crime fiction

>the most important novel of 20XX

>If you only read one book make it this one

What do I look like? Some sort of peasant who only reads 1 book a lifetime?

>Madame Bovary is the French writer Gustave Flaubert's debut novel. The story focuses on a doctor's wife, Emma Bovary, who has adulterous affairs and lives beyond her means in order to escape the banalities and emptiness of provincial life.

Please tell me why reading about some dumb over-privileged slut is supposed to change my mind? Do you have any objections to anything specific I mentioned?

>What do I look like? Some sort of peasant who only reads 1 book a lifetime?
They're marketing to turbo-casuals who very rarely read. They do it because very few people read, and so books are made at a pre-school reading level as to appeal to non-readers. People like you who might consider yourselves pro-readers are less likely to care for pleb books, and are likely to create books that only other pro-readers would enjoy thus a product very hard to sell.

t. a pleb who loves hanging out in Barnes and Nobles.

All of this

Ots more of a video games thing. In vidya its common that a games story will be more about political correctness than having a fucking narrative.

Game stories are often far longer then Movies.

Metal Gear Solid is a good exception to this.

Though I don't play too many games so maybe this is the rule more then the exception. The Metroid franchise would pretty much prove your point.

Especially since Other M was the first game to really show Samus' behavior in cutscenes and everyone was so upset that their favorite woman... acted like a woman. They found it so sickeningly insulting that they thought it ruined the whole franchise.

>Please tell me why reading about some dumb over-privileged slut is supposed to change my mind?
Wow. Just wow. I think you need to take a good clean look at yourself. You can't continue life being this close-minded.

>Do you have any objections to anything specific I mentioned?
No, I don't think I'll dignify all your foolishness with a response.

>looking up madame bovary on wikipedia
>being this pleb

>replies to highly developed argument with "READ THIS BOOK."
I ask "why this book", and even look up the book to try and figure out "why this book"
>mocked for looking up the book at all.

Veeky Forums is to the point where it won't even read a character with a woman protagonist. I just don't believe this board at some points.

You think that's subtle but it just is more evidence this board is dead and high school outcasts, mentally ill adults or otherwise, and political opportunists with an agenda, have long replaced its populace. This is slowly the fate of all boards.

Everyone else has long just evacuated to other websites where the people that used to post here, with actual purpose, adopt the view points you hate.

From me to you, change your views before you become an actual adult.

you're being mocked for making arrogant pronouncements about literature when you haven't even heard of the most famous french novel of the 19th century

>A woman can easily find men who are willing to help her, because she can tempt them with sexual favors and she doesn't have to deliver (at least in polite societies)
>tfw when I'm a man and I do this

Anyone who hates women is stupid, and probably frustrated at their own lack of success with women.

Refusing to read a book with woman in it, CAN be an indicator of pettiness from this simple person, but it makes sense.

Either a novel with a woman protagonist will be written with respect to how different women are from men, and will probably less relatable to normal straight men.

Or the novel will be written by a naive egalitarian who writes women the same as men, which is insulting to both genders.

It makes sense that black shows like Martin or Blackish primarily appeal to black viewers. BET exists to please black people and it makes sense, because black people aren't as prominent in Hollywood films and famous TV shows as white men.

I realize I'm making broad statements, and I might seem a bit condescending. In return you also reply with a post making broad statements about the current nature of Veeky Forums, and the condescending remark to "change your views before you become an actual adult" but that presupposes that I've had these beliefs all my life.

In civilized society we are raised to hate racism, without even understanding what that word means. It means 3 different things.
1. Acknowledging different races behave differently
2. Liking your own race
3. Hating other races
Now if we were all taught to hate hatred specifically, but still have our own pride and acknowledge our differences, that would be better than creating broad range of badthink like we do now.

>Either a novel with a woman protagonist will be written with respect to how different women are from men, and will probably less relatable to normal straight men.

So basically if it's outside your comfort zone you won't read it because you're a fucking pussy? Is this your argument? That men shouldn't read protagonists who are women? What the fuck kind of backwards modes of thought brought you to have fondness for reading in the first place?

