Is this the most dishonest book in modern literature?

>autism

The TV show was obviously non-consensual porn for women.

No.

I do have autism
Christianity literally liberated women, it wasn't so fun for them during pagan times.

I don't know, I don't really read utopian fiction

In some ancient cultures women were revered.

We murder-fucked her and then fed her corpse to Moloch. It was a cool day with dad, I miss him.

all women and specially feminists have this primal irrepresible desire to be fucked and dominated by a masculine male. Eventually things are bound to return to their natural equilibrium, the more women are 'liberated' and indoctrinated by liberal propaganda, the harder it is to contain their natural submissive desires. Woman cries out for brutal male domination. All politics is really about the psychosexual dynamics of dominance and submission, hence leftists are literally cucks.

>Christianity literally liberated women
Viking women were allowed to divoce a man if he slapped her 3 times or made mocking verses about her. Christian women were not allowed to divorce.

>Christian women were not allowed to divorce.
There were divorces all throughout the christian middle ages in Europe

>disliking atwood is misogyny
don't you think that's a bit extreme

Alright, I’ll do it. I’ll reply to fucking butterfly.
“Fiction” isn’t an argument for writing nonsense. The point clearly isn’t that Atwood’s story is not true, it’s that it’s impossible to believe it. The dystopian government suddenly appearing isn’t justified in any way, just explained away with “falling birth rates” and the author’s personal feelings about a single line from the Old Testament.
It’s not like we’re criticizing Shakespeare for writing about ghosts and witches, so maybe you should get off your high horse, cut down on the smug pics and try to have an honest discussion for a change?

Attached: 14FA3043-2EF5-4101-B53A-7833DFCE31D7.jpg (460x666, 45K)

you sound like a faggot.

You're right, I am a faggot.

Attached: 1557312779262.png (500x500, 27K)

Braindead.

Have sex with :3

You got a single fact to back that up

escholarship.org/content/qt41h9w6xf/qt41h9w6xf.pdf
section 4 about the incidence of divorce

Atwood, Margaret. Loathe her. Incredible leaps in logic. Brain dead and delusional. Her scribbles belongs in a psychiatric ward, not a book shelf.

Khomenei was monogamous, women can vote and teach and have been part of state cabinets. Shia are bonkers but the only reason Iran was constantly used as the model of oppression of women (see Not Without My Daughter) instead of Saudi Arabia is because it suited the Zionist agenda

Go cut yourself again, tranny

Butterfly, listen to that one poster who replied to you :3

lmao

>oh no da oppressed wimminz
Meanwhile feminism and "womens' rights" in all of its forms has objectively destroyed the lives of the vast majority of normal, sexually and socially healthy women by forcing them into masculine roles in which their true female impulses are scorned or repressed. Women have every "freedom" except the freedom to be women.

Why are kuffar so obessed over what women sexually crave? Or men, for that matter.

Have children

It did no such thing.

>Alright, I'll do it. I'll decide what is and isn't okay for literature.
Oh, how brave! Stupid shit.
Honestly, she can write whatever the fuck she wants. You think she leaves out a lot? Not enough world-builidng for you? So the fuck what? Don't read it.

You have me confused with your boyfriend, user.

Attached: MS-SP-M-381-Okun-Edward-Pejzaz-wloski-1902.jpg (1024x749, 208K)

Hi there!

You seem to have made a bit of a mistake in your post. Luckily, the users of Yea Forums are always willing to help you clear this problem right up! You appear to have used a tripcode when posting, but your identity has nothing at all to do with the conversation! Whoops! You should always remember to stop using your tripcode when the thread it was used for is gone, unless another one is started! Posting with a tripcode when it isn't necessary is poor form. You should always try to post anonymously, unless your identity is absolutely vital to the post that you're making!

Now, there's no need to thank me - I'm just doing my bit to help you get used to the anonymous image-board culture!

Don't like criticism of a book? Don't read the post!
But no, apparently the only valid critique of a book on a literature board is not to read it. The author can write whatever she wants, but not someone you disagree with.

He can dislike it if he wants, I dislike it, but neither of us have read it, so I think we can’t judge it quite fairly. (Why I don’t lay into Infinite Jest). He is only criticizing the concept of fiction here though. He thinks Atwood is a liar. He’s clearly afraid that people are reading this book at all. Not unlike my dismay that people are still reading so-called holy books. I’ve read one of those. Those are mostly fictional books too. But their fan base don’t realize this, so I think my fears are a little more justified.
Your thoughts?

