>>24677272
Because they are? They're often concerned with character development and socialization. Dudes may be as well, but they're also trite and boring. Just misaligned interests. Shelley is fairly readable.

What is interesting to women is uninteresting to men, snd vice versa. Therefore few female authors dwell on events or personalities that men do not find boring

>>24677272
a better question:
Why do some men feel they have authority to speak on work they haven't read?

Gossip makes my blood boil for some reason. I may be slightly autistic however.

>>24677272
I like Frankenstein and Little Women... that is about it.

>non-fiction
women have nothing interesting to say. the only exception being esther villar who is super funny even when she is wrong.
>fiction
it's just a dumb bias. litfic has some good female writers. genrefic and slopfic readers though only avoid women because of their own subjective tastes.

>>24677272
I go out of my way to avoid reading female authors but the only friends I have in real life are all women

>>24677311
Wuthering Heights is solid

>>24677272
I’m a woman and I don’t read female authors.

I can think of a handful of paperbacks I read. Female author, female MC. But? These women (or female pen names, how would I know) wrote a good book. No, these were great books. They had novelty and originality.
>
Sadly though, I can't endorse female writers with female MC wholesale; most females fuck it up. These women, in the books I'm talking about? These women "get it". Most don't.
>
It all reminds me of the push many years back.They wanted a female reporter to do the after the game locker room hallway interview for the NFL game. All the women? Sucked. They all put on that fake newscaster voice, and emphasized their speech and mannerisms like that. It was silly. Finally, they found one woman who "got it". She actually watched and understood and talked about football. And she could talk normal, asking questions. I don't remember her name, but she was the first one.
>
anyways. female authors and female MCs. By and large (not all) they do silly shit. I have read a handful that were great... but these are the exception rather than the rule.

>>24677299
>a better question:
>Why do some men feel they have authority to speak on work they haven't read?
I only commented on that which I *have* read. I make no assumptions, seen it for myself.

>>24677316
>only avoid women because of their own subjective tastes
Yeah it’s called being a faggot

>>24677299
Thats general human behavior

>>24677327
Tits or I'll find you and do unspeakable things to you.

>>24677272
>Why do men find female authors so trite and boring?
Aside from exceptions nobody cares about (see: most tards ITT)
It's because women tend to focus on domestic, feminine narratives. Themselves (girl power), their social status, their suitors, parenting, children, their vaginas, and drama in their social circle or community. Men tend to prefer adventure, achievement, brotherhood, big ideas, war, civilization, technology, and so on. Hero's journey.

Take "Where the Crawdads Sing" by Delia Owens:
It's all about a quirky weirdo social outcast girl who loves nature and her relationship with various men. The big social drama is a murder of the star quarterback and the story involves his bizarro relationship with the social outcast protagonist.
>social status - check
>multiple suitors - check
>scandalous social drama - check
>vaginas - check
>girl power - check
>dysfunctional family/ bad parents - check

btw it's not to say that a book like "Where the Crawdads Sing" is a bad novel, or that a man can't read it and enjoy it for what it is.
But in general, once you've seen a lot of female-oriented stories you start to notice the key features, even if they might superficially appear as something else at first glance. "Crawdads" is structured as a mystery and includes courtroom drama and nature/wilderness adventures. But the key themes and points are all the standard female stuff I mentioned.

>open book written by woman
>always about relationships, sex, men

That's why

>>24677586
>always about relationships, sex, men
I can't say anything better than this

>>24677272
Only dude like this that I know are fantasy readers.

File: 61430267.jpg (244 KB, 992x1488)

244 KB JPG

>>24677272
i read female authors sometimes, just seems like they mostly only write fictional stuff and i read a lot of nonfiction
pic related is my favorite book written by a female, it's really really good

>>24677272
>I've known well-read dudes who don't read women as a rule
female authors are so much more often pushed for desperate agenda-driven reasons than for their quality that extreme suspicion is the rational posture
this goes double if a woman is making the recommendation
double it again if the work was written after 1964

>>24677657
seems like you don't know any serious hoescaring readers

>>24677341
Erin Andrews?

Men don’t read, and when they do, they read as a signal to other men.
Same goes for men writing. It’s about demonstrating to others you have silver hairs, not about enjoying literature qua literature like women do

>>24677782
I read. I also write. And sure I could lash you with my silver tongue, and sure I'd enjoy it, but I mostly read for me, and I mostly write as a complusion.

Tell me, what do I read? What do I write? And who do I signal?

>>24677531
>he hasn't read Rebecca West's "Black Lamb and Grey Falcon"

>>24677782
That's some fierce bullshit.

have you read woolfe? it's unhealthily depressing.

