Reading DeLillo's Cosmopolis Through Ayn Rand

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

The first name of the person I meant I think was Sharon, and the last name I think was something like -- this is just phonetic -- Ragmouli.  Although I saved most of the ATL posts, I threw out hers.  They were taking up too much disk space.  The computer I was using then was "primitive" by current standards.

Ellen

Correction: I just realized I was mixing up a poster from SOLO with the ATL poster. I think the latter's name was Sandra Mendoza (sp?). (George, if you're reading this, does that name ring a bell? She posted a whole ton of stuff about politics, a lot of it pertaining to Israel and Ariel Sharon.) She said that she'd been an NBI staff member and had seen lots of goings-on the details of which she kept saying she would reveal, but the net amount she did say about what she'd supposedly seen was little.

Ellen

[seymourblogger]

And here's the most readable book on diaries and biographies by Thomas Mallon: http://www.amazon.co...6557&sr=1-9

So if you cannot tell the difference between well written and BB bio on Rand, this book will show you.

May I add that a good bio does not write about a person and then spend pages describing her panic attacks, inability to achieve orgasm with her husband, etc. That stuff belongs on the couch not in a bio about Rand.

Someone said, forget, that the person who should have written Rand's bio was Iris Murdoch. Yes and yes and yes. A Cambridge (Oxford?) Don in philosophy who wrote marvelous novels was the perfect choice.

I love the thought of Iris Murdoch doing a bio of Rand (though would she have wanted to, and besides she became ill in the 90s?), but I don't agree that BB's book isn't well written or that the stuff in it belonged on the couch. I think the great virtue of BB's book is the personal stuff, the story of which needed to be told as personal.

Incidentally, re:

Rothbard said that Rand was furious when Barbara Branden was criticized in her writing group.

Where did you get that? In conversation the afternoon you mentioned (here) visiting his apartment? Sounds to me like either he or you got it backward. Barbara tells the story of Rand becoming furious with her, Barbara, when Barbara criticized an early story of Rand's which hadn't been identified as such.

Ellen

Why does it have to be either/or. Why couldn't it have been both/and.

The way Rothbard told it to me was that Rand got furious when Barbara's writing was criticized saying, "Mrs. Branden is a professional!" I remember that adjective he used. He also told me, and the others in the room, some pretty serious stuff that went on among those people. At the time I didn't think much about it, but now after all these years I choke on some of it.

Rothbard was talking about his apartment and how cheap it was because it was rent controlled. I asked him how come he could live in a subsidized apartment and then espouse free enterprise, free no govt capitalism etc. and he replied that one should take all advantages possible from the state to weaken it. Good point.

He also talked about his agoraphobia. At the time I had gone through it with my German Shepherd so I could have told him how to deal with it. But I wasn't thinking of myself as a clinician then and never even thought of it at the time. But I did know from animal desensitization and later worked with women who suffered from the problem. My own mother was one and she hid it all her life. They are very clever in hiding it. I also think Rand was and that she was hiding it, holding Frank's arm when they went out, taking him to lectures when he had Alzheimers. She just fits the profile, the woman who never goes out alone.

What else did he say? No matter.

[seymourblogger]

[....]

The first name of the person I meant I think was Sharon, and the last name I think was something like -- this is just phonetic -- Ragmouli. Although I saved most of the ATL posts, I threw out hers. They were taking up too much disk space. The computer I was using then was "primitive" by current standards.

Ellen

Correction: I just realized I was mixing up a poster from SOLO with the ATL poster. I think the latter's name was Sandra Mendoza (sp?). (George, if you're reading this, does that name ring a bell? She posted a whole ton of stuff about politics, a lot of it pertaining to Israel and Ariel Sharon.) She said that she'd been an NBI staff member and had seen lots of goings-on the details of which she kept saying she would reveal, but the net amount she did say about what she'd supposedly seen was little.

Ellen

This thread had me thinking today about bio's. I love Houellebecq's on Lovecraft. He is not the "authorized" authority on Lovecraft. The authority says he can't stand to read him anymore. Houlellebecq says with such love, "How does he do it!" And he writes with such love and admiration and respect for Lovecraft. It made me weep.

Of course there's the Mallon book. And what was the other one so delicious? Oh Nabokov on himself, Speak Memory. And Victor Herman's Coming Out of the Ice, a novice, his only book before he did the Gray People, not a writer, and yet there are passages of incredible beauty. There was one on Woodrow Wilson that informed me. Joyce Carol Oates on Marilyn, Mailer on Marilyn where he said if she had just waited a little longer for the 60's she would have made a marvelous director. And he said the movie she was born to make was one with Chaplin. Can't you just see that one in your head? Boswell on Johnson or is it the reverse? And Plutarch's Lives are wonderful: Alexander. Barbara has said one of her favorite books is Dean Koontz. Koontz for crissakes. One may read Koontz, but if you think of yourself as a writer, you don't list him as a favorite.