Attached: C3FCA4FC-DE9F-469A-A66E-F210A31D9AC0.jpg (859x1200, 278K)

>not filtering tripfags

Incredibly limiting. Analogous to never arguing with someone because they have a different opinion. Even if "Northern American" books are "lesser" in some sense, a more open understanding of all forms of any medium leads to a better overall understanding of it. And in the worst case, your "arguments against" the abandoned works would be sharpened. It makes even less sense however, as it's not a meaningful theme you're shying away from but simply a superficial and arbitrary geographical line.

Excluding books written by women is a similar exercise, and not reading books written less than fifty years ago has the added benefit of keeping you fifty years behind.

I'd say they're noble rules stemming from a dedication and pursuit to a certain aesthetic, but they're too obviously inept.

It's an argument that Atwood doesn't write believable fiction, not about the concept of fiction- unless you fail to look past his admittedly sub-perfect phrasing. Have the decency to interpret arguments charitably: steelman over strawman.

And your dragging the discussion kicking and screaming to religion is just outright obsessive. Religious texts are not fiction, correct or not, and categorizing them as such is sophomoric.

Didn't look at it til after I responded, but beautiful image. Where's it from?

Is Burroughs believable? Is Delany believable?
I only drag religion into this because I believe he’s afraid of it on those grounds. And yes mythology is a fiction. Conversly, law is also fiction.

Edward Okun, like the previous pic. Here he is with his wife in some period costumes

Attached: CBBF279B-B7BA-4863-8F66-B28EDDC6B135.jpg (1024x540, 159K)

anyone actually read this? is it worth it? entertaining?

Your worldview must be nice.

Nobody leans towards atheism, atheists are a shrinking minority.

I’ve heard she writes uncomfortable pieces. I’ve stayed away.
Maybe Oryx and Crake is more aimed at you demographic. Just a guess.

The anglo barbarians were basically controlled by their women. It was a huge weakness and Christianity saved them.

do you really recommend it?
>On the eastern horizon there’s a greyish haze, lit now with a
rosy, deadly glow. Strange how that colour still seems tender. The
offshore towers stand out in dark silhouette against it, rising
improbably out of the pink and pale blue of the lagoon. The
shrieks of the birds that nest out there and the distant ocean
grinding against the ersatz reefs of rusted car parts and jumbled
bricks and assorted rubble sound almost like holiday traffic.
really questioning this prose for my own tastes

epic fail of a greentext but question still stands

Western atheistic humanism is under the Christian umbrella desu.

This is why I go on /lit. Every once in a great while, an user will know what he's talking about and make a good point.

Again, I’ve stayed away. I meant story wise, the Handmaids Tale is aimed at women. Oryx and Crake are two you’d guys in a dystopia.

But if you want better prose, maybe Alice Munro is the Canadian for you

>I do have autism
It shows

0/10

You're a 0/10 poster

>you’d
It doesn’t know how to spell *young*?

It’s a troll rating, newfag

You're literally not even making a point. I've never read Handmaid's Tale. It's probably good to an extent, but laughable in certain parts and I'd imagine the premise to be something ridiculous like that. It's a woman writer doing political commentary, what do you expect lol?

I'm not trolling, you're fucking stupid and say stupid things and it's so irritating that you have no recourse.

>“Fiction” isn’t an argument for writing nonsense.
I disagree, although this is probably mostly a semantic argument, I think that one of the greatest boons to fiction is the ability to write freely and unbarred by the obviously political undertones you may disagree with.

>The point clearly isn’t that Atwood’s story is not true, it’s that it’s impossible to believe it.
This is technically ridiculous. You are implying that you are omniscient. But to put it into perspective look at North Korea.

I'm not arguing with you in terms of your potentially righteous disdain for any overly greedy needs for suspensions of disbelief. Just logically.

>You're literally not even making a poin
Are you me? Because that’s just what I was saying

F I C T I O N

1/2
I have read it and I wouldn't recommend it, unless you wish to read it in service to the notion of 'knowing thy enemy'.

The book is actually not as bad as you might think if you were to follow the author's public statements and the rabid whores that adore it. It's more nuanced than perhaps Atwood ever intended and there are a number of ways you can read it. The entire premise of the novel is, of course, completely unbelievable and was very difficult to get past, but you just have to swallow it in order to get on with the book.

There are really a lot of elements of the novel which can be interpreted as critical of women and the women's movement.

