c&c.

>>24693103
I'm so glad we don't write like this anymore bros. Literary equivalent of British food.

>>24693448
>Every authoritative and not so authoritative discussion hub for literature will come up with a top 100
So, that is a yes, you don't know what canon is.

>>24693451
fr fr chat

>>24692311
This is not spectacular

>>24693455
what are you on about you obese moron

people don't treat canon like a rigid philosophical concept

he's saying that practically, people tend to include Woolf in western canon lists because she's a woman

had she been a man, she likely would of fallen into the same branch as other contemporary male novelists at the time who there were a lot more of

>>24692311
I like it. I will read.

she looks like a man, crimson chin Mac tonight lookin ahh dyke

I didn't know she killed herself
All of these years I've ignored her but having learnt that she killed herself makes me want to read her
Maybe she was truly human

>>24693467
Canon is not a rigid philosophical concept, it is a fairly well defined concept and has nothing to do with voting for Time's top 100.

>>24693451
Your serotonin-riddled brain wouldn’t be able to come up with such rich and variegated descriptions if you tried. People used to have good posture and dress back then for similar reasons as they wrote their letters.

>>24693489
Cool!

Got anything INTERESTING to say?

>>24693498
>implying that incel seethe is interesting
lol.

>>24693493
People were all fags back then

>>24693493
People back then were overdressed skeletons buckling beneath the weight of their shallow social graces, all this is evident in their overwrought proose and endless passive-aggressive WASPish exclamation marks. People back then would chastise you for weeping in public after you came home bleeding from multiple rape wounds and without any teeth. It was a fucking farce, and their words reek of this hypocrisy. The suicide was an escape. These days we say the same thing in ten words as they did in a thousand.

>>24693507
Case in point.

>>24693493
>>24693520
So, neither you have read Woolf I take it.

>>24693528
No I don't read literature from suicidal lesbians

>>24693520
People back then would find you bleeding out in a ditch and bend, not to stem the bleeding, but to fix your collar and roll your shoulders for lint. People back then would complain that people used to be kinder in the past while working several families to death in their steel mill. People back then would whip their child-slaves to death and then attend Mass and openly weep. People back then would eat pork for five days with a refrigerator. People back then would rape their own daughter for ten years and then tell her she's a bitch while on their deathbed. People back then would write letters for one hour a day and then tell everyone they write letters for five hours a day. People back then would invade several oriental nations for nothing more than boiled leaves that produce little visible effect besides nausea.

>>24693520
You have a hyperreal view of the past, midwit. The defining qualitative characteristic of the era and the past of America and Europe in general is that it was a much calmer place, even during wartime. Whatever may be said about them and their hysterias, we will be spoken of in much harsher terms by posterity. As for the comment on prose, this is already proven wrong by taking one look at the fact that we have no good works now, nor anything approaching the ability to produce them.
>People back then would chastise you for weeping in public after you came home bleeding from multiple rape wounds and without any teeth.
Good. Social ostracisation is the way to deal with women and whiny jewboys like you.

>>24692290 (OP)
Imagine the feel of cornholing her.

>>24693546
This is a literature board on fourchan brother, we're all midwits. Although I disagree with everything you've said, thank you for the (you), and thank you for the considered reply. I wish I could just kiss you on your chubby, leperous lips!

>>24693520
Based retarded zoomer

proust-lite

>>24693640
Not even remotely similar wtf

>>24693649
many similarities eccept woolf cant think
the post-symbolist pseudo modernist part of her work has aged like milk anyway, which is why joyces formal breakthroughs are regarded more highly

>>24693657
>many similarities
Such as? Please do be exhaustive

>>24693668
>If he wanted soup, he asked for soup. Whether people laughed at him or were angry with him he was the same.

>>24693562
I've never seen anyone write fourchan instead of 4chan, thats insane

I think you might be a psychopath

>>24693777
NPCs have a breakdown when they see someone go even slightly off-script.

>>24693782
rape is good

>>24693787
Say something interesting. Prove you aren't a puppet.

