Objectivist Fiction

[Michelle]

I've heard of it, but don't really know who writes it beyond Terry Goodkind.

Anyone care to enlighten me?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Michelle R

[Rich Engle]

Sure: avoid it.

[Michelle]

Sure: avoid it.

Fine. Who should I be avoiding?

Edited May 27, 2009 by Michelle R

[Rich Engle]

If they had done anything significant, you would have known about them.

I wish NB had released that novel he wrote; other than that, not so much.

EDIT: And I am talking about anything that came out after AR, and NB's work. The rest, yeah. Tune your guitar.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Reidy]

I've read novels by Kay Nolte Smith, Erika Holzer and Shelley Reuben, all of whom had personal connections to Rand. The only one I liked was Smith's A Tale of the Wind (1991), a multigenerational story set in the 19th-century French theater. It's one of my all-time faves. Nothing else.

[Michelle]

Neat. I'll check those authors out, Reidy.

I would think Objectivism would make for good fiction (outside of Rand's, I mean). Like modern atheistic Existentialism, its development was advanced in works of fiction, and its themes can be expressed artistically very well.

[kiaer.ts]

Objectivism is a school of philosophy, nof of literature. There are no more Objectivist novelists than there are Objectivist brain surgeons, except as a matter of accident.

I have tried to read Terry Goodkind. I never did get to the part where his Objectivism showed. His work seems juvenile and far too arbitrary, kind of like a second rate Piers Anthony. Names like Darken Rahl and Geddicus strike me as a parody of fantasy, rather than something anyone could take seriously. People do seem to enjoy him, though, and that's good for them.

Robert Heinlein seems to be the consensus favorite among Objectivists. For contemporary fiction there's Michael Chrichton. I'm not sure if most Objectivists read classical literature, but there's Melville and Conrad and Hugo and Dostoevsky. Shakespeare is brilliant, no matter how Rand disliked him, and Yeats no matterhow MSK dislikes him.

Rand liked Spillane - I'm sure you've read Romantic Manifesto and Art of Fiction.

You can check out some suggestions at Radicals for Happiness. There are plenty of book and movie reviews.

[Rich Engle]

Amen on the Heinlein. But he barely winked in acknowledging her presence....

Maybe I got the question wrong. I was thinking about clearly derivative writers who acknowledge it (that's the first "tell").

It's like the weirdness you get when you run into all these confused Christians who have read Atlas Shrugged, and connected because they heard a Rush album.

That's weird, tedious stuff, right there. Not the enemy, but certainly enough to be sigh-evoking. Usually, work is involved.

r

[Michelle]

Objectivism is a school of philosophy, nof of literature. There are no more Objectivist novelists than there are Objectivist brain surgeons, except as a matter of accident.

I have tried to read Terry Goodkind. I never did get to the part where his Objectivism showed. His work seems juvenile and far too arbitrary, kind of like a second rate Piers Anthony. Names like Darken Rahl and Geddicus strike me as a parody of fantasy, rather than something anyone could take seriously. People do seem to enjoy him, though, and that's good for them.

Robert Heinlein seems to be the consensus favorite among Objectivists. For contemporary fiction there's Michael Chrichton. I'm not sure if most Objectivists read classical literature, but there's Melville and Conrad and Hugo and Dostoevsky. Shakespeare is brilliant, no matter how Rand disliked him, and Yeats no matterhow MSK dislikes him.

Rand liked Spillane - I'm sure you've read Romantic Manifesto and Art of Fiction.

You can check out some suggestions at Radicals for Happiness. There are plenty of book and movie reviews.

Objectivist ideas can easily find application in literature. Hell, Objectivism was first formulated in fictional stories. But there aren't a whole lot of ways for surgeons to express Objectivist principles in their work.

Christianity is a religion and Existentialism is a school of philosophy, but there is still Christian and Existentialist fiction.

Terry Goodkind's books suck. His Objectivism starts showing in Faith of the Fallen, which reads like an inane fantasy parody of The Fountainhead.

