C. Jordan

Michael: Perhaps my word "plagiarism" was not the best. I should have used "derivative" or "imitative." That is what I was intending to say. And indeed, Ayn Rand leaned on the mythos. You are right there. One can argue that John Galt leading the innovators out of hell resembles Moses leading the Chosen People out of Egypt. And that is where I make my case, because Ayn Rand did not repeat Moses life precisely. If she had, John Galt would have had killed a man in early life, he would have had a contest with his enemies (parallel to Moses contest against Pharaoh's witch-doctors); John Galt's flight out at the end of the book would have too-blatantly drawn parallels with the parting of the Red Sea; and we would have had John Galt's brother who leads the people wrongly (as with Aaron and the Golden Calf). Finally, we would have seen Galt fail to reach the promised land himself. From your description, I had the impression that Steinbeck did something like this. I would have to read him myself to make a final judgement; but the impression I got was that Steinbeck had gone too far. I mis-spoke to in saying plagiarism, but it does sound as though Steinbeck was too derivative. I am not completely certain where to draw the lines, between "inspired by..." and "derivative of..." but I am sure that the lines exist.

The same leader can easily be Attila and the Witch Doctor at the same time. Kim Jong-il uses both tactics: by teaching everyone from childhood on that his father (Kim Il-sung) and he are (in effect) God, that everything good in the world was created by them, he tells people to feel guilty for anything they may say, do, or think against him. If that doesn't work, there are the same tactics his father used. And his father used the same tactics as Iosef Stalin. Or the tactics are combined at once: if anyone dares to leave North Korea, his or her family will be punished in some way. The only question is not whether this punishment is barbaric, but how barbaric it is. However, this topic was Ominous Parallels with regard to some of the true believers. And therefore let me continue with North Korea, drawing a few broad parallels between Kim Jong-il and Leonard Peikoff. And before I do that, I should make it clear that I am not comparing Ayn Rand to Kim Il-sung. The official doctrine of North Korea is called "Juche," a word which can be translated literally as "self-reliance." North Korea is disastrously non-productive, not only compared to South Korea but even compared to Vietnam, Mexico, and Sénégal; but that is still what the name means. In practice, Juche is "Communism according to Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il" and Juche requires one to believe that only these teachings are to be considered true. Every dictator demands conformity; the only thing striking about Juche is the extremes of conformity. Leonard Peikoff is not demanding the same degree of conformity. It must also be said that Ayn Rand could, and did, write intelligent ideas in masterful prose. Kim Il-sung wrote unconvincing doctrine, and Kim Jong-il orders others to write his unconvincing doctrine for him. The difference must be underscored, and if I had to choose between conforming to Objectivism or to Juche, I would choose the former. But with these differences underscored, Peikoff, by saying Objectivism is a closed system, demands conformity. He says the words of Ayn Rand are eternal. This is what Kim Jong-il says about the teachings of his father. No one believes that Kim Jong-il would be anyone important, were his father not Kim Il-sung. Further: Kim Il-sung would have been nobody had Stalin not placed him in power after World War II. The same thing can be said for Leonard Peikoff. What would he have written, or done, if he had not been Ayn Rand's literary heir? Has he written anything that does more than repeat what Ayn Rand said before? North Korea boasts of its doctrine, even though the Great Leader Kim Il-sung was unable to persuade any other nation to accept Juche. Leonard Peikoff has been unable to persuade most people to accept Objectivism-as-a-doctrine. People continue to read Ayn Rand's works, and continue to learn from her ideas; but official-Objectivism, meaning conformity to a, only appears to exist in a minority. The strongest parallel is that Peikoff appears committed to maintaining Ayn Rand's perfect image, just as Kim Jong-il does with his father. In North Korea, you can go to jail for folding a picture of Kim, father or son. That might sound like a joke, but it is not. Leonard Peikoff, and other true believers, have not done that. But they do behave as though any criticism of Ayn Rand is a criticism of rationality or reason as such. Let me show Dr. Peikoff a courtesy which he did not show to David Kelley: I do not think that any of these parallels mean that Dr. Peikoff is another Kim Jong-il, and I'm not accusing him of collaborating with Pyongyang. I have no doubt that Dr. Peikoff hates North Korea. We should not push a metaphor too far. I am saying that these parallels do exist, and that official-Objectivism, the closed system, bears a stronger resemblance to a doctrine than to the inspirational example of Howard Roark. That is as far as I am pushing this metaphor. I think that has gone precisely far enough.