>So basically if it's outside your comfort zone you won't read it because you're a fucking pussy? Is this your argument?
This is my argument for the people who refuse to read books with women in them.
I personally don't refuse this, but I understand it.

>all that "fuck"
Calm down. I like reading because I like understanding people. This is why women tend to love books, because they're so good at understanding people INTUITIVELY. KNOWLEDGE is overrated. UNDERSTANDING is far more important, but usually arises from KNOWING certain facts (the smallest most petty units of information).

Consider this:
What is 5432 * 4321 = ?
a) 5433 b) 424 c) 231 d) 2341672

Now KNOWING is if you see the answer key tells you it's d), but UNDERSTANDING is the ability to write the problem down and work it out, where INTUITION tells you that the last answer "feels right" because the other numbers seem too small.

Academics spend so much like learning facts (which can be described as the smallest most petty units of information). And be learning fact after fact after fact, they INTUITIVELY expect that learning will lead to them being SMARTER but smartness doesn't really exist. People are either skilled in a specific area, or skilled in another specific area. You can't really objectively measure these things. (cont'd)

This is where the angry nerds of /r9k/ that you hate so much, (and with good reason) come into play. Nerds are people who KNOW alot about how computers work, and if they write code they can even build some WISDOM on how to develop programs and how programs are often developed. But they usually don't have developed people skills, and since they KNOW so many things normies don't KNOW, they think of normies as inferior, which is not necessarily untrue, but it's a limiting world view if left at that.

Spoken like a true woman.

>different races behave differently
Perhaps you would think this if you haven't gotten to know people of each race. I understand it's easy to say stuff like this on an anonymous forum but seriously, how inexperienced are you? Anyone with any maturity whatsoever knows that making generalizations and assumptions about types of people is unwise.

Your whole argument is built on the stupid assumption that one is supposed to "relate" to the characters in a book.

Now the two ways we come to information is >through specifically KNOWING a thing, or
>through having an UNDERSTANDING to figure out information we don't KNOW yet or
>by feeling it through our INTUITION.

This is why we can sometimes sense when we shouldn't trust someone. They'll usually act in ways that a trustworthy person wouldn't act, or do things that trustworthy people wouldn't do. We don't understand these things, but we'll find them weird, and it will bother us instinctively.

I'm going to take a guess and say you never read Oliver Twist.
Oliver Twist is a story written in the 3rd person, and it spends a lot of time talking about why Jews are evil and vile and untrustworthy. This isn't characters talking. It's the literal narrator which implies (or atleast seems to imply) that Charles Dickens actually feels this way about Jews.

Personally I don't hate Jews. They're essentially a race of nerds who look like everyone else, whereas asians are a race of nerds that look exactly like themselves.

Jews often feel alienated by society and are attracted to causes that are against society. This is why they can help causes like Socialism usually started by weak-minded gentiles, and help them get their work together. Jews are naturally very smart and hard-working people, so they can help any project. This is why despite being 2.6% of the population they are so prominent in Hollywood and all professional fields in America.

>This isn't characters talking. It's the literal narrator which implies (or atleast seems to imply) that Charles Dickens actually feels this way about Jews.

>never heard of free indirect discourse

>Anyone with any maturity whatsoever knows that making generalizations and assumptions about types of people is unwise.
Generalizations are good mental shortcuts for figuring things out. If you take a generalization as an irrefutable dogma, then you will be blinded by that dogma to be unable to make wise judgements. There are exceptions to every rule ever written, but the old saying "Not All [X] Are Like That" I think, has been said enough times that we get the point. Not all, but many.

>Your whole argument is built on the stupid assumption that one is supposed to "relate" to the characters in a book.
You don't have to relate to characters in a book, and I think it's smart to actively look for books about people so different from you that it's a challenge to relate to them because by forcing yourself to understand their point of view, you will learn more about different people.

It _IS_ less comfy though, so I'm pointing why other people don't do it. I personally enjoy "We Need To Talk About Kevin", but I don't normally SEEK OUT woman-books with the same zeal that perhaps I should.

>>never heard of free indirect discourse
Is this the idea that the narrator is explaining character's thought processes? This might be the case. It's been awhile since I read the book. Have you read the book, and is that your opinion?

