Weirdest, snarkiest and... er... funny(?)

[Rich Engle]

It's highly-polarized stuff, but it's still kind of sexy. You have to load novel characters because they are novel characters.

Ask a 17 year old boy about reading The Fountainhead. I dunno, how about NB? He didn't end up being a wife-beater, that's for sure.

[Michelle]

If it were only about Rand's sexual wish fulfilment, one could just shrug it off, for what turns people on is their own business. But Rand had an agenda: she conceived her heroes/heroines "as man (and woman) should be", i. e. as role models for her readers to emulate.

Imagine a 17 old boy reading those novels and thinking he will now have behave violently, dowright sadistically as Roark, Rearden & Co to fully qualify as "man should" be. Or young girls thinking sexual subservience (as shown in Dagny Taggart) is an essential ingredient of how "the ideal woman" should be.

There is nothing "sadistic "about the sex outside of the rape scene in the TF. Again, you clearly have some issue with characters having rough sex, which is silly, considering its consensual in AS. Haven't you ever had friends who were into BDSM?

Moreover, as I have explained before, rough sex was not a part of this 'ideal.'

[Xray]

Ted,

It all depends on your jargon. You could also say I am not evading it.

I don't like faking reality. Did that once and got hurt. Bad.

Before you insinuate my motives, you should take a hard look at yours.

Michael

Thanks Michael for your clear words on this. "Not evading" means to me that you are an open-minded person and not locked in any ideological "thinking box".

[Rich Engle]

If you took the words "evasion," and "evidence" away from the O-world, it would be tantamount to telling rock song writers they are no longer allowed to use "love," "baby," and "yeah."

There would be very little left and everyone would have to scramble.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Xray]

If it were only about Rand's sexual wish fulfilment, one could just shrug it off, for what turns people on is their own business. But Rand had an agenda: she conceived her heroes/heroines "as man (and woman) should be", i. e. as role models for her readers to emulate.

Imagine a 17 old boy reading those novels and thinking he will now have behave violently, dowright sadistically as Roark, Rearden & Co to fully qualify as "man should" be. Or young girls thinking sexual subservience (as shown in Dagny Taggart) is an essential ingredient of how "the ideal woman" should be.

There is nothing "sadistic "about the sex outside of the rape scene in the TF. Again, you clearly have some issue with characters having rough sex, which is silly, considering its consensual in AS. Haven't you ever had friends who were into BDSM?

Moreover, as I have explained before, rough sex was not a part of this 'ideal.'

First of all, personal opinions vary as to what people call "rough sex". Which is why the picture person A has in mind of "rough sex", "passionate lovemaking" etc. may completely differ from person B's etc.

So when people regard a sexually subservient heroine like Dagny Taggart as being a role model for themselves - again, it is their personal choice.

But when it comes to recommending her or her male counterparts (you yourself called them "bestial") as role models for young people to emulate - that's where I personally would draw the line.

Aside from that, I'm against the idea of adapting oneself to role models anyway.

Rand thought of her fictional created heros "as man should be". An entirely subjective choice, contradicting the very idea of individualism in that others "ought to" value what she preferred.

Like you accurately observed on another thread, the dominance/subservience theme is running through the whole novel AS. The male heroes come and go as they please, often leaving "without a word" after the sexual act.

The mostly have "cold eyes", and a "mocking smile" on their face. I often had to laugh when reading that, getting the mental image of some comic strip figure in my mind.

There is nothing "sadistic "about the sex outside of the rape scene in the TF. Again, you clearly have some issue with characters having rough sex, which is silly, considering its consensual in AS. Haven't you ever had friends who were into BDSM?

As for people's differing ideas of "rough sex", see above.

You also don't seem to have a clear idea regarding the terminology. That it is "consensual" does not make those acts unsadistic. For example, sadists seek masochists for consensual acts and vice versa.

So why not call spade a spade? Rearden & Co clearly had a sexually sadistic streak and found the perfect match in the heroine Dagny's sexual masochism.