>>24693546
>Good. Social ostracisation is the way to deal with women and whiny jewboys like you.
>t. Socially ostracized chudcel

>raised by one of the most well connected egghead of her times
>still limps

Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo.... His father told him that story: his father looked at him through a glass: he had a hairy face. He was baby tuckoo.

>>24693825
this. the tremendous wisdom contained within this post will sadly sail straight over many anon's heads, like gnats do in spring.

>>24693825
>Once upon a time and a very good time it was there was a moocow coming down along the road and this moocow that was coming down along the road met a nicens little boy named baby tuckoo....
this kills the woolfcel

>>24692290 (OP)
if she was a man she would go completely unnoticed

>>24693842
i appreciate the kind words and—to give her her due—she was SRAd by stepbro which of course shattered her psyche. But by The Waves alone she earned her laurels.

just don't shittalk potato

>>24692307
She'd be rightfully forgotten if she were a man. She didn't understand literature.
>>24692347
Pynch and Joyce moved the boundary stones for what was allowed and what was possible in a book. That poster does not know what he means by 'blew open the novel'. I mean, for fuck's sake, he calls Woolf 'astonishing'. LMAO.
>>24692465
>Stein
Lel no

>>24692472
hurr reread this statement aloud and maybe you'll realize you sound like a tryharding pseud durr
>>24692478
>what does the post-Joyce revolutionized novel mean to us now?
Nothing because you didn't read it and what you did read you didn't understand.
>>24692548
>Joyce and Pynchon acted alone and were originals to the point they had no influences
This is true. Technically. He took -a- technique from Dujardin. Dujardin didn't do that.
>>24693389
Emily Dickinson, for example. Woolf was a trust fund band. And a mid one at that.
>>24693393
Woolfsie never surpassed making watercolor cartoons with speech bubbles and thought bubbles.

>>24693402
zzz
>>24693404
You're mindbroken lol.
>>24693419
> undeniably great.
Watch this. They are not great.

>>24693493
Sorry to hear about your serotonin.
>>24693777
Type 1 psychopaths are all over.
>>24693842
Breaking Bad / BCS reference. I got it.

>>24693426
>room
>in the canon
Damn you're dumb.
>>24693475
Mmmmm.
>>24693487
You have a lot to learn from her.

>>24692425
Joyce showed us that a novel neither needs to be enjoyable nor make any sense for it to be deemed important. In fact, the further you stray from traditional conceptualizations of literature, the better it automatically is.

>>24694555
I can't think of anything lamer than being unable to enjoy Joyce.

>>24694555
You didn't enjoy Ulysses? Ulysses does make sense. It's carefully engineered, too. You were for real filtered. It's not an emperor's new clothes situation, no matter how hard it is to accept you're not equipped for big brain lit.

>>24694560
>>24694557
The Joyce Internet Defense Force (JIDF) has been summoned.

>>24692311
>She felt how her period blood, from being made up of little separate droplets which one bled one by one, became curled and whole like a red wave which bore one up with it and threw one down with it, there, with a dash on the sanitary pad.
stunning

>>24693450
and Djuna Barnes (I knew I was forgetting someone)

It’s not like we were buds.
Like most femoids, she was a hostile little shit.

>>24695190
dios mio...la creatura feminista...

>>24695190
It's impossible that decent art can come from a person who makes such statements

>>24695190
Why do female authors have to be such cunts?

Like it's not enough for them to advocate for more female representation in literature, they have to be actively hostile towards male authors for no reason

TLDR: Schopenhauer was right about everything once again

Looked into Woolf and she seems insufferable. An excerpt of Mrs. Dalloway that I found is also subpar. Granted, I haven't properly read anything by her yet, but the anon that said she's the 'token woman' seems to be right - at least based on an internet search about her.

Apart from Emily Dickinson, can anons on here recommend some women to read? Gertrude Stein looks like she might be interesting, but apart from that, I can't think of anyone else. All that comes to mind are the modern women: Atwood, Oates, K Guin, and Munroe. Are there any you all could recommend that have stood the test of time?

