Michelle

I am resolutely old-fashioned when it comes to books. I can't do digital books. Just can't. It just isn't the same as reading a paper book, and reading from a digital display gives me a headache after a while. This might sound odd, but I love my books. I love the feeling of flipping through pages and the texture of the paper on my hands. I love the smell - especially old and new books. Old books have this great must to them when you turn the pages. New books are even better. They smell great. Some people like the smell of freshly cut grass. I love the smell of fresh books. They smell like I imagine spring should smell. Flowers don't do it for me. They're just plants. The smell of a book, though, that is the symbol of ideas. Ink and wood and you have a medium which revolutionized the flow of information the world over. Granted, so has the internet -- it might be termed the new printing press -- but that is just information. One click of a button and you can delete it. The battery runs out - the device dies. A book though, you can take anywhere, and read anytime. Keep a lighter with you, and you can even read in the dark. You can hold the shivering wisp of flame near the book in the dark, which gives the page a luminous quality, as if the page is writhing with the same tension and anticipation as the steady flame of ideas, reason, and imagination in your mind. This is why I've never been able to work directly on the computer with my writing. I need to work it out first on paper, and then it can be transferred over to the PC for transcription and editing. Forum posts and school projects are my limits with direct computer work. I love books. Not apart from the stories printed on them, but as a synthetic whole, paper and story both.

Michelle, This is a premise you need to check for consistency. Rand mostly used ethics and morality as synonyms. She defined ethics as "a code of values." If, as you claim, values are subjective, then how can can there be an objective code of values (objective morality)? As the saying goes, it is good to define your terms. Michael Rand's terminology was muddled. I would say that the only way of making sense of her view is that morality is a code of subjective values which refer directly to the nature of reality. Self-esteem is both a subjective value and an aspect of an objective morality because the value relates to a condition necessary for dealing adequately with nature. I, myself, have no definite view on morality as of yet.

Rand clearly places the male above the female. For example, she calls Dominique "the perfect priestess" for Howard Roark, thereby giving Roark a status above her. Are such gender role models not outdated today? My question was whether you believe Ayn Rand was of the opinion that values are subjective. Imo the subjective/objective discussion is absolutely essential in regard to or a philosophy which is explicitly named "objectivsm". You're reading sexism into the books. She gives Roark a status above every other character in that book. Not just Dominique. What about Dagny Taggart? Fiercely independent woman who practically runs an entire railroad on her own, having to keep it from being destroyed by her idiotic brother. Sleeps with many men. Clearly not a woman tied down by sexism. I'm not saying I agree with all of her views about men and women. I think she was bound by many aspects of the mentality of her time which she failed to question (such as her distaste for homosexuality and evolutionary theory). But Dagny Taggart is a strong role model for young women (notice I said the characters of ATLAS SHRUGGED, not THE FOUNTAINHEAD, were good role models). You asked what my interpretation of Ayn Rand's opinion was. I gave it. It is not my own.

What is your opinion of the FairTax proposal?

Current tax laws are overtly complicated and ridiculous. The IRS IS nothing but a mafia. Still, I believe it is detrimental to liberty for no government and taxation to exist. Government and taxation are fine... when they're restrained. Currently they aren't. In terms of the state, the ideal is not so much a small government as a limited one -- let it be large to the degree that it is serving its proper functions, but it should not step outside of its proper functions, which it has done for some time now. An anarchist is just as much a danger to liberty as a statist. And, for those Objectivists who wish to maintain a government without taxation, let me ask you: who's wallet will be used to fund this government? Yours? Or will you leave that to the altruism of your fellow man? And don't say lotteries.

Call taxation 'theft' if you like, but I have no desire to live in a society where the courts, roads, military, police, etc. are all funded privately. Some things should be left to the private sector, and some things should be left to the public sector. Why, then, should we not have some socially arranged method of ensuring that these things are funded, like taxation? Do you really want private citizens making power grabs for control of the courts and legislature?

Do you believe Ayn Rand was of the opinion that values are subjective? What are you driving at? Since I'm not sure of your interpretation of Rand's stance on this, I asked the question to get a clear answer. TIA for your reply. Like I said, I'm not going to get dragged into the objective/subjective debate again. But to be clear: values are subjective. The worth of these values is linked to how they relate to Rand's objective morality, however. Valuing independence, self-esteem, yadda yadda is rational, because it lines up with the objective morality which ensures man's survival and flourishing in relation to reality.

