What did he mean by this?

What did he mean by this?

Attached: download (34).jpg (225x225, 9K)

hacks are blockheads

YOU'RE A BLOCKHEAD, JOE

He was an artless idiot

He’s saying the opposite

> What did he mean by this?

No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money.

>What did a forgotten random NPC mean by some silly tryhard-pseud sentence?
Nothing. He wanted to sound contrarian.

He is projecting his soulless. amoral, obsession with capital onto humanity at large. It's what all Right-wing devotees do, really.

>People want something they need to live

Preposterous

Just anglos angloing

First of all, you don't need money to live. You need sustenance and shelter. For most of human history these two things were not one and the same. Second, the fag in the OP is saying that no one intelligent would write unless he's being paid for it. This is both childish and historically untrue. Most of the thinkers we know of today came from a privileged background, and certainly did not rely on writing for their income. They wrote because they were intelligent people who wanted to express their views on the world and interact with other intelligent people.

Write as a means of sucking jew cock

>For most of history these two things were not one and the same.
Out of every single person that is alive today, not one has ever been alive during "most of history".
Everyone with enough time on their hands to write, needs money to live. Because if you're not living in society, then you're contributing a shitload of time producing your own food and doing manual labor and other tasks to regulate your health and hygiene. Try writing anything under those circumstances.

>t. hasn't studied Johnson, at all
Write what little (you) know, moron.

>He was an artless idiot
Sorry butterfly I can normally ignore your college freshman level political comments but this statement is actually indefensible.

>Samuel Johnson was an artless idiot
wew

No she’s right. What you do for money, you lose in execution and soul :3

God would not want his creation to be usurious or greedy.

ITT: blockheads absolutely butt-blocked

Reminder that many of the most beautiful works of art in the world were made on a deadline for monetary compensation

The quote, while true in many ways, is tongue and cheek. Neither you nor butterfly seem to have read Dr Johnson before

Huh, this "money" fellow must be an amazing author

He wrote at a time when literacy rates were about 10%. Dumb to fritter away what was then a lucrative skill.

>Dr

cringe

Literally who

YOU WILL NEVER WORK FOR THE NEW YORK TIMES

I write to ease the suicidal thoughts

This is what passes for British humor in those days?
I retract my statement. Please accept my apologies.
All I know of him is that he hated Sterne

>being this unfamiliar with Dr Johnson
yikes

Samuel Johnson never wrote anything that wasn’t incredibly derivative. He was an incredible intellect who the muse never touched.

Attached: 1552095638627.jpg (398x500, 38K)

The Anglo readily admits his abjection.

Rasselas is good.

money is a signal that other people think that your work has value. if you write only for yourself you're essentially just masturbating

In the 18th century the bourgeoisie was a still progressive world-historical force, and back then the common thinking was that profit and virtue weren't necessarily mutually exclusive, and that in fact the two might be the same. Franco Moretti wrote a book called 'The Bourgeois' exploring this period's literature and the ideology described above if you're interested