Much as Bond is portrayed as a womanizer in the movies, the only woman he fornicates with in Casino Royale is Vesper--and it's premarital, not non-marital, because he silently plans to marry her. And of course it's shown to be a bad idea--Vesper is an unwilling double, because someone else she had a fling with is threatened with death to keep her in line.
He's also only killed two people, and has severe qualms about it to the point he considers quitting the service toward the end of the book.
So yeah, complaints about his moral failings in Casino Royale meaning he cannot be admired are for people who haven't read the source material.
All that said, you didn't make your thesis or conclusion clear either, so it's difficult to argue for or against it. If it's "don't worry about your masculinity being toxic" then, well, of course. It's an anticoncept anyway. The moral problem with Movie Bond is his excessive fornication without it being shown to be unwise, which is not a problem in the source material, and nothing to do with the absurd concept of toxic masculinity.
My thesis is masculinity is toxic and that’s fine and necessary and good actually, and we are probably at risk of not being toxic enough now a days, but fair enough critique. Also hard agree on Casino Royale and Bond. The argument itself was pretty dumb and had all the hallmarks of being in bad faith, so there’s that.
But perhaps masculinity just isn't toxic. From a philosophical perspective, the toxicity is the tendency towards vice found in human nature, which is not exclusive to men.
Martial virtues like willingness to kill in defense of self or others are obviously not toxic. Willingness to stand up for oneself and tell others they're wrong, or stinking morons, is not toxic and obeys basic moral dictums regarding honesty. Wooing fair maidens is necessary for the continuation of the species, thus clearly the opposite of toxic.
Realist political calculations, as Machiavelli advocates, are necessary for good rulership, and thus not toxic.
It is better to simply see masculine virtues as virtues and write your Machiavellian dude who wins at fights and insults people who are wrong/evil as simply awesome, and not even let the idea of any of it being toxic impinge upon your mind or writing.
I once searched online for help understanding my husband’s pov and now the algo keeps sending me articles on how to survive a narcissist. Haha he is the most normal mental health wise of anyone I’ve ever met. The labels are ridiculously overdone. Viva la difference!
Excellent article. I’m also sick of the reluctant hero and I think this goes back to movie Aragorn in PJ’s Lord of the Rings, but earlier as well. Where they took the raised and trained by elven masters of war and philosophy and magic to prepare him to become king and he was a well traveled long-lived ranger of the Dunedain nearing 90 and the movie turned into someone who can’t stop going on about Isildur‘s flaw and how his blood his weakness flows through his veins. And I know the movie didn’t have time, but Isildur wasn’t as susceptible to the ring and planned on taking it to Elrond I believe when he was ambushed and killed.
As a far-right man who has swam through feminist circles, most to all of "toxic masculinity" are the masculine behaviors associated with black & brown people, even though feminists would never admit that openly.
Also, I am reminded that Rasputin did not need to r*pe, so far as I have ever heard.
Timely essay. There is another trend that is very prevalent in masculine characters of the type men like that is in reality subversive. Two examples are the Spenser novels by Parker and Reacher by Childs. They want their readers and friends to know that they might write Macho characters but they aren't like the toxic men who like to read about Macho characters.
Spenser is Macho but has a strong, independent girlfriend who has a glamorous (to the NPR crowd) profession and is portrayed as perfect even though all she does is speak in psychobabble. Spenser also has a wise black friend of the type that liberals love but don't know or really want to know.
Reacher (at least on the books I read) constantly comes into contact with strong, independent women and all the bad guys are the type approved by the SJW crowd: white men in small towns. I quit reading them with the book that had the villains be a white supremacist militia, you know that an entity that doesn't exist unless they are almost entirely populated by feds and informants
Not overly familiar with Spenser but Reacher is exactly who I had in mind with “break glass in case the liberal order is threatened.” Him crashing out and putting someone in the hospital because they called a lesbian a dike or some other silence is violence type nonsense would not feel out of place in a Reacher story.
Worth revisiting Parker because, as far as I know, he was the one who first used the masculine but don't worry I am also woke structure in his books. He started the Spenser series in 73.
A lot of the audience for this leans right, and a lot of those are trads, who naturally don't like a hero who fucks too much. So you sort of have a pincer attack from the entire left and from the puritanical right.
I've written two books now that buck the trend of this pearl clutching longhouse crap. A few people have gotten angry, calling it 'incel fanfiction' but generally, guys just read it, enjoy it, and move on with their lives.