Hemingway and his marveloussentences. Raymond Carver and his sentences. Confederacy of Dunces, the funniest book I ever read.

PAR makes me cringe a lot in embarrassment.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Seymourblogger,

This is the second time I'm mentioning this.

Enough cheap shots at Barbara. Please read the posting guidelines.

I've seen enough now to know it's on purpose. I know the game you're playing. You're not the first to show up here to play it.

People are able to figure out you don't like her book from the first dozen times you mentioned it.

You have the entire Internet to bitch about Barbara. And bitch up a storm if you like.

Just not here.

I'm asking politely (for now).

Michael

[seymourblogger]

Seymourblogger,

This is the second time I'm mentioning this.

Enough cheap shots at Barbara. Please read the posting guidelines.

I've seen enough now to know it's on purpose. I know the game you're playing. You're not the first to show up here to play it.

People are able to figure out you don't like her book from the first dozen times you mentioned it.

You have the entire Internet to bitch about Barbara. And bitch up a storm if you like.

Just not here.

I'm asking politely (for now).

Michael

Sorry since I thought it was pretty mild of a criticism I wasn't aware it crossed your guidelines. I just won't mention her name again. Nada. My lips are sealed on that topic now.

[Brant Gaede]

Seymourblogger,

This is the second time I'm mentioning this.

Enough cheap shots at Barbara. Please read the posting guidelines.

I've seen enough now to know it's on purpose. I know the game you're playing. You're not the first to show up here to play it.

People are able to figure out you don't like her book from the first dozen times you mentioned it.

You have the entire Internet to bitch about Barbara. And bitch up a storm if you like.

Just not here.

I'm asking politely (for now).

Michael

Sorry since I thought it was pretty mild of a criticism I wasn't aware it crossed your guidelines. I just won't mention her name again. Nada. My lips are sealed on that topic now.

The problem is not in mentioning her but that you throw her into your stream of post-modernist consciousness without really careful regard for what you are saying about her in particular. So your choice is probably the best unless you want to change your overall posting style. I know you can dispute this but bottom line is what is read--by others--not what you think you are thinking. You might say this site is quirky about the Brandens this way, but Michael has special reasons and it's his site so that is that. Anyway, it doesn't impinge on much else here.

--Brant

[seymourblogger]

Seymourblogger, This is the second time I'm mentioning this. Enough cheap shots at Barbara. Please read the posting guidelines. I've seen enough now to know it's on purpose. I know the game you're playing. You're not the first to show up here to play it. People are able to figure out you don't like her book from the first dozen times you mentioned it. You have the entire Internet to bitch about Barbara. And bitch up a storm if you like. Just not here. I'm asking politely (for now). Michael

Sorry since I thought it was pretty mild of a criticism I wasn't aware it crossed your guidelines. I just won't mention her name again. Nada. My lips are sealed on that topic now.

The problem is not in mentioning her but that you throw her into your stream of post-modernist consciousness without really careful regard for what you are saying about her in particular. So your choice is probably the best unless you want to change your overall posting style. I know you can dispute this but bottom line is what is read--by others--not what you think you are thinking. You might say this site is quirky about the Brandens this way, but Michael has special reasons and it's his site so that is that. Anyway, it doesn't impinge on much else here. --Brant

Thanks. I was working on a serious reply to you but it disappeared so I am redoing it on word and wil try again. I have been reading this site for over a decade - not new here really- and I do understand.

[Selene]

Wow...that raises a question to me.

How long has OL been in existence?

February 3 2005 would be my guess because that is the date on Michael's profile as the root administrator.

Adam

inquiring historian in the Newt Gingrich tradition...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How time flies...

It even goes when it doesn't...

Or even when it goes, it doesn't...

Or it doesn't but it goes anyway...

Hmmmmm...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I think Kat was first. There is no date in her profile and I'd guess that is because she was first.

--Brant

[Selene]

Which came first the Kat or the Big Dog! An ontological mystery...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004.

My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year.

Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004.

My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year.

Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day.

Michael

We’re going to need to see a valid birth certificate. And, nothing against Kat, but I suggest you get a paternity test.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGtWssdauME

[seymourblogger]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about.

I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

[PDS]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about.

