Has there ever been a prettier writer?

...

This, but ironically

Neither of these people are attractive.

You do know that the first one you quoted is the same woman in
right?

If you only approach her when she's looking sideways, perhaps.

Yes

>Has there ever been a prettier writer?
Most definitely.

She looks nice.

Interesting...
always assumed it was Sylvia Plath, but just compared pics, and you win
still like to read Austen every night
and Dickinson and Harper Lee more my type, I guess

CNA

so cute she had to be locked up

...

None of the responses to the OP's homely woman are attractive. These women are 4's or 5's on a generous scale. Writers are ugly people.

The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man.
-John Green

Checkmate

she also landed Hepburn her first role
based Colette

You have absolutely horrible taste in women

>Writers are ugly people.

The idea of an artist posing for a photo shoot seems very disgusting to me

She seems like an anime girl in that photo.

...

It's because she is.

Do not post attractive people here in my sanctum. It is unbelievably triggering.

She looks like Audrey Horne here.

Came here to post this fine slice of boipucci.

>letting a dog rest its asshole on your sofa

absolutely disgusting

where else are ya gonna sit, user?

What, you eat your meals off of your couch cushions? The extent to which some posters here are neat-freaks perplexes me

...

...

She's ugly, man. She has those slanty eyes and shit.

Those are most definitely not aeronautically sound. It's like late 19th century American saloon whore trying to peak my curiosity. Imagine the disappointment when the flop comes and those tits droop. I suppose I'm just another contemporary shunning theatre in all it's grand majestic splendour.

To be fair I think it's just the style of bras they wore back in the day. Conical and pointy, they were.

I just can't stop Tartt posting.

mai waifu

I wonder if her pussy is tart

Would have given everything for Gertrude to bounce on my cock - cowgirl style

youtube.com/watch?v=UCOSG2jCOoM

1:33

4:46

I agree with this. I imagine a lot of the time with artists who usually come across as self-respecting though, it's the case that the publishing company is twisting their arm into taking the photo. I mean if Gaddis and McCarthy have photos than everyone has to have them.

>tfw carson mccullers will never sit on your face

They can probably have fun with it. Spending whole life in a little room, talking about other people and other things, to have a rare moment for the camera to be pointed on them, even from one who doesnt like photos taken, I can imagine it being fun to have fun with it, be goofy...but then that can come back and haunt your image, which is why there aren't a lot of mages of shakesphere, and some other historical writers

Sounds like a nightmare desu

There aren't many pictures of Shakespeare because he wasn't wealthy.

Muh pure art. It's promo material, you donk. The publisher needs it.

>There aren't many pictures of Shakespeare because he wasn't wealthy.
would anyones feelings on shakespeare be different if he had photoshoots of like 50 photos dressing up in different outfits, smiling seductively or intently at the camera? (as user suggested they had a problem with writers being photographed)

didn't know she was ugly, now I like her even less

thats a hell of a chin. or whatever is left of a chin
looks like hitchens little tryhard sister

Thanks, user
That video is heaven for several reasons

they're promoting themselves, nothing wrong with that. plus, girls like feeling pretty so deal with it
I've noticed the majority are dressed surprisingly modest, almost like they're all moms. Cute

WARNING: Not the same user to whom you've responded.

I might be mistaken on the exact number, but Shakespeare had at least two, if not four properties. He owned at least one, maybe two residences in Stratford-upon-Avon and he owned Blackfriars Gatehouse in London. He may have also owned a separate property in London since he leased out Blackfriars Gatehouse. His grave in Holy Trinity was also not cheap.

Shakespeare was at least upper middle class... I consider that wealthy, especially since he owned a bit of property.

>By 1597, William, a theatre shareholder, had become so successful that he snapped up New Place, a large Stratford property that experts estimate had at least 20 rooms. Stratford residents even approached him for a loan: the archive has the only surviving letter addressed to Shakespeare, from townsman Richard Quiney, asking for 30 pounds (£30,000 today). Shakespeare reapplied for a family coat of arms, securing the coveted “gentleman’s” title for his father.

>Wells cites Shakespeare’s “big Stratford investments” as evidence that he divided his time between London and home. “He bought New Place; a lot of land in 1604; a share in the church tithes, an investment that brought him a lot of money; a cottage in Cottage Lane. For much of his life, he was investing in property,” says Wells.

From the Financial Times "Why Shakespeare was also a saavy property investor and developer"

That's exactly what I was thinking

Like Brett E Eliis, and what they are talking about?

>having to promote your literary work by showing of your body

whores