Best Male Characters by Female Authors

[tonywalt]

Just the opposite of the other thread. I would go with Virginia Woolf "To the Lighthouse" - Mr. Ramsay.

[kiki1982]

To me that must be the love of my life: Mr Rochester by Brontë. So true. Wins hands down.

And Henry Tilney by Austen also qualifies somehow.

[Seasider]

Fitzwilliam Darcy has no equal!!

[kelby_lake]

I might have to go with Darcy :)

[Babyguile]

I find females don't have as hard a time as males when writing the opposite sex. Except for the classics I rarely read novels by men. It's bad I know but what can I say.

[Helga]

To me that must be the love of my life: Mr Rochester by Brontë. So true. Wins hands down.

And Henry Tilney by Austen also qualifies somehow.



my thoughts exactly, Mr Rochester!

[Charles Darnay]

Athos from Fugitive Pieces - Anne Michaels

[Ecurb]

Mr. Rochester? Gag! Let's see, he is abusive, dictatorial, lecherous, deceitful and committed to bigamy. He keeps his wife locked up in the attic, ignores his daughter, and lies to and abuses his beloved Jane.

Other than than that, though, he seems like a pretty good guy.

[dfloyd]

who was Jack benny's butler?

In creating her character Lord Peter Wimsey, Dorothy L Sayers fell in love with her own creation. Lord Peter was so perfect in every way, that all other men paled when they were compared to him.

[Des Essientes]

Shevek in Ursula Leguin's The Dispossessed.

[tonywalt]

Lol. Mr. Rochester is really um Mean and Horrible.

Unless you think.....men....

[kiki1982]

Mr. Rochester? Gag! Let's see, he is abusive, dictatorial, lecherous, deceitful and committed to bigamy. He keeps his wife locked up in the attic, ignores his daughter, and lies to and abuses his beloved Jane.

Other than than that, though, he seems like a pretty good guy.

Oh, I know, but what he turns into is very commendable. If a man changes like that, he must be special :blush:.


Lol. Mr. Rochester is really um Mean and Horrible.

Unless you think.....men....

Nah, I mainly love him because he is so multi-facetted (or however you write that), so ambiguous. He is not all bad, certainly not what lies behind his desperation, but he is so life-like.

Maybe that's what makes him so sexy in contradiction to Heathcliffe. (I haven't tried Huntington yet).

Darcy, in that respect, does not really qualify as he is too one-sided. He has no real feelings, apart from at the end. And then there is a faint echo from Waverley, who was really a bit of a pansy...

[JuniperWoolf]

Mr. Rochester? Gag!

Agreed.

I'd propose Atwood's Crake as the best male char written by a woman, even though he's really just the personification of a worldview.

[kelby_lake]

I do like Max de Winter. However I'm finding this whole business of picking notably well-written male characters by female writers hard!

[kinesj]

Jacob Flanders, Jacob's Room by Virginia Woolf

Bradley Pearson, The Black Prince by Iris Murdoch

Hazel Motes, Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor

Silas Marner, Silas Marner by George Eliot

Victor Frankenstein, Frankenstein by Mary Shelley

[Seasider]

Quoyle fromThe Shipping News by E Annie Proulx. Super book and I didn't
think the film did it justice at all.

[Scheherazade]

If we are going by how memrorable they are, I would agree with Mr Darcy, Rochester and Heathcliff.
Quoyle fromThe Shipping News by E Annie Proulx. Super book and I didn't
think the film did it justice at all.I loved this book and Quoyle and I am still avoiding watching the movie... Despite Kevin Spacey.

[Seasider]

How could I forget Rhett Butler? Or was it Gable who made him so memorable?

[The Comedian]

So far, I'm really enjoying the character of Ethan Frome by Edith Warton. I think that in Ethan Frome she really understands the taciturn, but tortured nature of a man in conflict with himself, but who has too little education and experience to understand or express those conflicts. I'm about half way through that little book now, and so far, I've been more than impressed with it.

[Melysnl]

Lestat and Louis from Interview with the Vampire by Anne Rice

Most of the characters in The Secret History by Donna Tartt were male and that book is about as close to literary gold as it gets from contemporary writers.

There's also Roark, Toohey, and Keating from the The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand.

[Scheherazade]

How could I forget Rhett Butler? Or was it Gable who made him so memorable?I agree with you... Even though Butler's character is very memorable, I think it is very hard to separate Gable from him today... I do not even have a mental image of him that is not Gable.
So far, I'm really enjoying the character of Ethan Frome by Edith Warton. I think that in Ethan Frome she really understands the taciturn, but tortured nature of a man in conflict with himself, but who has too little education and experience to understand or express those conflicts. I'm about half way through that little book now, and so far, I've been more than impressed with it. Say it ain't so...

I remember casting that book aside a few times while reading it simply because I could not stand Frome's whining... However, yes... Wharton does a marvelous job of depicting this whiny male character!



Most of the characters in The Secret History by Donna Tartt were male and that book is about as close to literary gold as it gets from contemporary writers.Loved this book as well.

[Griffith]

Female authors generally suck. Can someone indicate three names to be compared with Dostoevski, Tolstoy and Shakespeare??