I've found little benefit in engaging with those people who want 'female friendly everything' and will let the next years book sales do my arguing for me. and I don't think it's genre specific either.
e.g.
The Dog Walker, my first fiction, is a contemporary fiction about a guy getting laid and learning to specifically shed that 'always believe women' morality, but handled sincerely, not preachy.
Softbone, my newest, is a cyberpunk fiction showing the extreme end game of that sort of morality, and a man getting out of it to enjoy the 'toxic masculinity' they bitch about; which ends up being rather pleasant to everyone involved.
You don't have to argue with them, you just have to make an alternative and people will decide for themselves imo
"We are all caught in the grips of this term in ways that we don’t even recognize. There is this idea that masculinity would be good if we could take all the little toxic bits out, when the truth is, all the toxic bits are what make masculinity capable of doing good in the first place. Taking the “toxic” out is a little bit like taking the alcohol out of beer. Sure, it tastes like beer, but its capacity to either relax you or fuck you up is completely gone."
I will always be happy to restack and promote your work, really high-quality stuff. Also I can see the quality of your prose is improving on a sentence-by-sentence level. Well done! Proud of you bro
When did the reluctant hero became a prominent trope anyway for literature?
"Excellent article. I’m also sick of the reluctant hero and I think this goes back to movie Aragorn in PJ’s Lord of the Rings, but earlier as well. Where they took the raised and trained by elven masters of war and philosophy and magic to prepare him to become king and he was a well traveled long-lived ranger of the Dunedain nearing 90 and the movie turned into someone who can’t stop going on about Isildur‘s flaw and how his blood his weakness flows through his veins."
1970s? 60s? Been reading Jack Vance and some old-school fantasy and sci-fi trying to find out the origins without using Google or AI to cheat.
I think it’s way more recent than that. Probably the 90s or 2000s if I had to guess. The Writer’s Journey by Vogler was published in 1992 and I have a feeling that’s when the trope really started being overused. It’s been around forever of course, since it originates either way Campbell, but I think it really started being abused in the 90s and 2000s
"He is not heroic in the traditional sense, because he is not doing any of this for the “right reasons” but purely for the love of the game. And that is ok. In fact, that is mostly how heroism comes packaged. And I actually think it is a precursor to all heroism. To try to cut this step out is nonsense and a misunderstanding of masculinity and the heroic."
because I wanted to bring up Jonah and Bilbo Baggins related to the reluctant trope before realizing you were being specific for reasons why the trope has been overused and abused.
The worst part is when I realize how much I have internalized, reading or seeing something and thinking “gosh, couldn’t do that now!” But I also realize that I simply don’t read or watch new material, and generally feel disappointed when I do. There are significant years past which things will likely suck. Maybe, 2000 is likely the first level of decay, then 2015, and then I suppose anything new. There’s good stuff, I’m sure, but it gets more rare, and less memorable even when enjoyable. The spark is gone.
The father and son protagonists in the Volsunga Saga went through a phase where they intentionally turned into werewolves to kill and rob people. These were the heroes of the story. I think a lot of older stories would take more heat, but for the fact that the people they would upset would never read them. The complainers tend to be people attracted to current trends.
Totally agreed! We are all “well poisoned” to a degree that is hard to quantify. So many ideological assumptions have been baked into our cultural framework for the last 100 years that we just accept mostly because it’s impossible to know better without turning yourself into a schizophrenic. And it’s not just masculinity, it’s everything really. Even banning smoking indoors, while maybe a public good was undoubtedly a significant loss of personal sovereignty. But we don’t give any of it a second thought now, in fact, the tact I’m taking in regards to it, feels taboo or stupid somehow. But that change didn’t become widely enforced until the 2000s!!
One thing I wanted to add, the line about Bond and his thoughts about rape-I think most people have a variety of thoughts that may be antisocial or offensive. This is just the sort of notion that an author may include to show the character’s mood or stream of thoughts. It doesn’t have to mean anything or be a formal philosophical statement, but it’s nice to see where the character’s head is at.
The modern attitude of being offended by this sort of thing stems from the current state of weird- what should I call it? Atheistic Puritanism? There’s a sense that some things just shouldn’t be said, even or especially if everyone is thinking them.
Could not agree more. I actually find the sentiment behind the line pretty poignant, but I’m obviously being a generous reader and not trying to be offended. And yes, the puritan to progressive path is very well tread. It’s Puritanism with “social good” as God.
By the way, nobody seems to understand anymore that James Bond was an anti-hero intended to personify the collapse of the cultural value system as it had previously existed.
