jriggenbach

Yes, Phil, I read Valliant's review. I read it last night, before you ever mentioned it, along with Burns's reply. This morning, I went back to SOLO and skimmed the other posts in the two threads Perigo had by then divided the whole thing into. I hadn't realized that you claim the ability to read minds and determine what other people have and have not read. I suggest you work on it, however; your performance still needs a bit of sharpening before you try to do it publicly. JR

In my book the only strong evidence that one has a "drinking problem" is that, when one raises one's glass to one's lips, one consistently hits one nose or eye or forehead or chin instead of one's lips. JR

Let me add that there is nothing more ludicrous or asinine than this recurrent obsession with "civility" and "respect" in argumentation. What exactly is it that I am supposed to "respect" about a pretentious jackass like James Valliant? His individual rights? I do respect them. His claims to have something to say that educated people might want to listen to? The claims are preposterous, ludicrous, asinine. I reject them. Why on Earth should I pretend otherwise? "Civility" is, at bottom, nothing but a codeword for pointlessly refraining from saying, straightforwardly and succinctly, what one thinks about the topic under discussion. It is a favored term among those who believe, for some strange reason, that discussions and debates should resemble the tea parties of little girls - nothing robust or hard-hitting allowed. Perhaps we should all wear gauzy tutus, crook our pinkies, and curtsy while holding these "discussions" and "debates"? JR

Subject: A Brief Lexicon to Facilitate Reading Clarity "Snarky one-liners," noun phrase, plural. One-liners Phil doesn't like, usually because they point up the ludicrousness of something he insists on believing. "Mean-spiritedness," noun phrase. A marked tendency to describe the ludicrous as ludicrous, the asinine as asinine, and the uninformed as uninformed. "Ad hominem," Latin phrase, poorly understood by many on OL. Originally a phrase used to describe an argument of the following form: "Arguer X is an evil person; therefore what s/he argues is false or illogical." Used by Phil to refer to any statement in an argument that refers to one's opponent's ignorance of the subject matter at hand. Helpfully, JR

I stop by to lurk for a bit and find out what's been happening around here in my absence and what do I find but this: "[T]he view of the American military as in the hands of rights-violators and killers and of the space program + government as in the hands of fascist type 'corporatists' in [sic] not only false, but stomach-turningly false." Sorry, Phil, but I suggest you study some American history. The U.S. military has been in the hands of rights-violators and killers in varying degree for more than 150 years - since the days of the Mexican War. It's stomach-turning, all right, but there it is. And the fact that the space program and government generally are in the hands of fascist-type corporatists is also old news. With respect to government generally, that's been the case for around a hundred years now. Wake up. JR

I guess the living room is as good a place as any to take my leave of you all, right? Probably not. Probably Phil will identify my true motive in doing so as the desire to "humiliate" somebody or other. Probably "Xray" will identify my true motive as the desire to "attack" somebody or other - or perhaps she'll identify it as my desire to flee from her "arguments," lest they make me check my premises. Always remember, boys and girls, if Phil or "Xray" speculates on my motives, that's fine and dandy. If I speculate on theirs, it's because I'm mean and evil. So long! JR

A comment which was clearly a personal attack against Phil C. (see your post # 30) Another personal attack by you, barely disguised. There are no comments, only arguments. And there is no criticism; there are only "attacks." JR

When we claim that a comment posted on a site such as this is an example of a "logical fallacy," we make an assumption - namely that the comment in question was offered as an argument, in reply to some earlier argument presented by someone else. In this case, as should be evident to anyone bothering to read at all carefully, that assumption would be utterly groundless. I had no argument to reply to - just Phil's usual pile of assertions about what various unnamed individuals think about other unnamed individuals when those other unnamed individuals do something or other that Phil doesn't like. Since I had no argument to reply to, I made no argument in reply. I merely made a comment. Does anyone know the name of this logical fallacy? We could call it the Fallacy of Assuming Every Comment Posted on a Discussion Site Is Meant as an Argument, I guess, though that's rather long and unwieldy. Whatever we call it, we certainly have to acknowledge that it's very common around here. Some people here apparently think, for example, that if you comment that another poster (say, Xray, to choose an example at random) is an idiot, you are guilty of the Ad Hominem Fallacy (as though you had argued that because Xray is an idiot, none of her arguments are correct or valid). JR

