>Naipaul, who has been described as the "greatest living

POO

>>9053518
Redpill AF tru Aryan Subcon Alpha

>>9053518
Who is this qt next to the poo in loo

Reminder Jane Austen, George Eliot, the Brontes all wrote under pseudonyms and weren't widely known to be women in the works they wrote under male names.
I don't belief this guy for a second.

This is literally R9k! Some robot had this big post about he can discern woman vs man from their typing style. I wish I had the screen cap.

>>9053518
I quite liked The Mystic Masseur, but haven't read anything else he's written. Any recommendations?

>>9053556
That's not that ridiculous a statement. I can sometimes tell the political disposition of a person based on a few paragraphs of apolitical text. Same with gender.

>>9053552
Hey, femanon here, this.

>>9053552
There wasn't enough widely read female writing to discern what a female voice would read like at the time

>>9053602
Yeah, it was based a lot on how women write to the group as the higher conscious. " everybody does X except you.." and some other hilarious points .i wish I had it desu

>>9053518
Greatest living writer of english prose my ass. He's second rate at best. It will be funny to watch /lit/ choose mysoginy over racism and not claim his success is due the war against white men because he considers women inferior.

As to his actual argument... who fucking cares how he rates himself against others? Thats like saying his perception of himself is worth as much as an unbiased critical examination of his work.

As for gendered writing, well, its a thing but not nearly so self evident in all cases or obvious at all sometimes. Hell, very established writers have been unable to pass a literature turing test recently. What makes anyone think Naipaul can do it with women?