Dagny and Hank Rearden were attracted to the best within one another - the other's independence, integrity, self-esteem, ambition, etc. etc. This was the root of their sexual attraction for one another. Thus, when they consummated their feelings, the resulting sex was an expression of their highest values as embodied in another. I'm not getting into the objectivity/subjectivity thing again, though. If we didn't agree before, what makes you think we'll agree now?

Do you believe Ayn Rand was of the opinion that values are subjective? What are you driving at?

The profession of the characters is irrelevant here. Relevant is that Rand created them "as man should be". Now when an author presents her heroes as role models using the category "man" (which comprises every individual member belonging to the category) the logical inference is that everyone should aspire to be like them. You're evading the point. The only thing meant by them being ideal characters is that the reader should aspire to be like them on the level of principle. Take Jesus Christ, the ideal man for the Christians. To become like Christ does not mean to become a carpenter and to get nailed to a piece of wood. It means to live the selfless, god-oriented kind of existence Jesus lived. In the same way, if a reader is following the example of the heroes of ATLAS SHRUGGED, they're going to do it on the level of principle. So: love your work and aspire to greatness no matter what your preferred field is. In the case of sexuality, don't sleep around with random jocks, but choose a man who is a reflection of your highest values, and take no shame in lusting after him, because that lust is a reflection of the best within you. This is the level of principle. You're stuck on the concretes. Instead of seeing the underlying principles behind the sex acts, which is where the moral ideal resides, you're obsessing over the manner of sexual expression employed by Rand's characters.

If an author creates fictional heroic characters, explicitly stating that she created them "as man an should be", i. e. as the "ideal man /ideal woman", and if the sexuality of those characters is a major theme in her books (which it is), then logic dictates that the sexuality of those heroic characters is part of the package "as man should be" too. Agree? If disagree, please quote area of disagreement and say why. By that logic, since all of the ideal characters were industrialist types, everybody should seek to become an industrialist. It's a ridiculous, concrete bound manner of thinking you're displaying. She did portray her views on the morality of sexuality in ATLAS SHRUGGED, but none of it had to do with the type of sex involved. She said only that your choice of lover should be a reflection of your highest values and that you shouldn't regard such a sexual relationship as impure or vulgar. Rand portrayed the sex lives of her characters as violent and passionate because that was Ayn Rand's preferred literary treatment of sexuality. It stands to reason that the manner of sexuality - rough, passionate sex, as her heroes engaged in; or gentle, loving sex as many other people would prefer - has no relation to any moral ideal. It was simply the way her characters had sex.

The thing about Dubliners is that it is easy to misread. One doesn't approach this as one approaches other story collections. More specifically, one has to learn to read the stories as gradually manifesting epiphanies. The epiphany is the thing in Dubliners, and each story is a build-up to that sudden "spiritual manifestation," in Joyce's words. Moreover, the work itself must be seen as multiple mini-epiphanies which build up to one massive epiphany about the state of Dublin. Read it any other way, and the stories are just boring and confusing.

You have strong introspective power, Michelle. That is a skill very much desired in fiction writing. In writing stories, the writer has to hold a tremendous amount of integrations in full focus in order to invent actions and inner dialogs among his created characters. Your discerning nuances in Joyces's skills versus his tasks, and your admiration for one but not the other, presuppose your having the standing premise in your subconscious to integrate constantly what you learn to maintain unit economy. Keep it up. I look forward to your future novels. By the way, the Doug Shaw review was a surprise snigger. It started with "644" and wallowed into ! OMG! :frantics: Thanks. It's really about honesty. Not liking something or disliking what something is about should not impact one's dispassionate analysis of a writer's skills. Stream-of-Consciousness is a technique that is so hard to do well that only a few people have mastered it. Most people, Rand included, when they deal with the 'inner life' of a character, use, not Stream-of-Consciousness, but a simplified Stream-of-Thought. Joyce was dedicated to capturing the entirety of his character's mental lives, but 95% of what really goes on in a person's head at any given moment has no bearing upon actual stories. Still, though, regardless of what you think about the nature of his work (like I said, I think it's a tremendous squandering of one's cognitive capacities), the man mastered the world's hardest literary technique. And the people who put this difficult, disciplined work on the same level as something like Andy Warhol's Empire (a 24 hour "film" of the Empire State Building from one stationary perspective. Literally all he had to do was put the camera somewhere and make sure nobody kicked it.), as many Objectivists are prone to do, really need to learn to distinguish between personal taste and disinterested analysis. And if anyone doubts what I wrote about true Stream-of-Consciousness (as opposed to Stream-of-Thought), try writing some. You'll undoubtedly fail miserably.

