Can women write, /lit/?

Can faggots make threads, OP?

I feel like I'm the only one on lit who has read Lorrie Moore

Whenver I took a creative writing class the best writers were almost always female.

Sure. For example Catholics, lesbians, ugly ones.

>>9822222
good use of numbers. very nice, very apt.

>>9822222
The roll proves it.

>>9822175
Yes, but unfortunately nothing worth mentioning.

>>9822175
Yes. Flannels o Connor. Woolf. Etc

>>9822862
>Genji Monogatari
>Not worth mentioning
You done fucked up.

>>9824069
A better question is: Would the human literary tradition be significantly poorer if there had never been a woman author?

The answer is clearly no, making the tremendous investment of resources in restructuring our society around the feminine a great tragedy for humankind.

>>9822222
This 2bh

>>9822222
why are Catholics so /lit/?

>>9824069
>literal who
>see guys, if you lower your standards for women like they were children, there are plenty of fantastic women authors!

Only when they have the minds of men (i.e. Woolf).

>>9822222
>lesbians
>ugly women
Is artistic talent a sexual strategy? Most straight women don't have to work on their status in order to attract men, but lesbians have to work as hard as men in order to attract women.

>>9824122
It's a shame women like that are all dykes. Can you imagine dating a male friend who also happens to be a hot chick?

Why does /lit/ never talk about Iris Murdoch?

Yeah, just not well.

>>9824095
Religious belief is one hell of a creative motor. Also, if you have the imagination to believe in God, there is no limit to what you can imagine.

why are catholic girls so /lit/?

>>9822175
Austen
Wolfe
Wharton
Eliot
Plath
Atwood
Shelley
Bronte
Bronte
Stein
Didion

Yes women can write. Don't be such a sexist. Just asking that question is insulting.

>>9824293
lack of sex gets your smarts going because the brain must distract itself from its desire to fuck somehow

ask Tesla

>>9824298
11 women against, how many men in literature? those women are a fluke, not evidence

>>9824086
>Would the human literary tradition be significantly poorer if there had never been a woman author?
Japanese literature would be far poorer. Female poets are represented in the very first extant collection of poetry we have from Japan,
around a third to half of poems compiled by the Japanese court during the Heian were authored by women, the monotagari novels are written almost entirely by women, and the Nikki form tends to be written by women.

>>9824097
>Thinks the name of a book is the authors name
>doesn't know one of Japan's most famous writers
>a writer universally acknowledged as being one of the best writers of the country
>being this much of a pleb

>>9824380
>11 women against, how many men in literature?
Well if you look into Japanese literary history you will find a good couple of hundred people to ad to that list.

>>9824441
>a good couple of hundred
Great, that would mean that there's 1 good female writer for every, oh, 15 male writers or so

i like Ursula Leguin, Margaret Atwood and Octavia Butler a whole lot

>>9824452
Stop moving the goal posts. OP asked if women can write. The answer to that question is not tied to to the ratio of female to male writers.

>>9824475
Monkeys can also write. If someone says "can women write?" the proper answer is not to mention that flukes exist. Otherwise the question is pointless. Dogs can write.

Also, what >>9824122 said.

Crows can write.

>>9824484
>Monkeys can also write
No they can't. Show me the great works of monkey literature. inb4 posts a black guy

>the proper answer is not to mention that flukes exist
The question was never about quantity. The question is merely can women write. Listing notable female authors literally answers the question in the affirmative.
I also pointed out that women are extremely important and highly represented in Japanese literature, that can't be dismissed as a fluke. So even by your own standards the question was answered in the affirmative.

>>9824531
>Show me the great works
Don't move the goalposts. The question is merely can monkeys write, not "can they write good stories"

>>9824298
Kill yourself. Gertrude Stein and Sylvia Plath are fucking awful, and Mary Shelley is painfully mediocre. Atwood is a joke.

>>9824558
Show me any works.

>>9824122
Woolf's books are very feminine though, which is why her male characters are so annoying to read: they all act like faggot pansies.

File: 4858aae3c913bcc53d088df33277535b[1].jpg (53KB, 600x399px)

53KB, 600x399px

>is she /ourguy/?

>>9824570
Plath and Shelley are good. Better than Hughes and Shelley any day. The other two though yes, you're right.

>>9824572
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FVjLobXY9Og

>>9822175
Of course, but the example in your picture may not be the best one. For great contemporary examples, check out Yoko Tawada (When Europe Begins), Can Xue (Vertical Motion), Olga Tokarczuk (Primeval and Other Times), and Magdalena Tulli (In Red). Not to mention all the classic writers like Austen, Wolfe, Eliot, Murasaki, etc.

Only a very few. Societally, its better for women to stay home and raise kids rather than what they do now (ie pretending to pursue careers and being cheating whores)

The good female writers are:

Sappho
[2400 year gap here]
Jane Austen
George Eliot
Elizabeth Barrett Browning
Emily Dickinson
Edith Wharton
Virginia Woolf
Louise Bogan

As you can see, female writers became more prominent as the traditional family started disintegrating. Ideally, we would not have any female writers at all.

>>9824605
>[2400 year gap here]
lel

>>9824298
>>9824605
That's an interesting lack of Lispector you've got there, buddy

>>9824590
I stand corrected.