I think that both the saddest and funniest thing about this is that Peikoff says that rows of empty liquor bottles were in Frank's apartment for the purpose of mixing paints, but also wants people to believe that if Frank had abused alcohol, why, then he would have noticed it because he was around the man day and night. It makes you wonder what other obvious evidence he overlooked or brushed aside while observing Frank day and night, doesn't it? If Peikoff had regularly found Frank passed out face down in a pile of rubbish, would he have interpreted it as Frank having problems with back pain and needing to find unconventional ways of propping up his body at unusual angles to get some sleep? If people had reported seeing Frank urinating on the sidewalk at 3 in the morning, would Peikoff have confirmed their reports but explained that his theory was that Frank didn't like to disturb Ayn by stinking up the apartment with his urine's unusual smell on the nights that they had asparagus? Might slurred speech be brushed off as evidence of chronic dental problems, and stumbling be interpreted as Frank constantly practicing his pratfalls just in case he decided to get back into acting? J I am shocked, Jonathan, SHOCKED! (To see you utterly disregarding Phil's precisely written instructions for what you should and shouldn't discuss on this site. The New York Times will never take you seriously, I fear. JR

One small correction for this precisely written discourse: in the penultimate paragraph, strike the word "arguments" and insert the word "assertions." Thank you, JR

All this seems to me to boil down to absolutely nothing other than "The people on this list are not discussing what I, Phil, think they ought to be discussing! Why doesn't everyone just do things my way? (Sound of foot petulantly stamping.)" But probably I'm wrong. JR

Here's the video of the Cato event featuring Jennifer Burns and Anne Heller. http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=6416 JR

Two comments on the Sanford column: http://www.salon.com/technology/how_the_world_works/2009/10/28/mark_sanford_on_ayn_rands_lack_of_faith/index.html http://www.mediaite.com/print/mark-sanford-on-ayn-rand-in-newsweek-a-fountainhead-of-huh/ JR

Well, since you guys eschew sloppiness, slovenliness, and laziness; since you "write precise and clear English"; since you edit what you write; perhaps you can satisfy my curiosity about this clause: "t's mostly Dragonfly and myself who have been in a full scale, lengthy nuclear war, using multiple weapons fired at multiple positions." Tell me, please, what you think of the following sentence: "Myself has been in a full scale nuclear war." Would you write that sentence? If you did, would you characterize it as precise and clear? As free of sloppiness, slovenliness, and laziness? Just curious. JR

Just out of idle curiosity, is there any operational difference between "precisely written" and "filled with vague generalities designed to cover my ass in case anyone reading actually knows something about the subject"? JR

Philip: which thread here about Ayn Rand the writer do you think would fit to continue the discussion with J. Riggenbach when he returns (JR believes that AR was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, so he may be surprised to see the discussion about her work being removed from the Great Literature thread. ) Philip, I just saw J. Riggenbach crossposted; so he is back. What do you think, Philip? Continue the discussion here or give JR links to the the other threads which contain recent discussions about e. g. the Randian heroes? J. Riggenbach, Good to see you back. To continue our discussion: if you would be so kind and read posts # 306, # 324 and # 325 here on this thread, I'd be interested in getting a detailed reply. There are currently other discussions going on here about Atlas Shrugged, so I'm not sure where to continue. At any rate, you will get links to posts relevant for the discussion, on whatever thread we decide to proceed. As for your claim of Rand being great "writer", I would like you to illustrate with concrete examples from her work together with explanations. TIA. Xray: I shan't be posting any further replies to you on this thread. It has become apparent to me that you have no interest in learning anything about the subject at hand (or, perhaps, any subject). All you're interested in doing is "proving" that your preconceived notions are correct. Good luck with that. JR

For what it's worth, there are numerous novelists whose novels so far outshine their short stories as to make reading their short stories quite useless in judging whether their novels would be worth reading. And all this is to say absolutely nothing about the many important novelists who never wrote any short stories (or other worthwhile "short pieces") at all. JR Phil: Here’s a link to How to Travel with a Salmon, which is a collection of shorter works by Eco. Most are comic opinion columns, a la Dave Barry, but Stars and Stripes and Conversation in Bablyon are short stories, the only one’s by Eco I can think of. They read like something by Douglas Adams, all the way down to the Apple computer references. http://books.google.com/books?id=_ntDTaMUys8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=eco+salmon#v=onepage&q=&f=false That’s all the nudging I’m inclined to give you in the direction of Eco. Beyond this would be an exercise in public masturbation.

