[Germanicus]

Agree with the general assessment of female writing being poor.

Every now and then a woman does manage to put pen to paper and produce something worthwhile. Jane Austen is worth reading both for an insight into 19th century English culture and for some nuggets of red pill truth. Someone else said Margaret Mitchell. Same deal there. Dorothy L. Sayers used to write detective fiction in the 1930's but I haven't read any of that. I know her best from translating Dante into English for Penguin Classics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_L._Sayers

It's not writing but the Teaching Company puts out enjoyable lectures on ancient Greek culture by Professor Elisabeth Vandiver. She's an excellent lecturer and really knows her subject matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Vandiver

Someone mentioned To Kill a Mockingbird as red pill. I disagree. While it's about a hysterical woman falsely accusing a man of rape it's also one of those The White Man is Evil message books written by a crypto-Marxist. Like a modern SJW, Harper Lee was only concerned with the problem of rape accusations when it wasn't a white man being accused.

And Ayn Rand....I have nothing but contempt for that bitch. Anthem and The Fountainhead are actually decent books. Atlas Shrugged has some interesting things about it, but it's a terrible novel. Pedantic, preachy, over-written.

Her non-fiction is somewhat the same-- one or two interesting things buried in a pile of crap. Objectivism is ridiculous garbage for young people who have never read anything substantial. Whatever good points her essays and non-fiction bring up you can find the better written originals in Nietzsche and Aristotle.

Rand was red-pill! is what a lot of people say...kind of, in that her life is a textbook case of a woman ruled by her hamster and her emotions.

[Prince of Persia]

I don't know if she's been mentioned yet, but Ann Coulter is phenomenal. Would highly recommend:

-If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans
-Demonic
-High Crimes and Misdemeanors
-How To Talk To A Liberal (If You Must)

Her writing is hilarious and incredibly witty.

[RexImperator]

Anyone read Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel? That's supposed to be good.

Kind of related to this thread: I actually thought Evelyn Waugh was a woman for the longest time...

[bucky]

(01-29-2016 04:59 PM)El Chinito loco Wrote:  

(01-27-2016 07:42 AM)Teedub Wrote:  

(01-26-2016 09:54 PM)TigerMandingo Wrote:  

There a couple of good non-fiction writers, namely Doris Kearns Goodwin and Barbara Tuchman.

J.K. Rowling probably is the greatest female novelist ever. Whatever you may think of Harry Potter, those books are superbly written.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one. She's a great storyteller, but I wouldn't say the books are particularly well written. Not that they're badly written or anything. Just my opinion though.

Her writing is pretty basic but what she's good at is children's dialogue and envisioning the world she created. I have to agree she's a literary lightweight though. She's definitely no Tolkien.

Everytime I read Tolkien it's obvious that it's the work of a genius. The complexity is something that really influenced writing itself.

With Rowling I get the sense she's someone who has a good literary mind for writing for kids but she probably pushes her abilities to the limit to put pen to paper.

i've asked harry potter fans what they think of tolkien, and more than once i've gotten the reply that they don't like him because he "uses big words and is hard to read." these are native english speakers, mind you, and it's discouraged me from trying rowling's stuff. that, and my inherent elitism. i tend to assume that they more popular something is with the masses, the more likely it is to suck.

[bucky]

(02-07-2016 11:51 AM)Germanicus Wrote:  

And Ayn Rand....I have nothing but contempt for that bitch. Anthem and The Fountainhead are actually decent books. Atlas Shrugged has some interesting things about it, but it's a terrible novel. Pedantic, preachy, over-written.

Her non-fiction is somewhat the same-- one or two interesting things buried in a pile of crap. Objectivism is ridiculous garbage for young people who have never read anything substantial. Whatever good points her essays and non-fiction bring up you can find the better written originals in Nietzsche and Aristotle.

Rand was red-pill! is what a lot of people say...kind of, in that her life is a textbook case of a woman ruled by her hamster and her emotions.

i get not liking her two famous novels. i liked them but can't really argue with your assessment of "pedantic, preachy, over-written." the characters certainly aren't believable as real people. never tried her non-fiction because i reckoned i got her philosophy from reading "atlas shrugged."

i actually think her best work is "we the living." not sure why it's not better known. it's much more a conventional novel, with characters who seem like actual people, rather than vehicles for different points of her philosophy. the story is compelling too. when i lived in the FSU, i gave it to a local coworker to read and she said that it reminded her exactly of her grandfather's stories of life in soviet russia in the 1920s. so, it's also useful for understanding the history of that part of the world and what life is like in a totalitarian regime.

