/lit/ - Literature

>>6952687
because hegemonic masculinity makes people discredit female works of any medium.

it is a real, observable problem.

>>6952696

Is this trolling or what? I can't keep track of all the tripcucks on here

>>6952687
If she didn't send the same exact work to the same exact publishers under a male name and a female name there's absolutely no way of knowing if it was because of the sex of her name. Bullshit propaganda, fuck off with this

White women's problems.
Too privileged to give a fuck about.

I tend to avoid female writers. They rarely write books that would interest me anyway. Obviously there are exeptions like Woolf.

>inb4 image of an obese man tilting his hat

>>6952712

Did you read the fucking article?

>>6952714

>>6952704
How fucking sad is it that this is perceived as trolling and all the troglodytes claiming women are incapable of feeling or creating are obviously completely sincere?

It's pretty fucking sad.

Sorry but her experiment doesn't hold up to typical experimental standards. All she said was that she sent out 100 emails. 50 as a male and 50 as a female. That is literally the extent of her experimental design. So fuck this cunt for promulgating sexist propaganda under the guise of a social experiment.

>>6952763

If you're using the phrase 'hegemonic masculinity' in anything other than a satirical context then nothing you say should be taken seriously. Go spew this nonsense somewhere else.

>>6952763
>It's pretty fucking sad.
Is it though?

>>6952763
it is sad, and it's been a problem for as long as history goes back.

it just proves that what i said is real, and that the answer to OP's question of "are women not taken serious?" is "yes," they are not taken seriously because of insecure neckbeards, at least on 4chan.

>>6952731
No; it was written by a woman.

>>6952777
>If you're using the phrase 'hegemonic masculinity' in anything other than a satirical context then nothing you say should be taken seriously.
yeah because hegemonic masculinity isn't an actual thing right?

retard

>>6952777
You're right, 'masculine hegemony' is a slightly better way of phrasing it.

Seriously, though, are you just straight-up denying that it exists?

mods pls permaban devshitt.

>>6952687
>jezebel
Don't care.

I think it's sort of fucking ridiculous that women think they're being underrepresented in publishing with J K Rowling, Stephenie Meyer, E L James, Suzanne Collins, and all the other millionaire female authors.

lets do a blind test, tell me which was written by a male and while was written by a female

For a long time I used to go to bed early. Sometimes, when I had put out my candle, my eyes would close so quickly that I had not even time to say "I'm going to sleep." And half an hour later the thought that it was time to go to sleep would awaken me; I would try to put away the book which, I imagined, was still in my hands, and to blow out the light; I had been thinking all the time, while I was asleep, of what I had just been reading, but my thoughts had run into a channel of their own, until I myself seemed actually to have become the subject of my book: a church, a quartet, the rivalry between François I and Charles V. This impression would persist for some moments after I was awake; it did not disturb my mind, but it lay like scales upon my eyes and prevented them from registering the fact that the candle was no longer burning. Then it would begin to seem unintelligible, as the thoughts of a former existence must be to a reincarnate spirit; the subject of my book would separate itself from me, leaving me free to choose whether I would form part of it or no; and at the same time my sight would return and I would be astonished to find myself in a state of darkness, pleasant and restful enough for the eyes, and even more, perhaps, for my mind, to which it appeared incomprehensible, without a cause, a matter dark indeed.


“By the way, my name's Rose Hathaway. I'm seventeen years old, training to protect and kill vampires, in love with a completely unsuitable guy, and have a best friend whose weird magic could drive her crazy.
Hey, no one said high school was easy.”

>>6952799
The world is a cruel place.

>>6952763

kek, both are trolls as far as I'm concerned.

>>6952696
stop trying to be the next Quentin

>>6952815
oh the irony.

>>6952696
back to tumblr princess

>>6952790
>14XXXX image

>>6952790

it's not a thing in our culture, and if it is indeed, it's only among the less cultured or intelligent anyways, and as such it is caused by nothing else than our inherent idiocy as a species.

>>6952818
>your posts itt
Speaking of irony.