Of course Shakespeare is brilliant. Best writer in the English language by far. Rand's personal distaste for some of the fatalism in his stories doesn't really comment upon his capacity as a writer.

Another good writer Rand disliked: Leo Tolstoy. Although Dostoyevsky is easily the greatest of the Russian novelists (The Brothers Karamazov is still in my top five favorite books of all time).

Hugo is another great writer. Les Miserables would be a perfect book if Hugo didn't interrupt the flow of the narrative a couple hundred pages in to introduce a 50 page dramatization of the battle of waterloo.

Melville - boring and confusing in turns.

Conrad - Heart of Darkness is a real drag. Took no joy in reading it. Liked nothing about it. I've avoided his other works.

I want to like Voltaire's stuff, but I just don't.

Heinlein is fun. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in particular. I imagine Objectivists might enjoy all of the nods to Rand in that book.

[Michelle]

Objectivism is a school of philosophy, nof of literature. There are no more Objectivist novelists than there are Objectivist brain surgeons, except as a matter of accident.

I have tried to read Terry Goodkind. I never did get to the part where his Objectivism showed. His work seems juvenile and far too arbitrary, kind of like a second rate Piers Anthony. Names like Darken Rahl and Geddicus strike me as a parody of fantasy, rather than something anyone could take seriously. People do seem to enjoy him, though, and that's good for them.

Robert Heinlein seems to be the consensus favorite among Objectivists. For contemporary fiction there's Michael Chrichton. I'm not sure if most Objectivists read classical literature, but there's Melville and Conrad and Hugo and Dostoevsky. Shakespeare is brilliant, no matter how Rand disliked him, and Yeats no matterhow MSK dislikes him.

Rand liked Spillane - I'm sure you've read Romantic Manifesto and Art of Fiction.

You can check out some suggestions at Radicals for Happiness. There are plenty of book and movie reviews.

The Romantic Manifesto, The Art of Fiction, and The Art of Nonfiction are the only nonfiction books by Ayn Rand that I own.

[Rich Engle]

The Romantic Manifesto, The Art of Fiction, and The Art of Nonfiction are the only nonfiction books by Ayn Rand that I own

Those are the best ones if you are interested in writing. Trapped on a desert island stuff.

[Michelle]

The Romantic Manifesto, The Art of Fiction, and The Art of Nonfiction are the only nonfiction books by Ayn Rand that I own

Those are the best ones if you are interested in writing. Trapped on a desert island stuff.

As I have a pretty adequate understanding of Objectivism, I've never bothered reading For the New Intellectual/Philosophy, Who Needs It?/Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal/The Virtue of Selfishness/The Return of the Primitive/etc.

I might start reading her other nonfiction, though. I enjoy the arrogant tone of Rand's writing.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Michelle R

[kiaer.ts]

Objectivism is a school of philosophy, nof of literature. There are no more Objectivist novelists than there are Objectivist brain surgeons, except as a matter of accident.

I have tried to read Terry Goodkind. I never did get to the part where his Objectivism showed. His work seems juvenile and far too arbitrary, kind of like a second rate Piers Anthony. Names like Darken Rahl and Geddicus strike me as a parody of fantasy, rather than something anyone could take seriously. People do seem to enjoy him, though, and that's good for them.

Robert Heinlein seems to be the consensus favorite among Objectivists. For contemporary fiction there's Michael Chrichton. I'm not sure if most Objectivists read classical literature, but there's Melville and Conrad and Hugo and Dostoevsky. Shakespeare is brilliant, no matter how Rand disliked him, and Yeats no matterhow MSK dislikes him.

Rand liked Spillane - I'm sure you've read Romantic Manifesto and Art of Fiction.

You can check out some suggestions at Radicals for Happiness. There are plenty of book and movie reviews.

Objectivist ideas can easily find application in literature. Hell, Objectivism was first formulated in fictional stories. But there aren't a whole lot of ways for surgeons to express Objectivist principles in their work.

Christianity is a religion and Existentialism is a school of philosophy, but there is still Christian and Existentialist fiction.

