The Naipaul-challenge

[hampusforev]

I'm sure many of you are aware of Naipauls recent statement that women are "sentimental" and "unequal to men" when it comes to writing. I haven't seen any thread on it though, so I thought I would create one. The Guardian have administered a little test to see if you're as gender-perceptive as Naipaul, and I'd like to see what you guys score. I couldn't tell at all and just guessed, and I think Naipaul's statement is ridiculous. That being said, I personally haven't found any female writers equal to Tolstoy, Shakespeare or Melville. I love Flannery O'Connor, but she hasn't quite produced anything like Anna Karenina, King Lear or Moby-Dick. I think Virginia Woolf is a brilliant critic and thinker, but I can't say I care much for her fiction. I haven't really read any Jane Austen so I can't comment on her. As well as taking the Naipaul-test I'd like you to recommend some female writers that you think rivals the ones I've put forth above.

Here's the test:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/quiz...hor-s-sex-quiz

[Heteronym]

I personally haven't found many male writes equal to Tolstoy or Shakespeare either.

[hampusforev]

Haha, yeah, you have a point there...

[PeterL]

Naipaul put his foot into his mouth. If he had said the same things in a more circumspect way, then people would have applauded his sensitiviy to the differences between men and women. There have been studies of the differences in writing, and the differences are widespread and definable. That isn't to say that either is inferior, only that there are real differences. The samples on the site that you linked are too short to guess with any confidence.

There are at least two sites where one can have the sex of a writer guessed at by some software. They are fairly accurate. The links are below.
http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.html
http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php

[mortalterror]

To be fair, a lot of the guys who get really into art are indistinguishable from chicks anyway.

[prickly_pete]

To be fair, a lot of the guys who get really into art are indistinguishable from chicks anyway.

That's unfair to women. I think of the artist as sort of an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society - or at least recently this is the case. That's why alot of "high" art tends to express the hopelessness and irrationality of life and living - sentiments felt primarily by those on the far, far outskirts of society or those with mental disorders. Go to any liberal arts college and look at the Art Majors...well, the world needs coffee makers I suppose lol

Besides the point really. Why does everyone have to measure up to Shakespeare? Did it ever occur to you that his immense popularity - though obviously somewhat do to his talent - has alot to do with the predominance of English in the modern world? Is Zola any less talented than Tolstoy or do people just like reading stories about war more than they do stories about social and economic problems?

[stlukesguild]

I think of the artist as sort of an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society -

And I tend to think of those who join the military as mindless, violent, socio-pathic sexual rejects who have nothing to offer society.

To be fair, a lot of the guys who get really into art are indistinguishable from chicks anyway.

Would you include yourself in this pathetic stereotype? Is this a confession on your part as to a preference for frilly lace underclothing?

[prickly_pete]

And I tend to think of those who join the military as mindless, violent, socio-pathic sexual rejects who have nothing to offer society.

We're not sexual rejects.

[Drkshadow03]

That's unfair to women. I think of the artist as sort of an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society - or at least recently this is the case. That's why alot of "high" art tends to express the hopelessness and irrationality of life and living - sentiments felt primarily by those on the far, far outskirts of society or those with mental disorders. Go to any liberal arts college and look at the Art Majors...well, the world needs coffee makers I suppose lol

Uhm, apparently we attended very different English/Art classes?

Science majors on the other hand . . .

[prickly_pete]

I think scientists and science majors have an optimistic tone. On the other hand it would be a very big mistake to say that most of what has been considered "high" art in the past 100 years or so isn't extremely pessimistic or down right self-loathing.

[Drkshadow03]

I think scientists and science majors have an optimistic tone. On the other hand it would be a very big mistake to say that most of what has been considered "high" art in the past 100 years or so isn't extremely pessimistic or down right self-loathing.

I was commenting more on the art majors are "an introverted, defenseless, sexual reject who has nothing to offer society" part.

Introverted is one of those myths similar to all artists live in a garret. Defenseless I'm not really sure what that's supposed to mean. And sexual rejects? Seriously?

[prickly_pete]

I lived at the Arts House at Tufts for a semester and was damaged for life. The dorms at MIT though - seemed like fairly healthy individuals living there.

But what are you saying though? That 20th Century art in Europe took a self-confident tone?

[Drkshadow03]

I lived at the Arts House at Tufts for a semester and was damaged for life. The dorms at MIT though - seemed like fairly healthy individuals living there.

I guess I'm confused then by how you're defining your terms. When I think of a sexual reject, I'm thinking of some dorky little guy who has a laugh like a donkey and smells like he hasn't showered for a few days, and has never been laid. Or that guy's female counterpart.

But what are you saying though? That 20th Century art in Europe took a self-confident tone?

No, but art reflects the feelings of the times. Does World War I and II and the plethora of genocides inspire you with confidence for the future?

[prickly_pete]

No, but art reflects the feelings of the times. Did World War I and II and the vast genocides inspire you with confidence for the future?

No less than the Crusades, or Napoleon, or Slavery, or the wanton destruction of Native Americans and their way of life...but somehow earlier ages were able to take on a confident or self-reliant tone in their artwork. Since we seem incapable of this I say we should keep our distance.

I have nothing to learn from the weak or the self-hating. We're almost 70 years removed from WWII and still I think we can generalize contemporary art as expressing hopelessness, irrationality, and dissapointment with the world.

I much prefer the company of scientists than artists.

[Drkshadow03]

No less than the Crusades, or Napoleon, or Slavery, or the wanton destruction of Native Americans and their way of life...but somehow earlier ages were able to take on a confident or self-reliant tone in their artwork. Since we seem incapable of this I say we should keep our distance.

I have nothing to learn from the weak or the self-hating. We're almost 70 years removed from WWII and still I think we can generalize contemporary art as expressing hopelessness, irrationality, and dissapointment with the world.

I much prefer the company of scientists than artists.

Eh, one of the major differences is that the literatures of those various historical events often depicted those events as positive and romanticized them. Much of the criticism and view of those events as bad (with the exception of perhaps slavery) doesn't really come about, until you get into contemporary society full of hopelessness and self-loathing criticism. Also, since all those literatures are so old anyway I couldn't possibly relate to them the way I could more contemporary literature full of hopelessness, irrationality, and disappointment, according to your earlier statements.

As for the rest of it, good for you?