Rand also places the male above the female. For instance, she called Dominique Francon "the ideal woman for Howard Roark - the "perfect priestess". This clearly constitutes a hierarchy.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

Consider the sexual climate of the time she wrote it. Consider the mores.

It was a stretch to even connote anything other than traditional, Puritan sex. There were only a few people writing like that at all in the States. This was when they were still trying to jack copies of "Tropic of Cancer."

[Xray]

There are too many Objectivists who make life needlessly difficult for themselves by trying to play the tall, dark, and silent Howard Roark kind of role. What usually ends up happening is that their clients/employers tell them where they can shove their pissy attitudes, and they end up driving loved ones away from them and generally ruin their own lives.

Applying Objectivist principles can liberate a person and open the door of life to him. But making a cult out of it can also ruin his life.

The fundamentally ironic thing is how Objectivism attracts people with low self-esteem who think that if they ape Rand's heroes that they'll magically discover self-esteem as well.

Didn't Nathaniel Branden write some books on developing self-esteem? Are they effective?

What I have read by NB in "The Virtue of Selfishness" so far makes me doubt his books are very helpful in that respect, but maybe his opinions on several issues have changed.

Example: "a man falls in love and sexually desires the person who reflects his deepest values." (Nathaniel Branden) TVOS, p. 76/77

Really? I that so? A "man" = all men? Can't be, for if people only would fall in love with each other with these criteria fulfilled, my guess is mankind would already have been extinct.

But I suppose NB only meant the "objectivist man", and when this man fals in love, it must be with a "heroine". I'm not kidding - it is there in black and white:

"Thus, if a man is attracted to a woman with intelligence, confidence and strength, he is attrcted to a heroine, he reveals one kind of of soul.

If instead he is attracted to a helpless, irresponsible scatterbrain ...," (NB) - read the whole thing (it's "The psychology of Pleasure" chapter in TVOS), it's quite amusing in a way.

Jmpo, but my advice to any woman or man who is regarded as a "heroine/hero" by someone having romantic interest in them would be "Run away as fast as you can!" , but then that's just my personal subjective value judgement (as there are no objective values).

Which reduces NB's elaborations on the subject to mere subjective opinion too.

Edited June 14, 2009 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

He has done much more extensive work in that area.

[Brant Gaede]

There are too many Objectivists who make life needlessly difficult for themselves by trying to play the tall, dark, and silent Howard Roark kind of role. What usually ends up happening is that their clients/employers tell them where they can shove their pissy attitudes, and they end up driving loved ones away from them and generally ruin their own lives.

Applying Objectivist principles can liberate a person and open the door of life to him. But making a cult out of it can also ruin his life.

The fundamentally ironic thing is how Objectivism attracts people with low self-esteem who think that if they ape Rand's heroes that they'll magically discover self-esteem as well.

Didn't Nathaniel Branden write some books on developing self-esteem? Are they effective?

What I have read by NB in "The Virtue of Selfishness" so far makes me doubt his books are very helpful in that respect, but maybe his opinions on several issues have changed.

Example: "a man falls in love and sexually desires the person who reflects his deepest values." (Nathaniel Branden) TVOS, p. 76/77

Really? I that so? A "man" = all men? Can't be, for if people only would fall in love with each other with these criteria fulfilled, my guess is mankind would already have been extinct.

But I suppose NB only meant the "objectivist man", and when this man fals in love, it must be with a "heroine". I'm not kidding - it is there in black and white:

"Thus, if a man is attracted to a woman with intelligence, confidence and strength, he is attrcted to a heroine, he reveals one kind of of soul.

If instead he is attracted to a helpless, irresponsible scatterbrain ...," (NB) - read the whole thing (it's "The psychology of Pleasure" chapter in TVOS), it's quite amusing in a way.

Jmpo, but my advice to any woman or man who is regarded as a "heroine/hero" by someone having romantic interest in them would be "Run away as fast as you can!" , but then that's just my personal subjective value judgement (as there are no objective values).

Which reduces NB's elaborations on the subject to mere subjective opinion too.

You best read his post-Break material to get a handle on NB's work on self-esteem issues, especially books published after 1980. Try "The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem."

