THEY WERE NOTHING MORE THAN MIDDLE-LOWER CLASS CHUMPS
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN?
ARISTOCRATIC BOURGEOIS WRITERS LIKE GOETHE, HUGO ETC ARE PURE SHITE
RICH PEOPLE CANT WRITE GOOD LITERATURE
Connor Sanchez
That's not how logic works, OP.
Isaac Russell
>THEY WERE NOTHING MORE THAN MIDDLE-LOWER CLASS CHUMPS
literally all three of them were among "the 1%" of their time.
Matthew Thomas
I agree but Milton is garbage.
Matthew Ramirez
Aristocratic bourgeois writers can write but they must have a strong sense of connection to the land or else you get contemporary British novelist tier stagnation.
Justin Myers
ok m8 calm down there you need to chill ok just stop that famiglia
Henry Ortiz
Why do you think that?
Jackson Jenkins
NAME ONE GOOD WRITER THAT WAS RICH
Brody Murphy
almost all of them
David Sanders
Name 5
Zachary Richardson
Are there any good poor writers? I believed that culture was only for faggots with money.
Easton Miller
dante shakespeare milton
Carson Martinez
You are correct
Isaac Myers
Byron Nabokov
but yeah, not many. partly because very few people are rich and when you're already wealthy there's not as much necessity of publishing and being successful
Owen Cox
Dante was the equivalent of a high ranking army officer. Milton had a cushy but probably boring government job. No idea what the real deal with Shakespeare was. I prefer to imagine him as a bisexual party animal who had a lot of sex and got hella turnt at the club.
Chase Mitchell
the rich have more exposure, contact, and general opportunity around what society defines as culture
culture isn't for anyone. there are many poor writers who are excellent.
Alexander Rivera
>aristocratic >bourgeois
you need to brush up on you class knowledge
Nolan Bailey
Nabokov lost all his wealth and then wrote good literature
Byron literally abandoned his aristocratic lifestyle
David Reed
>there are many poor writers who are excellent Name 5
Dylan Ross
Joyce
Nathan Collins
dante shakespeare milton
Nolan Flores
...
Camden Clark
>le wacky ironic thesaurus man >excellent
Zachary Adams
he was wealthy for the first twenty years of his life
as if that doesn't matter
this whole thread is dumb as fuck though
if you mention a son of a very wealthy trader, "but that's middle class!" if it's a son of gentry but not very wealthy gentry, "but they weren't wealthy!" and if they were only wealthy for all of the formative years of their life, "but they lost their fortune so it doesn't count". but conversely it also wouldn't count if they acquired great fame and fortune early in their career and continued writing.
as if all that weren't enough, somehow Byron doesn't count?
just fuck off
Ayden Moore
His good fortune truly presented a dilemma, a real pickle for those knowing ones.
Sebastian Johnson
>aristocratic >bourgeoisie
Isaac Bailey
>Implying Goethe wasn't the perfect human, the literal manifestation of the peak of germanic spirit whose likeness only appears once per millennia
Top kek mate.
Colton Gomez
a real live postmodernist, some 150 years before the movement began
Lincoln Foster
They absolutely were fucking not. The entire basis for the Shakespeare authorship conspiracy is based on snobby elitism that can't fathom how a commoner wrote those works.
Kayden Rogers
>because very few people are rich and when you're already wealthy there's not as much necessity of publishing and being successful
People didn't write for money
Colton Fisher
Burroughs, Proust, Flaubert, Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald
Kayden Richardson
Joyce? You fucked up, user.
Hunter Stewart
Stop writing in majuscule, fucking retard.
Owen Bailey
he was fabulously wealthy by the time he died
his plays made him very rich and he had good business sense
Levi Scott
Joyce's father and paternal grandfather both married into wealthy families.
Landon Long
And his father slowly lost it all before Joyce had finished secondary school.
But, of course, class has little to do with quality of literature, except that it's pretty much impossible for the real dregs of scoiety to get a footing in literature, as they just don't have the resources and education available to them.
Lucas Walker
This is true. He owned a 10% stake in the Globe theatre at the height of his success.
Thomas Gomez
Look who knows nothing about these people. They were absolutely middle class, although the ruling class have done everything from poisoning Shakespeare's reputation to claiming him as one of their own. I don't know about Milton though.
Jace Clark
Most of them desu. Open any dust jacket or read the authors bio on the back cover sometime, and much, much more often than not you will see the authors father was a prominent lawyer, politician, entrepreneur, financier, or executive. Sure some authors are self taught and came from humble beginnings, but it's uncommon. This is not to say everything is deserving of a Marxist analysis.
Levi Powell
nope see
Charles Barnes
Was he born rich? Did he have a (oh fuck, here it comes... ) PRIVLEDGED upbringing, where honing his great talent was made easier than if he were a commoner--which he was?
This is what we are talking about. This is pretty common knowledge. It scares me that this sort of thing is disputed these days.
Wyatt Hughes
Few writers before the 19th century were poor because literacy has only been common among the masses for a short period of time. Any writer would have had received an education not accessible to the general populace.
Samuel Gonzalez
>by the time he died >Got rich off his plays
That's the point you plank
He wasn't born into a privileged position, he was a commoner. He wasn't wealthy when he began his career.
Wyatt Brown
when he was born he wasnt fuck you rich but he was upper middle class.
Aiden Reyes
Tolstoy
Asher Evans
>he was easilly in the 1%, but I dont want to beleive he was! Why are you posting?
Christian Thomas
Funnily enough, I think Chesterton wrote something to similar effect:
>The artistic temperament is a disease that afflicts amateurs. It is a disease which arises from men not having sufficient power of expression to utter and get rid of the element of art in their being. It is healthful to every sane man to utter the art within him; it is essential to every sane man to get rid of the art within him at all costs. Artists of a large and wholesome vitality get rid of their art easily, as they breathe easily, or perspire easily. But in artists of less force, the thing becomes a pressure, and produces a definite pain, which is called the artistic temperament. Thus, very great artists are able to be ordinary men—men like Shakespeare or Browning. There are many real tragedies of the artistic temperament, tragedies of vanity or violence or fear. But the great tragedy of the artistic temperament is that it cannot produce any art.
Kayden Flores
>Hugo >"aristocratic bourgeois" What the actual fuck?
Mason Morris
Niccolo Machiavelli.
Nicholas Perry
>le 1% meme
This doesn't apply to the fucking 16th century you blinkered moron. Just because he had a little money doesn't make him anyone important. Almost every proposed candidate in the authorship conspiracy is a nobleman. The authorship conspiracy is driven mainly my social elitism and pratting on about muh 1% bullshit addresses nothing about it, so why are you posting?