Terry Goodkind's books suck. His Objectivism starts showing in Faith of the Fallen, which reads like an inane fantasy parody of The Fountainhead.

Of course Shakespeare is brilliant. Best writer in the English language by far. Rand's personal distaste for some of the fatalism in his stories doesn't really comment upon his capacity as a writer.

Another good writer Rand disliked: Leo Tolstoy. Although Dostoyevsky is easily the greatest of the Russian novelists (The Brothers Karamazov is still in my top five favorite books of all time).

Hugo is another great writer. Les Miserables would be a perfect book if Hugo didn't interrupt the flow of the narrative a couple hundred pages in to introduce a 50 page dramatization of the battle of waterloo.

Melville - boring and confusing in turns.

Conrad - Heart of Darkness is a real drag. Took no joy in reading it. Liked nothing about it. I've avoided his other works.

I want to like Voltaire's stuff, but I just don't.

Heinlein is fun. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in particular. I imagine Objectivists might enjoy all of the nods to Rand in that book.

I really liked Mellville's Benito Cerino. Have read Moby Dick twice on my own initiative. Of course it is slow, like just about all 19th century lit, but still very good. Am glad you validate my scorn for goodkind, thought maybe I was missing something. Biggest problem with Hugo ajnd the Russians is finding a good translation. Conrad is simply an incredible craftsman of English, almost poetyic in stlyle and always uses the perfect word, incredible as a second language writer. I enjoyed some of his short stories and the Secret Sharer. My favorite Shakespeare adaptations are:

Ian McKellen's Richard III

Laurence Olivier's King Lear

Leonardo DiCaprio's Romeo and Juliet

Fiona Shaw's Richard II

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet

Roman Polanski's MacBeth

Pacino's Merchant of Venice

Have you read Name of the Rose, Canticle for Leibowitz, or The White Plague?

[Judith]

There have been a number of writers who advertise in journals like "The New Individualist" who are explicitly Objectivist. I've bought a few of their books and usually been pretty disappointed.

You might do better looking for "libertarian" fiction, in which Heinlein is more properly classified. Some of my favorites:

J. Neil Schulman: The Rainbow Cadenza (out of print)

F. Paul Wilson: An Enemy of the State

Judith

[Michelle]

Objectivism is a school of philosophy, nof of literature. There are no more Objectivist novelists than there are Objectivist brain surgeons, except as a matter of accident.

I have tried to read Terry Goodkind. I never did get to the part where his Objectivism showed. His work seems juvenile and far too arbitrary, kind of like a second rate Piers Anthony. Names like Darken Rahl and Geddicus strike me as a parody of fantasy, rather than something anyone could take seriously. People do seem to enjoy him, though, and that's good for them.

Robert Heinlein seems to be the consensus favorite among Objectivists. For contemporary fiction there's Michael Chrichton. I'm not sure if most Objectivists read classical literature, but there's Melville and Conrad and Hugo and Dostoevsky. Shakespeare is brilliant, no matter how Rand disliked him, and Yeats no matterhow MSK dislikes him.

Rand liked Spillane - I'm sure you've read Romantic Manifesto and Art of Fiction.

You can check out some suggestions at Radicals for Happiness. There are plenty of book and movie reviews.

Objectivist ideas can easily find application in literature. Hell, Objectivism was first formulated in fictional stories. But there aren't a whole lot of ways for surgeons to express Objectivist principles in their work.

Christianity is a religion and Existentialism is a school of philosophy, but there is still Christian and Existentialist fiction.

Terry Goodkind's books suck. His Objectivism starts showing in Faith of the Fallen, which reads like an inane fantasy parody of The Fountainhead.

Of course Shakespeare is brilliant. Best writer in the English language by far. Rand's personal distaste for some of the fatalism in his stories doesn't really comment upon his capacity as a writer.

Another good writer Rand disliked: Leo Tolstoy. Although Dostoyevsky is easily the greatest of the Russian novelists (The Brothers Karamazov is still in my top five favorite books of all time).

