Why are females so much better at fiction than men, Veeky Forums?

why are females so much better at fiction than men, Veeky Forums?
they produced the best 18th century novelist novelist (Austen), the best short story writer (Munro), the best modernist (Woolf), and the best postmodernist (Lessing).
How can one gender be so utterly based?

Go back to /r9k/, you ressentiment-fueled piece of shit

Austen was 19th century

>Austen
Yeah, nah

Yeah, this is how you know the OP is a frogman

...

:^)

>Austen
Nah.
>George Eliot
Yes.

Even though this is a bait thread it is worth pointing out that some of lit just don't read books by women enough, and they're missing out.

>He doesn't even mention O'Connor

>tfw seeing a complete shit melodramatic book get tons of awards
>tfw reading reviews of some of the few people who hated it
>they correctly state that the book would have been ignored if a woman's name were on the title

not even memeing: it really made me think.

Men don't have time to read and write, they are too busy building the modern world. The male and female brain is different though and reading is the female haven. I am talking about a certain female privilege seeing as how there are no great, and no terrible women, so any mediocre piece of shit they can come up will be inherently accessible to every other woman, whereas men have to work three times as hard to achieve the same level of connection.

>best short story writer
>Munro
One of actual greatest short story writers was a woman, and you choose Munro? Also picking Austen over George Eliot? What are you doing?

OP is an /r9k/ retard who thought he could get an anti-women circle jerk by posting bait that could rile the frog men

>muh o'connor

O'Connor is one of the greatest short story writers of our time. Do you not think so?

>best modernist

Didn't woolf admit in her own diaries that Joyce was doing it better? Also, Mrs. Dalloway was a watery-thin hollow imitation of Ulysses.

You forgot about this one, didn't you?

I think men are too robotic, too lacking in compassion to be good writers. I mean read one if you like autistic lists of trivial information about medieval monasteries or Flemish painters or rocket science but that kind of thing quickly loses its charm.
True there are some male writers like George Eliot who somehow manage to have compassion despite their chromosome deficiency but men like him are rare amongst the inhuman robots

Your saying men don't have compassion, which is why man books are inferior to compassionate woman books.

Because a good book is one that is compassionate.

Men are not human, they are robots. They need women to provide them with humanity via books.

I agree.

irony, nigga

>Munro

So sick of this bitch as a Canadian.

Never understood why she gets any credit besides the fact most short story writers are shit and she's maybe passable.

Extremely underrated post

it is interesting since every other art form I would say women are shit but in books its their home base so it is not as clear.

Well your sort of right,

maybe what makes the great male author's so good,

is

that

they

Film: Huge production companies involving hundreds of people per film, unless you go lol indie
Music: (formerly) Huge music companies involving tens of people per song, plus band members, and women were prevented from being composers before music was industrialized
Visual arts: Huge ateliers funded by conservative wealthy patrons who would be ostracized by the Pope if they so much as looked at a female unchristianly
Theater: Women literally banned from the stage until the 17th century

Books: Paper+pen, and publishers STILL preferred women to write under male pseudonyms until the 1800s

Once you realize that the history of art is either male buttbuddies giving the reacharound to other male buttbuddies or just plain capitalism in action, then you'll realize why there don't appear to be many women "greats."

>doesn't mention Emily Bronte

worst bronte tho

dude wut george eliot was a lady

You mean best.

>the joke
>your head

Jane Austen is legitimately elite, though.

>Mrs. Dalloway was a watery-thin hollow imitation of Ulysses.
I kinda get this comparison, but that's just lazy thinking. I honestly prefer Mrs. Dalloway.
Ulysses is a masterpiece of prose, experimental narrative, allusory themes, and characterization, but it's definitely a flamboyant rigamarole and that takes away from it's effectiveness as a novel.
Mrs. Dalloway's insight to the human soul, psychological examination, and existential themes cut deeper and with more precision. Woolf knows where and when to stop, Joyce gets overwrought to milk those last "lookit my pretty prose" points so much that it can alienate the reader

>George Eliot over Austen

pedestrian taste

>writers name is George
>it's a lady

Sure, user.
Sure.

#
>>Books: Paper+pen, and publishers STILL preferred women to write under male pseudonyms until the 1800s
women had their intimate journals where they write how hard it is to be provided for life while having no orgasms

CHecked

>All these people responding to the "content" of this post
> :^)

sage