We knew this would return to bite us


Greybird

Recommended Posts

[...] Enough said. I don't mean to change the subject of this thread.

I gladly give you a special dispensation.

(Just had to say that! {g})

Anyway, having started this symposium, I'll jump in again to say that of all this productive thinking that's gone on about l'affaire Hickman and tangential matters, Barbara's course (or what I've gleaned from it) is probably the simplest and most useful:

Admit, if and when needed, that Rand made a sizable mistake in the object of her attention, when she was a younger writer learning about American culture. Don't gloss over it. Yet proceed to focus on the profound achievements that she did end up finishing.

I AGREE!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 245
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[...] Enough said. I don't mean to change the subject of this thread.

I gladly give you a special dispensation.

(Just had to say that! {g})

Anyway, having started this symposium, I'll jump in again to say that of all this productive thinking that's gone on about l'affaire Hickman and tangential matters, Barbara's course (or what I've gleaned from it) is probably the simplest and most useful:

Admit, if and when needed, that Rand made a sizable mistake in the object of her attention, when she was a younger writer learning about American culture. Don't gloss over it. Yet proceed to focus on the profound achievements that she did end up finishing.

Steve, I'm very glad you agree. I think the alternative -- leaping to create excuses for Rand -- would make us appear insensitive and defensive when we are not insensitive and have no need to be defensive.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View Post George H. Smith, on 28 March 2010 - 08:24 PM, said:

Psst -- Jonathan, don't tell anyone this, but I have never been a big fan of Rand's novels. I love the abstract speeches, but her characters rarely speak to me on a personal level. I like the darker, grittier stuff better.

I don't want this to get around because I've already caused enough trouble on OL.

;)

Ghs

Xray: It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw. He had left OL in between but now that he's back, reviving the thread with the two of you trying to make their case should be interesting to read. A poster here (Brant Gaede) wrote that JR "doesn't debate" (is that really the case?), but you sure do engage in debates. :)

As for the abstract speeches, imo they are far too long, sticking out in the novels like a verbal "atheroma".

Xray, I think I explained it - in a whole series of posts. No need to keep posting that one particular individual hasn't taken the time to give you what you asked for.

Perhaps you could point a newcomer to just where those posts are...

Here's the thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=240

# 244 (P. Coates) and # 249 (J. Riggenbach)

The discussion was later continued on another thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=260 (# 276)

I would have liked JR to give examples of where he thinks Rand meets his standard of "good" writing.

I think I'll give it another try on that thread. A discussion about this between GHS and JR should be most interesting.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw.

Xray, I think I explained it - in a whole series of posts. No need to keep posting that one particular individual hasn't taken the time to give you what you asked for.

Perhaps you could point a newcomer to just where those posts are...

Here's the thread:

http://www.objectivi...pic=7596&st=240

# 244 (P. Coates) and # 249 (J. Riggenbach)

The discussion was later continued on another thread:

http://www.objectivi...pic=7712&st=260 (# 276)

I would have liked JR to give examples of where he thinks Rand meets his standard of "good" writing.

Avoiding generalities, the first run of the John Galt Line is the best example I know of her tremendous dynamic narrative power. But, if I may be blunt, it's what you do or don't find "good" writing by Ayn Rand that should matter to you or not at all. Who has a need for an attenuated, intellectualized discussion about Rand's literary art? Someone who hasn't read any of her fiction?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw.

Xray, I think I explained it - in a whole series of posts. No need to keep posting that one particular individual hasn't taken the time to give you what you asked for.

Perhaps you could point a newcomer to just where those posts are...

Here's the thread:

http://www.objectivi...pic=7596&st=240

# 244 (P. Coates) and # 249 (J. Riggenbach)

The discussion was later continued on another thread:

http://www.objectivi...pic=7712&st=260 (# 276)

I would have liked JR to give examples of where he thinks Rand meets his standard of "good" writing.

Avoiding generalities, the first run of the John Galt Line is the best example I know of her tremendous dynamic narrative power. But, if I may be blunt, it's what you do or don't find "good" writing by Ayn Rand that should matter to you or not at all. Who has a need for an attenuated, intellectualized discussion about Rand's literary art? Someone who hasn't read any of her fiction?