Jeff: This question has been bothering me now for some time. Exactly WHY did you see a dog dying at the beginning and ASSUME that something like this must happen at the end? I don't see an obvious reason, except the possibility that this was one of Steinbeck's personal techniques. If it is, by the way, I consider it a horrible one. Is Steinbeck trying to write a novel or a riddle for us to solve? You have reminded me why I hated literature classes, by the way. For one thing, when I asked that above question I never got an answer. Michael: Your description of Jim Casey as a parallel for Jesus Christ doesn't sound like symbolism to me; it sounds like plagiarism. At the very least like copying. Let me draw one example: in the Harry Potter universe, the evil wizards such as Voldemort and Grindewald were obviously inspired from Hitler. But while young Draco is blond (like a Nazi) he has a British and not a German accent. Though Grindewald was said to have committed atrocities (presumably similar to the Holocaust) he was not portrayed as looking like Hitler, or as resembling Hitler in any particular way. What is the difference? From what you are telling me, Steinbeck went way too far. It also sounds as though he were more interested in putting in those references than in writing the story. But then again, because all he had to do was re-read the Bible and re-draw the characters in familiar terms, the story was already half-written for him.

The perfect "stolen concept" argument I have heard runs something like this: If someone says he/she is against reason, then ask him/her if he/she is making a reasonable argument, or an unreasonable argument. If the first answer, say no more: your opponent has proved your point. If the second answer, say no more: your opponent is not open to reason.

"Anthropodoxic" means something like "the ideas/norms of human beings". Anthropos=human. I'm basing my reading of "-doxic" based on the underlying meaning of the words "heterodox" and "orthodox." For a better translation, you would have to pay money. :tongue: For the rest of you, I have never seen the definition of "cow" more finely cut. But it is true that a real cow is not identical to my memory of that cow which differs from the picture of the cow which differs from the dictionary definition which is not the same as my idea and that in turn is bound to be different from your idea (Michael) or your idea (Barbara) or yours (Dragonfly) or yours (BaalChatzaf). Why only split a hair 16 ways when we can eventually slice it down to its component quanta? I liked that diagram. I've been using the concepts of infrared light (a million times more frequencies than visible light) or for that mater ultrasonics to prove that there is a world we cannot percieve. And it's not an illusion. Far from it. Would we know of these things if we lacked reason?

More words of debatable meaning. BARBARIAN: Originally it meant "someone who doesn't speak our language," which would make everyone on Earth a barbarian in the opinion of everyone else whose language one does not speak. George Bernard Shaw gave the best definition, in that a barbarian is the person who mistakes "the customs of his tribe for the laws of nature." And by that definition, there are barbarians in every tribe on Earth, including our own. BARBARIC: Here I'm staying closer to conventional usage, and describing actions such as deliberate slaughter of people not fighting, child abuse, degradation of women, and torture as "barbaric." This way I can agree with South African writer Rian Malan, when he said that the white people in his country were barbaric, and so were many black people. DELUSION vs ILLUSION vs HALLUCINATION: The first and last involve the unreal. A delusion is an idea that I hold even though it can be proven false. An hallucination is something I see and/or hear which can be proven false. But to distinguish "illusion" I focus on a mirage in the desert: no, there is no water there over the next dune, but you and I can both see what appears to be water. So, even though the mirage is not real (as it appears) there is a reality to it. We know this because we can both see it. We can also reason out the cause (heat waves). So I think the best way to say it is that an illusion "is of false appearance, but based on something real" and an hallucination is all in the mind of the hallucinator. CONTRADICTION vs PARADOX: Ayn Rand wrote that a contradiction, by definition, does not exist. The so-called "paradox" of what would happen when an irresistible force meets an immovable object is in fact a contradiction. If the force is in fact irresistible, then there are by definition no immovable objects, and vice-versa. By contrast a paradox only APPEARS contradictory. A paradox means we have 2 apparently contradictory facts, yet we can observe that both facts are so. A paradox implies that the (apparent) contradiction has a resolution, and a paradox challenges us to find the answer. But how do we tell a paradox from a contradiction in practice? We must ask for proof. If I give you 2 apparently contradictory statements, I must show you how they are both independently also true. I cannot expect you to just take my word for it. And failing proof, you may safely assume that I have brought you a contradiction, which cannot exist in reality. A contradiction can only exist in someone's say-so.