What amazes me is all the weird online “self help” stuff for men.
All of it amounts to, “Just be yourself, and stop worrying about what other people think. Oh, and make something of yourself, but don’t rock the boat.” That is all.
It’s funny, because that’s the normal state of things is it not? I mean, why do you have to tell people to make something of themselves, and that it’s OK to be disagreeable and respect your own boundaries?
What’s happened in recent years is strange. And yes safetyism is definitely a huge part of the problem. “Don’t rock the boat,” they say.
Fuck that! The only people getting ahead *are* those who rock the boat. And that’s the whole point. Toxic masculinity is a way to neuter men—before they get a chance to reach any meaningful level of achievement.
Society *always* wants to keep people down (society is downstream of politics) and *nobody maintains power by empowering others.*
If you do what you’re told, you’ll never amount to anything—because nobody is honestly going to tell you how to *they* became successful (if they are). How many college graduate men are out there living the life they wanted—after getting some BS degree—because guidance counselors "helped" them along the way?
I understand that you’re primarily focused on writing. But the fact that people are scared to write about interesting adventures is so messed up to me.
Adventure is necessary for men! Danger, and overcoming the odds are what build character. Everyone needs to get their ass kicked, and kick someone else's ass. These things are facts. Safetyism is a poison!
Yepp, totally agree. Every aspect of waking life seems to be rounded edges and gay voice any more. It’s exhausting tbh, and “healthy” masculinity is more of the same.
> Taking the “toxic” out is a little bit like taking the alcohol out of beer. Sure, it tastes like beer, but its capacity to either relax you or fuck you up is completely gone.
A chisel or a hatchet or a saw can be used to carve furniture and cut wood. If used carelessly, you can lose fingers or a hand. They can also deliberately be used to remove body parts or otherwise vandalize or cause harm.
You can't get the benefits without the sharp edges that enable the latter.
Much as Bond is portrayed as a womanizer in the movies, the only woman he fornicates with in Casino Royale is Vesper--and it's premarital, not non-marital, because he silently plans to marry her. And of course it's shown to be a bad idea--Vesper is an unwilling double, because someone else she had a fling with is threatened with death to keep her in line.
He's also only killed two people, and has severe qualms about it to the point he considers quitting the service toward the end of the book.
So yeah, complaints about his moral failings in Casino Royale meaning he cannot be admired are for people who haven't read the source material.
All that said, you didn't make your thesis or conclusion clear either, so it's difficult to argue for or against it. If it's "don't worry about your masculinity being toxic" then, well, of course. It's an anticoncept anyway. The moral problem with Movie Bond is his excessive fornication without it being shown to be unwise, which is not a problem in the source material, and nothing to do with the absurd concept of toxic masculinity.
My thesis is masculinity is toxic and that’s fine and necessary and good actually, and we are probably at risk of not being toxic enough now a days, but fair enough critique. Also hard agree on Casino Royale and Bond. The argument itself was pretty dumb and had all the hallmarks of being in bad faith, so there’s that.
But perhaps masculinity just isn't toxic. From a philosophical perspective, the toxicity is the tendency towards vice found in human nature, which is not exclusive to men.
Martial virtues like willingness to kill in defense of self or others are obviously not toxic. Willingness to stand up for oneself and tell others they're wrong, or stinking morons, is not toxic and obeys basic moral dictums regarding honesty. Wooing fair maidens is necessary for the continuation of the species, thus clearly the opposite of toxic.
Realist political calculations, as Machiavelli advocates, are necessary for good rulership, and thus not toxic.
It is better to simply see masculine virtues as virtues and write your Machiavellian dude who wins at fights and insults people who are wrong/evil as simply awesome, and not even let the idea of any of it being toxic impinge upon your mind or writing.
You are correct here! My use of “toxic” is tongue in cheek.
I once searched online for help understanding my husband’s pov and now the algo keeps sending me articles on how to survive a narcissist. Haha he is the most normal mental health wise of anyone I’ve ever met. The labels are ridiculously overdone. Viva la difference!
Hahaha, this is amazing and dark. Totally agree!
Excellent article. I’m also sick of the reluctant hero and I think this goes back to movie Aragorn in PJ’s Lord of the Rings, but earlier as well. Where they took the raised and trained by elven masters of war and philosophy and magic to prepare him to become king and he was a well traveled long-lived ranger of the Dunedain nearing 90 and the movie turned into someone who can’t stop going on about Isildur‘s flaw and how his blood his weakness flows through his veins. And I know the movie didn’t have time, but Isildur wasn’t as susceptible to the ring and planned on taking it to Elrond I believe when he was ambushed and killed.