[SlickyBoy]

Another vote for The Manipulated Man. Though I think it would be even better if Esther Villar went back and reviewed each passage, applying an update where necessary (the book was written in 1971), there is still so much in there that was ahead of its time.

It isn't exactly high literature, but the author was socially aware and very prescient. I'd read it again if I didn't find such a reminder of future (now modern, Western) females as so cold, calculating and venomous.

[LeoneVolpe]

"The Manipulated Man" by Esther Vilar most certainly doesn't suck, and in fact, should be required reading for any guy getting into game. Once you know what you're truly up against, it'll change your whole approach.

[Piankhi]

Just finished a Voice in the Wind by Francine Rivers. It was really good. I almost cried at the end of the book.

[questor70]

(01-31-2016 10:19 PM)MajorStyles Wrote:  

I don't know how much has been said in the Manosphere about this book, but it deserves some critique. They way Scarlett chews up guy after guy, using their blue pill training against them. But then, she finally meets her match in "Zero Fucks Given" Gable.

Most women view that story as an attractive fantasy, including all of the abuse that she takes from Rhett Butler (most of which would have had him locked away in the slammer today).

So is that really red-pill if it glorifies it? Seems right up there with 50-shades in revelling in female masochism. It revels in female masochism the same way Wolf of Wallstreet revels in men being literal slaves to the pussy.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

For all of their flaws as writers, women (nor modern women, of course) are usually very good at writing children's books. For example, Enid Blyton has a super children's series called "The Famous Five" (also known as "The Five Friends"):



I am also fond of the Polish writer Hana Ožgowska and her book about a brother and sister who mix up their vacations and are forced to pretend they're different gender, with some truly hilarious results. And of course, there's the famous Harry Potter, which I don't like but is a well-written series.

Children's fiction written by men often comes across as either wooden or inappropriately moralizing - IMO the Chronicles of Narnia are a prime example, with esoteric symbolism and hidden messages bashing the reader on the head with every page instead of letting the book just be fun as it should be.

As soon as you move into true adolescent and young adult territory, however, men take the wheel again. Books like 20 000 Leagues Under the Sea, Treasure Island and In Desert and Wilderness are simply unmatched, and mix deadly seriousness and education with characters suited to youths in an unforgettable way.

[Alsos]

At the suggestion of someone here, I started reading "Dangerous Men and Adventurous Women" edited by Jayne Ann Krentz.

It's doubly relevant here, as it's a book of essays by women, talking about romance fiction and its appeal to women.

It is, in a word, godawful.

It pains me that I won't be finishing it, as I'm sure it contains some useful (if perhaps unintended) insights into how women think about men and romance. But it's even more painful to slog through essays that are nothing more than gassy defenses of romance fiction, the women who read it, and the women who write it. I started it expecting more of a practical analysis or textbook treatment of the topic - these are the key features of romance novels, here's how the mechanics of the genre typically work, these are the reasons it appeals to women, etc. What I got instead was repeated restatements of the same point ("Women's romance literature is just as valid as other genres!"), in the same petulant tone, wrapped in all-too-typical feminine rationalization and defensiveness, and shot through with feminist victimhood and (oddly) "secret king" pandering to the female ego.

You'd think to read these female authors that the genre is a powerful cultural force that inhabits the literary shadows, a samizdat of super-empowering bodice-rippery lurking just out of the ever-watchful eye of the Patriarchy...rather than filling most of the shelf space in the book aisle in any given supermarket.

And I'll second the criticisms of women writing personal improvement, psychology, or related types of books. I've seen a few that were worthwhile, but most end up being exercises in solipsism and hamstering - particularly books dealing with the dating or "understanding women". Case in point: "Impossible to Ignore" by Carmen Simon. I barely made it through two chapters of that turd before giving up. Those chapters each had one banal point that could have been conveyed in one sentence, but which she spent a couple thousand words belaboring in touchy-feely chick-speak. This may be an example of a more general flaw with self-help and pop-psychology books - that they take a couple of insights that an Aurelius or Hoffer or Taleb will convey in simple aphorisms and pad them out to book length. I got that impression with "How to Win Friends and Influence People", too. But the writing in this instance definitely had a woman's emotions-dominated flavor. My experience with Olivia Fox Cabane's "The Charisma Myth", another RVF suggestion, was similar.

