THREE GREATEST WRITERS EVER: SHAKESPEARE: USELESS "FAMILY

That's not how logic works, OP.

>THEY WERE NOTHING MORE THAN MIDDLE-LOWER CLASS CHUMPS

literally all three of them were among "the 1%" of their time.

>>8320835
I agree but Milton is garbage.

>>8320835
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.

ok m8 calm down there you need to chill ok just stop that famiglia

>>8320898

Why do you think that?

NAME ONE GOOD WRITER THAT WAS RICH

>>8321025
almost all of them

>>8321034
Name 5

Are there any good poor writers?
I believed that culture was only for faggots with money.

>>8321042
dante
shakespeare
milton

>>8321049
You are correct

>>8321025
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

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.

>>8321049
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.

>>8320835
>aristocratic
>bourgeois

you need to brush up on you class knowledge

>>8321087
Nabokov lost all his wealth and then wrote good literature

Byron literally abandoned his aristocratic lifestyle

>>8321089
>there are many poor writers who are excellent
Name 5

>>8321107
Joyce

>>8321107
dante
shakespeare
milton

File: Lord Timothy Dexter.jpg (34KB, 343x529px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 343x529px

>>8321025

File: 1449323056530.jpg (53KB, 507x522px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 507x522px

>>8321115
>le wacky ironic thesaurus man
>excellent

>>8321101
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

>>8321134

His good fortune truly presented a dilemma, a real pickle for those knowing ones.

File: 1468642455996.png (307KB, 292x551px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 292x551px

>>8320835
>aristocratic
>bourgeoisie

>>8320835

>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.

>>8321134
>>8321147
a real live postmodernist, some 150 years before the movement began

>>8320895
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.

>>8321087
>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

>>8321025
Burroughs, Proust, Flaubert, Joyce, F. Scott Fitzgerald

>>8321328
Joyce? You fucked up, anon.

Stop writing in majuscule, fucking retard.

>>8321267
he was fabulously wealthy by the time he died

his plays made him very rich and he had good business sense

>>8321440
Joyce's father and paternal grandfather both married into wealthy families.

>>8321446

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.

>>8321443

This is true. He owned a 10% stake in the Globe theatre at the height of his success.

>>8320895
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.

>>8321025
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.

>>8321475
nope see >>8321443
>>8321470

>>8321499
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.

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.

>>8321443
>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.

>>8321521
>>8321556
when he was born he wasnt fuck you rich but he was upper middle class.

>>8321025

Tolstoy

>>8321267
>he was easilly in the 1%, but I dont want to beleive he was!
Why are you posting?

>>8320835
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.

>Hugo
>"aristocratic bourgeois"
What the actual fuck?

>>8321025
Niccolo Machiavelli.

>>8322225
>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?

>>8322242
lel, muh tortured artist meme BTFO

>>8324301
stfu faggot it was a black slave woman

you are such a fucking fascist

>>8321134
Who gives a fuck about the Oxford Comma?