How is a Nietzschean supposed to be a writer?

How is a Nietzschean supposed to be a writer?

It's not a noble world, so contemporary realist novels become nearly impossible to write.

They are firmly grounded in the suburban middle class, whose idea of ambition is ascending to rank of assistant regional manager. This is the middlebrow world of Ayn Rand, the Nietzsche of used car dealers.

On the other hand, this is about all the ambition that peaceful merchant societies permit, unless you lose your mind and try to turn an architect into a terrorist (looking at you, Ayn Rand.)

Basically, if contemporary (1st world) society is completely infertile as a ground for Nietzschean drama, does that mean that drama has to be set in the past? Future?

I think fantasy lacks the psychological seriousness of events that take place on a recognisable Earth. Yet the Earth we know is one where all domination is indirect, buffered by money, essentially making a 3rd world dictator and Mark Zukerberg into equals. The human element of domination - indeed of society - is diminishing daily. What is power when a rich man and a poor man eat at a franchise restaurant using a bank card, then return to hotels in different price brackets to work on their laptops, which are also in different price brackets?

>I'm 15 and life SUCKS

>How is a Nietzschean supposed to be a writer?
Endless ranting in an aphoristic style

twitter is the perfect medium for the contemporary nietzschean

europa and the bull...

as ol uncle mao used to say
"all power comes from the barrel of a gun!"

zuckerberg's power is given to him by others
the dictator rules by control of his national deep state

fred only ever offered useful advice but never hard and fast solutions to artistic endeavours

>Middle Ages were Dionysian
kek what the fuck
spengler-tier morphology

he gave some actual writing tips to lou salome

1. Of prime necessity is life: a style should live.
2. Style should be suited to the specific person with whom you wish to communicate. (The law of mutual relation.)
3. First, one must determine precisely “what-and-what do I wish to say and present,” before you may write. Writing must be mimicry.
4. Since the writer lacks many of the speaker’s means, he must in general have for his model a very expressive kind of presentation of necessity, the written copy will appear much paler.
5. The richness of life reveals itself through a richness of gestures. One must learn to feel everything — the length and retarding of sentences, interpunctuations, the choice of words, the pausing, the sequence of arguments — like gestures.
6. Be careful with periods! Only those people who also have long duration of breath while speaking are entitled to periods. With most people, the period is a matter of affectation.
7. Style ought to prove that one believes in an idea; not only that one thinks it but also feels it.
8. The more abstract a truth which one wishes to teach, the more one must first entice the senses.
9. Strategy on the part of the good writer of prose consists of choosing his means for stepping close to poetry but never stepping into it.
10. It is not good manners or clever to deprive one’s reader of the most obvious objections. It is very good manners and very clever to leave it to one’s reader alone to pronounce the ultimate quintessence of our wisdom.

another grammar rule he took from schopenhauer: it should still make sense in latin translation

overall he wanted to transcend romantic creator-artwork dichotomy. nietzschean artist is someone who makes his whole life an art, doesnt shy away from political activism and maybe there is some kind of book or novel as byproduct... if you try to think without taboos, like an alien, hitler was a nietzschean artist.

I suppose you are one of those people who really, really dislikes reddit atheists, on account of being similar to them and actually having them on your mind.

I don't know, man. Have you ever read Villon? All the perverse legends of the saints? There was a perverted, chaste form of "Dionysianism" in there somewhere.

Hilariously true. But I don't know if Twitter will exist in twenty years.

Interesting.

I suppose my overall problem is that having marinated in Nietzsche's ideas for something like a decade, I feel numb towards the standard morals and aspirations of novelistic protagonists.

I have an inclination towards ideas that outrage people who are not and have never been and hate reddit atheists, and also that outrage reddit atheists. I suppose the internet has spoiled me in that regard - I feel very little in the way of shame or inhibition in my writing. I'm no longer worried about editors or publishers, because I intend to publish my works as ebooks. Reviews in print media mean nothing to me.

Others must feel the same way. There's a crack in the old dam, but I'm not sure what will come out.

>overall he wanted to transcend romantic creator-artwork dichotomy. nietzschean artist is someone who makes his whole life an art, doesnt shy away from political activism and maybe there is some kind of book or novel as byproduct... if you try to think without taboos, like an alien, hitler was a nietzschean artist.

This is actually the heart of the matter, now that I think about it. The spirit of his philosophy is about finding the way to power and health and strength, even at the expense of others. But a writer is in an odd, voyeuristic relationship with the world. Do I depict what happens? What I would like to see happen? Nobody wants to read a writer who just gives his protagonist everything that he himself wants, and if I didn't like seeing my characters suffer so much, I think I would be in danger of falling into that temptation. The way leads away from the desk, in the end.