>Anyone with any maturity whatsoever knows that making generalizations and assumptions about types of people is unwise.
That entire sentence is literally a generalization.
In fact that sentence is worse then a generalization because it's an absolute statement.

No, I'm only taking issue with your idea that the opinions of the "literal narrator" = the opinions of the author.

Isn't Madame Bovary a deconstruction of the Romance Novels?

>a pleb who loves hanging out in barnes and nobles

Do you ever just watch people move about the store and try to guess what book they're going to buy

Okay, well The Jew in Oliver Twist behaves very dishonestly, so with the context I think Charles Dickens is an anti-semite, which was far more common back those days before political correctness.

If you see jews doing things that are bad for other people and you have no explanation for their behavior, hatred seems logical, but it falls short of an actual understand of the problem and reaching a real solution to conflict. Hatred is such a petty emotion and we intuitively know this. This is what led Ernest Hemmingway to writing one of his first novels about a Jewish athlete. Good stories tend to have sympathetic underdogs, and Jews who feel alienated and unappreciated for their intelligence that often DOES benefit society at large, they make great underdogs.

Whats the problem with YA? Youths don't have the right to read?

>Do you ever just watch people move about the store and try to guess what book they're going to buy
No. I will do this from now on, though. Atleast if I can do so without looking creepy by looking at others.

ok, you're a decent troll, i'll give you that

>Crime Fiction

Read some James Lee Burke you yankee faggot.

>implying a generalization about people who generalize negates itself.
Protip: it doesn't.

>generalizations are good mental shortcuts for figuring things out.
>mental shortcuts
Wew lad

The problem about YA is that it's shit made to pander to the lowest common denominators. Young adults before the latter half of the 20th century didn't go to the store to buy the newest John Green novel: they would have likely picked up something akin to lovecraft, or an older classic, depending on how devoted they were to reading.

>But at least they're reading something! If not for garbage like YA then they would not read at all

Well yes, maybe, but they may as well read nothing at all if they're reading shitty YA, because it has no literary merit.

I'm not trolling. I realize these are unconventional ideas, but they're not wrong.
Do you not believe Jews are smart? They are! And they will tell you this.
youtube.com/watch?v=yfN2IvnIA4M
That is a video explaining the great achievements of the brilliant Jewish nerd race. A race that unlike other races doesn't tend to engage in manual labor, but relies on other races to do manual labor for them. This is how they've survived for millenia despite being such a small minority globally.

That video was on PragerU an excellent Jewish Youtube channel espousing the merits of political conservatism, but with a noticable bias infavor of jews. There's nothing wrong with this, but they will avoid fact that mean-spirted jew-haters will zero in on.

youtube.com/watch?v=ruQ7V6LkaMQ

That video approaches objectivity and tries to be nice at the end, but other videos by that woman show that she does feel a bit of disgust for jews.

The reason you THINK I am a troll, is because these ideas are SO DIFFERENT from society tells us.
"Conspiracy Theorist" I hear you say, but no, it's no conspiracy. It's just that these truths taken to certain extremes and without the appropriate care can be dangerous and scary to people. KNOWLEDGE without WISDOM is dangerous especially when it leads to hateful win/lose solutions instead of peaceful win/win solutions, though sometimes win/lose might be the best, and self-interest will have to prevail, sometimes we can do better.

And what about Ideas that go against your Viewpoint

...

You're right. He was taking the cheap-jab route of a "gotcha!" response. That's why I went the long route of defending generalizations rather then discrediting the generalization I was presented with on it's own terms.

Is that all you got? This seems like a cheap-jab, but yes, we use mental shortcuts all the time.
Abstraction is one of the most important concepts in learning things, because it helps us compound what we learn.
I already explained how you can use mental-shortcut to solve
>What is 5432 * 4321 = ?
>a) 5433 b) 424 c) 231 d) 2341672
with the mental shortcut called INTUITION.

can you write like a normal human being

>Anything that goes against my specific idea is because of the jews.

So do you just blame everything on the Jews and shrink away from taking any responsibility from your own actions?