The scenes of sexual violence are numerous in AS. Just some examples - Excerpts from Rearden's sexual encounters with Dagny Taggert. 1st sexual encounter: (p. 251 hb) "It was like an act of hatred, like a cutting blow of a lash encircling her body." (p. 252) "He took her wrist and threw her inside the room, making the gesture tell that he needed no sign of consent or resistance." Afterward: "She saw a bruise above her elbow, with dark beads which had been blood." The bruises stem from "hours of a violence which they could not name now" From a following encounter: (p. 268) He seized her arm, threw her down on her knees, twisting her body against his legs, and bent down to kiss her mouth she laughed soundlessly, her laughter mocking, but her eyes halfs closed, veiled with pleasure. p 269: "he twisted her arm, holding her helples, her breasts pressed against him; she felt the pain ripping through her shoulders" Where is the "strong role model" aspect here? Why so much violence? Why does Rearden feel the sexual act with the woman he loves resembles "an act of hatred"? I said 'role models,' not 'people you ought to emulate in every exact way.' It means people who's general principles you find admirable and worthy. That doesn't mean because a role model of yours like Vanilla ice cream you should too. Of course, I've never needed a role model, but some people do. With that said, all of the sexual activity in ATLAS SHRUGGED is consensual and enjoyable to both sex partners. Is there some moral argument against rough sex that I'm not aware of? The 'hours of violence' and 'acts of hatred' are meant to convey the intense, brutal passion of the acts on display. The book, and not just in the sex scenes, is filled with images of bondage and domination, which is likely due to Rand's sexual preferences. Rand's 'ideal man' stuff is mixed in with what appear to be fantasies about being dominated by powerful, almost bestial men.

Hi there!

I used to read seven books at a time, until I kept getting halfway through a book only to forget about it for months because of something else I was reading. Oh, and Night of January 16th by Ayn Rand

I'm no fan of Steinbeck. Never read that book, though. Thanks.

Your father is more correct than he likely realizes he is. On one level, yes, all ideologies will present the case in a skewed manner. Any person who is devoted to honestly assessing the objective nature of reality (rather than licking the boots of the higher-ups at the ARI, say) will attempt to collect ALL of the pertinent facts involved, which can only be done by studying the views of both sides of an issue. Which is why totalitarian regimes will ban works criticizing them. It might get people to think about reality in a different way. Hell, let's be frank, it might get people thinking at any rate, which is always bad for the peddlers of pull who depend upon compulsion and irrationality (note the ways in which authoritarians attack academia and, on occasion, the very concept of higher learning in general) On another level, though, you can never fully understand what you believe until you can understand what other people believe-- and why they don't believe what you do. This is crucial. This dialectical manner of thinking destroys lazy thinking patterns and internalized bromides. It forces you to begin to reason. Instead of merely accepting arguments, you begin to ask: by what standard is this true? It unearths the foundations of a line of thought. It is these foundations that are crucial. It plucks the roots of thought from the soil of mind and allows you to observe, analyze, and dissect. With that said: http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html And although it isn't a criticism of Objectivism per se, you might want to check out "The Passion of Ayn Rand" by Barbara Branden, a book critical of Rand in many ways written by a longtime associate of Rand. See if these help. There isn't a whole lot of extended academic criticism of Rand because academia has generally brushed her off as an unimportant figure in twentieth-century literature. Read the forums. Many people (including me), though generally in agreement in Rand, find her thought lacking in many ways. Overt Rand-bashing isn't welcomed (this is, after all, an Objectivist forum), but respectful, rational criticism of Objectivism is not only tolerated, but encouraged.