--Brant

[Selene]

Consider the sexual climate of the time she wrote it. Consider the mores.

It was a stretch to even connote anything other than traditional, Puritan sex. There were only a few people writing like that at all in the States. This was when they were still trying to jack copies of "Tropic of Cancer."

Rich:

It is apparent to many, that it is wise to be as cognizant as possible of the society that the writer, artist etc. exists within.

I am always amazed at how folks continue to search for the clay feet, or the warts on a great achiever. The desire to "tear down" Rand, or the Brandens, never has made any sense to me. What has been gained by that path.

Apparently, we reserve the lowest level in hell for philosophers, great thinkers, successful generals etc.

Rand's rhetoric is, and was, inspirational. Barbara and Nathanial have accomplished careers. I have personally known many more people who are better people because of having know about all of their ideas.

However, there is some anecdotal evidence that some Randians had serious personal problems by trying to blindly apply fictional character's behaviors to their daily lives.

Some Randian analysts will then make sweeping statements about the effects that will occur when the next person reads these books.

This is fallacious. For example, I read both Atlas and Fountainhead before I hit 17. However, according to a poster here:

"Imagine a 17 old boy reading those novels and thinking he will now have behave violently,

dowright sadistically as Roark, Rearden & Co to fully qualify as "man should" be. Or young

girls thinking sexual subservience (as shown in Dagny Taggart) is an essential ingredient of

how "the ideal woman" should be."

Life is a little more complicated than that type of analysis.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

That's my perspective in a nutshell. But it is like spitting in the ocean.

rde

Please Provide More Evidence<tm>

[Michelle]

You also don't seem to have a clear idea regarding the terminology. That it is "consensual" does not make those acts unsadistic. For example, sadists seek masochists for consensual acts and vice versa.

So why not call spade a spade? Rearden & Co clearly had a sexually sadistic streak and found the perfect match in the heroine Dagny's sexual masochism.

My terminology is fine. You're just confusing two entirely different statements - one about sadism, and one about consent - in order to misrepresent what I said.

The rough sex between the characters is NOT sadistic in nature. It's merely an extension of Rand's obsession over power and moral perfection.

Sadism is a sexual perversion in which one person takes pleasure in harming the other.

This definition obviously follows from the etymological source of the word sadism. It comes from the name of A.F. de Sade (AKA the Marquis de Sade, although he was not actually a Marquis).

Although bruises do result from the various sex scenes in AS, there is never an indication that the characters are taking delight in harming Dagny.

Or, to follow your example...

Do you disagree that the sexual acts in Atlas Shrugged aren't sadistic? If so, explain why, and post examples.

[Xray]

However, there is some anecdotal evidence that some Randians had serious personal problems by trying to blindly apply fictional character's behaviors to their daily lives.

Some Randian analysts will then make sweeping statements about the effects that will occur when the next person reads these books.

This is fallacious. For example, I read both Atlas and Fountainhead before I hit 17. However, according to a poster here:

"Imagine a 17 old boy reading those novels and thinking he will now have behave violently,

dowright sadistically as Roark, Rearden & Co to fully qualify as "man should" be. Or young

girls thinking sexual subservience (as shown in Dagny Taggart) is an essential ingredient of

how "the ideal woman" should be."

Life is a little more complicated than that type of analysis.

Adam

How did you as a youngster perceive Roark, Rand's "man as man should be"? How did he come across to you? As someone you admired? Did you want to be like him? If yes, why? I not, why not?

Edited June 15, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

You also don't seem to have a clear idea regarding the terminology. That it is "consensual" does not make those acts unsadistic. For example, sadists seek masochists for consensual acts and vice versa.

So why not call spade a spade? Rearden & Co clearly had a sexually sadistic streak and found the perfect match in the heroine Dagny's sexual masochism.

My terminology is fine. You're just confusing two entirely different statements - one about sadism, and one about consent - in order to misrepresent what I said.

I'm merely trying to be as precise as possible.

So according to your logic, when a sadist and masochist perform acts with mutual consent, these acts don't qualify as sadistic/masochistic anymore just because there is consent?