>>24677272
What are some good contemporary female writers in the Anglosphere in your opinion, OP? Aside from romantasy, smut or stuff like this anon >>24677531 explained

>>24677272
it's been a little since ive posted on here but by reading these replies i feel like this board has grown increasingly feminine
bleh

>>24677782
>Men don’t read, and when they do, they read as a signal to other men.
>Same goes for men writing. It’s about demonstrating to others you have silver hairs, not about enjoying literature qua literature like women do
Thomas had never seen such bullshit before.

>>24677272
Many women write the same way they tell a tale which makes you want to kill yourself because the informational content of “someone I know had a boyfriend cheat on her” is turned into a 20 minute epic about 100 people you also don’t know and who’s fate is not relevant to the story told whatsoever.

I also find women write passive stories and again this is probably drawn from natural differences. Kindred turns time traveling to slavery times into becoming an accomplice to the system, passively participating in it, even enabling it. Handmaid’s Tale has a reputation as some radical feminist tome but really just shows the submission and participation in the system. The author even comments on this in the afterword (or preface? i don’t recall). Male stories would require more agency as a rule. A dilemma is observed and warrants a resolution or conflict.

>>24677782
I think you're just mad and coping lol

>>24677311
I like Talented Mr Ripley.

I read mainly genre fiction and some of my favorite books were written by women. Most of the books I read are written by men, though. That's not because I deliberately exclude books written by women, it's more that men and women tend to write about different things, in different ways, and the kind of stories I prefer tend to be written by men. Though not always.

>>24677659
One of my favourite nonfiction writers was Mary Roach because she used to pick weird topics like Stiff about dead bodies, from burial tales to getting blown up at the body farm.
Barbara Tuchman’s Guns of August is solid.
Ruth Goodman writes engagingly about the common household in different eras and also does experimental archaeology shows. I’ve not really seen it covered in general history books but the small tech revolutions in boring chores like washing and cooking make a world of difference. Also dispels a lot of myths about older eras being universally filthy and unhygienic.

>>24677272
Female historians are decent as long as they don't shoehorn gender into every debate

>>24677299
A book has a cover so that I can judge it without having to read it.

I'm reading Anne Rices vampire chronicles and I think its pretty good. Its a bit more sensual than male authors and I don't think a male could get away with the weird sensual relationship between Louie and Claudia

File: mr-bean-waiting.gif (2.08 MB, 640x362)

2.08 MB GIF

>>24677272
>>24678137

>>24677272
Most revolting pooppoo I've ever seen

flannery o'connor good. objective outlook. cruelly, ontologically objective. same could be said for simone weil. not for jane austen however. annoying cunt. no fundamental difference between pride and prejudice and shit like twilight and 50 shades of gray. so i guess you need a sacramental, masochistic strand of christianity to mortify women's innate dumbass sex-and-status-obsessed frivolity and make real writers out of them.

Lapvona was based enough I might read more Mossfegh.

>>24677272
I'll only read a woman if she has bonafides. What I mean is either she has been championed by a non libtarded male writer, or she has championed a "weird" male writer. Examples of the latter are Joyce Carol Oates (Lovecraft) and Doris Lessing (Olaf Stapledon)

I think women have taken over publishing and have discriminated against male authors in favor of female authors.
I therefore only read male writers to support the oppressed and to strike a blow against the matriarchy

>>24677299
>Why do people who don’t eat shit feel they have the authority to say it’s disgusting?

>>24677311
Frankenstein is good because Percy Shelley heavily edited it.

>>24678695
Oh and no women born after 1980. For any reason.

Women are very herd like creatures
Hive mind is very strong in them. There are a few basic archetypes with women’s writing
1. Scolds and complainers.
2. Girl bosses rule. Boys drool.
3. Werewolf billionaire schlickpig fantasies.

That’s about it. If you’ve read one you’ve read them all. Women are pretty much interchangeable

>>24678738
What about Frankenstein? It holds up. They've got a good one there, imo.

>>24678741
Her husband prolly wrote it

>>24678741
It’s partly complaining about childbirth and partly scolding men for tampering with nature.

>>24677272
>subtly nagged
you been in a coma the past decade? I only make exceptions for blue bloods who died at least 200 years ago.

>>24677586
>>24677636
I think it's also somewhat common for female authors to just not get men at all, and to not write male characters very well.
>>24677842
>aside from exceptions
There are some good works by female authors, especially authors from older eras more likely to have dealt with serious hardship and struggle in life.
>>24678695
>Joyce Carol Oates
Really? I only know her from moronic feminist twitter posts that would get passed around back in the 2010s.