I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

Seymour Blogger: Ahem. If you have in fact been reading this site for 10 years, I would think you know the answer your question. This "trivia" as you call it is one of the cultural norms and/or delightful quirks of this site. Just one, but an important one: i.e., the fairly benevelant poking of fun at oddball claims. You have made an oddball claim, and you are now bearing the consequences.

[9thdoctor]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about.

I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

Whom are you addressing?

There is what may appear to a newcomer to be a double standard at work here on OL. Myself, GHS, Brant, and several other old timers pretty much post whatever, wherever, and MSK doesn’t say a thing. Could it be that we have the rhythm of this forum down, and you don’t? Granted, my funny little paternity dance videos have nothing to do with Don Delillo’s Cosmopolis, but I will note this once again: no one here has read that book. If anyone here was likely to have read it, it would be me.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=147341

And dealing with you has left me much less inclined. Besides which, I follow a well-trodden modern lit board, and the word there from people I respect is that it’s his worst mature work. White Noise and Underworld are regarded as his best; I’ve read the first of those, and that was enough for me. I mean, you’re praising Twilight too! I was obliged to read up to chapter 13 of the first one (never mind why), and if someone’s knocking Ayn Rand and praising Stephanie Meyer, their opinion ain’t worth the title of excrement.

[Brant Gaede]

I only came back to the USA at the end of 2004.

My first 4 posts on SoloHQ were in September 2004, but I was still in Brazil. I came to the USA shortly thereafter. I only started posting on SoloHQ again in February of the following year.

Kat set up OL on December 3, 2005. She set me up as a member within minutes of setting herself up. Also, a small handful of people joined on the same day.

Michael

In your third post on SoloHQ you were already discussing postmodernism.

--Brant

I still don't understand it

[seymourblogger]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about. I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

Seymour Blogger: Ahem. If you have in fact been reading this site for 10 years, I would think you know the answer your question. This "trivia" as you call it is one of the cultural norms and/or delightful quirks of this site. Just one, but an important one: i.e., the fairly benevelant poking of fun at oddball claims. You have made an oddball claim, and you are now bearing the consequences.

I was told by Michael that this is a serious site with serious writing and to please observe that. Now you tell me it's a conversational site. Who is correct? I dunno.

[Brant Gaede]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about. I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

Seymour Blogger: Ahem. If you have in fact been reading this site for 10 years, I would think you know the answer your question. This "trivia" as you call it is one of the cultural norms and/or delightful quirks of this site. Just one, but an important one: i.e., the fairly benevelant poking of fun at oddball claims. You have made an oddball claim, and you are now bearing the consequences.

I was told by Michael that this is a serious site with serious writing and to please observe that. Now you tell me it's a conversational site. Who is correct? I dunno.

Serious is as serious does.

--Brant

a boy, just wants to have fun!

understand the seriousness of even farce, rightly done, and you understand Michael's representation

Michael complained about your lack or seriousness or your lack of effective ratiocination?

[seymourblogger]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about. I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

Seymour Blogger: Ahem. If you have in fact been reading this site for 10 years, I would think you know the answer your question. This "trivia" as you call it is one of the cultural norms and/or delightful quirks of this site. Just one, but an important one: i.e., the fairly benevelant poking of fun at oddball claims. You have made an oddball claim, and you are now bearing the consequences.

I was told by Michael that this is a serious site with serious writing and to please observe that. Now you tell me it's a conversational site. Who is correct? I dunno.

Serious is as serious does.

--Brant

a boy, just wants to have fun!

understand the seriousness of even farce, rightly done, and you understand Michael's representation

Michael complained about your lack or seriousness or your lack of effective ratiocination?

You cut right to the chase don't you. Not a question.

[seymourblogger]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about.

I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't.

This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

Whom are you addressing?

There is what may appear to a newcomer to be a double standard at work here on OL. Myself, GHS, Brant, and several other old timers pretty much post whatever, wherever, and MSK doesn’t say a thing. Could it be that we have the rhythm of this forum down, and you don’t? Granted, my funny little paternity dance videos have nothing to do with Don Delillo’s Cosmopolis, but I will note this once again: no one here has read that book. If anyone here was likely to have read it, it would be me.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=147341

And dealing with you has left me much less inclined. Besides which, I follow a well-trodden modern lit board, and the word there from people I respect is that it’s his worst mature work. White Noise and Underworld are regarded as his best; I’ve read the first of those, and that was enough for me. I mean, you’re praising Twilight too! I was obliged to read up to chapter 13 of the first one (never mind why), and if someone’s knocking Ayn Rand and praising Stephanie Meyer, their opinion ain’t worth the title of excrement.