[Cunninglinguist]

Female authors generally suck. Can someone indicate three names to be compared with Dostoevski, Tolstoy and Shakespeare??

Austen, Dickinson, Woolf -- and, while Shakespeare treads in a circle of his own, gender is dubious.

In any case, the relative dearth of women writers and the subjects they tend(ed) to entertain probably has something to do with female oppression and its accompanying misogyny, which you seem to be perpetuating or, at least, inadvertently insinuating. If we're going to talk in terms of generalities, I've generally found that women are better at expressing themselves in words than are men.

[mal4mac]

Mr. Casaubon, Middlemarch, George Eliot

[Seasider]

Female authors generally suck. Can someone indicate three names to be compared with Dostoevski, Tolstoy and Shakespeare??
What about "Black Authors generally suck. Can someone indicate three names to be compared with Dostoevski, Tolstoy and Shakespeare?" Would you express that opinion in a general discussion of Literature? If not, why not?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Female authors generally suck. Can someone indicate three names to be compared with Dostoevski, Tolstoy and Shakespeare??
Austen, Woolf, Bronte.

Didn't even take five seconds.

[magictrick]

Hello, first post here.

I don't know what gets classified as best, but if I'm thinking memorable I would definitely say Heathcliff. I didn't particularly like the novel but that character was definitely unique in many ways.

[Chris 73]

Hello, first post here.

I don't know what gets classified as best, but if I'm thinking memorable I would definitely say Heathcliff. I didn't particularly like the novel but that character was definitely unique in many ways.

And the song was hilarious.

[tonywalt]

Dorris Lessing. Just throwing a name out randomly to help the girls.

[Stewed]

I don't have a specific one in mind, but I'll vouch for Iris Mudoch's male characters.

[Darcy88]

Heathcliffe!

[Stewed]

Bob Jakin, in The Mill on the Floss. I don't know what his internal life is like, but his monologues are hilarious.

[AjaxAscendant]

Heathcliffe!

Darn, beaten to it! Anyway, Heathcliff!

[irinmisfit92]

Heathcliff, definitely. :) Even though he's a fiend he does sound sexy.

[V.Jayalakshmi]

Philips by George Eliot in "The Mill On The Floss".

[Isla]

Hands down, Francis Crawford of Lymond in "The Game of Kings"!

[Stewed]

Who was Philips, again?

[kiki1982]

Was that not the guy who desperately wanted to marry Maggy? He was rich and the son of the family's main rival rich farmer who actually made that they went bankrupt if I remember well.

He looked a bit funny too because he was handicapped in some way, but because of that he was very eloquent and learned.

She should have...

[mal4mac]

I'm reading Daniel Deronda by George Eliot at the moment, and the man himself is making a strong pitch for the title. A bit too perfect perhaps? There are some other excellent, less perfect, male characters - Klesmer is stupendous - a Jewish Beethoven injected into the stuffiest of British aristocratic circles and stealing the heart of rich heiress...

[joelavine]

Fenno McLeod in Julia Glass's Three Junes, not only one of my favorite male characters by a female author, but my favorite gay Scottish male character by a straight American female author.

George Eliot's Daniel Deronda
Lorraine Hansberry's Walter Younger
Willa Cather's Bishop Jean Latour

[Lanteri]

Rett Butler, 'Gone with the wind' by Margaret Mitchell.
God, I'm totally in love with him.

[Griffith]

Austen, Dickinson, Woolf -- and, while Shakespeare treads in a circle of his own, gender is dubious.

In any case, the relative dearth of women writers and the subjects they tend(ed) to entertain probably has something to do with female oppression and its accompanying misogyny, which you seem to be perpetuating or, at least, inadvertently insinuating. If we're going to talk in terms of generalities, I've generally found that women are better at expressing themselves in words than are men.
Don't be an hypocrite, mate. I am not saying "woman cannot be a good writer". I'm just saying that the best writers ever are men. Look at any list, my friend. I'll help you to overcome the hypocrisy:

http://www.thebest100lists.com/best100authors/
http://bookstove.com/classics/the-fifty-greatest-writers-of-all-time/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2591101/best_writers_of_all_time_the_list.html
http://ezinearticles.com/?10-Best-Writers-Who-Ever-Lived&id=38103

The best thing women do is staying in home with children. I don't see any shame in that. It's really necessary for a healthy society.



What about "Black Authors generally suck. Can someone indicate three names to be compared with Dostoevski, Tolstoy and Shakespeare?" Would you express that opinion in a general discussion of Literature? If not, why not?
What about black scientists generally suck?? This is an impartial analysis and this is true.

[Seasider]

Impartial?? That made me laugh. There are plenty of ignorant racists and misogynists on the internet. Find a discussion group where you'll feel right at home.

[Griffith]

Find 3 lists of writers in which women are the majority
Seasider has been owned. rofl

[kiki1982]

Yes well, if you're going by that kind of lists, the odds are of course overwhelming, but please bear in mind that women were largely banned from publishing altogether just because they were women.