I don't think that's what he meant by mental shortcuts, I think he meant "grass is always green, water is always blue, Jews are always nerds"

do you know how to read?

>I don't like it so they might as well not read it at all
Holy fuck that's like saying someone who listens to radio pop music and enjoys it might as well not be listening to music at all because they aren't listening to experiemental pretentious bullshit

I wrote several paragraphs explaining my reasoning, and because that reasoning made you uncomfortable, you responded with a meme.
>Well I didn't dignify you with a response
But you just did, so that cop-out doesn't work.
>Well, it's just so stupid I don't know where to even begin.
Focus on any one single preposterous thing I said, and debunk it. If you can do that, you will make me look like an idiot, and prevent my dangerous stupidity from infecting others, because I guarantee I'm not alone in these thoughts.

>And what about Ideas that go against your Viewpoint
This is why I love hanging around socialist and communist boards. Socialists hate mainstream politics, and despise liberals for not being harder-leftists.
youtube.com/watch?v=G0pB8-M1wD8
Socialists are always looking for the holes in the flawed capitalist system, and trying (though often failing) to propose better alternatives. They have to be smart because it takes alot of brainpower to notice that every socialist country is shit and rectify that contradiction by still believing in socialism.
youtube.com/watch?v=hbDuogV1Ono
I don't expect you to watch that whole video, but its literally one socialist dedicating nearly one-hour to refuting another socialist. Socialists are great debaters, and I respect them, without agreeing with them most of the time. They usually reject identity politics which essentially means they reject certain key-points to reality.

>I don't think that's what he meant by mental shortcuts, I think he meant "grass is always green, water is always blue, Jews are always nerds"
>always
Grass can get yellow.
dirty water can become green.
Jews raised with an emphasis away from "nerdy" pursuits will cease to be nerdy, but they are such an insular people that deliberately close themselves off from other people that their survival has largely depended on traits of nerdiness. Ofcourse Not All Jews Are Like That.

>cites videos
>thinks I have time to read his garrulous posts and watch whatever that shit is
>thinks rebutting with memes isn't valid
It appears there have been a few gaps in your education

I don't know.
Can you tell me the problem you have with my writing?

Where did you learn all this nonsense about Jewry?

>I don't have time to read your bad argument because I already know that you're wrong.
I hope you realize this is the height of arrogance.

you write like an autist

look at me, I'm a retarded namefag because I'm too stupid to figure out tripcodes

The only safe generalization is that cunts like you who generalize to this extent actually know fuck all. Arrogance? Is being able to sniff out your intellectual laziness arrogance?

>Where did you learn all this nonsense about Jewry?
From an excellent book called "Culture of Critique" by Kevin MacDonald.
Kevin was sociologist who was so fascinated by the jews, and for his book he read many many triumphalist jewish books written BY Jews FOR Jews ABOUT Jews, and that is how he got his information.
If you want hear Jews talk about how awesome Jews are, I suggest reading jewish newssources like forward.com or haaretz.com.
If you're really curious, you might consider installing this browser extension:
bit.no.com:43110/1As8nyiVibNzfjLiS1eCinYia2dK2ZgHiz
It's called the Coincidence Detector. It's a list of about ten thousand names. Not quite the 8 million estimated to live in America:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews
But still fascinating how often the brilliant people from this race pop up in all areas of professional society and pop culture. We don't see too many other areas of our lives filled with Asians or Black people, and we would notice right away, but jews look almost like everyone else, so we miss them alot.

i got this name from a meme on /s4s/ where trips arent really necessary and im too lazy/crossposting constantly from that board to remove it

>The only safe generalization is that cunts like you who generalize to this extent actually know fuck all.
Why is this the only safe generalization?
Why are you so angry? If what I'm writing is stupid, it should be easy to point out why I'm being stupid, and I'm not a hateful man.

