I've been playing devil's advocate, though, because...

"you didn't answer my question either."

...your question was founded on a misconception of the opposing argument.  

"lets say (now you have clarified further) that there is no perceived redeeming factors in any of the actions of the other characters in my hypothetical novel. does that make it misanthropic?"

My own response would rest on whether the novel makes the origins of its character portrayals (that is, from the mind of a madman) clear, or indeed, whether the novel's setting is so subtle and effective as to provide ironic social commentary (a la Apotheosis).

It's not misanthropic in those cases, since the misanthropy itself suffices to provide a point that transcends mere traditional racism.

(Edited by ShAmAn at 10:26 am on April 23, 2006)

-------
She took a sad song, made it better

---

How would one go about redefining masculinity without compromising the core of self-determination?

---

That assumes that masculinity leads to self-determination, when generally gender roles do anything but lend themselves to individual freedom.

That said, the concept of masculinity seems dangerous because it implies to me that the only emotion I'm allowed to display is anger. A sad man is a weak man, to be ignored. A happy man is only happy because he has crushed his competition. A fearful man can only be afraid if he is facing a losing fight. Only a powerful man is worth notice, and the only way a man can become powerful is by completely defeating and morally crushing whatever stands in his way.

I see that looming threat, and I reject those shackles. There's more for me in life than just being powerful, because if I waste all my time on that, there won't be anything for me to enjoy along the way. Life isn't about who you can kill and defeat, it's about who you choose to live and prosper with.

No man has ever accomplished much on his own. The grand machine we call civilization is every ounce a group undertaking.

-------
Make love, not traffic.

---

My own response would rest on whether the novel makes the origins of its character portrayals (that is, from the mind of a madman) clear, or indeed, whether the novel's setting is so subtle and effective as to provide ironic social commentary (a la Apotheosis).  

It's not misanthropic in those cases, since the misanthropy itself suffices to provide a point that transcends mere traditional racism.  

---

Okay, I've taken all of what you guys have said... and you do have a point about it being a satirical social commentary... the thing is... it can be seen from all kinds of angles and the Africans who accuse Conrad of being racist have a point, as do the Europeans who view it as satire.

But at the end of the day... Conrad had nothing to lose in describing the natives in that way... he was, after all, being ironic.  The Africans don't quite see it that way... the simple fact that their ancestors are described in that degrading way makes their skin crawl.  This is because a few decades ago, Africans grew up, were educated thinking that their ancestors were savages... to battle through such erroneous assumptions and then to be told (though satirically) that their ancestors were little better than apes would make them deeply paranoid... the fact that there could be white men out there who think like that is a very unnerving thing.

I'm looking at it from the African perspective.  It shows the whole colonial experience only from the eyes of the colonizer.  The subtlety of the irony with which Conrad wrote Heart of Darkness is, for me, shadowed by the racism and the one-dimesnional perspective.  I think that if he really wanted to counter such racist attitudes towards Africa, he would have included some other counter perspective in the novel.

(Edited by Flow Morphia Slow at 9:56 pm on April 23, 2006)

-------
I'm a minger, you're a minger too.
So come on minger, I want to mingle with you

---

Very interesting post. I think I'm in love.  

---

How would one go about redefining masculinity without compromising the core of self-determination?

---

 

That assumes that masculinity leads to self-determination, when generally gender roles do anything but lend themselves to individual freedom.  

That said, the concept of masculinity seems dangerous because it implies to me that the only emotion I'm allowed to display is anger. A sad man is a weak man, to be ignored. A happy man is only happy because he has crushed his competition. A fearful man can only be afraid if he is facing a losing fight. Only a powerful man is worth notice, and the only way a man can become powerful is by completely defeating and morally crushing whatever stands in his way.  

I see that looming threat, and I reject those shackles. There's more for me in life than just being powerful, because if I waste all my time on that, there won't be anything for me to enjoy along the way. Life isn't about who you can kill and defeat, it's about who you choose to live and prosper with.  