Phil, you should read The Craft of Fiction by Percy Lubbock and Fiction and the Figures of Life by William H. Gass. The most important critical pieces by Poe are his "Philosophy of Composition" and "The Poetic Principle." I can't produce illustrative quotations by Rand - illustrative, that is, of my points about the elements of writing - because I'm on the road and have no access to the relevant books. JR

On the one hand, I don't really disagree with much of anything Phil says in this paragraph. His last point - on the legitimacy of the use of two-dimensional minor characters and the Dickensian naming of such folk - is particularly well taken. You might want to read E.M. Forster's succinct little book, Aspects of the Novel, sometime, Phil. He made this same point back in 1927, albeit with somewhat different terminology and at much greater length. On the other hand, if you look at Phil's list of points under the main heading "the many skills of Rand just as a writer," you quickly see that the most striking thing about it all is how little most of it has to do with writing. Here's how to think about this issue, folks. You've got a body of conceptual material - facts; analyses; arguments; made-up "facts," in the case of fiction - that is in need of being written. The body of conceptual material is what you're writing about; it's your subject matter. Coming up with it, arranging it, organizing it - none of this, technically speaking, is "writing" at all. "Writing" is the creation and deployment of sentences and paragraphs. It has to do with words, and also with grammar, punctuation, and other methods of ordering words to advance meaning. It has nothing to do, except indirectly, with ideas. Ideas is what you write about. Ideas is your subject matter. If you single someone out for praise "just as a writer" - if you say, for example, that someone is among the greatest writers of English of the 20th Century - what you are praising is that person's skill at creating and deploying sentences and paragraphs. What you are saying is that, given some particular body of conceptual material to be formulated in words, this individual displays notable skill in the formulation. The questions relevant to determining whether someone is a "good writer" are questions like these: Is his or her meaning crystal clear? If s/he writes a passage that is ambiguous, are there grounds for arguing that this ambiguity in itself conveys a clear and relevant meaning? (Example: a key passage in a novel seems at first blush to refer to one group of characters - say, the members of a particular juvenile street gang, as in West Side Story - but on closer reflection it becomes clear that the passage actually could refer to either of two groups of characters - either the Sharks or the Jets. On still further reflection, it becomes clear that this is in itself an example of clear and unambiguous formulation, since one of the themes of the novel in question is the many ways in which seemingly opposed and irreconcilable groups of people are actually very similar.) Does s/he display an ear for the "music" of prose? A word, as Rand herself noted in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology "is . . . a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept." Even as we read silently we are at least subliminally aware of the sound of the words we are reading. (Some of us are more than just subliminally aware of this issue - on the one hand, there are those advanced readers who understand the crucial role the sound of language can play in advancing meaning; on the other hand, there are those who are relatively inexperienced readers, whose own use of language is much more tied up with speech than with writing, and who are ignorantly mocked by "educators" bent on getting them to stop "subvocalizing" when they read.) Does the writer accused of being a "good writer" give evidence of understanding this issue? Does s/he employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal? Does s/he control rhythm in such a way as to give his or her writing a fluid quality, so that it seems to flow smoothly, carrying the reader with it, from topic to topic and from chapter to chapter? Does s/he control rhythm in such a way that when his or her subject matter reaches a full stop, so does the cumulative rhythm of the prose? Does s/he vary the length and type (simple, compound, complex, compound complex) of his or her sentences? Does s/he make intelligent and suitably infrequent use of the passive voice? Is s/he precise and exact, rather than abstract, vaporous, and vague? It is astonishing how many writers (especially of fiction), some of whom are touted as "good writers" by their confused readers, give no evidence whatever of ever having read Strunk and White, much less having internalized their more useful rules of thumb. Does s/he make skillful use of patterned imagery in extended passages, such as chapters? Are metaphors employed and dropped, or are the images of which they are constituted re-used systematically so as to stress the ongoing relevance of the comparison that underlay the metaphors? This is the form analysis of prowess at writing needs to take. Talk of "stories" being "complex" and "operat[ing] on different levels" is irrelevant to whether the author of those stories is a "good writer." Her stories were her subject matter. The arrangement of their elements into a plot or various levels is not writing. It is storytelling. Talk of "characters" resembling "people or types who one sees throughout one's life" is equally irrelevant to the issue of "good writing." Characterization is not writing. It is storytelling. The characters being delineated are the subject matter not the writing. Saying that Rand's "descriptions are evocative and effective" is relevant - but what makes them evocative and effective? Blank out. (Hint: it has to do with Rand's ear for the music of prose.) I must abandon this for now. Beginning tomorrow AM, I'll be on the road for a couple of weeks. I will have some free time in hotel rooms with a laptop, so if anyone is interested in talking about this further, I'll have more to say. JR

