I assume we all know someone for whom lemons are sweet and, although war is not ideal, there has to be something positive in everything – even genocide must have an upside if we can only allow ourselves to see it. Yeah. Those kind of people are out there.
There are also those who effuse a sad kind of joy with statements like, ‘I felt sorry for myself when I had an ingrown toenail until I met someone who had no foot.” That kind of thing.
Then there are participants in pity parties, false humility, vanity, and hypocrisy – to name a few.
Such forms of genuflection qualify one for membership in Life-Is-Too-Damn-Short-To-Tolerate club – unless, of course, you happen to be closely related to one of them, or are one yourself. I think currying favor and ingratiating oneself to others by such obsequious behavior tends to be contemptible to us all. We don’t like it – except during moments when we do it ourselves.
Then there’re the rest of us – the sane ones, standing firmly on two feet while engaging in cute value signaling. In case you are unaware of what that involves, here’s a refresher from Google:
“Value signaling is the act of communicating one’s values, beliefs, or social status through visible actions, possessions, or public statements. Often used to establish identity or foster trust, these signals can range from authentic lifestyle choices to superficial, performative gestures, all designed to earn social approval.”
We do it. We all do it; we can’t avoid it and still fend off suicide. Without it, Christ would not have had to die a painful death on a cross. That sort of thing. We just can’t avoid the realism of being the heroes of our own epic life stories – who else could be the protagonist of my story?
But ours is a well-kept secret – not from everybody else. From us! Joseph Conrad wrote about it in his novel ‘Lord Jim,’
“I didn’t know what he was playing up to – if he was playing up to anything at all – and I suspect he did not know either; for it is my belief no man ever understands quite his own artful dodges to escape from the grim shadow of self-knowledge.” And again, “Man is amazing, but no masterpiece.”
It’s important that we know that we are not masterpieces and that the artful dodges we perform are vain attempts to step out of the grim shadows that we cast.
We have our good days too, of course.
Alright. Since you called it a weapon, I’ll treat it like one — and tell you where it cuts cleanly and where it wobbles in your hand.
First: what works.
The voice is unmistakably yours. Dry. Slightly amused. Slightly annoyed. Self-implicating at the end. That’s good. It doesn’t read like you’re standing on a soapbox throwing rocks. It reads like you’re standing in the crowd and muttering, “Yeah, I’m guilty too.”
The Conrad quote is strong. It grounds the piece in something deeper than blog rhetoric. That line about “artful dodges” is exactly the right tonal anchor for what you’re circling: self-deception.
Also good: the turn where you include yourself — “We don’t like it – except during moments when we do it ourselves.” That’s the hinge that keeps this from becoming moral grandstanding. Without that line, it would.
Now, where it needs sharpening.
“Even genocide must have an upside…”
That’s rhetorically explosive. It gets attention. But it may overshoot. It risks making the rest feel like satire rather than reflection. If you want readers to lean in rather than brace, you might tone that example down slightly. Not soften the critique — just avoid a comparison so extreme that it distracts from your theme.
You move from:
– rose-colored optimists
– pity comparisons
– false humility/hypocrisy
– value signaling
They’re connected, but the connection isn’t fully articulated. Right now they feel like adjacent irritations rather than facets of one idea. What is the unifying mechanism? Is it:
- self-image maintenance?
- moral theater?
- fear of self-knowledge?
I suspect the last one. If so, bring that thread earlier. Let Conrad’s “grim shadow of self-knowledge” be the spine from the start, not just the citation at the end.
“Without it, Christ would not have had to die…”
That’s interesting — but abrupt. It feels dropped in rather than developed. Are you saying:
- humans require narrative self-justification?
- we must externalize guilt?
- we need visible virtue to avoid despair?
If that’s your point, it deserves a sentence of explanation. Otherwise it reads like a theological aside rather than a structural part of the argument
“We have our good days too, of course.”
That’s a gentle landing, but it feels unfinished. You’ve just diagnosed universal self-deception. The reader expects either:
- a sobering conclusion,
- a hopeful reconciliation,
- or a wicked final twist.
Instead, it fades.
You don’t need to moralize. But you could end with something sharper. For example (not rewriting, just illustrating direction):
- “The trick is not to stop signaling — that’s impossible — but to recognize when we are performing for an audience that exists only in our own imagination.”
- Or: “Perhaps the first honest act is admitting that we are always, in some measure, acting.”
Something that ties back to the “grim shadow” explicitly.
Now, strategically — for a writers’ group.
This will provoke. Some will feel accused. Some will feel seen. A few will feel you’re targeting contemporary moral culture (which you are, gently). That’s fine — but if your goal is discussion rather than tribal sorting, keep the self-implication strong.
The most powerful sentence in the whole piece might be this:
“We don’t like it – except during moments when we do it ourselves.”
That’s your scalpel. Use it more.
And one more thing, since you’re not 26 and not writing for tenure:
This reads like a man who has watched human beings for a long time and is tired of pretending not to notice certain patterns.
That’s not bitterness. That’s seasoned observation.
If you want, we can do a pass where we tighten it by 10–15% without changing a single idea — just sharpening rhythm and structure.
This weapon has an edge. Let’s hone it, not blunt it.
Leave a Reply