[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 66 KB, 512x628, IMG_2173.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22231703 No.22231703 [Reply] [Original]

Why do authors with right wing beliefs tend to create the best stories?

>> No.22231708 [DELETED] 
File: 289 KB, 1314x731, IMG_1953.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
22231708

Pic related

>> No.22231711

>>22231703
Because right wingers understand the legitimacy of that which endures? You know how most of the great stories often contain similar themes and plot structures? Because for some reason I don’t have the scientific sagacity to identify, they are the elements that seem to simply resonate with people transcending experiential circumstances

>> No.22231719

>>22231703
Lovecraft became a socialist later in life, Kafka was always a socialist, and the guy who synthetized their styles and surpassed them - Thomas Ligotti - is a socialist as well.
No idea what Poe's politics were, but those 4 are my favorite short story writers.

>> No.22231735

>>22231703
they can allow themselves to write unashamedly about what feels good (your own kind) and bad (foreigners) without having to construct an abstract theory about why it shouldn't be this way and shilling it via unconvincing stories.

>> No.22231738 [DELETED] 

>>22231708
F Gardner is truly the modern Lovecraft.

>> No.22231854

>>22231719
>implying socialism is always a form of Marxism

>> No.22231857

>>22231854
it's still not right wing

>> No.22231860

>>22231703
they're constantly scared, so they understand the mechanics of being scared. 'when I was born my twin was fear' or whatever Hobbes said

>> No.22231971

>>22231703
If you're routinely told that your political/social opinions are unwelcome in mainstream literature, you aren't going to try and scrape by on lazy pandering.

>> No.22232055

>>22231703
You're using a glorified pulp-author as your best example?
Most great writers have been apolitical or left-wing and you know that

>> No.22232088

>>22231719
Ligotti is was always a cunt. If he’s such a socialist he should mark fisher himself

>> No.22232101

>>22231703
I'd venture to guess that it's because they respond to the world in a more emotional way and less scientifically, for better or for worse, and this produces great art and reactionary politics (because they don't want to see cultural institutions smashed up or beholden to a revolution). Reverence for its lost traditions and righteous scorn for its enemies can have a lot of intensity.

Also one thing that writing can't do is justify something. It's an inherently weak position, and over a long enough period after your death, people will look at you trying to justify stuff and think you're a mewling cuck, but right off the bat the reactionary isn't interesting telling people things aren't so bad, actually things are FUCKED and the whole civilization is going down the tubes.

You also have writers who are looking to advance an aesthetic as far as it can go, or have had it with life and the world and even look forward to their own deaths, and people who do that are also probably a fascist of some kind. They can also be rather weird too by the standards of the broader "right" of their day in a loose or general sense. Nietzsche called for the destruction of Germany and the German race, and the destruction of humanity of course, but it was for progress to overmen.

Probably also has more to do with this website's taste, too. Weirdo internet folk are probably most apt to embrace repulsive politics than would someone who takes things on a "PC"/surface level basis. I doubt if you took authors straight from the Western canon that you would find the same proportion of reactionaries. Could be wrong tho

>> No.22232106

>>22231703
It's totally not you twittertards clutching to (one) single writter that has vaguely similar opinions to /pol/. He is quite mediocre and boring.

>> No.22232542

>>22232101
>I doubt if you took authors straight from the Western canon that you would find the same proportion of reactionaries
almost everybody born in the past (I.E when people still had the ability to write books) would be called ultra-reactionary gigafascists today, even if in their time they were left-wingers

thats what people dont get when discussing "liberal" or "socialist" writers from early 20th century or before, sure they're left-wing for their time but by today's standards they're right-wingers, with opinions and beliefs that only right-wingers hold, so its silly to claim them for today's left

Alternatively, you can stop thinking in terms of directions.

>> No.22232712

>>22231703
lovecraft is not thta good sorry chud