>>6952835
i see nothing wrong with that post or any of the posts i've made

>>6952840

>Can't discuss fantasy literature
>On a literature board

Tripfags everyone

>>6952845
fantasy literature is an oxymoron

>>6952850

>Gatsby never existed
>Harry Potter never existed
>Gatsby is better than Harry guys I swear

fuck off

>>6952799
This tbh.

>>6952850
Hahaha I know brother! You're such a patrician!

>>6952857
what are you trying to say with this retarded post?

I'm gonna use this thread to teach all the newfags how to filter devitt since it's obviously a troll account.

1. Highlight someone's tripcode, it's the string that follows the exclamation point, which looks like this: !!H88HZm8bUlF

2. Copy the highlighted tripcode.

3. Scroll to the top of the page and look for "Settings" in the top-right corner.

4. Click on "Settings". It's right next to home.

3. Under advanced, look for Filters & Highlights

4. Drag your mouse over where it says [EDIT].

5. Click where it says [EDIT].

6. Hit ADD.

7. In the box that says "Pattern" paste the tripcode you wish to filter. Look back at step 1 if you must.

8. Make sure to select "Tripcode" under "Type" from the drop box.

9. Check the check-box that says "Hide".

10. Click Save, bottom-right corner.

11. This brings you back to the "Settings" menu. Don't panic!

12. Then click the "Save Settings" button at the bottom of the page.

13. Your page should refresh, and your trip(s) filtered.

>>6952875
>troll account
>account
spot the redditor

>>6952874

Why is made-up-shit A better than made-up-shit B by default?

>>6952687
I always wonder if there is any unreported fact in these types of articles where women say, "I had only 2 publishers call me back about my manuscript under a female name, and 5 under a male name, therefore: bias."

Yes I'm sure there is some level of bias, and that's not that cool, but also, it's not like you could send the same manuscript to the same publisher under two different names, so there really is no Control here.

Do I think a gender bias exists when publishing (especially previously unpublished people)? Yes.

Is it as bad as a lot of people say? Probably not.

>jezebel

Can't wait for Hulk Hogan to sue these subhumans into bankruptcy

>>6952881
because harry potter (like all fantasy) is poorly written while gatsby is well written.

>>6952890

That's a limitation on the author, not the genre.

Try again faggot

>>6952790
>>6952793

I am. There are plenty of other factors that determine people's choices besides arbitrary prejudice. The only reason explanations of this sort are so popular is because they give you a boogeyman to rail against.

>>6952896
all fantasy authors are bad writers

>>6952879
you're trying WAY too hard

not to mention you lack the creativity of any of the good tripfags (they know how to rake in 1000x (you)'s by using subtlety) and intelligence.

read some books, develop a contrary political position on /lit/, and make your posts subtle. otherwise you'll be forgotten on this board as quickly as you came in.

>>6952914
i don't need to take advice from you

>>6952903
Gatsby is a pile of pretentious steamy shit you only pretend to like because it makes you feel superior.

>>6952921
or maybe i like it because it's well written with a great message?

>>6952804
survival bias. Because women have a harder time getting published than men, the few women you hear about are successful because otherwise you wouldn't hear about them. That wasn't well articulated but you get the point. Of course the few female writers you've heard of are multimillionaires. Same reason the few short-armed NBA big men you've heard of (Blake Griffin, Kevin Love) are better than the average long-armed NBA big man even though longer arms are good for basketball.

>>6952928
why don't you tell me what you thought it's message was and your opinion on what makes the message great?

>>6952921
>pretentious
come on anon, you must have better criticisms than that

>>6952944
why don't you read the book for yourself instead of parroting things about gatsby you read on /v/eddit?

>>6952956

Shit dude, you really are completely retarded, aren't you? "Hurr I hate fantasy, durr Gatsby is so great, why don't you go read it, Old Sport"

Kill yourself

>>6952875
or just like get 4chan x and filter the trip

>>6952784
Let women take women seriously.
I know them too well to be bothered.

