Veloce
International Playboy
     
Posts: 5,832
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation: 178
|
Men's critique of shitty book="getting in the way"
http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books...ewed_.html
summary:
Woman writes shitty book with pseudo intellectual premise. Not quite fiction, not quite person memoir, not quite...anything. Doesn't fall into a genre, WOW, thought provoking. It's been done.
Book fails to get published from male publishing agent. She finds a woman to publish it.
Well known male reviewer trashes it.
Slate article claims these, "smart, serious men" have misunderstood the book, and have "gotten in its way."
Article is written by obvious feminist, praising the book's "art".
Don't these dumb bitches realize how transparent it all is? Christ almighty, there are plenty of female authors who get published by and write books that are well reviewed by men. BUT when well known publishers and reviewers don't like a book, WELL, then they just don't understand it or they're getting in the way. It would be one thing to leave it at that, BUT to emphasize the fact that the publisher and reviewer are men...
(This post was last modified: 07-01-2012 12:30 AM by Veloce.)
|
|
| 07-01-2012 12:29 AM |
|
|
Basil Ransom
International Playboy
     
Posts: 4,877
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 112
|
RE: Men's critique of shitty book="getting in the way"
Quote:The first character to utter those words is Margaux Williamson (a character based on Margaux Williamson). Her friendship with Sheila (the character, not the author—not exactly, anyway) is the closest thing the story has to a driving narrative force. This is a story of girl meets girl, girl talks to girl, girl talks to girl again, girl buys same dress as girl, girl makes up with girl, and so forth. There are other friends in the constellation Heti presents, but they are dwarves to Margaux’s supergiant, at least in Sheila’s ordering of the universe. And it’s in her relationship with Margaux, a painter, that Sheila investigates, and reinvestigates, and reinvestigates, the question that obsesses her.
This reminds me of how for the modern woman, men, even supposed 'alphas,' are often just pawns. They're tools that elict better orgasms and envy from female friends.
As Esther Vilar wrote several decades ago:
Quote:Whatever men set about to impress women with, counts for nothing in the world of women. Only another woman is of importance in her world.
Of course, a woman will always be pleased if a man turns to look at her - and if he is well dressed or drives an expensive sports car, so much the better. Her pleasure may be compared to that of a shareholder who finds that his stocks have risen. It will be a matter of complete indifference to a woman if he is attractive or looks intelligent. A shareholder is hardly likely to notice the color of his dividend checks.
But if another woman should turn to look - a rare occurrence, for her own judgment is infinitely more remorseless than that of a man - her day is made. She has achieved the impossible - the recognition, admiration, and `love' of other women.
Yes, only women exist in a woman's world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice - these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women's standards correspond to those in other women's heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman -and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points.
I read a Michel Houellebecq novel just the other day, The Elementary Particles. The remarkable thing about his novel, and good books in general, is that they are so much more honest and real than virtually any other form of media - news, magazines, film, television. It's as if all the censorial bureaucrats decided that few people read these books, or those that do are too hard to fool, so they don't even try to muck with them.
|
|
| 07-01-2012 01:12 AM |
|
The following 3 users Like Basil Ransom's post:3 users Like Basil Ransom's post
Fathom, Tigre, SpiderKing
|
YoungGunner
Wingman
  
Posts: 652
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation: 5
|
RE: Men's critique of shitty book="getting in the way"
(07-01-2012 01:12 AM)basilransom Wrote: Quote:The first character to utter those words is Margaux Williamson (a character based on Margaux Williamson). Her friendship with Sheila (the character, not the author—not exactly, anyway) is the closest thing the story has to a driving narrative force. This is a story of girl meets girl, girl talks to girl, girl talks to girl again, girl buys same dress as girl, girl makes up with girl, and so forth. There are other friends in the constellation Heti presents, but they are dwarves to Margaux’s supergiant, at least in Sheila’s ordering of the universe. And it’s in her relationship with Margaux, a painter, that Sheila investigates, and reinvestigates, and reinvestigates, the question that obsesses her.
This reminds me of how for the modern woman, men, even supposed 'alphas,' are often just pawns. They're tools that elict better orgasms and envy from female friends.
As Esther Vilar wrote several decades ago:
Quote:Whatever men set about to impress women with, counts for nothing in the world of women. Only another woman is of importance in her world.
Of course, a woman will always be pleased if a man turns to look at her - and if he is well dressed or drives an expensive sports car, so much the better. Her pleasure may be compared to that of a shareholder who finds that his stocks have risen. It will be a matter of complete indifference to a woman if he is attractive or looks intelligent. A shareholder is hardly likely to notice the color of his dividend checks.
But if another woman should turn to look - a rare occurrence, for her own judgment is infinitely more remorseless than that of a man - her day is made. She has achieved the impossible - the recognition, admiration, and `love' of other women.
Yes, only women exist in a woman's world. The women she meets at church, at parent-teacher meetings, or in the supermarket; the women with whom she chats over the garden fence; the women at parties or window-shopping in the more fashionable streets; those she apparently never seems to notice - these women are the measure of her success or failure. Women's standards correspond to those in other women's heads, not to those in the heads of men; it is their judgment that really counts, not that of men. A simple word of praise from another woman -and all those clumsy, inadequate male compliments fall by the wayside, for they are just praises out of the mouths of amateurs. Men really have no idea in what kind of world women live in; their hymns of praise miss all the vital points.
I read a Michel Houellebecq novel just the other day, The Elementary Particles. The remarkable thing about his novel, and good books in general, is that they are so much more honest and real than virtually any other form of media - news, magazines, film, television. It's as if all the censorial bureaucrats decided that few people read these books, or those that do are too hard to fool, so they don't even try to muck with them.
Can't help but feel some pseudo-lesbian undertones from that philosophy.
|
|
| 07-01-2012 02:11 AM |
|
|