So I am writing a paper in my AP English class about the sex

>>8921250
That seems like a pretty dumb thing to write a paper on

>>8921250
bait

>>8921250
>So I am writing a paper in my AP English class about the sex lives of many appraised writers

End yourself

File: newface[1].jpg (435KB, 5000x5000px) Image search: [Google]

435KB, 5000x5000px

>>8921269
ya think?

This paper is a massive epistemological problem waiting to be transformed into a shitty paper. The only way you will not fail this assignment is if your teacher is as much of a ignorant pseudo-intellectual as this paper's topic would make you seem.

Op I don't know if literary criticism has changed since I was at university but I'm pretty sure guessing about the authors psyche as a way of reading a work is totally not okay.

File: 1464754547338.jpg (1MB, 4785x2697px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 4785x2697px

correlation is not causation. You better have some good methodology here my dude.

>>8921250

Philosophy has been asking much the same questions for quite some time, kid. This ain't original.

It was on the basis of Socrates (and to a lesser extent, Hegel) that Nietzsche, for example, claimed philosophers should/must be unmarried. Socrates/Hegel/etc were married and yet wrote trash.

Even IF you make a good argument, it won't fly in our current climate. Society has been successfully wooed by that old Cartesian duality of mind and body - people do not believe that there is any meaningful link between physiognomy and psychology, and vice versa. Or rather, people believe, or like to believe, or insist, that neither has any (meaningful) effect upon the other.

If/when we outgrow this, then we can have the debate. Sex/marriage/etc can be filed under physiognomy and/or psychology - but I'd personally deem it more to be the former. An investigation into what physical traits the unmarried/married might share would certainly be interesting - what boons or flaws they have in common, etc.

>>8921374
And what exactly were their arguments against marriage and sex?

Percy Shelley IS one of the the more obvious and notable writers where his sex life and views on romance correlates with his work

>>8921272
>>8921269
>>8921258
I'm writing it about THEIR sex lives, not yours you fucking idiots, calm down.

>>8921289
Nah, I'm pretty sure if Nietzsche had an upturn in attention from women most of his writings wouldn't exist.. And if the Master of Spooks actually had somebody to go home to, his pessimistic suspicions of modern culture probably would've been trashed as solipsism and paranoia.

The only difference between a pseudo-intellectual and a legitimate intellectual is publishing and a following.

>>8921313
>>8921313
I'm mostly writing it because everyone else in my class is stupid and I'm basically pandering to their level to get cred and popular vote.

I don't believe any of the shit I'm actually spewing, but one of the questions they keep asking is actually this.

"did these guys ever get laid" so I thought I would answer it.

>>8921250
Try looking at Milton's writings about his "indiscretions of youth," his pamphlets on the promotion of the legalization of divorce, and then his casting of Lucifer in "Paradise Lost" as the most interesting and sympathetic character. Then consider that he went blind and had to speak it to his daughter. Then make the claim that he caught syphilis from a hooker that manifested in later age.

Warning - this argument really pissed off my Lit Prof.