>>6952962
>being this much of an anti-intellectual

>>6952956
I have read it I'm curious what a mongloid such as yourself got from it. I doubt your capable of independent thought or indeed any thought that doesn't revolve around memes

>>6952914

>you're trying WAY too hard

he destroyed you with that "account" line and you know that he did

just hide thread now

>>6952973
>not appchan x to see your qt waifus on the sidebar

>>6953004
see >>6952986

>>6952986
I'm not taking part in your cringeworthy /lit/ argument, but The Great Gatsby is a terrible book.

>>6953005
turn your trip back on.

we should get back on topic

>>6952687
>Third: with my name, maybe my novel was taken for “Women’s Fiction”—a dislikable name for a respectable genre—but not what I was writing.
>If an agent was expecting that, I’m not surprised he or she would turn away after the first page or two.
>A George wasn’t expected to be writing Women’s Fiction, so he was taken on his own terms

I found this part to be pretty spot on. Female authors are expected to write about women, for women and to say things on womanhood. Male authors are expected to write whatever they choose, and if they write just about men they're often criticised.

Male literary authors need to write about humanity as a whole to get respect.

I know I've sometimes hesitated to pick up books by female authors because I've assumed it'll just be women's literature.

I legitimately believe that is a harmful stereotype. Many female authors are great authors, period. Woolf, Renault, Anna Komnena, etc

>I put in the address of one of the agents I’d intended to query under my own name.
So basically, she didn't try it with her own name and has no clue if it would have worked.

>>6953038
This. Although I will say that pretty much any female author who writes enough books will eventually spits out at least one "woman's novel."

Looking at you, Lackey. And ESPECIALLY you, Bujold.

>>6953070
you could say the same thing about any male author whose works include at least one where their masculinity is the subject of the novel

>>6953075
>you could apply this to all the people it is applicable to
what is your point moron?

>>6953029

>t-turn your t-t-trip back on

as if any anon seeing that post wouldn't laugh at that fail of yours

just hide thread it's for the best

>>6953044
its a good point she's going for though, whether you agree with it or not.

How could someone test for gender bias? It would have to be a larger experiment with one person sending the same amount of people chosen randomly but controlling for general size of the company and some other more minor factors
I'd say after asking 20 of these businesses you'd have a pretty good sample size
If I knew her or found her at my university I'd help her out with an economic-style analysis tbh

>>6953081
>stutterposting
turn your trip back on or go back to /tv/

>>6952850
literature
[lit-er-uh-cher, -choo r, li-truh-]
the entire body of writings of a specific language, period, people, etc.
By definition, genre fiction is literature.
Never thought I'd see a /lit/ elitist, but there's a first time for everything.

>>6953078
i worded that incorrectly. i meant to say that almost every male author does have a work where they deal with masculinity.

There are like 25 women for every 1 male when it comes to english majors.

And all 25 of those women write about the same stupid shit: the mysterious, helpless, individual womyn.

>"Third: with my name, maybe my novel was taken for “Women’s Fiction”—a dislikable name for a respectable genre—but not what I was writing. If an agent was expecting that, I’m not surprised he or she would turn away after the first page or two. A George wasn’t expected to be writing Women’s Fiction, so he was taken on his own terms."

Well, at least she came up one rational reason for being rejected as her own name. Maybe next time when using her real name she should try writing something that we havent seen before five-million times.

>>6952687
I've published under female names, so I think it's bullshit.

>>6953105
>thinks fantasy is literature
>watches anime with commie subs
sounds about right. you enjoy the worst of all mediums.

Meanwhile, in the real world, women are privileged with regards to hiring in nearly every sphere of employment. Equally qualified male and female applicants? Take the woman because it makes your diversity quotas look better. Can't meet the physical standards for a traditionally male-performed profession (firefighter, soldier, and so on)? Don't worry, we have you covered fam.

So publishers accept a pseudonym, no questions asked? You can just stay anonymous your entire career?

>>6953141
Publishers might even recommend a pseudonym to make a name more "marketable" or if the author is well known for another type of writing and they don't want to carry over that reputation.

Take James Rigney, better known as Robert Jordan. He had a number of pseudonyms because he was published in several different genres, ranging from dance theater reviews to epic fantasy.