Hugo is another great writer. Les Miserables would be a perfect book if Hugo didn't interrupt the flow of the narrative a couple hundred pages in to introduce a 50 page dramatization of the battle of waterloo.

Melville - boring and confusing in turns.

Conrad - Heart of Darkness is a real drag. Took no joy in reading it. Liked nothing about it. I've avoided his other works.

I want to like Voltaire's stuff, but I just don't.

Heinlein is fun. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in particular. I imagine Objectivists might enjoy all of the nods to Rand in that book.

I really liked Mellville's Benito Cerino. Have read Moby Dick twice on my own initiative. Of course it is slow, like just about all 19th century lit, but still very good. Am glad you validate my scorn for goodkind, thought maybe I was missing something. Biggest problem with Hugo ajnd the Russians is finding a good translation. Conrad is simply an incredible craftsman of English, almost poetyic in stlyle and always uses the perfect word, incredible as a second language writer. I enjoyed some of his short stories and the Secret Sharer. My favorite Shakespeare adaptations are:

Ian McKellen's Richard III

Laurence Olivier's King Lear

Leonardo DiCaprio's Romeo and Juliet

Fiona Shaw's Richard II

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet

Roman Polanski's MacBeth

Pacino's Merchant of Venice

Have you read Name of the Rose, Canticle for Leibowitz, or The White Plague?

For Dostoyevsky, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volohonsky are popular (and exceptional) translators. For Karamazov, though, I have a soft spot in my heart for Andrew MacAndrew's translation, unwieldy though it is.

For Les Miz, I'm perfectly happy with the translation by Fahnestock and Norman MacAfee.

Name of the Rose would be decent if it integrated the history lesson better. Foucault's Pendulum is way better.

A Canticle for Leibowitz is interesting, if overrated. The second section almost killed the book for me, though.

Have not read The White Plague. What is it about?

[kiaer.ts]

Objectivism is a school of philosophy, nof of literature. There are no more Objectivist novelists than there are Objectivist brain surgeons, except as a matter of accident.

I have tried to read Terry Goodkind. I never did get to the part where his Objectivism showed. His work seems juvenile and far too arbitrary, kind of like a second rate Piers Anthony. Names like Darken Rahl and Geddicus strike me as a parody of fantasy, rather than something anyone could take seriously. People do seem to enjoy him, though, and that's good for them.

Robert Heinlein seems to be the consensus favorite among Objectivists. For contemporary fiction there's Michael Chrichton. I'm not sure if most Objectivists read classical literature, but there's Melville and Conrad and Hugo and Dostoevsky. Shakespeare is brilliant, no matter how Rand disliked him, and Yeats no matterhow MSK dislikes him.

Rand liked Spillane - I'm sure you've read Romantic Manifesto and Art of Fiction.

You can check out some suggestions at Radicals for Happiness. There are plenty of book and movie reviews.

Objectivist ideas can easily find application in literature. Hell, Objectivism was first formulated in fictional stories. But there aren't a whole lot of ways for surgeons to express Objectivist principles in their work.

Christianity is a religion and Existentialism is a school of philosophy, but there is still Christian and Existentialist fiction.

Terry Goodkind's books suck. His Objectivism starts showing in Faith of the Fallen, which reads like an inane fantasy parody of The Fountainhead.

Of course Shakespeare is brilliant. Best writer in the English language by far. Rand's personal distaste for some of the fatalism in his stories doesn't really comment upon his capacity as a writer.

Another good writer Rand disliked: Leo Tolstoy. Although Dostoyevsky is easily the greatest of the Russian novelists (The Brothers Karamazov is still in my top five favorite books of all time).

Hugo is another great writer. Les Miserables would be a perfect book if Hugo didn't interrupt the flow of the narrative a couple hundred pages in to introduce a 50 page dramatization of the battle of waterloo.

Melville - boring and confusing in turns.

Conrad - Heart of Darkness is a real drag. Took no joy in reading it. Liked nothing about it. I've avoided his other works.

I want to like Voltaire's stuff, but I just don't.