Was it Charlotte Brontë who wrote to Scott asking what she should do to become a writer? And he wrote back something along the lines of 'you are a woman, do not busy yourself with writing as it is a man's job'. It stands no doubt that she was a very good writer, as were her sisters, though they had to disguise themselevs as men to be able to publish and then, when it came out after her sister Emily's death, that they were in fact women, all three of them, they had to go to London and prove it to their own publisher by showing up in person. There was fierce discussion whether a woman could write such things at all.

No doubt George Eliot also named herself a male name in order to be able to publish or at least gain readers. So did George Sand.

Was it Bach's sister who published under her brother's name because no-one wanted to publish the work of a woman?

So don't be so narrow-minded and do not take those lists as an argument.

Amongst all books ever published there are only a handful of great writers, and as there were very few women who did publish, the greats among them are of course going to be very sparse. Think of all those who were not published, lost or whatever.

[PoeticPassions]

Yes well, if you're going by that kind of lists, the odds are of course overwhelming, but please bear in mind that women were largely banned from publishing altogether just because they were women.

Was it Charlotte Brontë who wrote to Scott asking what she should do to become a writer? And he wrote back something along the lines of 'you are a woman, do not busy yourself with writing as it is a man's job'. It stands no doubt that she was a very good writer, as were her sisters, though they had to disguise themselevs as men to be able to publish and then, when it came out after her sister Emily's death, that they were in fact women, all three of them, they had to go to London and prove it to their own publisher by showing up in person. There was fierce discussion whether a woman could write such things at all.

No doubt George Eliot also named herself a male name in order to be able to publish or at least gain readers. So did George Sand.

Was it Bach's sister who published under her brother's name because no-one wanted to publish the work of a woman?

So don't be so narrow-minded and do not take those lists as an argument.

Amongst all books ever published there are only a handful of great writers, and as there were very few women who did publish, the greats among them are of course going to be very sparse. Think of all those who were not published, lost or whatever.

Bravo for the well-put response. Thanks :)

[mal4mac]

It's rather unfair on Scott to pull out a flip, private comment in a letter to some random woman who wrote to him 'out of the blue' - especially when you are not sure of the comment or the woman! Given Scott's sympathetic portrayal of women in his novels I can only think he was being ironic... (man's work = hard work = don't do it unless it's an absolute calling...)

Scott was greatly admired by female writers, including Jane Austen and George Eliot. I have just read Rob Roy and it has two of the strongest female characters I've encountered in fiction - Diana Vernon and Rob Roy's wife, Helen. They are definitely doing men's work, and mostly better than the men :)

[kiki1982]

Oh, sorry, I have now found out that it was Robert Southey she wrote to in 1837, who was poet laureate no less.

Athough he says her work is not without merit, he also says that 'the day dreams in which you habitually indulge are likely to induce a distempered state of mind; and, in proportion as all the ordinary uses of the world seem to you flat and unprofitable, you will be unfitted for them without becoming fitted for anything else. Literature cannot be the business of a woman’s life, and it ought not to be. The more she is engaged in her proper duties, the less leisure will she have for it, even as an accomplishment and a recreation. To those duties you have not yet been called, and when you are you will be less eager for celebrity.' So, in other words, a woman is called to other duties when she is married, and there is an end to it. So, pulled out of context... It seems not. The man clearly thought that Brontë would have other duties she would neglect because she wanted to write or be unfit for because she dreamed of different things. And he? I am tempted to think that he thought men had a stronger mind. That is only speculation, though.

And before anyone comes up with 'but maybe she did not take it that way', she certainly did!

Her answer to this started with 'I must thank you for the kind and wise advice you have condescended to give me,' but then ends in a somewhat sarcastic tone, saying that she is educated (elaborating on her father spending money on her education) and adding, 'I thought it therefore my duty, when I left school, to become a governess. In that capacity I find enough to occupy my thoughts all day long, and my head and hands too, without having a moment’s time for one dream of the imagination. In the evenings, I confess, I do think, but I never trouble any one else with my thoughts. I carefully avoid any appearance of preoccupation and eccentricity, which might lead those I live amongst to suspect the nature of my pursuits. Following my father’s advice—who from my childhood has counseled me, just in the wise and friendly tone of your letter—I have endeavoured not only attentively to observe all the duties a woman ought to fulfil, but to feel deeply interested in them. I don’t always succeed, for sometimes when I’m teaching or sewing I would rather be reading or writing; but I try to deny myself; and my father’s approbation amply rewarded me for the privation. Once more allow me to thank you with sincere gratitude. I trust I shall never more feel ambitious to see my name in print; if the wish should rise, I’ll look at Southey’s letter, and suppress it.'

I don't know how Southey portrayed women in his work, but that is a pretty stark ting to write to one.

[Griffith]

Yes well, if you're going by that kind of lists, the odds are of course overwhelming, but please bear in mind that women were largely banned from publishing altogether just because they were women.

