Comic books are the most true to Objectivist values in our culture


Marcus

Recommended Posts

I don't feel the over-arching goal of Bruce Wayne is to run his business. That seems to me to be incidental to the story--sort of like the reason he can afford to be Batman. I don't know about Tony Stark.

Or another way of putting it is their productive purpose *is* to fight crime. This means their businesses merely serve as a means to that end. Is this inconsistent with Objectivism? Probably not. Howard Roark for example, lived a minimalist lifestyle and made money only to enable himself to build, the point being he was still a fully Objectivist hero.

Randian heroes are generally law-abiding, but only to the extent they choose to be. They are rebels by nature. Disrupters--mainly of markets. But disrupters of all of society if need be.

The comic book heroes I know about are law-abiding because they want to be. They are much more defenders of society than Randian heroes are, even when they have to temporarily step outside the law to get the job done. Their goal is to protect society from the bad guys. But the Randian side? Galt actually worked to destroy society. Dagny shot a guard in cold blood. Roark blew up a major building complex project. And so on.

I don't really see much of the difference. Sure they protect society (as justice is their goal) but they are also often shunned and feared, despite all that they do for it. A classic hero's dilemma. Objectivist heroes are more radical egoists than rebels. They more or less ignore society and focus on work and ideas.

I don't see how that is inconsistent with the fundamental work that Batman does, for example, ignoring the law and fighting crime on his own terms and for his own reasons. Often there is enormous 'collateral damage' as a result of their actions (or actions of villains fighting them) too, which they ignore (buildings being destroyed, fires, villain bomb threats etc). This tells you Batmans goal is not to 'protect society' but the promotion of an ideal of justice (even at the cost of incidental property loss).

The focus in the comic book world is much more traditional mainstream than Randian. To use an analogy, comic book heroes seem to me to be closer to a John Wayne character (for Westerns) or a normal cops and robbers story with a hero cop than a Howard Roark

Correct, but there is no fundamental contradiction here. Their purpose has simply been switched from that of production to that of justice. Iron man and Batman already have all the money they want. Their goals have changed.

Thanks for the links (and the introduction) by the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peikoff on comics.

Somebody else has noticed my observation apparently.

It must be raining in hell because I agree with Peikoff on everything he said here.

:smile:

Marcus -- I don't think the comics (with good-guy heroes) are incompatible or inconsistent with Objectivism. I just don't agree that, of all the arts, they are the most representative of Objectivist art and storytelling in the culture. There's a lot of great stuff out there that is compatible with Objectivism in all kinds of media.

A better way to celebrate your love of comics, in my opinion, is to celebrate specific works and series rather than take on the entire field (which includes a lot of crap, too).

Besides, the more I learn about art, neuroscience, the human mind, etc, the more I don't think Objectivism is the best aesthetic standard to use, even for Objectivists.

This doesn't mean it's a bad standard. My problem is scope and human universals. I hold Objectivist Romanticism is a good aesthetic standard and I enjoy it a lot, but within the narrow style it is. It's more like a genre to me than what the entire field of art could and should be.

Also, consider this. It's very easy to produce Objectivish garbage by the truckloads (I've witnessed some of this). A high concept, arrogant posture and lofty adjectives are not a replacement for skill and talent. If done poorly, Romantic Realism becomes an easy target for mockery. And that does nobody any good.

btw - I just ordered this: Female Force: Ayn Rand by John Blundell (Author) and Todd Tennant (Artist). It's a comic. I don't know if it's any good so I'll have to wait until it arrives to see.

MIchael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marcus -- I don't think the comics (with good-guy heroes) are incompatible or inconsistent with Objectivism. I just don't agree that, of all the arts, they are the most representative of Objectivist art and storytelling in the culture. There's a lot of great stuff out there that is compatible with Objectivism in all kinds of media.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, this is what you said:

My point is that Randian heroes (the ones she wrote, that is) display a producer side that is in the foreground. It is a driver of the story. And her heroes don't chase bad guys for the good of society or to save innocent victims. They mostly try to get the bad guys out of their way.

In other words, to qualify as a randian (objectivist) hero one has to put "production" first.

The issue is that some heroes "produce" justice, not businesses or industries or markets. That was my point.

Besides, the more I learn about art, neuroscience, the human mind, etc, the more I don't think Objectivism is the best aesthetic standard to use, even for Objectivists.

I have an idea what you mean by this, but would be curious if you expanded upon it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, to qualify as a randian (objectivist) hero one has to put "production" first.

The issue is that some heroes "produce" justice, not businesses or industries or markets. That was my point.