>>6953095

I AM TIRED OF THESE T-T-TROLL A-A-ACCOUNTS

A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-A-ccounts

>>6953120
>literature is an exclusive term only applied to what I want it to be applied to
You're the same guy that argues rap music != poetry, aren't you?

>>6952903

>he used a crude word repetitively during a crude repetitive ordeal
>bad writer bad writer!!!!!!!

>>6953204
explain the rest then

>>6953210

I can't, but I don't see anything wrong with how he used shat in the first example. I have never read A Song of Ice and Fire and my interest in reading it has dropped even more thanks to the television series.

>>6953038

Best part about Renault is her unrelenting contempt for female characters and women in general

>>6952903

>all fantasy authors are bad writers

>>6953120

>thinks fantasy is literature

I personally have little to no interest in fantasy, but if you think it's all trash then you're simply uninformed. Quality fantasy lit exists.

The important thing to remember as a male reader is that we owe female writers nothing. We have no obligation to read them if we don't want to.

>>6953271

you have no real obligation to elect reading as a personal pursuit at all if you do not want to. but if you wish to be erudite and well-read in this arena it requires reading at least a couple of key female writers at the very least.

>>6953288
I'm almost certain that post is adapted from some Jezebel article with the gender pronouns switched.

>>6952807
it's a lot like the "music then vs music now" comparisons that rockists post on facebook, but I still enjoyed this post

>>6953294

you will never be literati

never

>>6953288
>but if you wish to be erudite and well-read in this arena it requires reading at least a couple of key female writers at the very least.
sez some clown on the internet

>>6953210
>Hemingway
>Good writer

>>6952763
>claiming women are incapable of feeling
Not a single person in recorded history ever claimed this

>>6952788
BTFO

>>6953345
I don't know if this DFW fleshlight meme is funny or fucked up but it's strangely compelling in some way.

>>6953375
It's an anal platitude.

>>6953210
8. here is pretty good.

>>6952687
Tbh if a writer from a site as intellectually dishonest and bait-centred as Jezebel sent me an email, I probably wouldn't respect it either.

why are you dumb fucks replying to a tripfag
stop
don't do it again

>>6952840
You do realize that
>genre: fiction
is just a meem right?
Like every other 4chan maymay, 1 guy tries to push some shit and the idiots gobble it up.
And just like those idiots, you're taken this lit meem seriously.

Sorry for all the meme word-drops and pseudo-glorifying this site, which im sure wouldve been your ad hominem argument to my post, but seriously man
grow up

>>6952944
lol

>reading books for the message

fucking pleb piece of shit, i bet you read because it "enlightens" you

>>6953210
I don't like Martin, but those aren't the most famous lines. I looked at the list and picked out these, the best of what there is.

"Why is it that when one man builds a wall, the next man immediately needs to know what's on the other side?"

"A day will come when you think yourself safe and happy, and suddenly your joy will turn to ashes in your mouth, and you'll know the debt is paid."

They're still mediocre at best, but they're better than what you posted

>>6952928
>with a great message
hahahaha

>>6953105
>Never thought I'd see a /lit/ elitist
????????????????????????????

>>6953131
0/10 tbh

>>6952973
>gay sex with hats on

wut

>>6953593
hey Einstein the post he replied to mentioned Gatsby's "great message"

nice /tv/ tier post btw

>>6952790
>hegemonic masculinity
It could be said that the premise of preconceptual appropriation states that
art has objective value, but only if sexuality is interchangeable with culture;
otherwise, we can assume that language serves to reinforce the status quo. If
neocultural structuralist theory holds, we have to choose between the
neotextual paradigm of expression and conceptualist libertarianism.

Men are better writers, this we knew.

>>6952687
>Jezbel
>The plan made me feel dishonest and creepy
Someone please link to that SNL skit where two horrible hags are hitting on two young DJs and dropping their female sanitary things around the studio.

>>6952903
Someone please rewrite GURRM's into pretentious, unreadable shit.

>>6952714
>I tend to avoid female writers. They rarely write books that would interest me anyway. Obviously there are exeptions like Woolf.