--Brant

Just for the record, I will not be discussing Ayn Rand's writing (or anyone else's) with Xray. And I will not be discussing fiction publicly with George.

JR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw.

Xray, I think I explained it - in a whole series of posts. No need to keep posting that one particular individual hasn't taken the time to give you what you asked for.

Perhaps you could point a newcomer to just where those posts are...

Here's the thread:

http://www.objectivi...pic=7596&st=240

# 244 (P. Coates) and # 249 (J. Riggenbach)

The discussion was later continued on another thread:

http://www.objectivi...pic=7712&st=260 (# 276)

I would have liked JR to give examples of where he thinks Rand meets his standard of "good" writing.

Avoiding generalities, the first run of the John Galt Line is the best example I know of her tremendous dynamic narrative power. But, if I may be blunt, it's what you do or don't find "good" writing by Ayn Rand that should matter to you or not at all. Who has a need for an attenuated, intellectualized discussion about Rand's literary art? Someone who hasn't read any of her fiction?

--Brant

Just for the record, I will not be discussing Ayn Rand's writing (or anyone else's) with Xray. And I will not be discussing fiction publicly with George.

JR

And just for the record, I do not consider JR's statements on literary esthetics to be "attenuated, intellectualized" discussions. I'd rather read him than anyone else.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

View Post George H. Smith, on 28 March 2010 - 08:24 PM, said:

Psst -- Jonathan, don't tell anyone this, but I have never been a big fan of Rand's novels. I love the abstract speeches, but her characters rarely speak to me on a personal level. I like the darker, grittier stuff better.

I would have liked JR to give examples of where he thinks Rand meets his standard of "good" writing.

I think I'll give it another try on that thread. A discussion about this between GHS and JR should be most interesting.

I said nothing about Rand's merits as a fiction writer. I merely indicated that her novels don't appeal to me. Relatively few novels do, however, for (as I later indicated) I've never been much of a fiction reader.

I seriously doubt if JR would have any serious problem with my expression of personal taste. It certainly is not incompatible with the claim that Rand was a great fiction writer. The statement "X is a great fiction writer" does not entail the statement "I enjoy reading X." These are two different issues.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has a need for an attenuated, intellectualized discussion about Rand's literary art? Someone who hasn't read any of her fiction?

--Brant

It does, sometimes, kind of take the "R" out of "Romantic," doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record, I will not be discussing Ayn Rand's writing (or anyone else's) with Xray. And I will not be discussing fiction publicly with George.

JR

Have you (or does anyone know if JR has) discussed it at another place which can be accessed via internet? I'm interested in the criteria JR listed in his post - quoted here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=460&gopid=95507entry95507 (# 471) - and a demonstration of how they apply to Rand's writings.

View Post George H. Smith, on 28 March 2010 - 08:24 PM, said:

Psst -- Jonathan, don't tell anyone this, but I have never been a big fan of Rand's novels. I love the abstract speeches, but her characters rarely speak to me on a personal level. I like the darker, grittier stuff better.

I would have liked JR to give examples of where he thinks Rand meets his standard of "good" writing.

I think I'll give it another try on that thread. A discussion about this between GHS and JR should be most interesting.

GHS:

I said nothing about Rand's merits as a fiction writer. I merely indicated that her novels don't appeal to me. Relatively few novels do, however, for (as I later indicated) I've never been much of a fiction reader.

I seriously doubt if JR would have any serious problem with my expression of personal taste. It certainly is not incompatible with the claim that Rand was a great fiction writer. The statement "X is a great fiction writer" does not entail the statement "I enjoy reading X." These are two different issues.

Ghs

No, he wouldn't have any problem. De gustibus non est disputandum.

In his post, he also confined the term "writer" to the process of writing itself:

JR: "Writing" is the creation and deployment of sentences and paragraphs."

"If you single someone out for praise "just as a writer" - if you say, for example, that someone is among the greatest writers of English of the 20th Century - what you are praising is that person's skill at creating and deploying sentences and paragraphs."