Imagine being a fucking non STEM graduate, and having your entire 'career' being fitting ideas you learned from old books like "Apollonian" arbitrarily into other ones and writing pointless theses about how

Like you point at something and go "this reminds me of ancient greek thing" and all your gay friends clap because they recognise the term too and it makes them feel like theyre doing something intellectual

You are lame.

However, here is an improved version of that chart. Still kind of like gilding a lump of lead.

This chart is completely arbitrary and based on a dumb personal opinion

STEM is simply the means to an ends user

the end in itself is decided in the battlegrounds areas and subjects such as your own
if you lead your friends by example then it shows your well suited your discipline, educate them user, modern society needs you perhaps more than you think...

This understanding of Apollonian/Dionysian is fucking terrible.

Hint: Both of them pertain to art/passion/etc.

Gay Science 335

enteresting...

You talk about civilization, and that it shouldn’t be,
Or shouldn’t be the way it is.
You say everybody suffers, or the majority of everybody,
And it’s because humans make things that way.
You say if things were different, we’d suffer less.
You say if things were like you want them, it would be better.
I hear you without listening.
Why should I want to listen to you?
Listening to you won’t make me know any better.
If things were different, they’d be different: that’s all.
If things were like you want them, they’d only be like you want them.
Oh, you and everybody else going through life
Wanting to invent a machine for making happiness!

-

Yesterday the preacher of those truths of his
Talked to me again.
He talked about the suffering of the working classes
(Not about the people who suffer, who are the ones who really suffer when all’s said and done).
He talked about the injustice of some having money,
And other people going hungry, but I don’t know if it’s hunger for food,
Or hunger for someone else’s dessert.
He talked about whatever gets him mad.

He should be happy because he can think about the unhappiness of others!
He’s stupid if he doesn’t know other people’s unhappiness is theirs,
And isn’t cured from the outside,
Because suffering isn’t like running out of ink,
Or a trunk not having iron bands!

There being injustice is like there being death.

I would never take a step to change
What they call the the world’s injustice.
A thousand steps taken for that
Would only be a thousand steps.
I accept injustice like I accept a stone not being a perfect circle,
And a cork tree not growing into a pine or an oak.

I cut an orange in two, and the two parts can’t be equal.
Which one was I unjust to — I, who am going to eat them both?

With ironic sadness I remember a workers’ demonstration, carried out with I don’t know how much sincerity (for I find it hard to admit sincerity in collective endeavours, given that the individual, all by himself, is the only entity capable of feeling). It was a teeming and rowdy group of animated idiots, who passed by my outsider’s indifference shouting various things. I instantly felt disgusted. They weren’t even sufficiently dirty. Those who truly suffer don’t form a group or go around as a mob. Those who suffer, suffer alone. What a pathetic group! What a lack of humanity and true pain! They were real and therefore unbelievable. Noone could ever use them for the scene of a novel or a descriptive backdrop. They went by like rubbish in a river, in the river of life, and to see them go by made me sick to my stomach and profoundly sleepy.

Choose one:

1. Be a man

2. Live in the suburbs

You've clearly never listened to medieval dance/troubadour music

What would a YA novel that incorporates Neitzchean ideas be like?

a lot of talking animals

lost in the land of meh
i arrived at the foot of the
highest of high most nietzschean mountain
i climbed to its peak
and i came to a fountain
but when i looked into that dionysian sea
all that i saw
was a reflection of me

Angels with Dirty Faces, except with the ending reversed.

In the original, the sympathetic gangster character that the local hoodlums admire deliberately humiliates himself when he gets arrested so that the hoodlums will stay in the local vicar's flock and eat oatmeal and engage in wholesome physical excercise and presumably abstain from masturbation and premarital sex.

I'd reverse that and make him go down in a blaze, inspiring the hoodlums to stay hard as nails.

I was actually amazed at how perfectly it could be interpreted as a Nietzschean horror movie, the first time I saw it.

>excercise
Clearly I'm masturbating my brains out. Better eat some cornflakes and praise Jesus.

probably a terrorist/warrior/high ranking statesman who is also a poet

Bump.

This is mainly a novelistic problem.

A Nietzschean poet can pretty much continue as normal, since there are no poetic conventions that force him to relate to the current order of things in a newspaper-editorial manner.

I guess dramatists are also fucked, since the kitchen sink and effete grousing is even more aggressively center-stage there. But that's only because drama's non-intellectual, crowd-pleasing functions have been replaced by cinema, leaving the stage to be inhabited by cobwebs and batshit university actrivists.

Is the novel inherently bourgeois?

the only acceptable nietzschean novels are written in military hospitals or smuggled out of political prison. vita activa, not vita contemplativa.
ok, praise zarathustra.