Amusingly enough, a humongous amount of selectivity was involved in him famously 'putting the microphone' in his character's minds. One misconception about Joyce is that he was a obscurantist who was deliberately incoherent in order to cash in on social irrationality. This was not a man, however, who automatically wrote his novels. He labored over his novels - Ulysses and Finnegans Wake in particular - to a degree few other writers ever have. To call them works of love would be to degrade the phrase. His novels are examples of 'controlled chaos.' As has been noted before, it takes an incredibly deliberate effort (and more than a little skill) to believably recreate the spontaneity of consciousness. He was as exacting in his work as Rand was in hers. If I admire his skill and dedication, however, I immensely dislike the task which he puts his skills to. Here you have a great writer who devotes his mind entirely to complete and total naturalism. His novels are entirely about the non-purposeful, the accidental, and the journalistic in life. He devoted himself to uncovering how the consciousness of various people operates. I feel a great sadness when I read his work and realize how he devoted his life to an awful subject. The lesson to be learned here, children, is that subject and execution are equally important spheres of literature. If what you're writing about is unimportant, it doesn't really matter how skillfully you recreate it. And if your writing is abominable, it doesn't really matter how exalted your subject is -- you'll only end up insulting it by recreating it so poorly.

But those "rational" people are mere fictional characters, creations of an author's imagination, the unrealism in them so evident that it borders on the absurd. Thus why I used the word "idealistic." Ayn Rand's characters, with a few exceptions (Eddie Willers, that girl Jim Taggart marries, etc.), reflect the opposed moral poles of complete depravity and heroic individualism in order to bring Rand's ideas to the forefront. Although, admittedly, AS borders on being propaganda at times, the essence of this approach is still rational and legitimate. Do the majority of modern socialists and capitalists act like the socialists and capitalists in Rand's novel? Probably not. But, as Rand was fond of saying, she is a romantic writer, not a naturalistic one, which means that she portrays things to the degree that they are metaphysically significant, rather than because they accidentally happen to exist in our world. Do I think she goes overboard on this approach? Yes. The 60 page radio broadcast, the denizens of Galt's Gulch acting like a bunch of cloned mini-Galts, the fact that characters can't have sex without prefacing it with page long speeches-- all these elements hurt the novel. But to criticize it for its 'unrealism' is to misunderstand the manner in which Ayn Rand wrote. The novel is deliberately timeless to reflect the fact that it is not a naturalistic description of what a capitalist strike would have done to America in the 1950s, but an idealized socio-political fable about what happens when rationality and independence are punished in a society. Rand was a poor science-fiction writer and didn't even seem to understand the problem of a significant lack of brevity in her writing, but she was also a brilliant dramatist and satirist (this is more evident in THE FOUNTAINHEAD, but you still see it in ATLAS SHRUGGED) who had a flair for taking abstract philosophical issues and making them palatable for intelligent laymen. If her characters are overly idealized, they help provide strong role models for young men and women who love their lives and want to live a rational and purposeful existence. If she does not communicate her ideas as succinctly and effectively as she possibly could, she still has helped millions of readers understand and define to themselves the precise nature of the world around them to an unprecedented degree. ATLAS SHRUGGED, in particular, has proven to be one of the most valuable contributions to literature in the twentieth-century, and the ripples generated by its publication are still being felt today. Perhaps we have not felt the strongest ripples yet. If I don't consider ATLAS SHRUGGED to be the end-all, be-all of literature, I still feel awe at Rand's achievement, and reading it still gives me goosebumps when I think about how right she was in so many ways.

I never noticed it. When you google 'Jew,' though, Jew Watch is still third from the top. And googling the full name of MLK Jr. results in that big white supremacist site about him appearing fifth from the top on the first page. Those pesky racists! Still, I enjoy Google.

Thanks!

Just because an author has a certain worldview and portrays it in his writings does not make him a propagandist. Would you call The Fountainhead propaganda? Would you call Dostoyevsky's novels propaganda? Would you call Les Miz propaganda? Would you call the writings of Heinlein propaganda (Puppet Master aside...)? These are all works who's settings, characters, and themes reflect the author's worldview. Anyhow, if you include absurdism, many of Samuel Beckett's plays are still popular. As is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead by Tom Stoppard. The novels of Walker Percy. Dostoyevsky's work. Milan Kundera's novels. Sartre's Nausea. Camus' The Plague. Hell, you could probably even include Franz Kafka's stuff under this general heading.

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.

My, my, you guys really seem to dislike this Victor Pross fellow.