Edited June 15, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The point of Roark's character that he maintains perfect integrity--by the author's lights--throughout the novel and that he wins against all the adversity that comes his way consequently.

An Ayn Rand hero is essentially a statue inside a dynamic of literature and makes little reference to the dynamism of actual human being. Contemplating that the reader can find some very good and important things to emulate and everything is worth thinking about. Pretending to be an Ayn Rand hero, however, is similar to those folks who make a public display about being saved by Jesus. Human being is heroic being and starts from the inside with the cultivation of personal courage; we all need courage to get through life. How much courage needed depends on the challenges and adversity encountered on one's way.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant:

"Human being is heroic being and starts from the inside with the cultivation of personal courage; we all need courage to get through life. How much courage needed depends on the challenges and adversity encountered on one's way."

Beautifully put.

Adam

[Xray]

Brant:

"Human being is heroic being and starts from the inside with the cultivation of personal courage; we all need courage to get through life. How much courage needed depends on the challenges and adversity encountered on one's way."

Beautifully put.

Adam

"Human being is heroic being"

Brant and Selene:

Is the above quote an "objective" value judgement in your opinion ?

If yes, would you please explain why. TIA

Edited June 15, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Brant:

"Human being is heroic being and starts from the inside with the cultivation of personal courage; we all need courage to get through life. How much courage needed depends on the challenges and adversity encountered on one's way."

Beautifully put.

Adam

"Human being is heroic being"

Brant and Selene:

Is the above quote an "objective" value judgement in your opinion ?

If yes, would you please explain why. TIA

It's a true statement. Implicit in it is the word "proper." Proper human being, which is in general reference to human nature. There are all kinds of human being which are not heroic, only prosaic or despicable.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I wonder if the consistent misspelling of Roark's name as Roarke is intentional. I bet it is not, since nothing snarky came of it.

I admit I feel a bit guilty for finding some of this stuff funny, but DAYAAMM!

If you gotta let it out, might as well do it all at once...

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, Tallulah Morehead is fictional (I think). Here is her blog: The Morehead the Merrier.

Don't feel guilty. It was a funny spoof on the motion picture -The Fountainhead-. Mad Magazines version, in a way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

I wonder if the consistent misspelling of Roark's name as Roarke is intentional. I bet it is not, since nothing snarky came of it.

I admit I feel a bit guilty for finding some of this stuff funny, but DAYAAMM!

If you gotta let it out, might as well do it all at once...

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, Tallulah Morehead is fictional (I think). Here is her blog: The Morehead the Merrier.

Don't feel guilty. It was a funny spoof on the motion picture -The Fountainhead-. Mad Magazines version, in a way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I disagree, you should feel guilty. This crap is not funny (unless you find children spreading lies as rumors and children's name calling funny) and has no value worth communicating.

No, Michael, the problem is not that one can't criticize Rand, or even parody her works. The problem is that this creature's blog doesn't rise to the level of honest criticism, and it offers us no value as parody. It is purely parasitical, dung thrown on fine art.

I am reminded of a person who's banned from this forum. (I can't remember his name, Proctor Hess, or Hector Snott, or something) whose "caricatures" were lauded for some time here as art. They were pathetic, ugly scribblings, bathroom wall scrawlings that were "funnny" for one reason only, if you can call it a reason. Those pictures attacked some people who were disliked by various parties. All's fair in love and war and tribal schisms? I remember a "caricature" of Diana Hsieh. I personally disagreed with and disliked much of what Diana Hsieh stood for way back when she was Diana Mertz Brickell. But attacking her based on her appearance is not justified in any manor. The approval here of Speck's (or is it Crotch's?) hateful caricature of her, merely because she belonged to the enemy camp, isn't loyalty to the good guys. Loyalty to the good guys needs nothing more than decency and truth to support it. Any one who's read and comprehended the essay Objectivist Rage should understand the impropriety.

