Does being lonely or sexless make people better writers or does

>>9607709

>being unliked in your local area's small community bubble means you are rejected by society as a whole and not just the cunts around you

nice try

>>9607709
try reading notes from underground.
in response to your question about the author's sexual habits or loneliness, it just depends. i think isolation in some way is certainly required, but it depends on the author and how they synthesize their art. er, how they make their work. synthesize their art sounds tortured as fuck.

File: IMG_9889.jpg (36KB, 526x284px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 526x284px

>>9607709
>Thinks not banging QTs on the reg is tantamount to being elephant man.
You should kill yourself. If you want to explore feelings of alienation beforehand check out some Kafka, I guess. It's not hard to find a protagonist that feels cast aside by society and you'd know that if you read but of course this is /lit/.

>>9607709
I think if one is going to do anything well, especially in the way of writing, one is going to require scads of alone-time if for no other reason than to sustain one's concentration with respect to the subject(s). Great writers.. Montaigne, Shakespeare, Cervantes, Dickinson were very naturally social creatures but at the same time monstrously discriminating. Montaigne had only a single friend (who conveniently died), Dickinson wd only see a select handful of people after 30 (that we know about), etc. In short they're elusive, tricky (consider Pynchon) love sex but at the same time don't want to be bothered. Their great art suggests that their ways of going about life elude (us) too. In this sense they were very much alone on this planet, as solecisms tend to be. But even Kafka was getting laid....

It sure doesn't help them write about sex.

I would say it makes you a worse writer to not have experienced sex simply because sex is so close to nature. It's akin to writing without really appreciating nature, human nature, which to me leads you towards more contrived writing which appeals at most to people in a certain time, and less towards timeless classics.

Furthermore, if you haven't had sex, it's likely you had social deficits as well, and since great books tend to be about people, generally I think you're not becoming a well rounded enough person to be a great writer if you've never had sex.

This is strictly in the realm of fiction, in the realm of non-fiction, never getting laid will probably help.

>>9607722

fpbp

"sheer rejection by society" doesn't exist

>>9607796
This is not to say, solitude does not help one become a good writer, I would say solitude in itself is essential to becoming a good writer. You live a decently long life, you can live socially and in solitude in the same lifetime.

I just do not see being sexless in any way leading you to becoming a good writer, it causes you to be so ill informed about human nature and about raw human emotion, I can only see it making you a worse writer.

>>9607810

>what are the celibate monks who did nothing but write during the christian dark ages

just to be contrarian

>>9607810

>it causes you to be so ill informed about human nature and about raw human emotion

That is the intimacy involved in sex, not the act itself. A guy could see hundreds of prostitutes and still know nothing about that.

>>9607813
The celibate monks who either wrote about theology or just made copies of already written books by hand?

>>9607816
He could still write something about that.

>>9607813
>monks
>celibate

Good one m9

>>9607709
if you actually fucking read instead of just doing /r9k/ tier shitposts you'd know that a bunch of essentials are alienation fiction, like Kafka or The Book Of Disquiet, just to name a few