This is how I feel about it too tbh, though I'd never say it IRL. The focus of women authors is so often just too narrow and domestic. Obviously not all women authors are like that, but on the whole it's bad enough that if I see a female name on a book, I'll think really hard about whether I want to try it or not.

>>6952885
FLAWED EXPERIMENT THAT CONCEALS THE CONTEXT OF THE BOOK.

NEVER TRUST THAT A WOMAN COMPLAINING IS GIVING THE WHOLE OBJECTIVE STORY OR ASSIGNING CREDIT/RESPONSIBILITY ACCURATELY.

PUBLISHERS SHOULD JUDGE A THING HOW THEIR READERS WOULD JUDGE IT, WHICH INCLUDES HIDDEN FALSITIES THAT HAVE TO BE TEASED OUT TO COMPLETION WHILE SOMEONE GETS THE SPOTLIGHT.

>>6953210

If GRRM is truly a bad writer why must you resort to lying when trying to show that? You're just making yourself look disingenuous.

>>6954558
The gaseous bulb, that faraway yet nearest of stars, it burrowed into the horizon like a brazen coin lowered slowly into an earthen purse, illuminating her legs' earthbound bend and her chest's sonorous whinny.
First the dumplings then the soup, her bowel's efforts grew less solid and more pungent with each peristaltic wave.
When the night's dusty pale pieface hauled its bulk up the starry firmament, her anal yield had turned a trappist's pride.
She quaffed and quenched naught but the dirt beneath her feet's drought with her sphincter's spray, and on her belly she chased her lapping tongue to the hurried waters that snake the land nearby.
When she, at her constancy's end, covered her spy orbs for nocturnal safekeeping, Dany feared her lashed shutters would prove beyond her vitality's lift.

>>6955170
Splendid!

>>6952687
It's undoubtedly still an issue, but nowhere near as serious as it used to be. In fact most fiction charts are dominated by women writers nowadays - The issue is finding where we draw the line between 'filling quotas' and pushing women authors to the point of excluding their masculine counterparts. I'm almost tempted 5-10 years down the line to try and publish under a female pseudonym just to see if its received any differently under the reign of 3rd-wave feminism

It's unique and interesting when a male writer can pull off writing like a female. When a female can pull off writing like a female, no one cares

>>6953369
Yeah. As far as I'm concerned, feeling is all women are good for, aside from servicing my unit.

>>6952807
>Jean de Bosschère
Now I learned something new! :3

>>6952807
>high school
>not easy

Welp, that thread went about as well as you'd expect on 4Chan.

>>6952833
>it's not a thing in our culture, and if it is indeed, it's only among the less cultured or intelligent anyways
Oh dear.

People can be geniuses and still have glaring "blind spots". It's all too easy to find apparently clever ways to justify your prejudices and biaises. How many people here do you think are reasonably well-read, capable of good analyses, yet still think that women can't write as well as men only because of prejudice "confirmed" by anecdotal evidence?

Or just exaggerate and overreact, like >>6952771 who makes a perfectly good objection but then only uses it as an excuse to go all-out crazy with sexist slurs in reaction. >>6952885 This I mostly agree with, although the "probably not" seems a bit unfounded to me.

The experiment mentioned in the article isn't perfect, but it's not flawed enough to be dismissed altogether.

>>6953038 >>6952930
Good points.

The first thing that comes to mind is confirmation bias.

I would also say there is some foundation for dismissing female writers quicker. Firstly, you have a history of fantastic male writers and men tend to put themselves out there a bit more and are more comfortable suffering for their art. This isn't sexist bullshit, you just statistically far more men submitting shit to get published or win competitions.

Secondly, and more importantly, I think there is a bit of a trend for women to be a bit too vain in their writing. If you go and look at a list of books in many prize or competitions shortlist then you will see women often write thinly veiled autobiographies that are a bit whiny and emo. It's harder to find a contemporary book by a woman that isn't about a young woman than one that is. That or, my story as a black woman in a white society. I get they are trying to tell a story that literature has kind of ignored but it's not impressive.