Marcus,

I understood that, although, strictly speaking, no one "produces" justice.

But here's the point. Ayn Rand loved to watch Perry Mason. In my understanding, he is not an Objectivist hero in the molds she created. I agree that he is compatible with many of her values. But as a hero, he's your standard American good-guy hero that permeates our pop culture.

If you want to call him an Objectivist hero, then we have to call almost every good-guy hero an Objectivist hero. And that would lead us to conclude that the American culture is in pretty damn good shape Objectivism-wise. Just look at pop entertainment for proof.

:smile:

Besides, the more I learn about art, neuroscience, the human mind, etc, the more I don't think Objectivism is the best aesthetic standard to use, even for Objectivists.

I have an idea what you mean by this, but would be curious if you expanded upon it.

I'm no longer convinced that the sole function of art, or even the primary function of art, is fuel, which is Rand's view. Some art can be fuel, but that's not it's primary human function. I'm beginning to see more clearly every day that there is an epistemological range that Rand did not cover in her theory of concepts: story. Humans think in story. And I believe art is tied up with this epistemology as an expression of it.

(At one time I considered developing an idea called "story concept" in the molds Rand did for measurement omission concepts in ITOE, but I later concluded that this idea needs to be developed according to its own reality, not force-fed into a theory.)

When you go home and tell stories to your family and friends about what happened during the day, are you are seeking a fill-up of spiritual fuel? Or are you only integrating and communicating concepts? Hardly. At the most charitable, both sound forced when you say that.

I think you tell stories because you can't not tell stories. ("You" meaning people in general, not "you" Marcus.) You think in stories. You experience life as stories. So you express stories just as surely as you breathe air.

Stories allow us to integrate and remember a series of experiences, especially time, as one. This includes imaginary experiences. Stories also put us into a trance, just like any art worthy of the name does.

That's a small start. It goes on from there.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no longer convinced that the sole function of art, or even the primary function of art, is fuel, which is Rand's view. Some art can be fuel, but that's not it's primary human function. I'm beginning to see more clearly every day that there is an epistemological range that Rand did not cover in her theory of concepts: story. Humans think in story. And I believe art is tied up with this epistemology as an expression of it.

(At one time I considered developing an idea called "story concept" in the molds Rand did for measurement omission concepts in ITOE, but I later concluded that this idea needs to be developed according to its own reality, not force-fed into a theory.)

When you go home and tell stories to your family and friends about what happened during the day, are you are seeking a fill-up of spiritual fuel? Or are you only integrating and communicating concepts? Hardly. At the most charitable, both sound forced when you say that.

I think you tell stories because you can't not tell stories. ("You" meaning people in general, not "you" Marcus.) You think in stories. You experience life as stories. So you express stories just as surely as you breathe air.

Stories allow us to integrate and remember a series of experiences, especially time, as one. This includes imaginary experiences. Stories also put us into a trance, just like any art worthy of the name does.

That's a small start. It goes on from there.

Michael

Hear, hear! Zing.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Carol wrote about Howie visiting Dommy or Johnny visiting Dag. Now, wouldn't it be a wonderful way for a cult to prove "correct thinking?" The O'ist is hooked up to an "e-meter" and shown X-rated Objectivist movies. If they are aroused they are allowed into to the cult. If no reaction occurs they are berated for false premises.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disclaimer: I've read a few graphic novels, but I know very little about comic books. My comments here are based primarily on the movie versions. :-)

Obviously I don't speak for Marcus, but I think when he said that Bruce Wayne and Tony Stark "produce justice", he was actually talking about their choice to place a higher value on their crime-fighting works than on their money-making works. In this, I have to agree that they are rightfully to be considered producers.

On the other hand, I agree with Michael that Bruce Wayne seems to see his wealth as something tangential to his Batman goals. I'd be curious to see how Batman would fare if he should suddenly become destitute. Didn't he inherit his wealth? Could he rebuild his empire?

Now, Tony Stark, I could totally buy as an Objectivist. As evidence, I would bring to bear his refusal to turn over the suit and its technology to the government. That scene from the opening few minutes of the second Iron Man movie was a man fighting for his individual property rights. Also, I recall a line from the latest movie in which he says something to Pepper about how he does everything that he does to protect what is of highest value to him. Objectivist principles all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why baby Kal El was brought up by two Genitles on a farm in the midwest.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Is he O'bama's good twin?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, Tony Stark, I could totally buy as an Objectivist. As evidence, I would bring to bear his refusal to turn over the suit and its technology to the government. That scene from the opening few minutes of the second Iron Man movie was a man fighting for his individual property rights. Also, I recall a line from the latest movie in which he says something to Pepper about how he does everything that he does to protect what is of highest value to him. Objectivist principles all around.