Literally do-able with anything
> some pleb frog sniffs a cake and spergs out for thousands of pages, gimme a break

>you write like an autist
I write in analytical way which is appropriate because I'm proposing my analysis.
I doubt you could even explain in words why my writing is "like an autist". It's just something you feel. It's INTUITION and you're not wrong, but that's not argument, so neither am I.

why doesn't anyone know how to read?

his generalization is that Jews are smart and 'nerdy' people (a word i wouldn't use myself, but whatever ). This can largely be attributed to culture, and to a smaller extent, genetics. using a generalization like this explains why fields like medicine and other 'nerdy' pursuits have more Jews than population percentage.

that's it, that's all he said about Jews. all of that also happens to be true. he's not arguing for or against Jews, he's literally just dispensing information.

and on generalizations, they're helpful for situations like what I just explained, not for individual people. if you meet someone with a big nose and think, 'Oh, this guy's smart and greedy,' that is categorically, demonstrably wrong. this misunderstanding by the general population of what generalizations are useful for is infuriating.

jesus FUCK stupid people irritate me. go back to fucking /r9k/ or wherever you came from and stay there.

>jesus FUCK stupid people irritate me. go back to fucking /r9k/ or wherever you came from and stay there.
I hope you realize this is exactly what they're going to tell us.

capitalizing words to emphasize them looks hideous fyi

I thought about that, but I'm really trying to drill the subtle but important difference between knowledge, wisdom, and intuition in these posts, and Veeky Forums doesn't a [bold] tags.

then stop posting

OR actually take the time to read and comprehend what someone posts before you spout a meme and sit back in naive satisfaction thinking you've said something smart.

It's just a thing. Some of my Black middle class friends basically just act like middle class people becuase that's there culture but some Black people I know act like the Black people they hand round with in an area that's mostly Black.

Race probably doesn't genetically determine behaviour too much, but culture does, and one often follows the other.

*their and commas n shit
> u know wat I mean

>why doesn't anyone know how to read?
Because these ideas explain racism on an intellectual level, which we're taught in civilized societies to dislike. When racism leads to violence and hatred, the discomfort we feel at an explanation of the actions of a monster that we've already dehumanized seems to justify him, and this can often be unbearable. It do find it tiring that they lack any counter-argument beyond calling me a sperg and an autist.

Except that's not what I said at all. I never said that they shouldn't read things that I don't like. There are plenty of books I don't like, which I at least appreciate as good literature. The point was that most YA books have no merit--as in, it's akin to reading a story that timmy scribbled in his notebook one afternoon in art class; maybe the story is good, maybe it's enjoyable to read to some, but that doesn't mean that it's worth reading: the reader doesn't take anything away from the experience.

>Well yes, maybe, but they may as well read nothing at all if they're reading shitty YA, because it has no literary merit.
I'll agree that any product made with the intention of being sold probably has LESS literary merit then something made with the intention of conveying emotion, but are you sure that they have ZERO literary merit?

Isn't it possible that YA fictional can be the babby-tier training wheels that get the intellectually weak to exercise their brains so that they can move on to real books?

The problem with YA fiction is the problem with all genre-fiction, in that art should be made with a message, and the genre classification should come later. genre-fiction is made by looking at the tropes of a genre, and pandering to audiences who like that genre.

I believe artistic merit CAN come from this, but it's not the priority, and I think this is what upsets you, but then are you also upset about the decline of Hollywood movies? There are only so many that can be expressed within a 2-hour window and Hollywood is running out of them. Where television is becoming far more intellectually stimulating, because there are many stories that can be told if only given more time to tell them, such as Breaking Bad, Mad Men, House of Cards, Mr Robot and Death Note.
I know it's cool to hate popular things, so feel free to dismiss this entire post because one of my shows is a meme that's cool to hate.

>Good stories tend to have sympathetic underdogs
jesus fucking christ

>Isn't in possible that Ya-fictional can be the babby-tier training wheels that gets the intellectually weak to exercise their brains so that they can move on to real books?

Well, yes, in theory you're right. But, in practice, it's the exact opposite. Nothing in the books in question exercises the brains of the intellectually weak, that's the entire issue: it, rather, placates them in their mediocrity: nothing challenges them in the text, so they're not prompted to go further and become better at reading: they just become trained to read more YA: they becoming comfortable reading them, and don't find any reason to read anything but, as there's an ever expanding abundance of shitty YA.

