Attractiveness and Writing

>>7373094
i hope this is b8
here's your reply

I highly doubt it, considering a lot of the classical and renaissance greats were fugly

Being attractive probably serves some writing styles better than others

>>7373233
Which ones does it serve well and which ones does it not server well?

Not really, but beauty inspires art.

it certainly affects perspective

>>7373245
I think being unattractive probably inspires ticcier anxious styles like dfw but attractiveness inspires a much more laid back relaxed prose like Kafka or Hemingway

>>7373094
Attractive people are generally smarter than unattractive people.

>>7373094
Attractive people are going to have easier access to people. Hemingway and Didion (similar styles and concerns) were able to just waltz into whatever situation or clique interested them at the time through overall charisma, in which attractiveness is a factor. Faulkner wrote about the type of stuff one sees through gossip and a large network, where being attractive benefitted him.

Ugly people may do better writing cerebral, principled (autistic) stuff like Flannery O'Connor, Pynchon and Dostoevsky.

>>7373266
DFW was pretty buff.
Kafka looked like a nerdy vampire.

>>7373288
O'Connor wasn't exactly ugly (more like plain/average), at least before she was crippled by lupus then housebound for the rest of her pitifully short life.

Well, come to think of it, I guess your point still stands in her case then.

>>7373094
Plath is a great example of looks and talent not being correlated.

Woolf and George Eliot were not good-looking. Jane Austen was no beauty. Emily Dickinson was on the plain side of average.

As for male writers, there are so many examples of ugly writers who wrote incredibly that I don't even need to mention them. Shakespeare is just one example.

File: hou.jpg (268KB, 682x1024px) Image search: [Google]

268KB, 682x1024px

Do you even?

>>7373094
>Sartre.jpg

>>7373094
Dante was fucking ugly and wrote one of the most gorgeous things out there.

>>7373441
Dante had strong, aristocratic features, I certainly wouldn't call him ugly.
>>7373423
I hope you're not trying to imply Sartre ever wrote anything of worth.

>>7373094

dunno m8, there doesn't seem to be any correlation. There are as many ugly writers as there are average and probably even less really good-looking ones. However, as >>7373288
said, I can definitely see how being attractive would get you into specific situations when you would want to.

>>7373094
Attractiveness affects your life experience, and your life experience is the stuff literature is made out of. So yes, it of course has an effect.

That said, there's no simplistic relationship between attractiveness and quality/subject matter. Pope was a hunchbacked dwarf who channelled that into brilliantly witty and vicious satire. Byron was the most handsome, desirable man in Europe and wrote with exactly the same satirical genius (Pope being his literary idol).

>>7375117
>Byron was the most handsome, desirable man in Europe and wrote with exactly the same satirical genius
>exactly the same satirical genius
no
pope was one of if not the greatest satirist in verse
byron was simply okay

>>7375127
Someone hasn't read Don Juan.

>>7373448
Hell is having to hear you speak.

>>7375159
are you stupid
that's like one of the few satires he even wrote
why would I say "byron's [satire is okay]" if i wasn't referring to the most famous of the couple, and his most famous poem besides she walked in beauty?

I'm obviously not talking about English Bards and Scotch Reviewers, which is even closer to middling than Don Juan is.

File: Arnon-Grunberg-close3.jpg (49KB, 794x600px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 794x600px

>>7373094
definitely