Anyways, sorry for the rant. Great piece. 👍
Dude, that is an absolutely perfect example of the subversion at work.
Thanks. 👍
As a far-right man who has swam through feminist circles, most to all of "toxic masculinity" are the masculine behaviors associated with black & brown people, even though feminists would never admit that openly.
Also, I am reminded that Rasputin did not need to r*pe, so far as I have ever heard.
I will continue reading...
Timely essay. There is another trend that is very prevalent in masculine characters of the type men like that is in reality subversive. Two examples are the Spenser novels by Parker and Reacher by Childs. They want their readers and friends to know that they might write Macho characters but they aren't like the toxic men who like to read about Macho characters.
Spenser is Macho but has a strong, independent girlfriend who has a glamorous (to the NPR crowd) profession and is portrayed as perfect even though all she does is speak in psychobabble. Spenser also has a wise black friend of the type that liberals love but don't know or really want to know.
Reacher (at least on the books I read) constantly comes into contact with strong, independent women and all the bad guys are the type approved by the SJW crowd: white men in small towns. I quit reading them with the book that had the villains be a white supremacist militia, you know that an entity that doesn't exist unless they are almost entirely populated by feds and informants
Not overly familiar with Spenser but Reacher is exactly who I had in mind with “break glass in case the liberal order is threatened.” Him crashing out and putting someone in the hospital because they called a lesbian a dike or some other silence is violence type nonsense would not feel out of place in a Reacher story.
Worth revisiting Parker because, as far as I know, he was the one who first used the masculine but don't worry I am also woke structure in his books. He started the Spenser series in 73.
Maybe, I’ve only read one Parker book and did not get woke out of it at all.
A lot of the audience for this leans right, and a lot of those are trads, who naturally don't like a hero who fucks too much. So you sort of have a pincer attack from the entire left and from the puritanical right.
This has been my experience lmao
1000% couldn’t agree more
I've written two books now that buck the trend of this pearl clutching longhouse crap. A few people have gotten angry, calling it 'incel fanfiction' but generally, guys just read it, enjoy it, and move on with their lives.
I've found little benefit in engaging with those people who want 'female friendly everything' and will let the next years book sales do my arguing for me. and I don't think it's genre specific either.
e.g.
The Dog Walker, my first fiction, is a contemporary fiction about a guy getting laid and learning to specifically shed that 'always believe women' morality, but handled sincerely, not preachy.
Softbone, my newest, is a cyberpunk fiction showing the extreme end game of that sort of morality, and a man getting out of it to enjoy the 'toxic masculinity' they bitch about; which ends up being rather pleasant to everyone involved.
You don't have to argue with them, you just have to make an alternative and people will decide for themselves imo
"We are all caught in the grips of this term in ways that we don’t even recognize. There is this idea that masculinity would be good if we could take all the little toxic bits out, when the truth is, all the toxic bits are what make masculinity capable of doing good in the first place. Taking the “toxic” out is a little bit like taking the alcohol out of beer. Sure, it tastes like beer, but its capacity to either relax you or fuck you up is completely gone."
Yeah, man. Yeah!!
Fun fact, Eastwood was offered the Bond role after Connery left the franchise. He turned it down.
really exciting to see your audience grow and to see you start to get the recognition you deserve
Thank you brother! You were one of my first subscribers
You will get much bigger if you keep writing an essay like this every 2-3 months
I will always be happy to restack and promote your work, really high-quality stuff. Also I can see the quality of your prose is improving on a sentence-by-sentence level. Well done! Proud of you bro
Thanks man, appreciate it
When did the reluctant hero became a prominent trope anyway for literature?
"Excellent article. I’m also sick of the reluctant hero and I think this goes back to movie Aragorn in PJ’s Lord of the Rings, but earlier as well. Where they took the raised and trained by elven masters of war and philosophy and magic to prepare him to become king and he was a well traveled long-lived ranger of the Dunedain nearing 90 and the movie turned into someone who can’t stop going on about Isildur‘s flaw and how his blood his weakness flows through his veins."
1970s? 60s? Been reading Jack Vance and some old-school fantasy and sci-fi trying to find out the origins without using Google or AI to cheat.