Heinlein is fun. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in particular. I imagine Objectivists might enjoy all of the nods to Rand in that book.

I really liked Mellville's Benito Cerino. Have read Moby Dick twice on my own initiative. Of course it is slow, like just about all 19th century lit, but still very good. Am glad you validate my scorn for goodkind, thought maybe I was missing something. Biggest problem with Hugo ajnd the Russians is finding a good translation. Conrad is simply an incredible craftsman of English, almost poetyic in stlyle and always uses the perfect word, incredible as a second language writer. I enjoyed some of his short stories and the Secret Sharer. My favorite Shakespeare adaptations are:

Ian McKellen's Richard III

Laurence Olivier's King Lear

Leonardo DiCaprio's Romeo and Juliet

Fiona Shaw's Richard II

Kenneth Branagh's Hamlet

Roman Polanski's MacBeth

Pacino's Merchant of Venice

Have you read Name of the Rose, Canticle for Leibowitz, or The White Plague?

For Dostoyevsky, Richard Pevear and Larissa Volohonsky are popular (and exceptional) translators. For Karamazov, though, I have a soft spot in my heart for Andrew MacAndrew's translation, unwieldy though it is.

For Les Miz, I'm perfectly happy with the translation by Fahnestock and Norman MacAfee.

Name of the Rose would be decent if it integrated the history lesson better. Foucault's Pendulum is way better.

A Canticle for Leibowitz is interesting, if overrated. The second section almost killed the book for me, though.

Have not read The White Plague. What is it about?

See here for White Plague. I liked Foucault's Pendulum, but haven't reread it since it came out. I would also recommend the NBI reprint of Quatre Vignt Treize.

[Rich Engle]

Heinlein is fun. "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" in particular. I imagine Objectivists might enjoy all of the nods to Rand in that book.

That is a sweetheart of a novel.

My favorite is "Time Enough For Love."

A lot of other good ones mentioned here. Heh, Voltaire...well, he had wonderful comedic moments. All good. Just his social stuff was a little funk, but consider his position...

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Who says I don't like Yeats?

I haven't read enough of him to make a qualified statement.

I do admit he puts me in a coma when read in excess...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

You know what the worst thing is about Yeats?

The people that go on and on about him. Usually, these are old ones, and they fall asleep during their extolling... "Ah, YEATS...:

I never thought he was that good. There weren't that many good contemporaries around, but even so...

r

Hates the musty smell of books, sort of.

[kiaer.ts]

Who says I don't like Yeats?

I haven't read enough of him to make a qualified statement.

I do admit he puts me in a coma when read in excess...

Michael

Just checking to see if you were in or out of a coma.

Shakespeare, of course, is our greatest poet. But I don't think anyone else beats Yeats. His poetry is well crafted and very witty. Here are just a few of my favorites of the top of my head.

For Anne Gregory

"Never shall a young man,

Thrown into despair

By those great honey-coloured

Ramparts at your ear,

Love you for yourself alone

And not your yellow hair."

"But I can get a hair-dye

And set such colour there,

Brown, or black, or carrot,

That young men in despair

May love me for myself alone

And not my yellow hair."

"I heard an old religious man

But yesternight declare

That he had found a text to prove

That only God, my dear,

Could love you for yourself alone

And not your yellow hair."

The Fascination of What's Difficult

The fascination of what's difficult

Has dried the sap out of my veins, and rent

Spontaneous joy and natural content

Out of my heart. There's something ails our colt

That must, as if it had not holy blood

Nor on Olympus leaped from cloud to cloud,

Shiver under the lash, strain, sweat and jolt

As though it dragged road-metal. My curse on plays

That have to be set up in fifty ways,

On the day's war with every knave and dolt,

Theatre business, management of men.

I swear before the dawn comes round again

I'll find the stable and pull out the bolt.

To a Squirrel at Kyle-na-no

COME play with me;

Why should you run

Through the shaking tree

As though I’d a gun

To strike you dead? 5

When all I would do

Is to scratch your head

And let you go.

