caketastydelish

Not all "classics" were written a long time ago, though. Nineteen Eight-Four was published in 1949, The Catcher in the Rye was published in 1951, Catch 22 was published in 1961 and and Slaughterhouse 5 in 1969, just to pick a few off the top of my head, and it's unlikely that you'll find any commonly-accepted "classics" written later than that. (This doesn't apply to individual genres, of course.) Yet this was in an era in which women writers were far from unheard of, and in fact often very popular. Agatha Christie was one of the most widely-read English-language writers working in this period, for example. So something isn't quite squaring off, there.

That's fine. Taste and preference are subjective. I find Borges overrated but really like McCarthy. The point being that I don't really care much what you read just that I don't find your argument all that compelling. (For the record, I like Harry Potter although I doubt I'd like it as much now as I did when it came out. Tastes change, unfortunately).

There's nothing wrong with that. Most of the fiction I read isn't high-brow stuff. I like sci-fi and fantasy. And the literature I tend to read is stuff I personally enjoy covering topics I relate to.

As you said being added to the literary canon takes time. That's the delay I was talking about. Having said that, the process of being added to the literary canon is a fairly complex process the results of which are difficult to anticipate so I'm willing to be a little charitable in the time I allow it to sort itself out.

The second issue - and the one that concerns you - has to do whether or sexism is still present in literature. You seem to think it is but to a lesser extent than in the past, such that it isn't all that important a determinant in the success or failure of female authors. I agree with all of those points except the last. I think sexism does still have an influence on the success or failure of female authors. I'll grant that in some narrow areas - YA, romance etc - women have managed to establish themselves. But I do think women still have a hard time breaking into 'srs' literature. I find it telling that all the female authors you've cited as evidence against this view are genre writers (or are shoved into that category like Atwood). If anything that strengthens my case. I also think it's telling that you didn't cite Hilary Mantel who has won two Man Booker prizes seeing as how Wolf Hall and Bring up the Bodies are so damned topical.

I have zero idea how you read what I wrote and produced that.

In any case, your points show that you understand the problems with Kryiakos' claims. Namely, that the male-centric state of the literary canon has a very obvious cause in sexism and that the canon will see more women added over-time because we're less sexist now than we were in the past [1]. Kryiakos' on the other the other hand thought it had more to do with the fact that women just couldn't create lasting artistic works. When I asked whether this was his position, he claimed I was misinterpreting him and that his position was crystal clear. As other posters noted, it wasn't at all clear. That's was the main issue. A side-issue is his quite emphatic denial that sexism matters. But that's really secondary to his claim that women just can't do it. A claim you just accepted was sexist.

[1] I'm not sure if the process will be automatic because it hasn't really happened yet. Although, I do remain hopeful.

I didn't call Kryiakos a sexist. I didn't even suggest his posts were sexist. I simply reproduced them. You made the sexism claim. I do think it might be a bit unfair though, don't you? I mean it's clear that women just aren't as capable as men of producing works of lasting artistic merit. That's not sexism, it's a fact (of dubious value).

I actually wasn't aware of any connotations of weight. The joke (which I wouldn't take too much to heart- it is OT, remember) was on the over-zealous response to the suggestion that maybe sexism is a thing, sometimes, in this field.

Eh, I barely play Civ anymore. No offense.

Thank you, caketastydelish. No, I was arrested under false pretenses. I committed no crime. How are things with you?

No my family is from Kentucky too and we don't have any Middle Eastern ancestry that I know of, but people often think that.

I'm originally from Kentucky.

RAID.... I live in NYC and there are 100 police raids a night. Since I advocate progressive change, they could use a false pretext. They were not counting on the fact that theyarrested 3 lawyers that night. Anyway. Long story but labour organizers gwt targeted all the time. Google the "Molly Maguires" for starters. If anything you read says they actually existed, it is a lie. It was made up by the mine owners.

Yeah, the Helvetica stuff was really just because I saw a documentary on the typeface and thought it would be amusing to call for its ban in comic sans. I didn't know that Helvetica had anything to do w/ SWPL, although I guess documentaries are on the SWPL list. I don't know. Would it make sense if I just said I was white and happened to like stuff?

I have no idea and am unaware of the relationship. Certainly my .sig reference SWPL, but I didn't intend a trend.

I am not rich. I, personally, was never "rich", it was my family's money. However, a million dollars isn't what it used to be and many of my family have had to work,of late. I never HAD to work, but I became a full-time volunteer in my twenties, thereby voluntarily ending my free ride. Don't get me wrong, I am not slumming, I live no better than the workers I serve and I have no personal money of my own. I work and I am proud of it.

Thanks!

Ok I'll take a look later when I'm home.

Please stop with the messages to Owen. Thanks.

Alrighty then. You enjoy that.