Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Is it possible to be both misanthropist and philanthropist at once?
I find that when I write I'm making some pop-social commentary (even sometimes by a cynical narrator, though with hopefully a subtle and delicate voice) but also find myself making excuses for the characters to behave the way they do. Not simply motives behind their irrational actions, but possibly an optimistic misanthropy that attempts to collaborate with a pessimistic philanthropy?
It's all very delicate, I know, which is kinda the point for which I write, but I wanted to know if this kind of ideology/execution is credible (as per /lit/'s standards, which says very little, I think).
>>
>>9990717
Certainly it's possible and it sounds like you're writing from the perspective of one. Neither life nor good literature are categorizable in absolute terms. Misanthropy and it's opposite are just nets to cast over diverse and complex and irreducible phenomena.
>>
>>9990724
But isn't there a point where it seems the author can't discern the scramble of crap he's written and why?
Not that I'm too concerned with what readers or critics should think of me (ambitious as that is), but I still should consider other perspectives to see what might work or not work.
>>
>"Voltaire made, with this novel, a résumé of all his works … His whole intelligence was a war machine. And what makes me cherish it is the disgust which has been inspired in me by the Voltairians, people who laugh about the important things! Was he laughing? Voltaire? He was screeching …"
- Flaubert
>>
>>9990748
Well if you feel like you're inconsistent tonally and conceptually that's a different thing
>>
>>9990858
>he was screeching
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>
>>9990717
You want to give just enough to prolong suffering?
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1