What follows is now a more-or-less immediately-relevant contribution to the discussion. Before I begin, I take the philosophical position that words have no objective meaning; but there is a consistent convention on how we use words to communicate meanings. English is entirely arbitrary, and so is every other human language. Therefore, while Ayn Rand appeared to treat dictionaries as authorities, I treat them as maps and then go with my own experience in using language. I take into account how people use the words and then work on thinking about consistent definitions. My qualifications? 38 years and counting of practice. PATRIOTISM versus CHAUVINISM: All chauvinists are patriots, but not all patriots are chauvinists. A patriot says: "Mine is a great country." A chauvinist also says: "And you country stinks, because it isn't mine." OBSESSION versus COMPULSION: The first is a repetitive thought, the second a repetitive behaviour. COMMON SENSE: A debatable definition. Ayn Rand's definition was "all those parts of conventional wisdom that also stand to reason." (1) I disagree. In my experience, when people say "common sense," they mean "conventional wisdom which is presumed to be sensible." Then my approach is to ask whether this particular bit of "common sense" also "stands to reason" or not. Ayn Rand's definition is perfectly sensible and reasonable. But I don't choose to keep butting my heads against practically everyone who doesn't understand the distinction. PHILOSOPHY versus PHILOSOPHOLOGY: The first is original thinking and contributions to philosophy, and the second word (a coinage by Robert M. Pirsig) is a defintion for what is called "philosophy" at liberal American universities: learning about philosophers and their philosophies rather than learning how to originate and apply philosophy one's self. Pirsig wrote that philosophology is to philosophy what literary criticism is to creative writing. If you've taken philosophy courses, I think you will understand the basic point here. UNINTERESTED versus DISINTERESTED: The first means "I don't give a damn," and the second means "I can fairly judge this matter." DISCRIMINATION: In the deepest sense, it means to distinguish. If I say that blue is different from orange, I have discriminated. If I say that north is different from south, that is literally discriminating the distances. But in practice people often take the word to mean "unfair discrimination on a racist basis". That poisons the word for the rest of us. ETHNOCENTRALISM: In definition, it means "to assume that one's own cultural manners are superior" and in connotation it implies bullying and abusive behaviour towards people from other cultures. In practice, people who use that term almost always apply it to THEIR OWN CULTURE. This explains why Americans who embrace "multiculturalism" criticise their own country so violently, yet ignore the same kind of behaviour they criticise being practiced in non-Western countries. This explains how some people refuse to admit that the black man can be as much a racist as the white man, or for that matter, anyone else on Earth. BIAS: In definition this means "a preconception". A preconception may be true or false. I may allow my preconceptions to blind me to the truth, to lead me to distort...or I can admit my bias and look at the facts. Perhaps I might change my mind based on what I learn today. In practice, in the American political culture a "bias" is what people of the opposite political side from mine have. People who say this are usually implying their opponents are liars without the courage of saying so. They also imply that they don't have a bias, without the gall of saying so. MULTICULTURALISM: A word with many possible definitions. I could use it to refer to Africa as in "a place with a large number of different cultural groups". In the better principle, the idea is that people of different cultural backgrounds can come to be friends (and in my ideal, these friends would form a new culture with none of the flaws from the previous cultural backgrounds). However, the word is often used by people as a synonym for "cultural relativism," whose definition is: CULTURAL RELATIVISM: The idea that all cultures are equal. If the idea were that "all cultures have some potential value" I would agree. But the idea of cultural relativism as precisely definied, is contradictory. Find any proponent of the theory, and ask him/her: "And what about the Afrikaner culture?" Or: "The Karimijong people of Uganda believe that all cattle belong to them. The X!hosa people of South Africa herd cattle. Suppose a Karimijong man with no cows meets a X!hosa man with a herd. Two cultures are coming into conflict. Which one do you support?" More are available if anyone wishes to read them. (I modified this post to make one of my points clearer) (1) This is not an exact quotation, but it is a fair paraphrase. See The Romantic Manifesto for her exact words.