Yep. That is why I loved the film.

Let's not forget the Incredibles which was straight up Objectism, incuding the Ayn Rand character who designs their uniforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the Incredibles which was straight up Objectism, incuding the Ayn Rand character who designs their uniforms.

Agreed, there are similarities between the character and Rand, but it is more likely that costume designer Edith Head was the inspiration for costume designer Edna Mode. Coincidentally, Rand once worked under Head in RKO's wardrobe department.

bilde.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the Incredibles which was straight up Objectism, incuding the Ayn Rand character who designs their uniforms.

Agreed, there are similarities between the character and Rand, but it is more likely that costume designer Edith Head was the inspiration for costume designer Edna Mode. Coincidentally, Rand once worked under Head in RKO's wardrobe department.

bilde.jpg

Very nicely done, I was wondering if one of our resident archivers, Objectivist historians, or, "culists" would know that connection.

It might of been one of her first jobs there, not sure.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stumbled over a nice article by Mimi Reisel Gladstein, titled Breakthroughs in Ayn Rand Literary Criticism

Originally composed for this volume, a version of this article also appeared as“Ayn Rand in the Scholarly Literature III: Ayn Rand Literary Criticism,”
The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

, 4, no. 2 (Spring 2003): 373–94

http://www.scribd.com/doc/142843981/Breakthroughs-in-Ayn-Rand-Literary-Criticism

What has suffocated so much early Rand scholarship is the tendency to falll prey to the traditional fallacy. To many critics are seduced into evaluating her work through tthe lens of her statements about it. They substitute what she 'intended' to do for independant assessment of what she actually accomplished. By treating Rand as almost any other writer, this new generation of literary critics accord her the best type of academic respect, a respect that says the work is rich and complex enough to merit further study.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Francisco in #37 that the character from The Incredibles was based on Edith Head. It is obvious if you have ever seen her in a movie or on TV.

As for the "Objectivist" slant in the movie, I fell for the hype and saw it in a theater. While Dad had some good lines about enshrining mediocrity, the moral of the story was that superheroes need to not be so super. The final scene shows the boy not running as fast as he can in order to give the others a chance. Many other little moments like that counter-balance whatever O-like one-liners were tossed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's not forget the Incredibles which was straight up Objectism, incuding the Ayn Rand character who designs their uniforms.

Agreed, there are similarities between the character and Rand, but it is more likely that costume designer Edith Head was the inspiration for costume designer Edna Mode. Coincidentally, Rand once worked under Head in RKO's wardrobe department.

bilde.jpg

No capes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the "Objectivist" slant in the movie, I fell for the hype and saw it in a theater. While Dad had some good lines about enshrining mediocrity, the moral of the story was that superheroes need to not be so super.

You should watch it again, but without the ObjectiGoggles™.

The final scene shows the boy not running as fast as he can in order to give the others a chance. Many other little moments like that counter-balance whatever O-like one-liners were tossed out.

Michael, do you understand that comic book superheroes usually hide their identities? They wear disguises and behave differently when in superhero mode than when in daily living mode. They don't openly use their special powers in everyday life. Do you know why?

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the "Objectivist" slant in the movie, I fell for the hype and saw it in a theater. While Dad had some good lines about enshrining mediocrity, the moral of the story was that superheroes need to not be so super.

You should watch it again, but without the ObjectiGoggles™.

The final scene shows the boy not running as fast as he can in order to give the others a chance. Many other little moments like that counter-balance whatever O-like one-liners were tossed out.

Michael, do you understand that comic book superheroes usually hide their identities? They wear disguises and behave differently when in superhero mode than when in daily living mode. They don't openly use their special powers in everyday life. Do you know why?

J

Perhaps because they are on a (super) Hero's Journey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to agree with Francisco in #37 that the character from The Incredibles was based on Edith Head. It is obvious if you have ever seen her in a movie or on TV.

That's the problem that I've been having with people claiming that the character of Edna Mode is based on Edith Head: I've seen Head on television, and her personality was nothing like Mode's. And I just spent some time reviewing clips of her, and from what I've seen, Head was shy, sweet, and a bit deferential. She wasn't bold or daringly original. She appeared to be a bit uncomfortable in the spotlight, and she seemed to rely on humor to mask her anxieties. She was the opposite of Mode in every way except the hair and glasses.

So, no, personality-wise, Edna Mode is not based on Edith Head. But, intended or not, I think that Mode is a perfect caricature of Rand.

J

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