Nietzsche and Hemingway

Creative Forums Creative Writing
21

It was to Orbie that I responded defiantly. Your poem hadn’t evoked these ideas.

Penis-thinking… its rather that erect objects follow similar purposes as the penis; penetration.

Not every long thing is a reference to a penis. A penis is simply the most sensitive long thing to us.

Z - sperm is the most concentrated protein gel available. That I know this does not make me attracted to consuming it. Cleopatra is told to use sperm as an ointment for her face. I suspect Beyonce of the same.

Nietzsche has no effeminate qualities. I am more gay than he is and I am not at all sexually or attracted to men. Even Caesar is more gay than Nietzsche.

22

I see. So do you think he was hittin’ Lou from underneath while Ree hit it from behind, or vice versa?

23

I know you’re joking but FTR: Freddie was referring to the Brahmin and abstinent hermits like himself. The Brahmin/priests believed semen was absorbs into the blood when it wasn’t expelled. The nutritious and psychological power that comes from overcoming the sexual urge and refocusing one’s energy is what Nietzsche was on about. Nothing to do with gayness.

24

There is a world of difference between gay and latent homosexual. The straightest people, including those of historical notice, have had latency in this regard. Back then it was shameful, a disease, like whacking.
Things change, viewpoints change, and the story
does not quite end there. Usually the first ines to protest, the line can be applied, ’ he who protest the most’. This was also mentioned of
Hitler, and given as the reason for his vehement
eradication efforts of Roehm.

Now, there are absolutely no eyebrows raised in this regard. Lawrence Olivier was bi and I remember
seeing his late wife, Vivian Leigh on the then popular
David Susskind show,saying that this gay baiting
thing is getting to be a bore. And this was way back in the seventies.

The only ones of true knowledge re their orientation are long gone and buried. Of Ceasar was said, that
he was a man for all women and a woman for all men.
Talking about changing attitudes!

25

Being dominated by a woman isn’t effeminate, behaving like a woman is. All strong men want strong women, There is no joy in life being up against nothing.

Methinks Nietzsche was trying to express the Tragic, in the utterly unsophisticated 19th century ways of photography.

26

HItler could have fucked anything. He ended up fucking the whole world in the ass and hard. He was definitely homosexual, heterosexual, animal-sexual, alien-sexual, plant-sexual - so desperate for penetration that he even tried to fuck Russia.

I just know a lot of gay people, more than half latent, and I know Nietzsche very well.
Oscar Wilde, that’s what Nietzsche would be if he was homosexual, latent or not.

Essential to the homosexual - seems -that he is narcissist, which Nietzsche, unlike Socrates, was not; He desired the Übermensch precisely because he was not very much in love with himself at all. His proud dissatisfaction with himself is rooted in a deep heterosexuality. In fact the Superman can be said to be an ultimate Heteros; a distance.

Caesar must have been a bit of a shapeshifter. His stories are so darned inerstin - have you read rex Warners Young Caesar and Imperial Caesar.

27

If Jung is correct there is always some degree of anima in the male psyche. This is even physical. Men have tits. What are they good for? In my poem I’m portraying the last days of two men whose psyches may have been animus dominated.

28

Where have I heard this before. If a man can be dominated by a woman he is effeminate. If a man pretends to let a woman dominate him, as in a role play, he’s a clown. Ergo, men are not dominated by women under any circumstances unless they are a joke.

29

What did N’s and H’s tragic ends have to do with their relationships with women?

30

Good info.

31

duplicate

32

I dont know where you heard that before Zootie but not in the post you responded to! That, as you can read, said more or less the opposite.

Ier - N was a philosopher, who wrote about The Tragic.

His first book was called The Birth Of Tragedy.
This is what I referred to.

33

The tragic implies more than a discontent, it is a gross romantic disillusionment.

Nietzche’s sense of tragedy is really not within it, but

the disappearance of it. The representation of the sense of the tragically romantic, looses value, in essence this can as well be found in Hemmingway,

and the story of the Old Man and the Sea, is a literal metaphor of this loss. With Camus, the boulder repeatedly can be recovered in it’s recurrent plunging

back, bit this hope in Hemmingway is missing.
It is the latency of tragedy, which H is covering, the confusion arising between the romantic idiom and the

reductively, but falsely reduced nominal interpretation. Upon the shoulders of pessimism,

does N try to recover the heroic and the tragic.
Latency as literary idiom transcends it’s self, even while engaging it. This, for Nietzche

is a form of deliverance, somewhat line with Marcus Aurelius’ stoic dictum of the disingenuity and artificiality of untried wisdom, however he disagrees with it , in principle.