To answer your question: I have emptied my computer cache, and done other things to preclude the fault being at this end. And they still keep crashing me. But let them. The more times I crash, the more I am going to flood them with my open letter.

I only joined that site because Leonard Peikoff has an open letter coming to him. I doubt he will answer, but it needs to be said. On the other hand, RIGHT NOW EVERY TIME I GO TO THAT FUCKING SITE AND TRY TO GO TO ANY PART OF IT THE BROWSER CRASHES!!!!!!!!!! I have already kept sending error messages, and the last one was unprintable. As soon as this stops, I am about to post the rude/insulting/scurrilous version of this same thread where it belongs. But for now, let me get it off my chest: MAY A THOUSAND WILD CAMELS VOMIT ON LINDSEY PERIGO'S FURNITURE! MAY DIANA HSIEH FALL NAKED INTO A KETTLE OF DOLPHIN DIARRHEA!

What I'd posted here earlier was not entirely to the point of this post. It has been transferred. My second attempt to write a more pertinent answer grew into its own post. That is all.

Robert: that is a valid point. By "enemy of Objectivism" I mean "someone who actively persecutes others for holding or sharing Objectivist ideas". The man who tells me Ayn Rand was a fool is not necessarily an "enemy of Objectivism". But the man who tries to send Leonard Peikoff to jail on false charges, because of his ideas, is an enemy of Objectivism. In fact, assuming the 2nd case were actually happening: we should all rally to Peikoff's defence. I'm not saying he deserves our help. I am only reminding us of the obvious: the man who is out to get Peikoff for Objectivism today could be coming after us tomorrow.

I found an update on the Jack Lynch site which inspired all of this in the first place. I couldn't resist. :frantics:

Actually, I was about to say that I APPROVE of the new format for the site. In particular I like the colour-scheme. May I take this opportunity to take off my hat? I can only assume that the upgrade was successful.