- The main character's mother (experienced in flashbacks to pre-regime days) is a man-hating shrew who lived a miserable existence in the absence of male companionship. Any joy in the mother's life was experienced vicariously through her daughter, who was involved in a conventional monogamous heterosexual marriage and was rearing a child. The mother would regularly sermonise about how men are all monsters and that women should rear children alone, while her daughter was getting on with life in a happy and fulfilling relationship.
- The governor's wife holds considerable power, and really, the entire 'handmaid' concept is women exploiting women. The handmaids are women servants assigned to the household of a prominent man. In addition to domestic duties, they must breed with the head of the household to produce children that he and his wife will raise as their own. This entire concept exists to allow sterile wives of prominent men to rear children. Huge sections of the novel are dedicated to anxieties surrounding female fertility and aging (concepts much better explored in Mrs. Dalloway). The governor’s wife’s anxieties regarding fertility and her desire to have children, manifestations of her female sexuality, are the forces driving the MC’s sexual servitude.
- The governor definitely fears the ire of his wife and it is implied that she has some recourse against him if he doesn’t fulfil his obligations to her. The wife is a powerful woman who exercises utter-control over lower-ranked people, including men. The governor’s fear of his wife prevents him from expressing the positive manifestations of his own sexuality, that is, his desire to nurture and be companionable with the MC.

2/2
- Sex is used as a tool to control both men and women. Wives (and thus, sex) are only allotted to men based on their rank and service to the regime. In the early passages of the novel the MC revels in arousing the sexual desires of some younger low-ranking men who have no access to women. The MC has no compassion for men who are in a similar position of complete servitude. Her own female sexuality, expressed in a woman’s need to be lusted after, has been harnessed as a tool for the regime. Her own need to be desired fuels the desires of the younger men who are spurred in their service to the regime in the hope that they will have access to a wife (and sex).
- At one point in the novel a false rape accusation is used by the regime to whip a group of women into a frenzy where they beat an innocent man to death. This man was someone who was trying to inspire rebellion and, after being caught by the regime, is defamed and killed by being framed for a rape. Pretty funny in the current #metoo climate, that Atwood has a whole bunch of women who become blind to truth and are manipulated into brutalising an innocent man, all because of a flimsy rape accusation.

It’s a mediocre novel that steals its best dystopic elements from Orwell, Huxley, and Zamyatin. It’s a derivative work which takes some core concepts from these 3 much better works and adds a massive fixation on sexuality.

here it is. I do not read books written by women too. And it was not my rule until after years of reading books written by women I realized that my time was enough valuable for being wasted stupidly.

>implying that americans, women or modern authors can make grow your worldview

>Christianity literally liberated women, it wasn't so fun for them during pagan times.
brainlet

not the quoted, but how people in this board can be this retarded? You know that there was massive conversions of women during the Empire because christianism was considered to be more merciful toward women?

You know that with paganism women were a fucking property of their husbands, i mean, juridically (cum manu marriage)?

Obviously you didn't.

fucking illiterates man

Attached: virgen maría.jpg (1046x1532, 179K)

Men and women would live separately, women were deemed property of their husbands, they were judged and punished by their husband, they could be killed if they committed adultery, they were thrown away if they could not have children, they were married by their father (didn't have a say in the matter), they couldn't inherit, they couldn't own anything, they were given up or killed as babies because they weren't boys, they could only become whores if they weren't married. Of course these are generalities and they were differences between cities and tribes and across centuries. A notable exception would be Sparta.
All of you know nothing about paganism. Start by reading The Antique City by Fustel de Coulanges.

based

>no one's posted this
exiledonline.com/old-exile/vault/books/review103.html

garbage post

Not OP but it's clear that Atwood is extremely dishonest and contrarian if you watch her interviews. She's pretty much a Dawkins tier atheist who will make any retarded argument as long as it spites religion. In an interview about the book she claimed that it never once mentions Christianity and smugly asserted that the offended Christians who read it must have guilty consciousnesses. This literally isnt true, the book mentions Christianity directly numerous times. She also unironically once claimed that Starwars caused 9/11

i had the choice when i was a student of reading this with our feminist english teacher, or the first two books of paradise lost with our bro as fuck old white guy bearded teacher and i don't feel like i missed out, but who knows

>It’s a mediocre novel that steals its best dystopic elements from Orwell, Huxley, and Zamyatin. It’s a derivative work which takes some core concepts from these 3 much better works and adds a massive fixation on sexuality.
doesn't sound like something meant for me then, thanks user

>shrinking minority.
false.

Dolan's pretty cool even if he's wrong about Pynchon

Why the fuck are you even allowed to post anymore?
You are an insult to everyone that uses lit, consider leaving, for the sake of the board.

filters you newfag

Literally every single point here other than living separately happened frequently in early Christianity
Every primitive culture in the world has treated women like this except a handful of native tribes, and even that may just be Noble Savage theory talking

Never, EVER post Alita again you fucking mutant.

oh boy a progess-off, let's see which religion can shove the most dildos up its ass

Not an argument.

read moby-dick

Very good analysis of the book. I was apathetic throughout the entire book due to how unrealistic the world was and how unlikable Red or whatever her the witch's name was. However I would like to add that the book apparently was criticizing the Reagan administration for being sexist and predicting that American society would become more oppressive against women in the future. Massive lol at that idiotic prediction