/lit/ - Literature

>world renowned author by the age of 22
>died fighting for what he believed in
what the fuck are you doing with your life?

>>14497696

>>14463085
Lookism forums unironically.
Most are highly effeminate if not closeted trannies envious of the feminine body they can never have.

What books did he read?

>>11228385
I’m actually somewhat of a “misogynist” (inasmuch as I think men and women are definitely different, not just due to cultural conditioning, and women have certain traits and failings which men don’t have as much, and vice versa) but there are a lot of fantastic female authors and poets I like: George Eliot, Virginia Woolf, Flannery O’Connor, Emily Dickinson, Emily Bronte, Mary Shelley, and Sylvia Plath, for instance. Anyone who claims to not see any merit in any of these writers isn’t interested in literature but rather in being a troll and a /pol/-tard. A bit of misogyny in your worldview shouldn’t prevent you from being a well-rounded person who enjoys great works of literature whether they’re made by a woman or not.

I think women definitely are generally more emotional and passive (or even passive-aggressive) than men, and don’t as often have the same all-consuming drive men do to excel in a field of human endeavor just for the sake of excelling. It’s hard to imagine a female Joyce or female Beethoven, such passion for and devotion to one’s art seems a curiously masculine thing. Woolf was a fantastic stylist and writer, her stream-of-consciousness is just as adept as Joyce’s, in my opinion; yet she looked at Ulysses’s ambition and erudition and discounted it as pretentious. While this may sound misogynistic, I think it’s a good example of a GENERAL (not specific in every case) difference between the artistic male and female psyche. Where male artists are more likely to appreciate and understand such massive, all-consuming ambition, a woman will more likely go “psh how autistic”. Basically what this post said in a more to-the-point way >>11228782