I have read the issue of not sanctioning the sanctioners, and I saw it as a blatant imitation of Ayn Rand herself. It deserves no reply. I am reading the Leonard Peikoff piece, have much to rebut. I am therefore proposing to present an open letter to Dr. Peikoff. Let me begin here: From this I have a rhetorical question which I doubt Dr. Peikoff would be glad to answer. One aspect of value is to evaluate music as "I like it" or "I don't like it." Among the music I evaluate as "like" is a piece of folk-music called "Nimpérde." Yes, I said folk-music. The piece is instrumental, and even if it wasn't, how many of us speak Uyghur? But I find that pleasing to the ear. And my question is for Dr. Peikoff: how does that choice advance or threaten my life? I mean, show me objectively, Dr. Peikoff. From there, Dr. Peikoff appears only to rephrase ideas which Ayn Rand introduced; and it is unclear why he is writing this for a few paragraphs. Then I come to the conclusion which appears to be his leitmotif: Emphasis mine throughout. One statement by Dr. Peikoff is very apt for reasons he probably would not appreciate. Emphasis still mine throughout. Nor will Dr. Peikoff like to hear that Nathaniel Branded has said of Ayn Rand, since the split, that her biggest influence was in the young. But worse: what Dr. Branden said that young people are attracted to Ayn Rand by her sense of life. He did not use those words; but the words he used do communicate that meaning. That is the sort of irony that is hard to invent, in fiction. But more pertinent is Dr. Peikoff's discussion of Dr. Kelley. I therefore quote the following: The emphasis here is most emphatically mine, Dr. Peikoff. And I therefore would ask Dr. Peikoff to underscore that section of Dr. Kelley's statement where he denies that it's impossible to know whether a man is being irrational. By contrast I will quote Dr. Kelley where he said: The emphasis (mine) shows that Dr. Kelley can recognise irrational behaviour; he recognises that some people are not open to reason. He does not specifically state how we can tell if the behaviour we are faced with is irrational. That is true. But I did not require him to tell me that there is such a thing. I know irrationality when I see it, Dr. Peikoff. Dr. Peikoff denounces tolerance, and I believe he is no hypocrite when he says this. I also have excerpted some of his commentary. Where to begin? Once more Dr. Peikoff insists that Dr. Kelley has said something which Dr. Kelley has NOT said. I have shown PROOF that Dr. Kelley has not said that. Which leads me to statements that "such people" who attack Dr. Peikoff have "no concept of 'objectivity' in regrad to values" and whose "accusations...are an expression of their own actual philosophy and inner state." I know irrationality, and projection, when I see it. Dr. Peikoff was honest at the end. No wonder I have never heard of any great achievement from Dr. Peikoff. Many people know of Ayn Rand, and deservedly so. Who has heard of Dr. Peikoff, other than the people who have considered Ayn Rand in depth. But surely THIS is the reason why Dr. Peikoff has not followed Ayn Rand in blazing new trails, nor even extending further the trail which Ayn Rand blazed. Because Objectivism is "the name of Ayn Rand's achievement" which means by definition there is no seeking new knowledge, there is only the guarding of tradition. What if the sequel to THE FOUNTAINHEAD was about Howard Roark's architectural heir, who insists that Modernism is "the name of Howard Roark's achievement" and therefore no new architectural innovations, because they may or may not be consistent with the official work of Howard Roark? A horrible idea? I agree. I don't like seeing it in reality. Dr. Peikoff's statement about the Constitution is also untrue. The Supreme Court interprets the meaning of the Constitution with every decision they make, and the Congress has the power to amend the Constitution. Most Americans know this. And Dr. Peikoff, rest assured that I shall never label myself or my ideas Objectivist. I am not part of your movement. (Who were part of a "movement" in THE FOUNTAINHEAD? Ellsworth Toohey and Gus Webb) because I know that a rational man gives me reasons, and an irrational man uses emotions that go against reason. And in your case, you use emotional language, you denouce, and you say that those you denounce don't understand Objectivism. But you do not tell me any of the real reasons. The only reason given was that Dr. Kelley said something, which he did not say. Who is being irrational? And why do you paraphrase Karl Marx? I don't just mean at the end, Dr. Peikoff. I mean when you spoke as if the tide of history was on your side. That was Communist dogma. How should I interpret that?

Hoe meer ik oefen, hoe beter Nederlands ik spreek en schrijf. Dank je voor tegen mij reageeren. Veel plezier met je kennis te maken. Minj vrouw en ik heb een vraag voor je: ken je ook de muziek door Peter Gabriel? En nu moet ik deze zinnin in Engels vertalen. (How more I practice, how better I read & write Dutch. Thank you for responding to me. Very good to know you. My wife and I have a question: do you know Peter Gabriel's music? And now I must translate these sentences into English.)

Incidentally, I have found out from my map at this site that there are 2 Tienhovens in the area. I mean the one near Breukleveen and Molenpolder. Veel plezir. Wij kunnen Nederlands spreken tegen elkaar. En ik probeer minder fouten te maken.

Dragonfly: Have you been there? And is the food any good? And this wasn't exactly the topic, but I'm surprised anyone else here is from Netherlands; and in particular, who has heard of Tienhoven? I can bicycle through there in under 5 minutes.