>>24695701
>One face looks out from all his canvases

>>24695701
Margaret Laurence has some stuff worth picking up.

Probably not on par with the male authors you've read, but her work is generally free of the preachy gynocentric nonsense you see in a lot of other female authors.

And her novels I think have a lot of intellectual merit.

>>24695709
Thanks anon

>>24695716
Sounds good.

>generally free of the preachy gynocentric nonsense
I'm not opposed to the gynocentric nonsense. Lots of writers have bizarre views. I just think Woolf, specifically, is a hypocrite because of all the comments she made about class and the uneducated. She also doesn't seem to have the prose to justify the ego she has in nearly all of her comments.

>And her novels I think have a lot of intellectual merit.
Yeah, this is ultimately what matters though.

>>24695853
woolfbros
not like this

>>24695701
Flannery OConnor's great. All her short stories are good and Wise Blood is a classic. The Violent Bear It Away feels a little serious and try-hard, but I may just need to reread on that. Margaret Yourcenar's good. Clarice Lispector. Wuthering Heights is a good book, so is Emma. Women can write great books, but rarely can they maintain or elevate after a plateau. Even rarer still are the true experimental women. Gertrude Stein was also an old lesbian btw, which translates from modern femalese to eunuchess. Thus freeing her brain up for poetic play and critical thought.

>>24695701
Wuthering heights is a legitimate contender for goat. Has a very universal quality to it. I recommend the bataille essay on it as additional read
Austen to this day is the author I think came closest to writing perfect novels. You will breeze through them and while they probably won't rock your wolrd I guarantee you'll have a good time
Frankenstein is overrated, people especially overstate its role in creating sci-fi, but it is still a good book and especially enjoyable if you are into nothing lit
Stein is a must read if you are interested in modernism
I have only read beloved by Morrison but I really liked it, though if you found Woolf too cunty I can imagine her rubbing you the wrong way as well
There are several female authors I love but they are from my country and idk which ones are available in translation: Elsa Morante, Elena Ferrante, Goliarda Sapienza, Cristina Campo, Dolores Prato, Anna Maria Ortese
You should still give an actual shot at Woolf, especially the waves and to the lighthouse

>>24695701
>An excerpt of Mrs. Dalloway that I found is also subpar. Granted, I haven't properly read anything by her yet, but the anon that said she's the 'token woman' seems to be right - at least based on an internet search about her.
You know nothing. Go read her essay "The Death of the Moth" or "On Being Ill" and then shut the fuck up.

>>24696217
Read them.

The prose sucks, and the essence of her work isn't important enough to justify her inclinations for being po-faced and egoistic.

>>24692290 (OP)
Yes, she would've been more highly regarded had she been a man, because only then would she have been capable of writing good literature.

>>24695701
Emily Bronte

>>24692290 (OP)
Not, but she’d be regarded higher than Joyce had she been better than Joyce.

>>24692311
Jesus christ how dull

>>24696502
>the prose sucks
Then you're a retard, because right hand to Christ I have no fucking clue how you read either of those essays and walk away thinking she's a bad writer. Do you normally read Brandon Sanderson or something?

>>24696502
It doesn't suck that much, it's merely unimpressive.

>>24696799
>I have no fucking clue how you read either of those essays and walk away thinking she's a bad writer

she's boring and stylistically unimpressive

>Brandon Sanderson

don't know who that is

>you're a retard

read more books

>>24696840
>she's boring and stylistically unimpressive
If you actually, seriously, genuinely think this, there's no hope for you. /tv/ is probably more your speed.

>>24696849
everything you say just makes it sound like you've never read anything of substance

not sure what the motive is for rimming a dead lesbian so hard that you exclusively read her books

there's better stuff out there, from female authors too

>>24696859
>there's better stuff out there, from female authors too
Is the reddit spacing and the comma splice meant to give the impression you know what you're talking about?

>>24696904
Was the pivot meant to be more subtle?

>>24695932
>>24696200
>>24696563
These are all solid recs, thanks anons.

>>24696217
I'll read them, I don't have high hopes though. Got any recs for fiction too?