Was it Charlotte Brontë who wrote to Scott asking what she should do to become a writer? And he wrote back something along the lines of 'you are a woman, do not busy yourself with writing as it is a man's job'. It stands no doubt that she was a very good writer, as were her sisters, though they had to disguise themselevs as men to be able to publish and then, when it came out after her sister Emily's death, that they were in fact women, all three of them, they had to go to London and prove it to their own publisher by showing up in person. There was fierce discussion whether a woman could write such things at all.

No doubt George Eliot also named herself a male name in order to be able to publish or at least gain readers. So did George Sand.

Was it Bach's sister who published under her brother's name because no-one wanted to publish the work of a woman?

So don't be so narrow-minded and do not take those lists as an argument.

Amongst all books ever published there are only a handful of great writers, and as there were very few women who did publish, the greats among them are of course going to be very sparse. Think of all those who were not published, lost or whatever.
This point is a fallacy. The differentiation of capabilities by sex is scientific proved. Take the corpus callosum for instance. The tissue that connects the two hemispheres together and handles their communication with each other is consistently bigger in woman and it has more connections. More connections implies in an AVERAGE better skills at communication but if you analyze the higher IQ of the genius man are clearly predomintant. The inteligence of man is more oriented to objects and of the woman to the people. Stop with communist garbage(this cultural marxism makes me sick). The genres have cleary differences in terms of potential and it's indisputable.

[Scheherazade]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

Inflammatory and/or off-topic posts will be removed without further notice.

~

[kiki1982]

This point is a fallacy. The differentiation of capabilities by sex is scientific proved. Take the corpus callosum for instance. The tissue that connects the two hemispheres together and handles their communication with each other is consistently bigger in woman and it has more connections. More connections implies in an AVERAGE better skills at communication but if you analyze the higher IQ of the genius man are clearly predomintant. The inteligence of man is more oriented to objects and of the woman to the people. Stop with communist garbage(this cultural marxism makes me sick). The genres have cleary differences in terms of potential and it's indisputable.

So actually, what you are saying is that women should be better writers than men even, as women are better communicators (which has indeed been proven, they are better at language things too).

So no communist garbage then, whatever that may be. I do not believe in feminist or marxist theory, unless it is as Neely once explained, how society and maybe a woman character deals with the oppression of certain rules, whatever they are.

So you have actually confirmed my statement. :smash:

[Griffith]

No, just like women are IN AVERAGE better in making food the best chefs are men. Can you imagine a female scientist like Newton?? It's impossible.

[OrphanPip]

This point is a fallacy. The differentiation of capabilities by sex is scientific proved. Take the corpus callosum for instance. The tissue that connects the two hemispheres together and handles their communication with each other is consistently bigger in woman and it has more connections. More connections implies in an AVERAGE better skills at communication but if you analyze the higher IQ of the genius man are clearly predomintant. The inteligence of man is more oriented to objects and of the woman to the people. Stop with communist garbage(this cultural marxism makes me sick). The genres have cleary differences in terms of potential and it's indisputable.

No such thing is proven, actually most recent IQ test show women exceed men, they also have greater rates of attainment of higher degrees. You're spouting silly pseudoscience.

Test scores actually show that women and men have equivalent skills in math. It is a myth that women are worse at math. Recent studies show that now that girls are pursuing advanced math courses in high school, they perform just as well as boys in their age range. What is true is that far less women pursue higher education in math at university, but this is certainly a result of cultural factors.



No, just like women are IN AVERAGE better in making food the best chefs are men. Can you imagine a female scientist like Newton?? It's impossible.

There is often a lot of hero worship that goes on about scientist from the past, but even Newton said that he stood on the shoulders of giants. The calculus was not developed from scratch by Newton, and we can see it was being developed on the continent at the same time by Leibniz, who did it better than Newton because his notation was far more nuanced. Newtonian mechanics draws on the works of Robert Hook and Galileo, none of it was created from thin air.

Newton had the advantage of being fairly bright, but also at being born at a time of scientific flourishing, and he also had the benefit of a newly emerging empirical methodology pioneered by the Royal Society.

Now, as to women scientist: Marie Curie, Jane Goodall, Lynn Margulis (Although Margulis is both a nut and brilliant).

[mal4mac]

There's no doubt that women in the past were given fewer opportunities than men, and we must take steps to ensure that boys and girls get the same opportunities in education. But those same opportunities may not produce the same outcomes. Men may always outnumber women in certain fields (physics?) and vice versa (foreign languages?)

It's not impossible to imagine a female scientist like Newton, and Marie Curie came pretty close in reality (winning Noble prizes for physics and chemistry puts her ahead of most 20th century male scientists - only two men have won two science Nobels - and Curie is the only one to win in two different sciences!)

[Griffith]

Marie Curie came pretty close to Newton. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Shakira came pretty close to Beethoven. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Ok, i will finish the dicussion with REAL science. There's no doubt:



Males and females show average differences on subsections of IQ tests. Males are better on some sections, as spatial questions, while females are better on reading and some other verbal skills. The net result is that overall average IQ scores are calculated to balance out for males and females.