I think it’s way more recent than that. Probably the 90s or 2000s if I had to guess. The Writer’s Journey by Vogler was published in 1992 and I have a feeling that’s when the trope really started being overused. It’s been around forever of course, since it originates either way Campbell, but I think it really started being abused in the 90s and 2000s
I had to reread your article again
"He is not heroic in the traditional sense, because he is not doing any of this for the “right reasons” but purely for the love of the game. And that is ok. In fact, that is mostly how heroism comes packaged. And I actually think it is a precursor to all heroism. To try to cut this step out is nonsense and a misunderstanding of masculinity and the heroic."
because I wanted to bring up Jonah and Bilbo Baggins related to the reluctant trope before realizing you were being specific for reasons why the trope has been overused and abused.
The worst part is when I realize how much I have internalized, reading or seeing something and thinking “gosh, couldn’t do that now!” But I also realize that I simply don’t read or watch new material, and generally feel disappointed when I do. There are significant years past which things will likely suck. Maybe, 2000 is likely the first level of decay, then 2015, and then I suppose anything new. There’s good stuff, I’m sure, but it gets more rare, and less memorable even when enjoyable. The spark is gone.
The father and son protagonists in the Volsunga Saga went through a phase where they intentionally turned into werewolves to kill and rob people. These were the heroes of the story. I think a lot of older stories would take more heat, but for the fact that the people they would upset would never read them. The complainers tend to be people attracted to current trends.
Totally agreed! We are all “well poisoned” to a degree that is hard to quantify. So many ideological assumptions have been baked into our cultural framework for the last 100 years that we just accept mostly because it’s impossible to know better without turning yourself into a schizophrenic. And it’s not just masculinity, it’s everything really. Even banning smoking indoors, while maybe a public good was undoubtedly a significant loss of personal sovereignty. But we don’t give any of it a second thought now, in fact, the tact I’m taking in regards to it, feels taboo or stupid somehow. But that change didn’t become widely enforced until the 2000s!!
One thing I wanted to add, the line about Bond and his thoughts about rape-I think most people have a variety of thoughts that may be antisocial or offensive. This is just the sort of notion that an author may include to show the character’s mood or stream of thoughts. It doesn’t have to mean anything or be a formal philosophical statement, but it’s nice to see where the character’s head is at.
The modern attitude of being offended by this sort of thing stems from the current state of weird- what should I call it? Atheistic Puritanism? There’s a sense that some things just shouldn’t be said, even or especially if everyone is thinking them.
Could not agree more. I actually find the sentiment behind the line pretty poignant, but I’m obviously being a generous reader and not trying to be offended. And yes, the puritan to progressive path is very well tread. It’s Puritanism with “social good” as God.
I have a blog that may interest you
Great article.
By the way, nobody seems to understand anymore that James Bond was an anti-hero intended to personify the collapse of the cultural value system as it had previously existed.
1000%
What amazes me is all the weird online “self help” stuff for men.
All of it amounts to, “Just be yourself, and stop worrying about what other people think. Oh, and make something of yourself, but don’t rock the boat.” That is all.
It’s funny, because that’s the normal state of things is it not? I mean, why do you have to tell people to make something of themselves, and that it’s OK to be disagreeable and respect your own boundaries?
What’s happened in recent years is strange. And yes safetyism is definitely a huge part of the problem. “Don’t rock the boat,” they say.
Fuck that! The only people getting ahead *are* those who rock the boat. And that’s the whole point. Toxic masculinity is a way to neuter men—before they get a chance to reach any meaningful level of achievement.
Society *always* wants to keep people down (society is downstream of politics) and *nobody maintains power by empowering others.*
If you do what you’re told, you’ll never amount to anything—because nobody is honestly going to tell you how to *they* became successful (if they are). How many college graduate men are out there living the life they wanted—after getting some BS degree—because guidance counselors "helped" them along the way?
I understand that you’re primarily focused on writing. But the fact that people are scared to write about interesting adventures is so messed up to me.
Adventure is necessary for men! Danger, and overcoming the odds are what build character. Everyone needs to get their ass kicked, and kick someone else's ass. These things are facts. Safetyism is a poison!
Yepp, totally agree. Every aspect of waking life seems to be rounded edges and gay voice any more. It’s exhausting tbh, and “healthy” masculinity is more of the same.
> Taking the “toxic” out is a little bit like taking the alcohol out of beer. Sure, it tastes like beer, but its capacity to either relax you or fuck you up is completely gone.
A chisel or a hatchet or a saw can be used to carve furniture and cut wood. If used carelessly, you can lose fingers or a hand. They can also deliberately be used to remove body parts or otherwise vandalize or cause harm.
You can't get the benefits without the sharp edges that enable the latter.
See also fire.