The worst is science fiction written by women authors. The bulk of them simply don't understand the genre conventions at all, their stories centering instead on feelings and relationships at the expense of everything else. Even authors who are themselves scientists or engineers in real life tend to write stories that hinge on or overemphasize interpersonal relationships and romance angles between characters rather than exploring the broader sociocultural implications of the speculative idea involved: Jennifer, the smartest STEM graduate at Big Tech University, discovers a source of limitless energy. But can she keep her rival Lisa from stealing the credit and winning the heart of Dr. Chad Slipstick, their inexplicably-hunky thesis advisor?

That said, Rokelle Lerner's "The Object of My Affection is in My Reflection" is the best book I've read on narcissism apart from Anonymous Conservative's (and he wins out because he gives you practical advice on how to screw with their heads). Also, Agatha Christie has some shortcomings as an author (leaps in logic, mainly, a problem shared with Arthur Conan Doyle), she's quite readable and I've described elsewhere here how surprisingly red-pill her treatment of men and women can be. And of course Rowling's Harry Potter books don't suck.

[Buddydowrongright2]

This is the main reason I don't read much science fiction and fantasy anymore, at least from traditional publishers. Women authors are the only ones being pushed. 90% of the recent Hugo and Nebula awards winners were women. The books that are written by men are usually written by super feminist betas who tweet about Trump like it's their full-time job, or gays. That's fine. I don't care if women and gays get published and are the ones getting their books signal-boosted, but it does mean I have a much harder time finding anything interesting to read. I typically read about 50 books per year. Most of that used to be sci fi and fantasy. These days I am reading more non-fiction and horror. I also write books myself, and it always gives me an eye-roll when I see feminists bitching and complaining about "sexism in the publishing industry." Literally EVERY submission call I have seen in the last 4-5 years has included a diversity statement saying they will prioritize women, LGBTQ+ and writers of color over white males.

[godfather dust]

I looked briefly at my bookshelf: 100+ books, 1 by a woman, it sucks. I didn't consciously avoid women (besides religion and self help) so I (ignorantly with limited sample) approve this thread.

[Bacchus]

This rule is golden, but I've encountered an exception or two.

One female writer worth reading is Barbara Tuchman. I've read two of her books, and both held up. The Guns of August is about the first month of WWI, and it won the Pulitzer Prize for Non-Fiction in 1963. The second is A Distant Mirror, which covers the 13th Century. Both would disappoint a serious scholar of either era, but for someone coming to the history with only a public education, they're solid. She writes narrative history, so it's easy to read (although she can't help but inject herself into that narrative, albeit briefly). Chicks.

She has another Pulitzer, but I haven't read that book.

[Bienvenuto]

(02-07-2016 07:29 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

Anyone read Wolf Hall by Hilary Mantel? That's supposed to be good.

It's shit. I mean it. It is shit. I like high end literary fiction and Hilary Mantel is profiting from being in a literary bubble where its rare for middle aged female writers to be challenged as opposed to just being uncritically championed.

Some bits are well written but what stands out for me is just how unrealistic it is. Why? She evidently doesn't have the life experience required to get inside the world she is writing about.

And that says so much about middle aged woman, a la Oprah, the View etc their whole act is I know so much about everything and the truth is they don't, because they don't have the life experience.

The kind of guy that Cromwell was.. and Mantel will never have been in a fight growing up, never experienced being around people that want to fuck her up no matter whether she acts nice to them or not, never experienced the aggressive and hostile levels without any chance to play victim that male competition reaches.
But no, I know.. she had a male boss once who acted 'creepy', she had a breast cancer scare once, she feels the pain of starving squirrels and has more 'empathy' than any male ever would.

Results: hard to buy into, shit book.

That is lionised and feted.

[Paracelsus]

(03-02-2018 10:56 AM)Alsos Wrote:  

And I'll second the criticisms of women writing personal improvement, psychology, or related types of books. I've seen a few that were worthwhile, but most end up being exercises in solipsism and hamstering - particularly books dealing with the dating or "understanding women". Case in point: "Impossible to Ignore" by Carmen Simon. I barely made it through two chapters of that turd before giving up. Those chapters each had one banal point that could have been conveyed in one sentence, but which she spent a couple thousand words belaboring in touchy-feely chick-speak. This may be an example of a more general flaw with self-help and pop-psychology books - that they take a couple of insights that an Aurelius or Hoffer or Taleb will convey in simple aphorisms and pad them out to book length. I got that impression with "How to Win Friends and Influence People", too. But the writing in this instance definitely had a woman's emotions-dominated flavor. My experience with Olivia Fox Cabane's "The Charisma Myth", another RVF suggestion, was similar.