Another meaningful difference is in variance. Male IQ is more variable than female IQ. In other words, females tend to cluster around average scores, while males are somewhat more spread out, with more of them scoring at the very high end and the very low end of the IQ scales. This has been cited as a reason why more geniuses like Einstein or Mozart (and also school dropouts) are males.
http://sq.4mg.com/male-femaleIQ.htm

BUT BUT BUT they already told me that we were equal. :brow:

[Seasider]

@ Griffith
Almost all your examples are drawn from the past. Men have been the dominant sex for most of recorded history. But dominant is not the same as superior. And in the West at least male dominance is being eroded at speed.

Your hero Newton was able to attend a Grammar School and was admitted to Trinity College Cambridge in 1661. There were no Grammar Schools for women in Britain until the middle of the 19th Century. Women undergraduates at Cambridge were not awarded a degree until 1947. British Women were not given the vote until 1928.
A society that is dominated by men naturally gives men the privilege of judging what is good and what is not so good.And mainly they award the highest prizes to their own sex.But as Dylan said The Times They Are A'changin' Noone knows what a society of equality between the sexes would achieve as it has, up to now, never happened. I won't live to see it, but I believe it will come about.

[OrphanPip]

Ok, i will finish the dicussion with REAL science. There's no doubt:

BUT BUT BUT they already told me that we were equal. :brow:

I think your understanding of the nuances of the studies is deeply flawed. There is no statistical difference between men and women, not even instances of outliers, when we correct for social differences in studies. In fact, you'll find in some countries we get the opposite pattern, more distribution in the abilities of the girls on test. Unfortunately, IQ is far from an objective measure of intelligence, and we are perfectly aware of the ability of social and cultural aspects to affect IQ scores.

And this is coming from someone with a "real" science degree.

[Ecurb]

It's rather unfair on Scott to pull out a flip, private comment in a letter to some random woman who wrote to him 'out of the blue' - especially when you are not sure of the comment or the woman! Given Scott's sympathetic portrayal of women in his novels I can only think he was being ironic... (man's work = hard work = don't do it unless it's an absolute calling...)

Scott was greatly admired by female writers, including Jane Austen and George Eliot. I have just read Rob Roy and it has two of the strongest female characters I've encountered in fiction - Diana Vernon and Rob Roy's wife, Helen. They are definitely doing men's work, and mostly better than the men.

Scott loved Jane Austen’s novels, and wrote,
“"Read again, for the third time at least, Miss Austen's finely written novel of 'Pride And Prejudice'. That young Lady had a talent for describing the involvements and feelings and characters of ordinary life, which is to me the most wonderful I ever met with. The big Bow-Wow strain I can do myself like any now going; but the exquisite touch which renders ordinary common-place things and characters interesting from the truth of the description and the sentiment is denied to me. What a pity such a gifted creature died so early!"

However, I disagree about the quality of his female characters. We are all, of course, in love with Rebecca (from Ivanhoe), but that may have something to do with Elizabeth Taylor in the movie version. In general, Scott portrayed women as idealized stereotypes, more fit for being toasted in the barracks than for being real, live humans. Of course this was in keeping with his romanticized story-telling (which I like, by the way). His admitted “big Bow-Wow strain” lacks subtlety of characterization (although it’s great in other ways).

[JuniperWoolf]

Ok, i will finish the dicussion with REAL science. There's no doubt:

That sentence alone is mind-bogglingly stupid. Yeah, there's no doubts in science. Nope, scientists never refute one another's theories. And that theory that you put forth isn't ridiculously out-dated and hasn't been crushed into the ground by every university, nope, not at all. :rolleyes5: *sarcasm overload*

Hey Griffin, Guess What?

1. The highest IQ ever recorded is that of a woman, Marilyn vos Savant, at an astonishing 228.

2. The first person to perform a successful heart transplant was a black man.

3. Nietzsche, one of (if not THE) greatest thinkers of all time was born in Germany, but renounced his citizenship in disgust, calling himself an "anti-anti-semite." Didn't stop the Nazis from citing his work as the inspiration for their philosophy though, but their theories were never very well thought out (their desperate, hateful thinking was woefully yet understandably prevelant in times of starvation - BUT even today some creeps insist on perpetuating that way of thinking, even in affluent societies, with absolutely no excuses for their behaviour - any ideas as to why that might be, Griff old boy?). *NOTE* pay special attention to that last part in brackets, it encapsulates my whole point.

4. Thomas Mann, one of the greatest German thinkers of all time (second only to Nietzsche) also renounced his citizenship for the same reason.

5. Newton, your "greatest scientist ever" who you claim was a Christian, became obsessed with the Kaballah later in life.

6. Neil Tyson Degrassi is arguably the best physicist alive, and is black.

7. You hold Dostoevsky up as the "greatest writer ever" who was Christian (even if you DID spell his name wrong :rolleyes5: ) , but he was also a left wing socialist. He went to prison for it. He almost died for it.


And THAT, my ignorant friend, is called being pwned.

[anishastrologer]

Fitzwilliam Darcy is undoubtedly the best male character. even today, women can fall very easily for him. edward cullen is another popular male character created by a female author who is a favorite of teenagers today.:yesnod:

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l___W a r n i n g

Further personalised, off-topic posts will lead to thread closure

as well as earning those involved infraction points.