Twilight is a "cut" in the History of Sexuality and that is its importance. And that is very important.

Yes, I know that that's what is said about Cosmopolis. I think they are wrong. IMO they don't know how to read it anymore than I did in 02 or 03 when I read it the first time. And when Atlas came out they didn't know how to read it either, if you remember all the negative reviews. Unanimous negative reviews. Fountainhead didn't do so well in the review department either.

And Leo Steinberg says, If a work of art is hated then that is a pretty good indication that it may just be great.

You can't use a reason to support your opinion and ignore the same reason when it doesn't suit yo to remember it. A very good reason to ignore reviews. Unless you have immense respect for the reviewer.

Same goes for movies too. I saw Rango because Ebert liked it. I still haven't forgiven him.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[seymourblogger]

Oh 9th, if you have a woman in your life then I suggest you get familiar with Cosmopolis, because you just might get dragged to Cronenberg's film on it because Rob Pattinson is in it and all the women want to see him get laid as much as possible.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was told by Michael that this is a serious site with serious writing and to please observe that. Now you tell me it's a conversational site. Who is correct? I dunno.

Seymourblogger,

I know balance is not your stong point, so don't even worry about understanding it.

Consider me a despot.

It ain't that way, but in your case, the discourse might be easier for you to understand that way. I dominate.

(How's that for a dominating discourse?)

And despot says, banter is good. Nastiness is not so good.

Serious is good. Intelligent is really good.

Neurotic pain in the ass is not so good.

There's more, but that'll do for starters. And, as always, despot says some flexibility in all this is good.

(Don't worry about the audience. I'll make sure we keep our intelligent lurkers by making sure the forum keeps serving their interests. I explained this for information purposes only. Untimately, that's my problem.)

Also, if you make sloppy claims like saying you have been following a site for over a decade, and the site has only been in existence for a little over 6 years, people will call you on it. Expect it because it happens all the time to others. You have no special super powers to escape people noticing your errors here, nor to make people shut up about them.

I don't even have those super powers when I screw up.

Here's a suggestion to save you some grief. But it's up to you to take it or not.

There's a great word to learn. It's called, "oops." When you make errors, if you have a thin skin about saying you're wrong and lash out instead, you will get skinned wirh relish by the OL regulars.

Despot approves, too.

Michael

[seymourblogger]

This is clear. No problem. Does hypocritical fit? Just askin'. Some are more equal than others around here.

OOPs on the decade. I am seeing myself first looking at this site in a certain place. The last time I was there was 03 so I guess the pics in my head are wrong. How awful to mistake having read this site by a few years! I mean that is a terrible thing and I apologize profusely for that dastardly error. Wow, to think I of all people could have erred by a few years. Gadzooks! How awfully sloppy of me not to know the exact history of this site down to the moth, week, and minute of its marvelous birth. Sorry sorry sorry.

Gee I hope I don't screw up on a Rand quote. God, if I got the page wrong. I tremble to think of it.

How many angels can daunce on the head of a pin? I know someone here knows, so please tell me. Oh and tell me on the Cosmopolis topic as no one has read the book, from one of our major writers of fiction. Oh my bad, just because he is highly admired means he's not worth anything here. OOOPs, there was a time Rand was not admired at all, but I guess that doesn't count, does it. Not a question.

[seymourblogger]

Why is all this trivia posted here? You tell me to just post seriously, then you post trivia on a topic I am very serious about. I am being put into a double-bind, a catch-22. I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. This is what schizophrenicgenic mothers do to their children. "Come here darling and give me a kiss," as their body language backs away form contact with the child.

Whom are you addressing? There is what may appear to a newcomer to be a double standard at work here on OL. Myself, GHS, Brant, and several other old timers pretty much post whatever, wherever, and MSK doesn’t say a thing. Could it be that we have the rhythm of this forum down, and you don’t? Granted, my funny little paternity dance videos have nothing to do with Don Delillo’s Cosmopolis, but I will note this once again: no one here has read that book. If anyone here was likely to have read it, it would be me. http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=147341 And dealing with you has left me much less inclined. Besides which, I follow a well-trodden modern lit board, and the word there from people I respect is that it’s his worst mature work. White Noise and Underworld are regarded as his best; I’ve read the first of those, and that was enough for me. I mean, you’re praising Twilight too! I was obliged to read up to chapter 13 of the first one (never mind why), and if someone’s knocking Ayn Rand and praising Stephanie Meyer, their opinion ain’t worth the title of excrement.

No way am I knocking Rand. You stand corrected on that. I think much more highly of her than anyone here.