Why does it seem as if most authors were assholes / unlikeable in person?

why does it seem as if most authors were assholes / unlikeable in person?

Other urls found in this thread:

goodreads.com/book/show/3176787-travels-with-virginia-woolf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

You could probably chalk it up to the typically reclusive, introverted tendencies of creative people.

Only pseuds that want to justify being unlikeable assholes claim that those traits go hand in hand together

They do though, it's just that being an unlikeable asshole doesn't make you creative on its own.

Ok

That's not because they're authors, that's because they're intelligent. Smart people never think highly of the average person for a reason.

Writing is an essentially solitary pursuit. So although some of them are rather extroverted (camus and maupassant being two notoriously outgoing examples off the top of my head), a great part of writers are antisocial types.

To be a good writer you need to have a profound understanding of the human condition, which requires you to be a very observational person. Some can manage to do so while still being "normal" and social, but in the large sense in order to have that unobstructed perspective you need to isolate yourself.

Again, only pseuds actually look down on others for difference in intelligence.

maybe because you read shitty authors

>HE WUZ MEAN TO ME!

what about virginia woolf i think she would be bretty nice girl

I wasn't alive when Dostoyevsky was still kicking

Dostoevsky was pretty cool in person.

Abandoned his first wife to go after a younger pussy who rejected him

No he didn't. His first wife died,

You're wrong. That's because you've met pseuds, but not really intelligent people.

Because it takes a certain amount of egotism to think people should read what you write.

im sure this post is going to get people mocking me with ebin meme arrows, but i don't particularly care. I think many smarter people DO look down on others for their lack of intelligence, but not in the way describes.

Many intelligent people seem to idealize soldiers, the working class, or even the middle class. Intelligent people, in my estimation, tend to hate those who profess to have knowledge when in reality they do not. ergo, real intellectuals (not STEM autists) hate pseuds, whereas pseuds (70% of STEM autists, maybe 15% of the GP) tend to hate everybody who doesn't hold all of their unreasoned and unreasonable opinions.

she seemed nice, but she battled with depression that lead to her suicide and she never left England in her entire life. Not saying she's mean or anything, but she was definitely an odd bird. She was pretty damn snooty towards Joyce, too.

he liked Sonja

Use of the expression "STEM autists" makes you a pseud by default.

Literally like chad hating on intellectuals for not being buff. Fuck off pseud

>she never left England in her entire life

Nonsense. She often traveled. From wiki:

For example, while traveling on a cruise to Portugal she protests at finding "a great many Portuguese Jews on board, and other repulsive objects, but we keep clear of them".

>and she never left England in her entire life

There's a whole book of her travel writings - she toured all over Europe extensively:

Virginia Woolf had a lively sense of place and delighted in `lighting accidentally. . . upon scenes which would have gone on, have always gone on, will go on, unrecorded, save for this chance glimpse. Following Virginia's footprints from her beloved Sussex and Cornwall to wartime London, Italy and the Riviera to Greek mountains and the wilds of Spain, Jan Morris intersperses swift verbal sketches of a Greek peasant wedding, a fenland sky, an elderly spinster in a hotel dining room in Italy, or Bognor pier in the rain with her own brief, telling comments on both writer and subject.

goodreads.com/book/show/3176787-travels-with-virginia-woolf

Hello, I saw your post. You may be suffering from this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Really?
I definitely read that fact and it struck me as odd.
goddamn internet

B T F O
T
F
O

Maybe she wouldn't have died if he wasn't a lazy-ass gambler and actually provided for her. Also, she was still alive when he abandoned her for Polina Suslova

He had a gambling problem, but he was hardly lazy, he was a professional writer and teacher. He left Russia to Paris to teach, not over any affair.

He met Polina in Paris where she was a student and groupie, but all information about their affair is in her letters to other people and to him. She was obsessed with him, and wrote elaborate fantasies about him pining for her that verge on the absurd. But if you look at Dostoevsky's letters and diary entries about her, he always expresses a strong distaste for her, to say the least, and says she is a nauseating egoist, and that she was a "selfish woman, undeserving of my love." He took special interest in teaching her to write, because she begged him to, but he was absolutely repulsed by her romantic inclinations, and used her as the basis for his melodramatic female characters who see life as some tragic love novel.