That's interesting - to me, Impossible to Ignore was about the second book on Scott Adams' Persuasion Reading List that didn't come across as a thick coffee-table book (the other one was Gerry Spence's work on argument). She actually struck me as slightly more object-oriented than guys like Cialdini who seemed more interested in doing an "Ooh ahh" sort of book on persuasion generally than supplying anything concrete. Simon's work even had some mathematical ratios to work with to help with memorability.

(03-02-2018 10:56 AM)Alsos Wrote:  

The worst is science fiction written by women authors. The bulk of them simply don't understand the genre conventions at all, their stories centering instead on feelings and relationships at the expense of everything else. Even authors who are themselves scientists or engineers in real life tend to write stories that hinge on or overemphasize interpersonal relationships and romance angles between characters rather than exploring the broader sociocultural implications of the speculative idea involved: Jennifer, the smartest STEM graduate at Big Tech University, discovers a source of limitless energy. But can she keep her rival Lisa from stealing the credit and winning the heart of Dr. Chad Slipstick, their inexplicably-hunky thesis advisor?

My friend, if you think science fiction written by women is bad, may I cordially invite you to come over here to Fantasy Street in the SFF Ghetto and see what awful fucking writing really is. JK Rowling writes good books for uneducated kids; aside from that it's a royal shitshow of vagina-equipped authors, whether you include the vampire romances or not.

The only one I've found is Robin Hobb, who's good for one book (Wizard of the Pigeons) and endurable for one book (Assassin's Apprentice) but it's chewing tinfoil to try and get through a female author's fantasy book, where all the male characters sound like they're wearing codpieces to make up for the lack of testicles and cock. And let's not get to outright misandrists like Marion Zimmer Bradley who was also a paedophile.

[Richard Turpin]

I once had a falling out with a mate at work when we went through a phase of lending each other books. I was lending him my Lee Child books (the early good ones before they turned shit) and he was giving me a mixed bag of thrillers and horrors.

At one point, I handed him a book back saying that I 'just didn't like reading books by women authors'. He didn't believe me at first, but once he saw I was serious he started making a big deal of it. I know, it's probably 'wrong' of me somehow, but I honestly get mentally thrown out of a book once I know a woman has wrote it, for some reason it just changes my whole perspective and clouds my enjoyment.

It's not quite as bad with female 'non-fiction' authors I've come to realize, and I can absolutely accept that there are plenty of exceptions to the rule, but nevertheless, I contend that 'Books written by women' do in fact, tend to 'suck'.

[Piankhi]

If they suck then why do they get published and sell a lot of copies? Agatha Christie, JK Rowling etc etc.

[Baphomet]

(03-20-2018 08:11 AM)Piankhi Wrote:  

If they suck then why do they get published and sell a lot of copies? Agatha Christie, JK Rowling etc etc.

Because it would be misogynist not to!

[Richard Turpin]

(03-20-2018 08:11 AM)Piankhi Wrote:  

If they suck then why do they get published and sell a lot of copies? Agatha Christie, JK Rowling etc etc.

Well, being popular doesn't always guarantee quality. The Last Jedi did very well at the Box Office.

Agatha Christie is definitely one of the 'exceptions' I mentioned. She is certainly one of the greats whose tales have stood the test of time. Those books will continue to sell and sell, and deservedly so. You've got me with that one (maybe, my own prejudice just relates to books by 'modern women')?

But Rowling's books are just terrible. I read the first three to my son and found them uninspired and over-rated.

I can remember when they first came out, and how at the time I was a Tolkien and fantasy nerd who bemoaned the fact that there were no decent 'fantasy' books anymore. When Harry Potter came on the scene, I just knew it was going to be huge as they filled a nice niche that nothing else touched. People also forget, or don't realise that at the time they were being heavily pushed by schools (at least in the UK) as being a 'good way of getting boys to read'. I think this played a big part in bringing mothers on board and building up a fan-base.

I've never read Ayn Rand so after reading some of the posts on this thread, I might make it a little experiment to give one a go and see if anything in it changes my perspective on books by the fairer sex.

[sterlingarcher]

You've heard of mentorbox.com? They offer video lessons from authors talking about the key ideas from their book.

I bought a subscription, and it's good.

But half the lectures are by masculinated female authors. I wouldn't read their book, I certainly don't want to listen to 'em talk about it))

You can almost feel their iron handshake. Horrible.

[Thomas Jackson]

Wow really is true - looked at all the recent book purchases and very few by women (without being conscious of it). In the past 10 years I've read Atlas Shrugged, some Anne Coulter, and a Calvin Coolidge biography written by a woman.