Here is an example: Ye Olde Regthuys (Ye Olde Courthouse) which is a restaurant in Tienhoven. Volgens mijn Van Dale moet je dat als "Rechthuis" spellen. (According to my Van Dale [Dutch-language dictionary] it is spelled "Rechthuis".)

Crichton's spelling is Old Dutch, as opposed to modern. And Dutch is my second language. I still make mistakes in it. Sort of like Ayn Rand when she was learning English. And Dragonfly's critique is on the money. I can only do simple phrases in the 24 Asian languages that my characters would speak, if they were real. So that's all I do.

For the Lord of the Rings commentary: may I add that while Frodo was 55, he was still considered late-adolescent in Hobbit terms. By that logic, Elijah Wood was a good choice. To the greater issue, of a movie of ATLAS SHRUGGED, I don't believe it will be done very well, when it is done, and assuming it is ever done. It can be done well, of course. Good acting is possible for Hollywood. Intelligent directing and intelligent screenplays are possible for Hollywood. I have seen movie adaptations of books that were good. These were by definitin the adaptations respected enough of the writer's intention, and changed nothing without an acceptable reason. And yes, I would say the Peter Jackson adaption of Lord of the Rings was good enough. I will even say that Tolkien had too much dialog, and not enough action. Granting that he was a master at English-language dialog, of course. At any rate, that is my 2¢. But with ATLAS SHRUGGED, I see the problem as that few directors or producers from the Hollywood culture of recycled stories, simple plots, and star power will understand what an adaptation of ATLAS SHRUGGED will require. Here are some of the issues. (1) We may shorten the philosophical parts, but never cut them. Where Ayn Rand wrote a long discussion, we may have a summary of that discussion: but we must still convey all the essential points. Will a director understand what is essential? (2) John Galt's speech is uneditable. (3) It is possible to show an action (Dagny riding to the work site of the John Galt Line) while a voice-over discusses the relevant philosophical issues. This will help us fit the book into a film, without damaging it. This will require quality directing. Who can provide that? (4) Actors should be chosen by the strength of their performance, not based on sex appeal. But Hollywood seems to think its audience is entirely made up of permanent adolescents who get impatient with anything that they cannot immediately understand, and who are necessarily addicted to sex. That perspective will make it difficult for them to choose well on the actors. (5) It will also make it difficult for Hollywood to choose well on the script. I don't believe that everyone will tune out ideas such as Ayn Rand's, but I believe that Hollywood (as a culture) believes that. Those people who get impatient with new ideas are not everyone, but they do seem to be the audience which Hollywood (as a culture) targets. (6) We must on principle forbid the actors from making any changes. The actors are free to interpret their role, but that interpretation is WITHIN a role. And in my opinion, the "big-name star" who demands that we re-write entirely the character of Francisco d'Anconia because "it's obvious to ME Francisco wouldn't act that way" should be fired for unprofessional behaviour. After that, we should take away his lolly pop and ask him to sit in the corner. But the problem with star power is that the stars often throw their weight around and behave like spoilt children in adult bodies. (7) We accept that some compromise is necessary, but we must have it in the contract that the amount of compromise be strictly limited. I would consider 5% compromise reasonable, 10% compromise generous, and 15% the final limit, beyond which I refuse to compromise further. There is grounds for disagreement on those numbers I gave, but I think we can agree that there must be a limit, somewhere. I said "compromise" meaning "to give in on reasonable grounds by the other party." Had I meant "to give in at the will of the other party" I would have said "submit". But Hollywood (as a culture) has a reputation not of asking a writer: "Would it be better if..." but of changing whatever they bloody well like, and usually on the grounds that "the audience expects this". When I finish WEI (and later HU, and after that SHAN) I shall not sell any of those books to Hollywood, for exactly those reasons.