In this sense, latency gains a tour de force by bring beck the tragic form of it, and overcoming its

figurative implications, in the present sense, devoid of representation as the understanding, qua the will.
It creates the formal, and plastic Appollonian
aesthetic of mere sculpture. It gains in empathy and
understanding.

It is in this scene that a

critical examination may proceed.

It is in this sene that Dali extends the formalism into the surrealism of Metamorphosis of Narcissus.
A blanket category of narcissism is exactly, not within
this hidden subtlety, and the dreams within the
surreal is, what is hidden away. The implications being vastly different.

Jacob, this struggle posed beneath the veneer of formalistic argument, may have forced an aphoristic approach. Other than that, it is hardly credible. That
I may have been, why, ‘Why I Write Such Good Books’, met with such harshly worded attacks by classicists’.

34

It is not Romantic.

The Romantic and Tragic pathos are not much compatible.

The tragic knows the war of the sexes and the futility of individual will.

35

Jason, In the sense of recovery of the anomalous sense of Romanticism, a tragic idiom, the compatible. sense of incompleteness, that Nietzche’s recurrence can be viewed. His analogy of birds flying south for the winter, in this context, with successive returns, offers a dynamic representation. Many romantics, among them Hart Crane may have used this idiom, literally. The recovery is only too vaguely understood
Formally, absence the almost occult nature of recovery.

I an not reluctant to tell You, that it came to me, unexpectedly out of the blue, in 1982. I have mentioned this several times in ILP, and it is on,y now, that I became aware, this very day, that N has also used this metaphors. It will be work to reference this, but I can, if You wish.

36

Birds flying south for the winter
Scattered thoughts finding a resting place.

Ezra Pound couplets

37

In “The Sun Also Rises” and “The Old Man and the Sea”, H. finds no resting place for scattered thoughts, no eternal recurrence. He finds instead the realistic idea that fate can contradict all romantic dreams. In the latter work, it is important to note that the old man’s body lies in the shape of a cross. He has crucified himself in search of an ideal. But he doesn’t get the prize! In the former the main character has suffered from a war wound–the loss of his manhood. And when he thought of what might have been in a relationship if this had not happened, the response is “It’s pretty to think so.” But the pretty thought does not undo the wound in both the body and the mind. In short, N. was anything but a romanticist; he was a realist. Not all birds make it down South.
I’ll trust Jakob to explain why Nietzsche was not a romantic; he has read more N. than I have.

38

If the solution is a visual representation, what about the simplification of the romantic idiom’s notion of the Vanity of Existence, as a background, with the foreground of the will positioning the model in such a way, that the effect will become balanced between perspective and and aesthetic distance? Are there any asthetic rules needed, in order to differentiate the noble from the crass?

I would think so, since let’s not forget, this is the last few decades of the 19th century. These things mattered a lot, this was not the sixties, or even the gay nineteen. Progressive salons concerned themselves with changing social programs, and science was still mostly in it’s infancy as far as application went. The vanity was a movement, not an effect as, individual narcissism. Much of what later became changed, did so in terms of wider availability of knowledge. Philosophy was still entertained as a serious tool. At the same time, it’s implications were carefully gaged, and weighed against assumed destructive tendencies. Certain assumptions were held true, even if questions, because of uncertainty on a large scale as to their efficacy. Shadings of meaning were the rule rather than the exception, to guard against misinterpretation. The obvious was held back by the subtle. This was the time of the last death throes of Romantic revival.

39

Irr: according to the majority of sources , N was THE quintessential romantic, which somewhat faded after his departure from Schopenhauer’s influence, which predicated his world view in his early period. However, Ido agree with the fact, that he at
once embraced a revival and distanced himself from it. Hemmingway was different to be sure, and he tragically illustrated the loss, in Old Man, …

Philosophically, the tragedy rests on the clash between the parts of the dual aspect, of this process, of exclusion and inclusion (of, ideal elements). The
tragedy of discernment of difference between the
Appolonian and the Dyanisian is what is happening with the later Nietzche, this separation not present with the Greeks. I think elements of this can be found of this in both afore mentioned writers.

40

Orb, Did N. see the Appolonian and Dionesian as yin and yang in our approaches to the senseless tragedies we experience in life? Or did he see the superman as somehow above all that? Did he see the shedding of slave mentality as salvation?
I don’t think H. thought that deeply. He seems to present tragedy as the real experience in contrast with the ideal.