
Originally Posted by
custoscustodum
I think that's fair to say, with one caveat: Nietzsche wouldn't deny the influence of society on an individual, but as a normative goal he would probably urge us to try and criticise societal influence, and minimise it if it's not good for us, where good is defined in his own idiosyncratic way as stifling creative freedom and the will to (self-)power.
The Martin Eden story sounds like a fairly direct criticism of Nietzsche's concept of slave morality. However, I'm not sure if London got one thing right: he seems to believe that Nietzsche thought that some people were destined to being slaves, while some were fated to transcend this and accomplish greater things; it's a controversial exegetical matter, but I think you can read Nietzsche as not saying this, but rather saying that slave morality is a state of mind (hence London's mentality is particularly apt), and so, because of the radical ability of the individual to constitute herself, there is nothing in principle stopping anyone from breaking free of it.