This is a controversial idea I have, and I am submitting it here for considered responses. The question: suppose you are writing about characters who speak many languages. In my case, I have counted about 24 languages that people could be using. The question is, when and how should one use these languages? Obviously, we should use them sparingly. After all, we all write in presuming that someone will read what we write, and we want it to be understood. However, conventional wisdom has always been to never use foreign words and phrases, even sparingly. The last bit of advice I got was "Hemingway wrote a story set entirely in Spain, but his characters hardly used any Spanish," and of course I should write that way myself. I don't agree. So, I thought I'd propose a few proper uses for foreign words/phrases, in ways that I consider are good for your writing. Suppose we are approaching a scene with a character's perspective. This character doesn't speak Chinese; and then he may see Chinese written, or hear Chinese spoken. By using Chinese here, we can communicate to the reader what it's like to be there. Even so, I've found it's best in most cases to do that in no more than 3 sentences of Chinese (or whatever the foreign language is) because sooner or later, every story will need action; and the writer's next step is to make that dialog (which neither character nor reader could understand) part of the story. One way is to have another character translate: [First I showed 11 Chinese characters. Then: "It means were entering China," said Minh.] Another is to show a consequence: ["Drabahaar-drabayy,” came a childish voice. Then Jamal shows himself, and draws a gun. I assume that readers will form an idea on what Jamal said.] Some words I use because they're untranslatable. This is hard to explain, but I'll have a go at it: there are some things you can only say well in one languge. Sometimes the right word, the exact way to say something, only exists in somebody else's language. I will give you one example from my second language: In Nederlands de zin "Lopen en Graven" klankt als "Loopgraven." Maar dat is onvertalbaar in Engels. (In Dutch the sentence "Walking and Digging" sounds like "Trenches." But that is untranslatable in English.) In that case, my approach is to borrow words and phrases, where there is none in English. But then, we do that anyway. English is filled with foreign words. Here's a common example: the Japanese word "haiku." There is no word in English for "a poem with a 5-7-5 syllable pattern," so we borrowed the Japanese word for it, and now that sits in dictionaries of English. So, in the same vein, I use words such as "Athân" for "the 'Islamic call to prayer," or "qhöömei" for "a Mongolian style of singing" whenever I have a place for them in the story. But whereas many English-speakers know what a haiku is, few of us have heard "gamelan" music or have heard of the Bozkurt Party. So: my approach is to define them, briefly. I find it best to keep the definition to under 10 words. And after defining it, one should show it in action. Here one might raise an objection I often hear: using too many of those words is distracting, has nothing to do with the plot, and is pretentious. I'll respond: my goal is not to use 'too many' of 'those words,' but just enough; my goal in mentioning these things is because they are part of the story; and as to whether it is or is not pretentious, that will be for the reader to decide. Also, whether I achieve those goals: that is absolutely for the reader to decide, each individually What I would consider pretentious is the infamous example of Mexican characters who behave like a stereotype and use a few stock phrases in Spanish. Or Sacré bleu! those French characters with too strong an accent, that is annoying, n'est-ce pas? That is precisely what I hope not to be doing. The crux of my argument is that writers should feel free to explore other languages in writing, with the following guidelines. Every writer should ask her/himself if: I have a good reason to use this word/phrase? Could it be better said in English? and if not, why not? Does this help the story, or hurt it? In the final analysis, can I reasonably expect an English-speaking reader to understand at least 95% of my story as a whole? Now I should get back to putting this into practice, and let's see if it works.