"Xray" wrote (why she's afraid to sign her posts with her actual name is beyond me): "Since this is an open discussion forum, I'm afraid you will have to put up with me directly addressing your posts, whether you approve of what I'm saying or not." I won't however, have to pay any attention to your replies; nor will I be under any obligation to reply to them myself. "Xray" wrote: "So we can talk about both here - her subject matter and her style of writing." I replied: "Sure, as long as we keep them separate and talk about them one at a time. If you want to ball them up together in a conceptual mishmash, talk to someone else. I'm not interested." "Xray" replied: "I too think it is useful, for clarity's sake, to make sure what one is talking about - the technique and style of writing or the subject matter. But since language is the medium used to convey the subject matter, examining in what way the style of writing is employed by the author to transport his/her message does not mean that the examiner lumps things together in a conceptual mishmash. Thk key is always clarity and being specific, therefore I would appreciate you quoting directly from the book as much as possible. "For up to now, nothing specific has come from you here yet in regard to the writing in AS, that is, no quotes from the book to demonstrate your evaluation of the writing, etc., but then we have just got started, so I hope there is more to come than just the personal opinion you gave that 'AR was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.'" That's not a personal opinion; it's a statement of fact. I've said nothing more than that, because no one else has said anything about her writing in reply. Instead they post irrelevancies about whether they find her characters convincing. "Xray" wrote: "I asked you about Cyrus in # 214. Would you agree that this fictional character of a story Rand read as a child influenced her immensely, becoming something like the epitome of the 'male hero' she longed to worship all her life?" I replied: "So some people say. I have no opinion on this subject." "Xray" replied: "No opinion? This surprises me. Just curious: have you read B. Branden's biography 'The Passion of Ayn Rand'"? Yes, of course. JR

Yes we are also talking about writing - we are on the same page here. 'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly. It is perfectly obvious that there is a difference between what is written and how it is written - between the subject matter of a piece of writing, and the writing itself. If you are too obtuse to grasp this, we have nothing to talk about. JR I don't buy it from you that Rand's mere technique of writing got you to love her fiction. I never said it did. Apparently you have issues with reading comprehension too? I'm not too obtuse to grasp the fact that this is the intellectually sloppy way in which many people speak and write. I've explained to you what I mean when I use these terms. I find it useful to distinguish what is written about from the writing itself. If you want to talk to me, use the terms as I do. If you don't want to do that, talk to someone else. It's really all the same to me. Sure, as long as we keep them separate and talk about them one at a time. If you want to ball them up together in a conceptual mishmash, talk to someone else. I'm not interested. So some people say. I have no opinion on this subject. JR

Yes we are also talking about writing - we are on the same page here. 'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly. It is perfectly obvious that there is a difference between what is written and how it is written - between the subject matter of a piece of writing, and the writing itself. If you are too obtuse to grasp this, we have nothing to talk about. JR

How would you try to convince somebody who disagrees with your view? I wouldn't bother. I thought we were talking about writing. I said that Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Characterization is not writing; it is storytelling. In any case, your objections to Rand's techniques of characterization boil down to the proposition that you don't agree with Rand about human nature, human psychology, common character types, etc. It is your sense of life that human beings are not like that. Moreover, you seem to disagree with her about certain uses of stylization in narrative - specifically the symbolic use of physical beauty in connection with characterization. Bottom line: you don't like her fiction. The problem is that we weren't talking about anyone's personal likes and dislikes. We were talking about whether Rand was a great writer of English. Like what and whomever you like; I couldn't care less. Nor do I attempt to talk anyone into liking someone or something that person doesn't like. I'm indifferent to people's likes and dislikes. I'm interested in whether Rand was a good writer. JR

Just for the record, Nick Gillespie is no longer editor of Reason. JR