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>ExceptExcept what, retard?
>>24692303kek>>24692290she'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
>>24692299
People who can't offer anything deeper than "my favorite author is better than you favorite author" are not worth considering.
>>24692328Post your favorite author
>>24692307>who truly blew open the novelPeople 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.
>>24692329I would probably go with Sherwood Anderson but I am not sure I have a favorite. >>24692347Ulysses and GR changed how we understood the novel, pushed the novel past the conventions of the time.
>>24692394How did we understand the novel before? How do we understand it now?
>>24692311underwhelming>>24692290good bait>>24692394> how we understood the novel, pushed the novel past the conventions of the timeReread 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 opinionreread this statement aloud and maybe you'll realize you sound like a tryharding pseud
>>24692472Sassy 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 trueOK. 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.
>>24692290Well 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 intendYou'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 womanIn other words, she wasn't good enough to outperform whatever sexist social expectations you think are in effect
>>24693103For 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.”
>>24692290High-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.
>>24692290Au 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 bronteHad 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 steinThen again maybe Orlando would still make her relevant to queer representation
>>24693404Stein was too experimental to take such a role. Also, The Waves and To The Lighthouse are undeniably great.
>>24693419I am not denying that, I really like woolf despite her being a womanAll 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
>>24693426So 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 slotsEvery authoritative and not so authoritative discussion hub for literature will come up with a top 100Usually 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)
>>24692290Most of the modernist women are better than Joyce: Woolf, H.D., Stein, Butts, Loy &c&c.
>>24693103I'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 100So, that is a yes, you don't know what canon is.
>>24693451fr fr chat
>>24692311This is not spectacular
>>24693455what are you on about you obese moronpeople don't treat canon like a rigid philosophical concepthe's saying that practically, people tend to include Woolf in western canon lists because she's a womanhad 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
>>24692311I like it. I will read.
she looks like a man, crimson chin Mac tonight lookin ahh dyke
I didn't know she killed herselfAll of these years I've ignored her but having learnt that she killed herself makes me want to read herMaybe she was truly human
>>24693467Canon 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.
>>24693451Your 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.
>>24693489Cool!Got anything INTERESTING to say?
>>24693498>implying that incel seethe is interestinglol.
>>24693493People were all fags back then
>>24693493People 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.
>>24693507Case in point.
>>24693493>>24693520So, neither you have read Woolf I take it.
>>24693528No I don't read literature from suicidal lesbians
>>24693520People 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.
>>24693520You 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.
>>24692290Imagine the feel of cornholing her.
>>24693546This 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!
>>24693520Based retarded zoomer
proust-lite
>>24693640Not even remotely similar wtf
>>24693649many similarities eccept woolf cant thinkthe 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 similaritiesSuch 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.
>>24693562I've never seen anyone write fourchan instead of 4chan, thats insaneI think you might be a psychopath
>>24693777NPCs have a breakdown when they see someone go even slightly off-script.
>>24693782rape is good
>>24693787Say 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.
>>24693825this. 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
>>24692290if she was a man she would go completely unnoticed
>>24693842i 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
>>24692307She'd be rightfully forgotten if she were a man. She didn't understand literature. >>24692347Pynch 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>SteinLel no
>>24692472hurr 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 influencesThis is true. Technically. He took -a- technique from Dujardin. Dujardin didn't do that.>>24693389Emily Dickinson, for example. Woolf was a trust fund band. And a mid one at that.>>24693393Woolfsie never surpassed making watercolor cartoons with speech bubbles and thought bubbles.
>>24693402zzz>>24693404You're mindbroken lol.>>24693419> undeniably great.Watch this. They are not great.
>>24693493Sorry to hear about your serotonin.>>24693777Type 1 psychopaths are all over.>>24693842Breaking Bad / BCS reference. I got it.
>>24693426>room>in the canonDamn you're dumb.>>24693475Mmmmm.>>24693487You have a lot to learn from her.
>>24692425Joyce 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.
>>24694555I can't think of anything lamer than being unable to enjoy Joyce.
>>24694555You 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>>24694557The 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
>>24693450and Djuna Barnes (I knew I was forgetting someone)
It’s not like we were buds.Like most femoids, she was a hostile little shit.
>>24695190dios mio...la creatura feminista...
>>24695190It's impossible that decent art can come from a person who makes such statements
>>24695190Why 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 reasonTLDR: 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
>>24695701Margaret 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.
>>24695709Thanks anon>>24695716Sounds good.>generally free of the preachy gynocentric nonsenseI'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.
>>24695190
>>24695853woolfbrosnot like this
>>24695701Flannery 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.
>>24695701Wuthering heights is a legitimate contender for goat. Has a very universal quality to it. I recommend the bataille essay on it as additional readAusten 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 timeFrankenstein 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 litStein is a must read if you are interested in modernismI 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 wellThere 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 OrteseYou 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.