>>24677272
they all write about how shitty men are, that's why. who wants to read about how shitty they are?

>>24677272
>same inability to state points of fact for absolute mundanities that prompts the fairer sex to AND THEN ... AND THEN exposition linearly - but rarely causally - to some asinine goings on.

Good to Great woman authors will have more consistently clean prosody. Boilerplate characterization can be conspicuous: >>24677531

>>24677300
that has to be it because most men love gossip as much or even more than women

>>24677272
Colleen McCullough: Masters of Rome series
Lindsay Davis: Marcus Didius Falco series
Shona Maclean: The Seeker series

Just read Middlemarch and it’s a good women written novel

>>24677304
This is beautiful and makes me love my girlfriend even more. I don't read women though and probably never will. I love women, I may be a chud in other aspects (race, sexuality) but I've never got the whole hate wamyn thing, like yes they are childish and silly and have bad ideas influened by pure emotion but that is part of what makes them beautiful. They are to be cared for, nurtured, looked after, and defended (the one you love).

>>24677272
I only read Patricia Highsmith because she hated women more than I do

>>24677300
busybodies are next to murderers in St. Peter’s shitlist

>who is Gertrude Stein
>who is Djuna Barnes
>who is Marianne Moore
>who is Flannery O'Connor
that's without going past the 20th century Americans, and surely there are other worthies too.
if you're serious about good books and ignore women entirely it comes off as a mildly pathetic affectation. Read more, and challenge yourself with different types of writers; it doesn't have to be a chore.

The Day Women Got A Magic Power to Kill All Manspreaders

By Some Canadian Whore.

>>24681289
>it comes off as a mildly pathetic affectation
to undergrad students maybe
truth is nobody cares
btw oconnor is thoroughly 2nd-rate, you yankees always have overrated her

File: 1736288535410913.jpg (43 KB, 423x540)

43 KB JPG

Boring isn't the word I'd use.

>>24681555
>btw oconnor is thoroughly 2nd-rate

Nope.

>>24681289
>Marianne Moore

I like that after reading her work Ezra Pound sent a letter to ask if she was really a woman because it was too good to believe that.

>>24679221
I love reading about how shitty men are. The thing about women is they only see it from the outside though. They don't really get why we're like this.

>>24677272
I guess I figure women's novels are going to be about their fantasies which I'm not interested in, like fucking bad boys. Agatha Christie, Rowling, K.A. Applegate, Rumiko Takahashi, they wrote good shit that anyone can enjoy. The right woman can be among the best to ever do it. But they are the minority and honestly I don't know how to separate the good ones from the stuff that is not suited for male readers.

As one anon stated above, Colleen McCullough's Rome series are well done.
Sharon Kay Penman wrote many historical fiction novels circa the Crusades times.
"The Abyss" (1968) by Marguerite Yourcenar.
Carolyn Chute, "The Beans of Egypt, Maine" (1985) and other novels.
Kate Braverman. "Palm Latitudes" (1988)
Gayl Jones. "Mosquito" (1999)
And here are three books from women in which Thomas Pynchon gave book blurbs upon publication:
Laurel Goldman. Sounding the Territory (1982)
Phyllis Gebauer. The Pagan Blessing (1979)
Marge Piercy. Dance the Eagle to Sleep (1970)

>>24677272
The obvious cliche answer is that men and women are different. (Though I'd have to say I've personally enjoyed both male and female authors quite a bit, but then I probably have a somewhat androgynous personality. Though I'm not sure how much I'd enjoy the modal male author... or the modal female author for that matter.)

>>24677327
Do you find you have trouble relating to other women in general? I know most of my autistic friends (myself included) say they find non-autists of the same sex more alien and harder to relate to than autists of the opposite sex (and I know you didn't say you're autistic but, well, this is 4chan).

>>24681790
And you think you get why women are how they are?

>>24677272
Most women authors aren't well-read or truly interested in the lives of other people or learning outside of what isn't already popular or "allowed" among the given population.

>>24681831
I'm certain I do since understanding things in general is male coded

>>24682383
You keep telling yourself that.

Women always frame it as men’s failure to be entertained by women writers

The possibility that female writers fail to entertain male readers never seems to enter their pretty little heads.

>>24677272
Women dont write about things that matter. There was one woman in my writing group who was a perfect example of this. Everything she wrote was about a breakup, finding love, or family drama. Every fucking thing. Moving into a new apartment, to her, was an entire story. Having a mildly annoying neighbor was, to her, a 20 page story. Waiting alone at home for a wife to return, eating snacks, watching tv, thinking about their relationship together, and then she doesnt come home was an entire story to her.