[Griffith]

That sentence alone is mind-bogglingly stupid. Yeah, there's no doubts in science. Nope, scientists never refute one another's theories. And that theory that you put forth isn't ridiculously out-dated and hasn't been crushed into the ground by every university, nope, not at all. :rolleyes5: *sarcasm overload*

Hey Griffin, Guess What?

1. The highest IQ ever recorded is that of a woman, Marilyn vos Savant, at an astonishing 228.

2. The first person to perform a successful heart transplant was a black man.

3. Nietzsche, one of (if not THE) greatest thinkers of all time was born in Germany, but renounced his citizenship in disgust, calling himself an "anti-anti-semite." Didn't stop the Nazis from citing his work as the inspiration for their philosophy though, but their theories were never very well thought out (their desperate, hateful thinking was woefully yet understandably prevelant in times of starvation - BUT even today some creeps insist on perpetuating that way of thinking, even in affluent societies, with absolutely no excuses for their behaviour - any ideas as to why that might be, Griff old boy?). *NOTE* pay special attention to that last part in brackets, it encapsulates my whole point.

4. Thomas Mann, one of the greatest German thinkers of all time (second only to Nietzsche) also renounced his citizenship for the same reason.

5. Newton, your "greatest scientist ever" who you claim was a Christian, became obsessed with the Kaballah later in life.

6. Neil Tyson Degrassi is arguably the best physicist alive, and is black.

7. You hold Dostoevsky up as the "greatest writer ever" who was Christian (even if you DID spell his name wrong :rolleyes5: ) , but he was also a left wing socialist. He went to prison for it. He almost died for it.


And THAT, my ignorant friend, is called being pwned.

Dear JuWIPER. I will destroy your fallacies.

1- This is just a number of one person. If i take your dunderhead's logic in consideration i will say that the turks are in average higher than the norwegian people just because Sultan Kösen has 2.51(a value that a norwegian never recorded).

2- And so what?? Africans have lower IQS and this is indisputable. Take a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

In this degenerate world it's prohibited to say the truth because the materialistic system only evaluates people by their propensity to consume and not by their skills or honor. Like Nietzsche said, a sum of zeros in which is valuable to be a zero. James Watson, the father of DNA, nobel laureate, had his career destroyed just because he said the truth. And we have many parrots repeating that the Middle Age was the Age of Darkness. It's very funny.

3- You don't know nothing about Nietzsche's work. I will quote somes parts of his works. Compare with the speechs of the führer.


Life is desire for power ... desire in general is not nothing but desire to become stronger, desire to grow and also the means for it.
Nietzsche


Life is will to power. He who would live must fight and those who do not want to fight, in this world of eternal struggle, don't deserve to stay alive.
Adolf Hitler


The life is the struggle of few against many, of the common sense against the rare, of the strong against the weak.
Nietzsche


The history of mankind always was made by minorities. Never the crowd create something but always the individual. Gifted men should be in command.
Adolf Hitler


The proper life told me this secret. Wait it told me, i'm the one that must overcome myselft again and again.
Nietzsche


Life is will to power; and the satisfaction of eternal overcoming.
Adolf Hitler


I teach you the Superman, the man is something that must be overcome.
Nietzsche


The creation is not an end. The man must to go through and overcome it. Man is becoming God. Man is God in composition. The world is made of Gods and animals nowadays.
Adolf Hitler

I could continue ad infinitum and talk about the SS's moral("the moral" of supermen and so forth but i don't think it's necessary. Go study and stop talking nonsense. See by yourself what's the supermen in march: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h-roBOUFKU

4- He would be proud if he were born in Africa. :rofl:

5- http://www.laitman.com/2008/03/isaac-newton-and-kabbalah/
Jewish sources?? :rofl: Jews see themselves as the center of the universe. Do not believe in everything you read.

6- He's mongrel(just like Obama) and the great scientist alive is Stephen Hawking of pure aryan descent.

7- In my country, Argentina, we write that way. He was a socialist but it's clear your amateurism; you don't know the changes in his life. Have you ever read "the demons"?? It's a critic of socialism, my iliterate friend.

[kiki1982]

So, learned something new today.

I could probably find something in Mein Kampf which discredits what you take out of context as that 'work' was allegedly contradictory in itself and similar to Hitler's rants, but I won't, as I am not that interested in this kind of thing.

Oh yes, and the statistical fact that the chance of Hitler being mentioned getting closer to one as a discussion goes on has again been proven. :D

I'll get ready to open a new thread, then, shall I?

And before it closes I'll just say that I like Austen's creation Frederick Wentworth too, and Henry Tilney, ever so charming.

[Ecurb]

Fitzwilliam Darcy is undoubtedly the best male character. even today, women can fall very easily for him. edward cullen is another popular male character created by a female author who is a favorite of teenagers today.:yesnod:

Jane Austen in one of my favorite authors, and I’ve read all her novels many times. However, her male characters are minor figures in the books. I’ll grant that Darcy is attractive to many women – but I think that’s because they identify with Elizabeth. What woman wouldn’t want some rich, handsome guy to change his ways because of her influence? Isn’t changing men a feminine preoccupation? (Of course there’s debate about whether Darcy actually changes, but even if he doesn’t, he SEEMS to from Elizabeth’s perspective.)