I don't really watch movies, so I can't comment on that. Though, I agree that there are some pretty good television shows--even though I don't watch much of those, either, though I did watch House of Cards recently, and found it to be good.

Holy shit you read like an ungodly mixture of Cracked, /pol/ and that kind of dude who always thinks his politeness and formality will make his shit argumment stand out in a group.

Well that might be the case, but do you actually have a counter argument? If the answer is no, then you should consider why.

What is wrong with what I said?

>another competitive autism thread

>I can't keep with the intellectual discussion, so I'm going to label it all as "autism" and act like I'm above it all, because I'm a dumb /s4s/ tripfag.

I think the interesting thing about women is that they are given two options when it comes to how they choose to live. The first is to be an autonomous person, not tied to a man by marriage. If they choose this path, they can make their own decisions, but they are also at risk of sexual violence or other punishments for exercising female autonomy. The other option is to give up their status as an autonomous human being by entering a traditional marriage, where they have the total protection of the husband but also lose their freedom. Men, meanwhile, are fundamentally free, but their risk of punishment for their freedom is far lower. Men are unlikely to be the victims of sexual violence and can more easily defend themselves against physical assault. This is why it may appear that women have it easier - the ones who take the option of rejecting autonomy will have very safe lives, safer even than those of men. However, the woman who chooses to be independent is living a life fraught with danger.

>This is why it may appear that women have it easier - the ones who take the option of rejecting autonomy will have very safe lives, safer even than those of men. However, the woman who chooses to be independent is living a life fraught with danger.

Pretty much. Women have the option of a giant safety net better then any man could ever dream of, but once they step out of that safety net, the danger they face is amplified.

Fortunately in the 21st century we abhor any violence against anyone, most especially women, so even when this does happen, it's taken very seriously. Japan has special "woman only" trains, but no "man only" trains. MRA's could raise a big stink about how this puts men below women, but really it just acknowledges the reality that women are biologically weaker.

So what's better? Being a man or being woman? It depends on which role you find more rewarding. For some reason there is a meme that's been going around since the 1960's that motherhood isn't and shouldn't be rewarding enough for women, and in order for women to be truly liberated they need to be equally represented in men's fields.

The problem is that these fields are for men because they're sexist in favor of men, but because men are generally* better at these jobs then women generally* are.

Some people take this to mean that men are just all around better then women, which is a mistake. Women are intuitively more social-minded, and can read emotions better then men.

if you want to berate women please take it to /r9k/
ive had a bad day as it is

>generally
*There are exceptions to every rule, & always remember NA[X]ALT
Not All [Women or Men] Are Like That

Now I'm just guessing, but based on what you've written you seem to be a feminist. Most normies dismiss feminists as stupid people making a big deal over nothing, but I disagree. I think feminists are like socialists. They're both very smart critics
Socialists recognize problems in capitalism and try to reform those problems but they don't really have a good system to replace it with. Check wikipedia for "socialism" and it's called a "range" of ideas, rather then a specific idea.
>Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production
Keyword "RANGE of .. systems"
Feminism is the same. It's a RANGE of ideas that criticize the flawed patriarchy.

It's wrong to berate women for being women. They should be treated as women, and if they have what it takes to take over for male roles then they should be allowed to do so, but this should not be encouraged over the more important role of mothering and raising new generations of children. This idea that women are not as good as men at... being men is true, but it's defeatist. Men are also not very good at being women. Gay men are hyper-promiscuous and have a high AIDS rate from their orgy parties. Gay men in relationships have sex several times a week. Lesbians about once a month. Who's sexually healthier? Women.

Another similarity between feminists and socialists is that all feminists are critical of the flawed patriarchy, just as all socialists are critical of flawed capitalism.

All [feminists|Socialists] believe the [patriarchy|capitalism] needs to be reformed or torn down, but disagree on exactly how.

One group of very smart feminists are the Gender-Critical Feminists called TERFs by other feminists who hate them. GC-fems disagree with the notion that people should try to alter their sexual organs to fit their gender role. They believe natural bodies should be kept in a healthy normal state, while the personality is allowed to develop under either gender, without the need for a biological alteration.