Not only were her stories about nothing but the prose was just as vapid. I probably read over 500 pages of her short stories and everything was written in this dull, flat prose. I dreaded reading her stories. And she would submit something every single month. One day, in the year 3000, anthropologists will wonder "what was life like for a middle age, middle class woman in the early 21st century?" And her stories will be of great historical value. But they will never be of any literary value. And that's the feeling I get whenever I read Virginia Woolfe or Jane Austen or Charlotte Bronte or Stephanie Meyer or or Amy Tan or Toni Morrison or whoever the fuck is writing those gender bent Eragon erotica novels.

I do not care if Sarah Plain and Tall gets dicked on her trip to Greece. I do not care if Second Generation Amary Canne gets bullied at school because she has an accent and isnt popular. I do not care that your father is a Trump supporter and oooh it just makes you so mad! Grow the fuck up. These stories are not worth the recycled paper they're printed on.

File: 1750974296520l.png (3.55 MB, 1024x1536)

3.55 MB PNG

>>24677311
>Frankenstein
>book about having children without need of a woman
>book about your gay friend-bf (who isn't named, but is DEFINATELY NOT NAMED BYRON!) leaving you to go find a woman
>mary wrote this

lol

Interestingly its a great example for OPs point. After he died everything she ever (actually) wrote was incredibly personal and basically just recounting her own life drama, which is the main criticism men have of female authors.

If you want me to read and enjoy your work then the prose better be good. If the prose isnt good, then the characters better be interesting. If the prose isnt good and the characters arent interesting then it better be thematically interesting. If the prose, characters, and themes arent interesting then you better have a hell of a plot. If your prose, characters, themes, and plot are all boring then you're a female writer and you're wasting my time.

>>24682532
>Women dont write about things that matter.
> finding love, or family
quite literally all that matters.

>>24682598
Maybe the love you're thinking of matters. The love where you are eternally bonded with another soul. That's not what women write about. To women, love is a buffet where they get to sample a little of everything. Love is "a man in possession of a fortune is in need of a wife."

>>24677774
>seems like you don't know any serious hoescaring readers
maybe not

Men are good at entertaining themselves. That makes women disposable

File: the-way-of-perfection__93937.jpg (310 KB, 828x1280)

310 KB JPG

I've read mysteries and genre fiction by women, of varying qualities of course, just as with men.

For more serious literature, I tend to like the classics. It's not a snooty thing. I absolutely love the Divine Comedy. I could read the Aeneid again and again. My favorite genre fiction tends to try to mimic these classics in ways (e.g., R. Scott Bakker's The Darkness That Comes Before, Dan Simmons' Hyperion). I have found no women who write this sort of thing (which, to be fair, is rare anyhow).

I'm pretty sure this sci-fi book about a designer drug that makes you experience God I quite liked called Afrerparty was written by a woman, or this fun sort of mindless time travel drama One Thing After Another. But that's more what I get for audiobooks for chores or something.

Non-fiction I don't think there is any difference; but I read a lot of history and philosophy and that tends to be male dominant. Complexity a Guided Tour is an excellent intro to information theory and complexity studies I often recommend for instance.

For spiritual stuff, like philosophy, it's mainly men, but The Way of Perfection is excellent.

>>24677272
women don't live in the real world, the real world is scarcity. To them scarcity is just 'less abundance than the other woman'.
This fundamentally changes the emotional foundation of the texts.

>Why do men find female authors so trite and boring?
Because most female authors write about subjects they don't care about in a way that is often trite and boring.

It's mostly because men and women are diffrent and focus on diffrent things. Like women are obsessed about interpersonal relationships down to the finest detail, and put a greater focus on what everyone is feeling at any given time. There also is a weird habit of being extremely concerned with status at all times.
For men such things aren't anywhere close to as intresting.
You can see this if you read books about a general premise or subject from both male and female authors.

Lets take for example werewolves. About once a year I get in the mood for stories about werewolves so I read a smattering of authors on that theme.
Its EXTREMELY obvious when the author is a woman or a man.
Women write about werewolves fundamentally differently and tell totally different stories from men when it comes to the subject of werewolves. And no, I am not just talking about the degenerate tic-tok erotica nonsense, although that too.