All of Austen’s novels are about women. The men (like the women in Scott’s novels) are there to provide the women with something to do. Certainly (at least) if we compare the male and female characters in Austen’s novels, the women are more fully realized, more interesting, and more fun. I’ll grant that her MALE characters may be well drawn compared to those of any other author, but compared to her female characters they are minor figures. (Austen is notorious for writing, I think, only one scene in which men are involved but there are no women present. The scene is in Mansfield Park, between Edmund and Sir Thomas.)

[Seasider]

Captain Wentworth in Persuasion is a very sympathetic and attractive character character...almost as good as Darcy.

@Scheherazade. Griffiths has been off topic and insulting, either to individuals or groups in almost every post he has written. I think he should not be allowed to use our forum as a vehicle for his sexist, racist and abusive remarks.

[Desolation]

3- You don't know nothing about Nietzsche's work. I will quote somes parts of his works. Compare with the speechs of the führer.

That's right...Juniper doesn't "know nothing" about Nietzsche's works...It's you that knows nothing. No one who refers to them-self as an "Aryan" could really appreciate Nietzsche, who despised antisemitism and German nationalism, who believed that the Superman would be inter-racial, who was sarcastic and hyperbolic to the extreme but could still tap into the harsh realities of life. Yes, he discussed that humanity is motivated by the will towards power. I could say the same thing, and mention greed and cruelty...but saying that that is reality does not mean that I condone such behaviors.

However, Nietzsche did endorse power. I won't deny that. But, so have most great writers. Hemingway, for instance, was all about power, too. Because power is internal strength in the face of crisis, and unflinching moral courage. It is not a distinction of "might = right." Power, in the Nietzschean sense, is a concept that would completely elude a weak man such as Adolf Hitler. The powerful are they who are masters of their own minds and bodies. Only the weakest of the weak must try to dominate others to feel powerful. Ole Adolf is more comparable to the common rapist (the weakest and most deplorable class of people that I know) than any great philosopher or king.

Now, back to (kind of) the topic at hand...I think we can all agree that women haven't exactly been given a fair chance throughout history to show their merits as great writers, artists, thinkers, or scientists. And it has nothing to do with their abilities, and any rational person should be keenly aware of this. I believe that, really, women have more potential than men to be great in any of these fields (it all boils down to individuals, of course, but I think that women as a whole are a lot smarter than men as a whole). But, men have fragile egos. As such, reiterating the power dynamic I mentioned earlier, we've held back women for centuries. Now, hopefully, we can rectify that. While you won't find a list of greatest authors with more women than men, you're sure to find names like Jane Austin, the Bronte Sisters, Virginia Woolf, Gertrude Stein, Sylvia Plath, Zora Neale Hurston, Emily Dickinson, Harper Lee, Flannery O'Connor, Maya Angelou, Mary Shelley, Dorothy Parker, and Toni Morrison listed among the greats.

[Emil Miller]

That sentence alone is mind-bogglingly stupid. Yeah, there's no doubts in science. Nope, scientists never refute one another's theories. And that theory that you put forth isn't ridiculously out-dated and hasn't been crushed into the ground by every university, nope, not at all. :rolleyes5: *sarcasm overload*

Hey Griffin, Guess What?

1. The highest IQ ever recorded is that of a woman, Marilyn vos Savant, at an astonishing 228.

2. The first person to perform a successful heart transplant was a black man.

3. Nietzsche, one of (if not THE) greatest thinkers of all time was born in Germany, but renounced his citizenship in disgust, calling himself an "anti-anti-semite." Didn't stop the Nazis from citing his work as the inspiration for their philosophy though, but their theories were never very well thought out (their desperate, hateful thinking was woefully yet understandably prevelant in times of starvation - BUT even today some creeps insist on perpetuating that way of thinking, even in affluent societies, with absolutely no excuses for their behaviour - any ideas as to why that might be, Griff old boy?). *NOTE* pay special attention to that last part in brackets, it encapsulates my whole point.

4. Thomas Mann, one of the greatest German thinkers of all time (second only to Nietzsche) also renounced his citizenship for the same reason.

5. Newton, your "greatest scientist ever" who you claim was a Christian, became obsessed with the Kaballah later in life.

6. Neil Tyson Degrassi is arguably the best physicist alive, and is black.

7. You hold Dostoevsky up as the "greatest writer ever" who was Christian (even if you DID spell his name wrong :rolleyes5: ) , but he was also a left wing socialist. He went to prison for it. He almost died for it.


And THAT, my ignorant friend, is called being pwned.

I'm afraid that you are labouring under several misconceptions here.

Firstly, the woman you quote as the highest IQ candidate doesn't measure up at all, even if IQ testing were an acceptable method of deducing intelligence; which it isn't, as you will see from the article below:

Highest IQ in the World
If you want to know the record holder for the highest IQ in the world, then you're in the right place. Although many people think it's Steven Hawking with an IQ of slightly over 200, or Marilyn vos Savant with and IQ of 228. We want to mention that results of IQs can vary from test to test and from day to day. The problem is that there is no set way to measure intelligence as there are too many aspects to take into account (memory, problem-solving, etc), so don't put too much faith in your IQ rating.