We have been lectured here by some parties that Barack Obama is a decent man, that we should give him the benefit of the doubt so far as it goes. There's no need to demonize him as a communist up front. Well, neither was Hsieh a killer, nor Rand a fascist, not to deserve the benefit of the doubt, and treatment on the merits. Attack Diana Hsieh on the merits. Criticize and showcase the criticism of Rand on the merits.

There's no need to rally round the flag. But neither is there the need for or the call to wallow in filth, or pass ugly notes at the back of the class. Hearing someone tell lies about someone you love is bad enough. None of us would stay silent in person if the creature who wrote this blog made the same comments at a party. To laugh as if such filth is funny simply because it is one step removed from the sphere of personal interaction is not "sophisctication." It is self-deception.

postscript

Having just thought about this post while taking my bedtime shower, I did want to add this. My purpose here was primarily to make clear my objections posted on this thread at an earlier point, which were characterized as "rally round the flagism." My point is not that, just the dignity of selectivity. I am not trying to start an argument, get the better of someone, appear superior, cause a retraction or elicit an apology. I am just as liable to bad judgement and acting out on line as anyone else. I just hope those who read this will say to themselves, Okay, I get Ted's point.

(This post was edited after Barbara Branden's reply below.)

[Barbara Branden]

TED: "This crap is not funny (unless you find children spreading lies as rumors and children's name calling funny) and has no value worth communicating.

"No, Michael, the problem is not that one can't criticize Rand, or even parody her works. The problem is that this creature's blog doesn't rise to the level of honest criticism, and it offers us no value as parody. It is purely parasitical, dung thrown on fine art.

"I am reminded of a person who's banned from this forum. (I can't remember his name, Proctor Hess, or Hector Snott, or something) whose "caricatures" were lauded for some time here as art. They were pathetic, ugly scribblings, bathroom wall scrawlings that were "funnny" for one reason only, if you can call it a reason. Those pictures attacked some people who were disliked by various parties. All's fair in love and war and tribal schisms? I remember a picture of Diana Hsieh. I personally disliked much of what Diana Hsieh stood for way back when she was Diana Mertz Brickell. But attacking her based on her appearance is not justified in any manor. The approval here of Speck's (or is it Crotch's?) hateful caricatures of her, merely because she belonged to the enemy camp, isn't loyalty to the good guys. Loyalty to the good guys needs nothing more than decency and truth to support it. Any one who's read and comprehended the essay Objectivist Rage should understand the impropriety.

"We have been lectured here by some parties that Barack Obama is a decent man, that we should give him the benefit of the doubt so far as it goes. There's no need to demonize him as a communist up front. Well, neither was Hsieh a killer, nor Rand a fascist, not to deserve the benefit of the doubt, and treatment on the merits. Attack Diana Hsieh on the merits. Criticize and showcase the criticism of Rand on the merits.

"There's no need to rally round the flag. But neither is there the need for or the call to wallow in filth, or pass ugly notes at the back of the class. Hearing someone tell lies about someone you love is bad enough. None of us would stay silent in person if the creature who wrote this blog made the same comments at a party. To laugh as if such filth is funny simply because it is one step removed from the sphere of personal interaction is not "sophisctication." It is self-deception."

Ted, I am totally with you on all the above. I find it painful to read stupiod and vicious attacks on people and works I love and admire; I find it embarrassing to read stupid and vicious attacks on people and works I despise. It's bad enough if I make the mistake of reading them; I certailnly see no reason to pass them on to others.

Barbara

[Michelle]

You also don't seem to have a clear idea regarding the terminology. That it is "consensual" does not make those acts unsadistic. For example, sadists seek masochists for consensual acts and vice versa.

So why not call spade a spade? Rearden & Co clearly had a sexually sadistic streak and found the perfect match in the heroine Dagny's sexual masochism.

My terminology is fine. You're just confusing two entirely different statements - one about sadism, and one about consent - in order to misrepresent what I said.

I'm merely trying to be as precise as possible.

So according to your logic, when a sadist and masochist perform acts with mutual consent, these acts don't qualify as sadistic/masochistic anymore just because there is consent?

Which part of "entirely different statements" are you having trouble understanding?