Men might also be autobiographical but it is hidden behind grand political and philosophical themes like national identity or morality. When they deal with love or relationships it always feels more universal like they are trying to get to the platonic ideal of love and beauty. It kind of reflects the feminine and masculine approach to life - man is about dominating and being bold, woman is about compassion and quiet worldly experiences.

It's easier to see with films. The only woman that gets into the academy awards is Kathyrn Bigelow and look at her subject material. Compare her to Sofia Coppola, Clio Barnard or Claire Denis who make very personal and lowkey films. Even when people like Kelly Reichardt makes films on bigger topics like the wild west or domestic terrorism she brings it way down to a more personal level. And it's just not as impressive or flashy.

>>6952687
>http://pastebin.com/index/XTJcFWDG

50 submissions isn't a sufficient sample size to draw conclusions from. And she's not giving you any information on other variables that may have impacted the outcome of the study. What if she was psychologically invested in seeing George "win" the contest, and deliberately set up the contest that way?

There are several things she could do to manipulate the outcome, at a glance:

- Send George's manuscripts to less prestigious publishers.

- Send George's manuscripts exclusively to publishing houses that were appropriate for the material, while sending Catherine's out to as many publishing houses as she could find.

- Any random difference in the context in which George's manuscripts were sent out... George's submitted in response to a call for submissions, Catherine's submitted to publishers that don't accept new manuscripts.

Take a close look at the numbers she provided:

> George

50 manuscripts sent. Reply rate of 1 in 8.

> Catherine.

Reply rate of 2 in 50.

Comparing these data--provided they're real data at all, who's to say this isn't just some BS story--is problematic. If Catherine herself only submitted 50 manuscripts then we're dealing with sample sizes that are too small to be meaningful, ask any statistician, you don't draw conclusions from double-digit data sets unless the difference is staggering (i.e. 40/50 for George, 1/50 for Catherine).

Beyond that, Catherine didn't state the difference or similarity in the samples. If they were the same 50 publishers, this might be interesting. If they were different publishers, I'd say it means nothing at all. And I'm not sure this knife of discrimination, if it does exist, doesn't cut both ways. Do you think publishers are going to take seriously a Romance novel or chick lit book written by Bob Johnson?

>>6954176
huh

>>6952807
Those are two polar extremes of quality difference. How about you compare the writing of the guy who wrote The Martian with Virginia Woolf?

>>6955379
>my unit
are you DFW's sincere ghost?

>>6952784
>people denying my claim is proof of my claim!
>Every time my claim is demonstrated to be false, I'll just assume to talk about a longer time frame and more disparate context until I begin to look ambiguously correct again!

>>6956420
This. It'd also be easier to skew the data if you send under the man's names to agents that have had successes in the same subject or style as the book being submitted.

It's confirmed women can't into art or writing. If they do it all comes down to muh feels and vagina.

>>6956420
This.

But also, when I think "female writer" I think of shit like Hunger Games or Fifty Shades, which I never plan to read. I'd imagine that publishers exist who read a female name and think much the same and doon't even bother with it, seeing it as another bored housewife bandwagoner wanting her fanfiction published.

I think there is nothing here to be seen, but if there is -- on the far off, absolutely, abysmally distantant possibility that there is blatant sexism going on here -- they did it to themselves, really.

>>6952687
Oh the irony: this article itself being further anecdotal evidence for
>women can't write
>women can't science

>>6954176
How are you liking your first week here?

>>6957926
this, tbh

>>6957926
do you really think so?

>>6959490
I refuse to believe this is a real quote.

>>6957926
>It's confirmed women can't into art or writing.
by whom or what and how
> If they do it all comes down to muh feels and vagina.
sure.

When writing characters, I have encountered some similar problems. The issues male characters encounter are viewed as universal and human while the same problems dealed by a female character are always being put in a context of feminine cliches. I can easily see the same happening with the work of female authors - when you read it with a certain mindset, you will find ways to affirm yourself.

>>6953120
If you're going to watch a meme show might as well watch it with meme subs.