For example women writers will be utterly obsessed about pack hierarchy, often making the whole story about it. The rare occasions they aren't writing about pack hierarchy they will still make the core of the story all about interpersonal relationship and themes relating to interpersonal relationships. Very often to the point that the plot becomes weak and even internal logic and causality break down if it gets in the way of emotional manipulative moments. There is often a lot of (and then this happened) type of story telling with women writers in general that is very noticeable when you just got done with something written by a man who has a more focused plot where each plot point logically progressed from the one preceding it.
Meanwhile with male authors they take werewolf stories in all sorts of directions. From them being a monster that must be slain, to about the theme of the dealing with the negative aspects of one's own internal nature, to themes of liberation, to stories about brotherhood, to body horror, to themes of alienation, and so much more.
There is rarely a focus on pack hierarchy, with maybe the exception of more action focused stories where the alpha is treated more or less like the final boss of the story. If there are interpersonal elements they are just parts of the story and not focused on to the point it bogs down the plot and kills the pacing. And as I said above, events in the story follow a logical progression of events in a structured plot, instead of the way women written stories are often structured where the middle of the book is just random bullshit happening just to manipulate emotional states of a reader not paying that much attention but not actually progressing the plot at all, often leading to a very rushed feeling conclusion.

You guys are absolutely obsessed with women then refuse to read a book by a woman to understand how they think.

>>24684233
why do you want 4chinz approval so badly? go back to braiding each other's pubic hair in lecture halls.

I find them pretty fun. At least the ones that lived 100+ years ago. I've read no contemporary women authors.

>>24684250
I'm not a girl, unfortunately I still need to try in life, but I think insight into the object of your desire is important.

>>24684028
great post.

>>24677782
LITERAL projection, holy shit...

everything you just said is true of females x1000.
just so very incredibly wrong

>>24678581
I liked the first 4 books, thought the body thief was pretty weak, but after that it went to shit imo.

Also tried to get through the first Mayfair witches book but found it excruciatingly boring.

>>24677272
There was a book about a maid who had a psycho bitch mom, her bratty daughter, hot dad/Mexican I enjoy reading. POV herself was a jailbird too. If woman lean to true crime/psycho-cunts I would enjoy woman writers more.

>>24684319
Women actually read more than men. The challenge is that women read more slop written for teens and men read more non-fiction

>>24685484
Yes but they read badly written porn. Do you also consider men who read manga or doujins as "readers"?

>>24685836
I don't consider you a reader if you think you're adding to the discussion. It was already stated that women read slop, you don't have to announce that women read slop.

>>24685869
yes and what I'm saying is that's why what women are doing shouldn't be considered as "reading" you illiterate nigger

>>24685906
They are more to be considered readers than people who read literally nothing at all, i.e. you. And no, posing outside the campus library with some big tome on your knee does not count as reading.

>>24685836
>>24685906
One is reading exclusively words and the other is reading primarily drawings. I know that you're deeply upset by this, but come on.

>>24685927
yeah sure whatever femanon. Now post tits

>>24685906
How are you defining "reading"?

>>24685941
Damn. You got blasted.

>>24677299
>Why do some men feel they have authority to speak on work they haven't read?
It's kind of like how I don't know you as a person, but based on you asking that question in this context, I can be reliably certain that you are pretty fucking retarded.

>>24677272
They're usually very poor writers and (almost) invariably write about things I don't care about or actively hate. Reading Dworkin was fucking hilarious though. And illuminating.

Jane Austen is pretty good though, even if there are some malignant facets to her worldview.

>>24685927
>And no, posing outside the campus library with some big tome on your knee does not count as reading.
You're telling on yourself

>>24684028
>all this crapping on instead of just admitting you're a stupid incel faggot
all you had to do was not pretend women don't know what a story structure is, a preposterously retarded claim to make.

>>24677272
I've only read two novels written by women since I've taken reading as a hobby about a year ago, Frankenstien and Jane Eyre. Frankenstien didn't give that vibe at all, probably because it's from a man's perspective, but with Jane Eyere, while I did enjoy it, it definitley felt a bit like that especially towards the end when she has to choose between St. John and Rochester. Kinda gave me the ick cause it read so female fanfic with a side of moralizing.

>>24682623
Yeah, I don't see a woman ever coming up with something like Donne's "A Valediction - Forbidding Mourning" or anything by D. H. Lawrence.

>>24687761
Though if I wanted to be fair, I always felt like that in literature about love written by men, the woman in question almost never matters as a person but rather as an avatar of femininity, as if it was the thing that the woman embodied to them that these men truly loved and less that one woman specifically, who were quite indistinguishable and interchangeable when discussed at all. I suspect women love much the same way, however. Maybe there is truly only one Man and one Woman that we love regardless of whoever happens to be their representative at a certain time and place.

Mfw litfags shilling Shelley despite ~90% of it having been written by Percy