Since I don't want to go off topic here, I'll continue on the other thread which contains JR's complete post on that.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=460&gopid=95507entry95507 (# 471)

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who has a need for an attenuated, intellectualized discussion about Rand's literary art? Someone who hasn't read any of her fiction?

--Brant

It does, sometimes, kind of take the "R" out of "Romantic," doesn't it?

You're right about that, brother! (Waves a sword.)

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

In this post, I wrote,

I, too, wish she had written it. I think it could have been quite a powerful work of art, but I don't think that she necessarily would have had to regret it later. I see a more positive possibility, which is that she would have come up with a different official Objectivist Esthetics, one that was more open to and appreciative of darker works of art.

I'm now of the opinion that it isn't important that Rand didn't finish her novel. The fact that she was working on it, and that her thoughts on the project are now very publicly known is more than enough. What a valuable service has been provided by those who published her comments on the Hickman case and its influence on her! As seen here, Objectivist aesthetic bullying just isn't a realistic option anymore. If you want to trash a band like Slayer, or anyone else who explores dark subject matter in their art, Rand and Objectivism are going to take a much bigger beating as a result. Slayer and their ilk are going to come across as being more rational and reasonable than Rand. Even the most thickheaded Objectivist Cultural Warriors are going to have to reevaluate their opinions and tactics (with idiots like Pigero and some of his toadies, it may still take quite a while, but I think that even with them it will eventually have to sink in).

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HSG: "But how can she...

Leonid,

Who on earth is HSG???

I had to search for phrases and I came up with a post by Dragonfly on the other end of the forum in a thread called "Settling the debate on Altruism" in the "Ethics" section.

For the record, here is Dragonfly's entire post:

No. The point is the mother changes her mind out of "duty" not because she rationally decided the child is more valuable and therefore her value is still immoral despite her actions.

But how can she "rationally" decide that the child is more valuable? Isn't she rational when she concludes that she'll be punished for neglecting her child, so that she'd better take care of it? Or why shouldn't it be rational for her to conclude that because she doesn't like the child, which only constitutes an obstacle in pursuing a career, she'd better let it starve when she can get away with it? Would she bother about the well-being of the child of a stranger? So why should she bother about the well-being of her own child if she doesn't like it, or even hates it? Because she "should" do so according to some Objectivist, because it would be "rational"? Isn't that following a duty as well? Objectivists like to use the magic buzzword "rational" profusely as if that would be an explanation, but it could be just as rational for her to prefer a hat or a career over an inconvenient child.

What is of course omitted in that argument is the fact that most mothers would probably care for the well-being of the child even if they don't like it, because it's in their genes to do so, not because some so-called "rational" argument that she should value it, that is in fact only a rationalization. But that goes against one of Rand's dogmas, namely the tabula rasa hypothesis and the idea that "emotions are the automatic results of man's value judgments integrated by his subconscious" and "man's emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses". So she claims that every emotion can be explained by the values that a person consciously chooses. Now I don't blame Rand for holding those outdated ideas, because the tabula rasa theory was rather popular in her time, so it may be understandable that she adopted it as it seemed to suit her purpose. But I do blame Objectivists for still defending such theories when they should know better, only because they're part of Rand's system, and who knows how dangerous it could be to change parts of her philosophy, you never know where you'll end up!

Would you like some instructions on how to use the quote function? The way you are doing it (and even in your previous posts, for that matter), it's difficult for readers to understand who you are talking to. And it's really difficult to consult the quoted post.

Learning the quote function is not too hard.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, I didn't use qoute function but my daily digest which by some reason refered to George H. Smith. By mistake I posted reply to the wrong thread. Just ignore it.

Edited by Leonid
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

I know this is a very old thread, but may I make a suggestion as how to deal with the "serial killer groupie" argument...

Rand's infatuation with Hickman was during the early stages of writing The Fountainhead (IIRC). If so, it is quite possible (I think it is quite likely) her own philosophical views hadn't fully codified yet.

Objectivism didn't spring fully formed from Rand's head like Athena. The philosophy developed over time. It is quite possible that the mature Rand ended up reconsidering her crush on Hickman. We can't fully know this for sure.