No man has ever accomplished much on his own. The grand machine we call civilization is every ounce a group undertaking.

---

Addendum: FMS, you also must realise that Conrad needed to have his book published. There's no use trying to be a world-shaker if no one is going to be able to read what you say.

(Edited by chalkboard sonata at 10:50 am on April 24, 2006)

-------
Fucking for fear of not wanting to fear again.

---

Quote: from lunasantin at 3:18 am on April 24, 2006

---

Very interesting post. I think I'm in love.  

---

How would one go about redefining masculinity without compromising the core of self-determination?

---

 

That assumes that masculinity leads to self-determination, when generally gender roles do anything but lend themselves to individual freedom.  

That said, the concept of masculinity seems dangerous because it implies to me that the only emotion I'm allowed to display is anger. A sad man is a weak man, to be ignored. A happy man is only happy because he has crushed his competition. A fearful man can only be afraid if he is facing a losing fight. Only a powerful man is worth notice, and the only way a man can become powerful is by completely defeating and morally crushing whatever stands in his way.  

I see that looming threat, and I reject those shackles. There's more for me in life than just being powerful, because if I waste all my time on that, there won't be anything for me to enjoy along the way. Life isn't about who you can kill and defeat, it's about who you choose to live and prosper with.  

No man has ever accomplished much on his own. The grand machine we call civilization is every ounce a group undertaking.

---

I completely appreciate that, but there is still a very potent romance about the masculine loner: Homer's Odysseus, Ovid's Hercules, Hemingway's Robert Jordan, Heller's Yossarian, any character played by Humphrey Bogart, Clint Eastwood's "Blondie" from The Good The Bad And The Ugly, Camus' Meursault, ad nauseum. It is this sense of romance, rugged incompleteness and shrugging off the status quo which effectively summarises what it means to be a man, and it is this that I want to reclaim as my own.

Addendum: FMS, you also must realise that Conrad needed to have his book published. There's no use trying to be a world-shaker if no one is going to be able to read what you say.

(Edited by chalkboard sonata at 10:50 am on April 24, 2006)

---

---

I'm almost half way though Heart of Darkness now. I can't say I'm amazingly impressed it's kinda dull.                                                        

---

*stab stab*

-------
Fucking for fear of not wanting to fear again.

---

Quote: from The Samsoniteman at 4:27 am on April 26, 2006

---

I'm almost half way though Heart of Darkness now. I can't say I'm amazingly impressed it's kinda dull.                                                        

---

WHATWHATWHAAAAT.

*stab stab*

---

---

Which then leads us to wonder why raw masculinity is so appealing to humans if is is of no use.

---

This was sort of answered before the question arose. We habor resentment against the society that we have to conform with to succeed in. Most of the time it's just small things, like the office hours don't correspond directly with our sleeping pattern. Nothing is more fun then to just imagine breaking loose and doing whatever we damn well please and suffer no consequences. Then we fall asleep and next morning we remember that the consequences are starvation and imprisonment.

-------
It is my deepest wish that we will one day escape our cradle.

---

---

Which then leads us to wonder why raw masculinity is so appealing to humans if is is of no use.

---

This was sort of answered before the question arose. We habor resentment against the society that we have to conform with to succeed in. Most of the time it's just small things, like the office hours don't correspond directly with our sleeping pattern. Nothing is more fun then to just imagine breaking loose and doing whatever we damn well please and suffer no consequences. Then we fall asleep and next morning we remember that the consequences are starvation and imprisonment.

---

---

Except not. Those who wouldn't benefit from such a society vastly outnumber the alpha males. It'd be futile for the independent males to even attempt such a feat, as they'd only be crushed like buggys.

---

Not to mention the infighting -- the wannabe alpha males are inherently forced to compete, rather than cooperate. The numbers and technology advantages both inherently go to civilization, so I think the alpha caveman's situation is pretty grim.

-------
Make love, not traffic.