What are some good/important female authors to read, /lit/?

Woolf
Agatha Christie

>>8663408
Austen
Bronte
Stein
Arendt
Woolf
Eliot

Do you people never tire of frog-triggering threads?

>>8663408
I don't read female authors on principal because I'm that annoying redpilled guy that jumps in with my poorly thought out opinion at the start of every thread. I hear Jane Austen is pretty good though. Ayn Rand is important, if not good, because she helps me understand my retarded contradictory economic views.
Also something about the white race. You should misread Schopenhauer instead of reading women though, retard.

Austen, Dickinson, Eliot and Woolf.

>>8663419
show tits

File: image.jpg (17KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 225x225px

>>8663408
Let's just say I'm redpilled and informed by Schopenhauer's seminal essay 'On Women' which changed my life for the better.

Let's be honest, women can't write and ought to be confined to the home where they thrive in accordance with their nature.

The white race has been compromised by 'empowering' women, and this simply shan't go unpunished.

Deus

Fucking

Vult

>>8663427
keks to (You), I'm a guy
>>8663429
An outclassed guy, at that.

I'd like to read female authors but they can't be geniuses, so I don't waste time.

>>8663408
>Fiction
Woolf
O'Connor
Barnes

>Non-Fiction
Sontag
De Beauvoir
Butler

File: 0rKuJJ8.jpg (1MB, 2300x4000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2300x4000px

Sigrid Undset

>>8663408
Flannery O'Connor as hands down best short story writer in English.
Theresa of Avila for dank mysticism.
Hannah Arendt for political philosophy.
Elizabeth Anscombe for hardcore analytical thomism.

S A P P H O

(purest form of love)

>>8663408

Women can write about their own perspective. That's all. Once you've read one woman author you've read them all.

Unfortunately. Wouldn't it be nice if women could write?

Its not something to hold over women's heads. Its truly sad.
Its one of the best kept secrets of the literary world.

File: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtssTBLTg8zthDSxXVf3fXo8xgHVuTJXF124-DMxTGHhVeSrPt.jpg (86KB, 703x1080px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 703x1080px

Also Elena Ferrante and Bethany McClean

File: 1458774335718.jpg (87KB, 630x776px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 630x776px

>>8663612
>women
>capable of love

>>8663627

yeah definitely

ayn rand and hannah arendt are like.. the same fucking person, right? its just all the same point of view

>>8663437
show tits

File: 1d0743_f19b581077c64115a110bf75e7304bc8.jpg (245KB, 787x1014px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 787x1014px

>>8663879
Don't forget Hildegarde von Bingen

File: just this once.jpg (39KB, 550x496px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 550x496px

>>8664070
You only get one for being impolite.

Woolf is by far the greatest in my opinion. Experimental, complex, prolific, with so much depth of thought and feeling.

Sigrid Undset's Kristen Lavrandsdatter is a masterpiece that deserves much more attention.

Elsa Morante's Historia, Elena Ferrante's Neapolitan novels are also praiseworthy.

I'll leave out poets but there are quite a few good ones. Jane Austen is really overrated imo (good popular novelist/proponent of free indirect discourse but not deep or nuanced at all for me)

>>8664125
Anne Carson is probably my favorite living author/poet

>>8664159
Same here. She's brilliant

>>8663408
Mary Shelley.

>>8663408
>women
>Important
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHa How the fuck is a Vagina real HAHAHAHA Nigga just walk away from the illusion like nigga close your eyes HAHA

Flannery O'Connor
Annie Proulx

Carson McCullers

Also get the Tiina Nunnally translation of Kristen Lavransdatter.

>>8663627
>implying men can write from a woman's perspective
All male writers are the same too to be quite honest.

>>8666471
This. As a woman I see no discernible difference between Kant and Hemingway.

Emly>>8666477
I can't really see any difference between Mary Shelley and Jane Austen either.

>>8666482
You can't be serious? Jane Austen understands men. She writes like one. Shelley is a prototypical female writer.

>>8666492
What? Austen is a great writer, to be sure, but her books are all about domestic womanly concerns and romance. I'd hardly call it masculine in subject matter or in concept.

How is Shelley prototypical?

>>8666501
Austen's men are great men, though. Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley are legitimate role models for men to aspire towards.

>>8666501
See >>8666514
Subject matter is feminine. The underlying depth and structure is masculine.

I'm judging Shelley solely on Frankenstein. I''d like to hit the nail on the head with exactly what stylistically makes it feminine, but thinking about the overuse of the word "wretched" throughout irks me so hard I can't function.

>I'm spooked by beauty
>muh wretchedness
>I am such a wretch
>My monster is such a wretch
>You created me and I am a wretch and now I will kill you because you are responsible for my misery
>wretch.

I need a cigarette.

>>8666547
>Subject matter is feminine. The underlying depth and structure is masculine.
Your conflating depth with masculinity. Depth is rarer in females, it just tends to look similar when it shows itself. Intelligent women can appreciate the masculine.

>>8666547
>I'm spooked by beauty
Frankenstein's monster was fuck ugly though. I generally agree with you but it's been a long time since I've read it. Shelley's writing is feminine but I can't really call it prototypical, since I can't think of another similar prominent female writer.

>>8666514
>Mr. Darcy and Mr. Knightley are legitimate role models for men to aspire towards
to be good providers

>>8666559
It's not a conflation. Depth is inherently a masculine trait in writing.
Depth in feminine writing is a façade. Exceptions being >>8663418


>>8666567
Okay, in terms of femininity let's look at the illusion of depth in Frankenstein. It appears to be a meditation on the morality of playing god, nature versus nurture, and in the most general sense responsibility.
You then read her letters to her friends about it, and you realize there's nothing there. "I have a really cool spooky idea guys. I'm obsessed with it. Dude what if a guy made a really ugly monster lmao"... She raises all these questions seemingly on accident on her pursuit of writing a spooked novel about beauty.

>>8666582
Death of the author though, the text is what you get out of it. Plenty of supposedly great male writers aren't much different.

>>8666618
Such as?

>>8666582
>normal high literature
>on the surface it just looks like a plot with dumb shit happening, but within it there are fascinating questions and themes

>frankenstein
>looks like it has fascinating themes on the surface but is actually just some dumb shit happening

Whoa

>>8666644
Seriously read Shelley's letters.

>>8666648
Where are they?

>>8666655
in my hardcopy desu

>>8666657
Well I believe you, not gonna pay to read some dumb bitches letters. If the book stands on this own it doesn't matter what the author was actually thinking.

File: better than expected.gif (871KB, 200x224px) Image search: [Google]

871KB, 200x224px

*get*

Emily Bronte is the greatest and most redpilled female author.

>>8666492
>Jane Austen understands men.
Absolutely.

>She writes like one.
Now hold on a minute.

>>8666726
This exactly.

>>8666661
fucking formalists i swear

>>8666747
The content is in the book, even if it wasn't in the author's mind. If a monkey accidentally types out Hamlet it's still Hamlet.

>>8666582
Frankenstein turned out the way it did because Percy helped her out. She provided the pretty idea and he molded it into something with at least some worth.

File: Sappho.jpg (170KB, 575x863px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 575x863px

Read Sappho...

O LIFE divine! to sit before
Thee while thy liquid laughter flows
Melodious, and to listen close
To rippling notes from Love's full score.
O music of thy lovely speech !
My rapid heart beats fast and high.
My tongue-tied soul can only sigh.
And strive for words it cannot reach.
O sudden subtly-running fire !
My ears with dinning ringing sing.