To a Poet

You say, as I have often given tongue

In praise of what another's said or sung,

'Twere politic to do the like by these;

But was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

His collected poems are worth buying and reading yearly. You'll find them worth quoting. My mother, who is seventy, and, understandably, "hates" poetry, did not want to read Yeats when I gave her his collected works. I told her just start reading at poem 100 and stop when you read one you don't like. (The later are better than the earlier.) She read the entire book, and said that she enjoyed them, they actually both rhymed and made sense. What more could you possibly want?

[Rich Engle]

I still think he sucks.

Cummings was much better.

[Michelle]

TS Eliot and Milton are my favorites.

Eliot's Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock is easily my favorite poem. I almost have it memorized I've read it so many times. The words roll off my tongue smoothly. He seduces me with his language.

[Chris Grieb]

Michelle;

The proper term you should use is Romantic fiction. NBI Book Service in the 60ths recommend several authors including Victor Hugo, Dostoevsky, Sir Walter Scott, Oscar Wilde and O Henry. ARI has also sold the plays of Terrance Rattigan. The Paper Tiger an Objectivist linked book service sells the Westerns of Frank Spearman. Paper Tiger also sells Sparrow Hawk series novels set in Revolutionary era in Virginia by Ed Cline. I must add that I am mentioned the Sparrow Hawk series but I think at the end it failed.

Several good novels about the Revolutionary War era were written by Kenneth Roberts. They include Rabble in Arms and Arundel.

On poetry I once heard Miss Rand recommend Swinburne. She also like the poetry of Victor Hugo in the original French. Leonard Peikoff has a lecture on poetry he likes which I found disappointing. He does include some Ogden Nash who is wonderful. Finally on poetry I must mention John J Enright who sometimes posts on OL is a rather good poetry writer. John has a novel you can find on the inter net and is producing a play which will be performed in the near future.

Kaye Nolte Smith and Ericka Holzer have already been mentioned. Smith's books are still in bigger libraries. Holzer's book on crime is I believe still in print.

I hope this gives some leads to consider and you find some good reading.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Chris Grieb

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I have a long answer to that, but I don't have time to give it. The short version is that one of my main problems with internalizing a new poem is lack of context and/or backstory when I first read it. My mind strongly seeks these things, and one is rarely given. But that's not bad. That just comes with the territory. I would even go so far as to say when the context and/or backstory is immediately clear to a new reader, the poem is usually not very good.

To "get" a poem, I need to read it with full focus at least a dozen times, at which point I usually start savoring what I call the whispering between the lines. That takes a special kind of focus and like all skills, you need to warm up to do it right. This warm-up period is where I collide with poets who constantly use "poetic" language and grammatical inversions just so they can rhyme. (And that is Yeats to a tee.) My mind initially rebels at the lack of meaning from no context and/or backstory and the need to construct and draw meaning from awkward grammar and vocabulary. Once I push through that and get to the point where the poem not only makes cognitive sense, but I can hear the whispering between the lines, great poems have greatly enriched my life.

Leave it to say (for now) that I write poetry and am quite good at it. I fear I will not have time to become great at it in my lifetime because I am devoting the hours needed to become great to other activities. But should, one day, I decide to drop everything and set writing poetry as one of my life's main purposes, Yeats would definitely be one of the poets I would study. I would drink deeply from that well.

I will write more about this later as it is an important subject.

btw - I fully agree with your high regard of Shakespeare. I have no idea what was wrong with Rand in her opinion of him. Maybe if he had been Russian, she would have liked him better.

Michael

[Michelle]

Michelle;

The proper term you should use is Romantic fiction.

No. That's not what I mean.

I mean Objectivist fiction. Fiction, written by self-identified Objectivists, dealing with characters who use Objectivist principles to deal with whatever conflicts they have.

Objectivist fiction would probably be 'romantic' fiction, the way Ayn Rand defines it, but 'romantic' fiction doesn't need to be Objectivist.

I'd never write it (like I said, I don't identify with groups), but I thought it'd be interesting to see the work of others in this capacity.