As for socialists, George Orwell one of the greatest American authors was a socialist who hated Soviet Russia and wrote often about how much they were getting their brand of socialism wrong. And this video:
youtube.com/watch?v=hbDuogV1Ono
is a nearly hour-long refutation of a socialist by... you guessed it! Another socialist.
Check out /leftypol/ sometime. It's a great place of political idealists who hate mainstream politics. I, personally, find mainstream politics limiting, and greatly appreciate their outside-the-box perspective on us "proles" and "petty bourgeois" because it's not a carefully constructed lie designed to further a mainstream narrative. it's a relatively mistake that's built upon many greater truths that most normies refuse to acknowledge.

Who are you preaching to?

You are confused. At first it seemed like I was preaching to normies that women are not as good as men, when originally I was just stating that men and women are different and good at different things. This sparked anger amongst offended women, and one poster (who I think is a feminist woman): pointed out the problems with being a woman and the problems women face that men don't have to deal with.
Since as a patriarchist, I believe the patriarchy is good and right, I explained that she was right, and took her own logic further and explained not only how right she is, but the ramifications of her position being right and used that to circle back to my argument that the normal modern-day patriarchy society we live in, is good and just. Because men are best in the world at being men, and women are best in the world at being women. And you can't have a good world without women, or the strengths inherent in women.

The fact that you don't know WHO I'm preaching to is, probably because you expect me to be a woman-hating manbabby MRA dumby, because you've likely had to deal with these dumbies yourself.

I am trying to bridge the gap between our ideologies, show you we are not so different, and that perhaps you would come to accept and embrace the patriarchy.

If you feel like there are other problems I haven't touched on, I would be delighted to discuss them.

Would you read a murder mystery written from the perspective of a reclusive werewolf who was cursed by a god nine years prior and can't turn back to a human and as a result has no single line of dialogue or inner monologue for the entire text?

I mean, it is meant for a YA audience, and it's murder mystery. But.

>Would you read
No. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't write it, if you feel a passion to write.
Don't let money-making be your motivator for writing books because book-writing is NOT a meritocracy and you will likely be broke even if your books are high-skill and acquire a niche audience.

The fact is most normies don't read, so to make money off of books, you need to profit from the subset of normies who DO read, which is women, who like romance novels or female-centered stories such as:
Twilight, 50 Shades of Grey, Hunger Games. Can you think of any other books written in the past 5 years that have become movies so quickly after having been authored?
"Diary of a Wimpy Kid" is a boy-book that has to trick you into reading it by employing pictures. This isn't because the content doesn't stand on it's own merit without the pictures, but because young boy's attention spans aren't gratified by reading mere words, and they need a reward of a cartoon picture at regular intervals.

Well, I'm rubbish at writing romance unless it's the gayest shit this side of the rainbow.

Guess I'll never succeed, huh?

>gay shit
That's a profitable niche.

Why are you so quick to be self-defeating? Do you actually LIKE writing? If not, then you shouldn't touch the industry. If so, then you should participate in the industry regardless, because publishing a book that has little financial success will never look bad on your record since most books never have financial success. It will make you look smarter for having written a book.

But you seem like the self-defeatist personality always looking for problems but not quite good at finding solutions, but you're not even very good at finding the problems either, so you wouldn't make a very good socialist or feminist. You need to be faster at identifying the problems that are facing you, and THEN finding their solutions. This is how you be a success.

My family's real conservative, right, and they always want to read what I've written. I'm to nice to tell them to fuck off because they're putting a roof over my head when they don't have to. I could still be hanging out at the psych ward.

Actually, I could write about a psychiatric ward maybe, but psych wards are really fucking mundane like 99% of the time so I'm not sure how a novel in that sort of setting would turn out.

Would you read about a psych ward?

>Would you read about a psych ward?
Hells yeah.
but you're still asking the wrong question by looking for other people's approval for your idea before you develop it. Whatever. This is definitely something I can help you with, so let's keep going with this.

Ah. It's a grim topic and some days I am depressed thinking about it. I could write about it, and it would simultaneously be a very easy and very difficult write.

I can never make up my mind whether to start or not.