Suspiciously, by the way, she burned all the letters he sent her (while the letters she sent to him which were quite pleading, survive) upon his death,.Long after they had parted ways.

Most writers understand that there is more to life than buying groceries, taking care of your kids & fucking your middling wife until she turns into a homely babushka and ultimately into an ugly fat old sow. They resent that they are trapped in an oppressive reality which makes it nearly impossible to break free of this. And therefore they are frustrated. Think about it - the best writers never found any meaning in materialism.

>Implying that isn't cool

Kek nice banter

I'm not so sure, it's logical to say so, but some materialist writers were good too, take Camus for example. Although, of course, he's not on Dostoevsky's level.

...

haha

Like most "individuals" they were likely asshole fedora tippers in person

Still made good shit tho

Dosto was a self absorbed faggot and anyone could see it just by reading your posts. Of course he'd keep her letters to flatter himself whereas she burned them out of disgust

My favorite asshole writer moment is when Faulkner's daughter asked him to just not be drunk at her birthday party and his response was to tell her that no one remembers who Shakespeare's daughter was.

Authors often have turn inwards to write, because writing mere about observations is trite. Most authors have turned inwards to the point where they become a cynic or a reclusive.

Most authors become authors because they were socially retarded in the first place

Biased much?

They were all assholes growing up.
>Go to your room you asshole!
They sat in their rooms and wrote. True story

I'm actually a big fan of his work, Crime and Punishment and Brothers Karamazov are two of my favorites. I'm just stating facts about the man.

Normies like you just won't ever understand

William Frederick Koh. GTFO

You do realize the term "normie" was made ironically, right?

You'd have to be LITERALLY autistic to imply striving to be normal is a bad thing.

Being normal = being mediocre.

Huge life tip:
Chad ~ Pepe ~ Great artists
Normalfag depressed wageslave ~ Wojak ~ Worthless fleshwalker

Montaigne
Keats
Chekhov

now fuck off

>Being socially adjusted means you are mediocre

Took the blue pill.

>I'm not mediocre because I meet the bare minimum!
Sweet sweet delusions.

You are a literal fedora. You are implying if someone is "normal", presumably socially adjusted, they are automatically mediocre in terms of creativity or the likes. Sounds like justifying being an autistic sperg with no friends.

You are literally a hat. The best you can hope for is to be donned.

If you are described as "normal", you are mediocre by definition. If you had anything worth lauding, it would be otherwise.

Sorry a life of mediocrity is the best you can do for yourself, but don't get angry and call others hats. It's rude.

Out of disgust? Everyone agrees she was obsessed with him, even her own accounts.

She didn't burn them until he died. Did she do this out of concern for his privacy or hers? If so, why would she keep her diary entries, and speak of the "affair" in extravagent terms to all sorts of other people through letters? She held onto them with the hope he would fall for her and continued to re-read them, thinking of him. When he died, she burned them because it would be embarrassing if the world found out what a liar she was.

I'm schizophrenic, but that doesn't mean I'm not "normal". It's so damn cringey when someone says that they aren't "normal" with pride.

Chekhov was unfaithful.
He was also the most handsome author ever.

What is "normal" anyway? When someone says "hey that guy/girl isnt normal" the person they are talking about is usually forcing some personality quirk. this is normal to do this. hence why I find most creative people are well socially adjusted because they see how stupid it is to do this kind of thing. let your work speak for itself, not your character, and some absurd need to be dubbed "not normal" through artificial quirks and faults.

can you even blame handsome people for not being faithful desu

There is a difference between being "normal" socially and being "normal" (i.e. average) at every aspect of life

The shitposter who is constantly throwing "pseud" around needs to an hero fast. I recommend /r9k/ for methods, newfag.

...