[Selene]

Ok.

So if I can get xray's consent...

Adam

Post Script: Love your style Michelle!

[Michelle]

I wonder if the consistent misspelling of Roark's name as Roarke is intentional. I bet it is not, since nothing snarky came of it.

I admit I feel a bit guilty for finding some of this stuff funny, but DAYAAMM!

If you gotta let it out, might as well do it all at once...

Michael

EDIT: Incidentally, Tallulah Morehead is fictional (I think). Here is her blog: The Morehead the Merrier.

Don't feel guilty. It was a funny spoof on the motion picture -The Fountainhead-. Mad Magazines version, in a way.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I disagree, you should feel guilty. This crap is not funny (unless you find children spreading lies as rumors and children's name calling funny) and has no value worth communicating.

No, Michael, the problem is not that one can't criticize Rand, or even parody her works. The problem is that this creature's blog doesn't rise to the level of honest criticism, and it offers us no value as parody. It is purely parasitical, dung thrown on fine art.

I am reminded of a person who's banned from this forum. (I can't remember his name, Proctor Hess, or Hector Snott, or something) whose "caricatures" were lauded for some time here as art. They were pathetic, ugly scribblings, bathroom wall scrawlings that were "funnny" for one reason only, if you can call it a reason. Those pictures attacked some people who were disliked by various parties. All's fair in love and war and tribal schisms? I remember a "caricature" of Diana Hsieh. I personally disagreed with and disliked much of what Diana Hsieh stood for way back when she was Diana Mertz Brickell. But attacking her based on her appearance is not justified in any manor. The approval here of Speck's (or is it Crotch's?) hateful caricature of her, merely because she belonged to the enemy camp, isn't loyalty to the good guys. Loyalty to the good guys needs nothing more than decency and truth to support it. Any one who's read and comprehended the essay Objectivist Rage should understand the impropriety.

We have been lectured here by some parties that Barack Obama is a decent man, that we should give him the benefit of the doubt so far as it goes. There's no need to demonize him as a communist up front. Well, neither was Hsieh a killer, nor Rand a fascist, not to deserve the benefit of the doubt, and treatment on the merits. Attack Diana Hsieh on the merits. Criticize and showcase the criticism of Rand on the merits.

There's no need to rally round the flag. But neither is there the need for or the call to wallow in filth, or pass ugly notes at the back of the class. Hearing someone tell lies about someone you love is bad enough. None of us would stay silent in person if the creature who wrote this blog made the same comments at a party. To laugh as if such filth is funny simply because it is one step removed from the sphere of personal interaction is not "sophisctication." It is self-deception.

postscript

Having just thought about this post while taking my bedtime shower, I did want to add this. My purpose here was primarily to make clear my objections posted on this thread at an earlier point, which were characterized as "rally round the flagism." My point is not that, just the dignity of selectivity. I am not trying to start an argument, get the better of someone, appear superior, cause a retraction or elicit an apology. I am just as liable to bad judgement and acting out on line as anyone else. I just hope those who read this will say to themselves, Okay, I get Ted's point.

(This post was edited after Barbara Branden's reply below.)

You do realize you've written this morally infuriated post about something written by somebody who calls himself "Tallulah Morehead," right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm with Bob on the Mad Magazine kind of thing. I refuse to accept unearned guilt.

I see no value in scorching moral condemnation of parody when it is obviously parody.

I prefer to condemn real evil, like killing folks and stuff like that.

In the values I have chosen, granting the clown the same moral status as the tyrant is a waste of time and gets into Peikoff's thing of calling the professor of Marxism just as evil (if not more so) as Stalin, who actually murdered.

I feel too good about life to take clowns seriously. They make me laugh...

Michael

EDIT: I just had another thought. It concerns guilt. The day I find it morally superior to feel guilt from laughing at a clown's antics than the simple good vibes from laughter is the day I am going to hang it up as a human being. If anyone wishes to pursue guilt as a value, I say knock yourself out. If anyone preaches guilt as a greater value than laughter and wants me to feel such guilt, they are wasting their time.