"The gays, good heavens. A full 35 or 40 percent of major western author from the beginning to the present day might have been gay. Would be very safe to assume. William Shakespeare himself would appear to be bisexual whether or not scholar find an easy time in accepting that."
?t=323
Is he right? Is Oyish gay?
 Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Ape Out Shirt $21.68 |
we was gays
Yeah, who cares. This place is moronic. An author can be a pedophile, a rapist, a murderer, a terrorist, just an overall horrible person and they're fine with it. But the second an author is gay? Bahahaha. What a joke.
It's more that being gay isn't particularly interesting and gays would rather annoyingly provoke than just accept no one cares about their sexual fetishes. They tempt fate more than any other demographic.
lol gays are far from being intellectuals considering they are the biggest consumers of media made for teenage girls
guys like oscar wilde or alan turner are the exception, not the rule
you mean alan turing
kek
it ultimately doesn't matter. if someone produces good writing, who cares if they're gay or not. what more do people want?
this wasn't an intentional sage btw
Just stay away from kids you alt right chud
This. On another note, once in a while a gay man will combine the best of what’s in a man and a woman. A writer with a woman’s sixth sense and intuition with the strong logic and reason of a man will be hell of a writer if he hones his craft
Which writers did you have in mind here?
American Psycho
Caring about an authors sexuality is a pointless endeavor.
They tend to write in the sweet spot when it comes to women, for me at least.
The best at anything have always been iconoclasts.
Prospect of not reproducing leads two ways:
1. Degenerate hedonism
2. Creative achievement focus
Its a matter of temperament. I tried the first. Really, I tried, but some agonising existential yearning brings me back every time.
the two things don't seem to be mutually exclusive though
t. James Joyce
Many famous authors and other figures from history are indeed gay/bi. Take Proust, for a famous example. You can speculate on why they seem overrepresented, but ultimately we don’t know the answer.
>Is he right? Is Oyish gay?
No one on this board is going to be a great or even mid tier writer in the eyes of history. Yeah Oyish is gay but for other reasons.
Misconception. Proust never identified as anything except straight.
>Proust never identified as anything except straight.
The guy died in 1922. Sexual orientation as the concept we know nowadays was just starting to gain traction. I doubt Wilde ever identified himself as homosexual or bisexual either.
You think people didn't understand what a homosexual was back then? Lmao. Wilde explicitly defended his form of 'love'.
>I’m not gay I just take wiener on the regular
Ok dude
Some of it might be, I don't read gay Oyish, in general. Why would I?
Why wouldn't you?
Early Life
wtf I like gays now
It's simply false. He was virtue signalling in a publicized interview. And labelling Shakespeare as bisexual because he wrote a couple of homoerotic poetry is moronic. Do people not understand voice? Was Shakespeare King Lear also?
>He was virtue signalling
Do you know Harold Bloom? You think he was interested in virtue signalling anything except how much he was against virtue signalling?
>You think he was interested in virtue signalling
Absolutely yes. If you think otherwise you just fell for his self-absorbed academic image. He was perfectly happy to cast Ezra Pound out of canonical respect because he was le antisemitic. He was concerned above all with correctly aping a thousand layers of normative analysis in literary criticism to the point of exactly zero personal response to the works he read. Which is why his writing so often says very little or contradicts itself, and why he was happy to pretend to have read works he was reviewing. He had no vision, no values and spent most of his sad life trying to make literary criticism serve more than the extremely utilitarian function of introducing people into works they haven't read. Most literary critics are simply failed philosophers. His most 'original' ideas or Shakespeare are laughable and not even original. I suppose reading all about culture makes them jealous they're not a part of it. He is not worth reading or even respecting for any intelligent person.
Harold Bloom often just talked out of his ass for pseud points. He literally cannot be trusted.
And you can? Lol.
You're literally a child, or you're mentally moronic. That is the most unbelievably stupid jump of logic I've read on this shithole all week. Yes anon, because i claimed a literary critic is not honest you're right in responding that the same could be said of anybody, even me, and therefore I have no justification in claiming him dishonest, that's totally relevant, makes perfect sense.
So mad lol
I wouldn't expect anything more from someone who has to read secondary literature to understand literature.
The more eccentric a man, the more eccentric his vices. It just so happens that authors are a very eccentric bunch
Judean doctrinal gender bender pablum, insipid, moronic -- just like his novel.