Everyone has a good point. First, to ashleyparkerangel: you have a point. And Professor Lynch does have a point. In his defence, I may say that his site has much to recommend it for a writer's techniques. The only thing I find objectionable is the tone, and specific words. To Wolf Devoon: well said. Bidinotto made a reference to the Lee Child's interview, which can be found practically anywhere in this sentence that you choose to click. Child said the following: Emphasis was mine through out, to hightlight those statements with which I don't agree. Of course one should read the whole interview in context, which can be found here and also here and guess where else. Lee Child gave a long interview; he had much to say and much of that I found worthy of attention. But to the subject at hand... My own thinking here actually began with Umberto Eco, from his essay How I write. Eco writes: --Umberto Eco, trans. Martin McLaughlinI would like to emphasise the word 'reader' in distinction to the word 'audience'. I agree with Eco, that I believe in writing for readers. As many as possible. But I think of my (future) readers as readers, meaning first as individuals. I am also a reader, and I have read Chinua Achèbe, Umberto Eco, Ayn Rand, Ray Bradbury, J.R.R. Tolkien, and many more. But I do not consider myself a part of Rand's audience, or Tolkien's, or for that matter J.K. Rowling's. And I don't believe it is very complimentary to one's readers to think of them as an "audience." Perhaps this is a matter of semantics. But it is also a matter of priority. Michael Stuart Kelley is correct, to identify that as an important element. I disagree when Lee Child says that the audience comes "first, second, and third." I say the work itself comes first; readers come second. I don't know what comes third. I do not agree with the television approach of targeting your audience. And I resent the implication which I read both Professor Lynch, and in the italicised quotations from Lee Child that I should let the "audience" dictate to me how and what I should write. It occurs to me that Ayn Rand was once told that "no audience existed" for her book. Robert M. Pirsig was told much the same thing. But before I leave, I should like to quote the very end of the Lee Child interview: the part with which I emphatically DO agree. Ironically, this is the very argument I would use in rebutting the claim that "the audience comes first, second, and third." Or is it ironic? Again, you can find this interview at any number of links.

For the record, I can easily replace the word Objectivism with 'Islam, and I find that my answers remain the same, because the same morality applies. 1. For an Objectivist, lying to an enemy of Objectivism is __ Morally impermissible X Morally permissible __ Morally obligatory (That depends on whether I believe the other party has the right to an honest answer; and actually I would use this criterion whether the other party was an enemy or not. Assuming the enemy of Objectivism has asked a question to which I do not see that she/he is entitled an answer, I will refuse to answer or lie with a clean conscience. But if an enemy of Objectivism asks me, "Is it safe to fly on that plane?" then I would not feel justified in lying, if I knew that the plane was the target of a bombing.) 2. For an Objectivist, lying about an enemy of Objectivism is X Morally impermissible __ Morally permissible __ Morally obligatory (If I am wrong and the enemy is right, I should be ashamed to lie about him/her. If I am right and the enemy is wrong, then why would I lie about her/him? In that second case, telling the truth is PRECISELY the step to take.) 3. For an Objectivist, withholding credit for an accomplishment by an enemy of Objectivism is X Morally impermissible __ Morally permissible __ Morally obligatory (This is how Hank Rearden's enemies behaved. Should we emulate them?) 4. For an Objectivist, publishing the private communications of an enemy of Objectivism without consent is X Morally impermissible __ Morally permissible __ Morally obligatory (This sits on a border with me: Diana Hsieh has written me an E-mail in which she writes me off as being un-interested in the truth. Do I have the right to make this public? But if I did, I would feel morally obliged to make the whole truth available.) 5. For an Objectivist, rewriting history to remove an enemy of Objectivism from the narrative is X Morally impermissible __ Morally permissible __ Morally obligatory (No dilemma to decide. Rewriting history can be morally done, on the grounds that we have new evidence to show that what was written in the history books is wrong. Rewriting it to re-evaluate a person can also be morally done, assuming there is a factual basis for this which must be proven and not presumed. But even in such a case, to "remove an enemy...from the narrative" is a form of lying.) 6. For an Objectivist, taking credit for the achievement of an enemy of Objectivism is X Morally impermissible __ Morally permissible __ Morally obligatory (Again, to behave this way is to behave like an enemy of Objectivism, like Toohey or any of his spiritual brethren.)

The following is taken directly from here. The web-site is run by an English teacher. I think that will be clear from the same which follows. This in particular is for the writers among us. I posted it because on first thought this was precisely the opposite of Ayn Rand's ideal in writing. She did not "adjust [her] style to suit the audience, however arbitrary its expectations." But she also sought "to reach the men of the intellect, wherever such may still be found." According to Prof. Lynch, Rand's first job was to "figure out what [her] audience expects." Surely it is a good strategy, to figure out what "the men of the intellect" expect? The floor is open.