Even so, Rand's infatuation was clearly irrational and fundamentally stupid. It isn't exactly new though; a few women for some reason develop hots over convicted felons (some sort of "all girls want bad boys" thing gone insane).

However, "Rand was imperfect" does not prove Objectivism right or wrong.

At least this is my position on the Hickman thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's infatuation with Hickman was during the early stages of writing The Fountainhead (IIRC). If so, it is quite possible (I think it is quite likely) her own philosophical views hadn't fully codified yet.

As I recall (not double checking) the notes date from 1928, then she was 23, so never mind The Fountainhead, We the Living was still pretty far off.

It's come to my attention that some bloggers/media have recently attached themselves to a new story, to the effect that Rand went on public assistance when she was diagnosed with cancer in 1974. They claim she used a false name, Ann O'Connor. Such Hypocrisy, Right?!?!?!

Without putting much time into it, my reaction would be to look into whether Medicare at that time was compulsory on hospitals, as it is now. In which case, if she needed medical care, she had to go through Medicare, or what? Go to Canada? Note that in 1974 she would have been, what, 69? If you want to opt out of Medicare, just how do you go about that? And never mind that you paid into it for decades. I suppose this story ought to have its own thread, but I feel ill inclined to elevate it that high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's infatuation with Hickman was during the early stages of writing The Fountainhead (IIRC). If so, it is quite possible (I think it is quite likely) her own philosophical views hadn't fully codified yet.

As I recall (not double checking) the notes date from 1928, then she was 23, so never mind The Fountainhead, We the Living was still pretty far off.

It's come to my attention that some bloggers/media have recently attached themselves to a new story, to the effect that Rand went on public assistance when she was diagnosed with cancer in 1974. They claim she used a false name, Ann O'Connor. Such Hypocrisy, Right?!?!?!

Without putting much time into it, my reaction would be to look into whether Medicare at that time was compulsory on hospitals, as it is now. In which case, if she needed medical care, she had to go through Medicare, or what? Go to Canada? Note that in 1974 she would have been, what, 69? If you want to opt out of Medicare, just how do you go about that? And never mind that you paid into it for decades. I suppose this story ought to have its own thread, but I feel ill inclined to elevate it that high.

Rand's The Question of Scholarships addresses that:

...A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it...

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants...

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Yes, Rand's notes on Hickman are from 1928. Before Red Pawn or Ideal, let alone We the Living.

My understanding is that it's near-impossible for Americans over 65 to avoid Medicare—and doctors and hospitals must either accept all Medicare patients or stay completely outside the system.

I'm not old enough to have dealt with Medicare personally, so somebody here may be in a position to correct me.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ND,

Yes, Rand's notes on Hickman are from 1928. Before Red Pawn or Ideal, let alone We the Living.

My understanding is that it's near-impossible for Americans over 65 to avoid Medicare—and doctors and hospitals must either accept all Medicare patients or stay completely outside the system.

I'm not old enough to have dealt with Medicare personally, so somebody here may be in a position to correct me.

Robert Campbell

The general rule is if an institution takes $1.00 of government money they are subject to government regulation 100%.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony: "This reminds me of the excellent thrillers of the critically ignored, incredibly popular, John D. MacDonald . . . I own the full collection."

MacDonald was a wonderful writer, who never received the critical understanding and acclaim he deserved. I, too, once owned all his books -- and I now regret that I gave them away. He once did something astonishing. I don't remember what book it was, but in the first two or three pages, he introduced nine or ten characters. each with only a sentence or two of characterization. But so striking and memorable were those characterizations that as the characters kept reappearing throughout the book, one never had to go back to see who any of them were.

Enough said. I don't mean to change the subject of this thread,

Barbara

MacDonald's best rated book at Amazon, Girl, the Gold Watch, Evereything, is available used, in paperback, for $899.10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MacDonald's best rated book at Amazon, Girl, the Gold Watch, Evereything, is available used, in paperback, for $899.10

Ted,

It's one of the JDmD books not featuring Travis McGee; an excellent, whimsical, fantasy.

I just so happen to have it in paperback, too...and it probably cost me a couple of bucks.

Thanks for the info.

Tony

(Investment Books, Pty. Ltd)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now