Guinness retired the category of "Highest IQ" in 1990, after concluding that IQ tests are not reliable enough to designate a single world record holder. So do not expect to find any reliable information about the highest IQ.

The highest IQ ever recorded was by Marilyn vos Savant with 228; however that is a mental status ratio IQ (used for children). Adult IQs are measured by standard deviations, in which her adult IQ would compute to about 185, which is lower than famous chess master Bobby Fischer (187).

Secondly, the first successful heart transplant was carried out by a white man Dr.Christiaan Barnard, a South African, in Cape Town in 1967.

Thirdly, Thomas Mann was a novelist whereas Nietzsche was a philosopher; I don't think there are many people who would class him as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, let alone second second only to Nietzsche, but he was certainly one of the greatest German novelists . He didn't renounce his citizenship, it was revoked by the National Socialist government as was that of his brother Heinrich who was a pro-communist writer. He was granted US citizenship in 1944, but he didn't like the American lifestyle and retired to Switzerland where he died in 1955.

[Sancho]

Fish or Cut bait? Fish? Cut Bait?

How about: Hazel Motes in Wise Blood, by Flannery O'Connor.

Fish.

[Emil Miller]

So, learned something new today.

I could probably find something in Mein Kampf which discredits what you take out of context as that 'work' was allegedly contradictory in itself and similar to Hitler's rants, but I won't, as I am not that interested in this kind of thing.

Oh yes, and the statistical fact that the chance of Hitler being mentioned getting closer to one as a discussion goes on has again been proven. :D


Well all politicians contradict themselves, it's an inevitable consequence of the job. However, you would be ill-advised to take Hitler's speeches as 'rants', they were carefully prepared to whip up the fervour of the audience.
Yes. it has become a truism that Hitler will in all likelihood be mentioned as any discussion goes on; but why do you think that is?

[Darcy88]

Only the weakest of the weak must try to dominate others to feel powerful. Ole Adolf is more comparable to the common rapist (the weakest and most deplorable class of people that I know) than any great philosopher or king.

Bingo.

[JuniperWoolf]

In this degenerate world...

BUY. A. THESAURUS.


The highest IQ ever recorded was by Marilyn vos Savant with 228; however that is a mental status ratio IQ (used for children). Adult IQs are measured by standard deviations, in which her adult IQ would compute to about 185, which is lower than famous chess master Bobby Fischer (187).

Where did you find that article? You didn't cite a source at all, whereas I have a book in my hand right now called The Golden Ratio by Mario Livio that names Marilyn vos Savant as the highest IQ holder ever recorded.

Also, of course they used a Stanford-Binet test to measure her IQ, she was underage when she broke the Guinness World Record. She has a deviation IQ of 186, meaning that she's in the top 99.999997% despite her handicap of posessing a vagina. *sarcasm*


...so don't put too much faith in your IQ rating.

You're talking to the wrong person. I've championed the "IQ TESTS ARE FLAWED AND THUS INVALID" cause for years, and probably 20 times on litnet alone. Nazi boy was specifically saying that women have low IQ, so I gave him an argument that fit.


Secondly, the first successful heart transplant was carried out by a white man Dr.Christiaan Barnard, a South African, in Cape Town in 1967.

Sorry, I meant "first successful open heart surgery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Hale_Williams)," not transplant (which is actually more impressive, especially considering that it was in 1893).


Yes. it has become a truism that Hitler will in all likelihood be mentioned as any discussion goes on; but why do you think that is?

Because the things that he did were disgusting and happened fairly recently so they're still fresh and raw in our species' mind? We'd mention the Genghis Khan, but that was such a long time ago...


I don't think there are many people who would class him as one of the greatest German thinkers of all time.

I guess we could start a poll. Public opinion is always so simple, and a very black-and-white measure of quality. *sarcasm, again*


He didn't renounce his citizenship, it was revoked by the National Socialist government as was that of his brother Heinrich who was a pro-communist writer.

That is a legal triviality (and random fact about his brother, for some reason) which misses the point completely:

His most cited work is his famous call for resistance to the Nazis in an open letter, Neue Züriche Zeitung, published in 1936. Within months of its publication, Mann's German citizenship was revoked, and he came to America, where during World War II he recorded propaganda for the Allies to be broadcast into Germany.
http://www.nndb.com/people/180/000025105/

[PoeticPassions]

Getting back to the topic again...

I think one of the best male characters by a female author was/is Hadrian, from MEMOIRS OF HADRIAN by Marguerite Yourcenar. Though this is based on the life of the Roman Emperor Hadrian, the book is a work of fiction. I read it really long ago, however, so I would need to revisit it. But I do remember her capturing the male perspective quite well.

[Scheherazade]

http://www.flarerecord.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/thats-all-folks.jpg


Those who wish to discuss the male characters developed by female author can do so by starting another thread.

Those who persisted in discussing male superiority will receive infraction points.