Objectivism and Mariage

[caroljane]

The pure and beautiful idea that human beings are minds, capable of perceiving, understanding and mastering the physical world, productive of joy and the orderly creation and celebration of values, hits a snag when presented with the detail that the minds are encased in bodies which though genetically identical, have superficial differences.

Millions of words have been written on the ways in which Rand dealt fictionally and philosophically with with these differences. I will not add to them. I have been observing and thinking about how heterosexual objectivist men deal with gender questions in their own lives. For a young Objectivist, my impression is that he seeks an equal, a soulmate to love and worship. For the mature Objectivist,looking for a wife, that he may seek a superior woman, who embodies many of his highest values, to be smarter than.

I think everyone agrees that there are more male than female Objectivists, and that most "mixed marriages" work beautifully. Frankly(this is a tribute), I don't think Frank O'Connor was much of an Objectivist, but he was a wonderful husband, who exactly suited Ayn Rand, and without whom she was desolate.

Rand wisely portrayed no happy marriages in her fiction, though she had one herself. They make for boring reading, anyway, although Tolstoy for his milieu may have been right, but is wrong for now: it's the happy marriages that are all happy in their own ways. The unhappy ones are pretty dismally similar.

Although apparently she was something of a matchmaker among her circle of rational young people in her real life, she wisely left the great question of love and marriage to her followers and readers, to think out for themselves.

So what do you think?

[BaalChatzaf]

So what do you think?

The idea of one human being worshiping another is blasphemous.

Admire yes, worship no.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand wisely portrayed no happy marriages in her fiction...

Come one Daunce.

Have you even read Rand?

I stand in awe at how people just lay out BS as if it were fact.

Read Rand's books and you'll see plenty of happy marriages portrayed.

I'm not even going to debate this. But I will offer a suggestion.

A little familiarity with Rand's works would be useful before telling folks what she did and didn't do.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

The pure and beautiful idea that human beings are minds, capable of perceiving, understanding and mastering the physical world, productive of joy and the orderly creation and celebration of values, hits a snag when presented with the detail that the minds are encased in bodies which though genetically identical, have superficial differences.

Millions of words have been written on the ways in which Rand dealt fictionally and philosophically with with these differences. I will not add to them. I have been observing and thinking about how heterosexual objectivist men deal with gender questions in their own lives. For a young Objectivist, my impression is that he seeks an equal, a soulmate to love and worship. For the mature Objectivist,looking for a wife, that he may seek a superior woman, who embodies many of his highest values, to be smarter than.

I think everyone agrees that there are more male than female Objectivists, and that most "mixed marriages" work beautifully. Frankly(this is a tribute), I don't think Frank O'Connor was much of an Objectivist, but he was a wonderful husband, who exactly suited Ayn Rand, and without whom she was desolate.

Rand wisely portrayed no happy marriages in her fiction, though she had one herself. They make for boring reading, anyway, although Tolstoy for his milieu may have been right, but is wrong for now: it's the happy marriages that are all happy in their own ways. The unhappy ones are pretty dismally similar.

Although apparently she was something of a matchmaker among her circle of rational young people in her real life, she wisely left the great question of love and marriage to her followers and readers, to think out for themselves.

So what do you think?

I like to read people who know what they are talking about.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Guilty as charged. I was reporting the impression that remained from her novels, many years after reading them, and I do not recall the happy marriages at all. I should have done the homework before addressing this topic, even superficially.(I did read all four novels, and should have said "novels" instead of "fiction".)

I'll take your word that I am mistaken. As to her nonfiction, I remember that better and will double-check if I ever dare to comment again.

Edited January 29, 2011 by daunce lynam

[Xray]

Rand wisely portrayed no happy marriages in her fiction...

Read Rand's books and you'll see plenty of happy marriages portrayed.

Are there really plenty? But whatever, isn't it the unhappy marriages in her novels which remain in memory more?

In Atlas Shrugged for example, imo what goes on between Hank Rearden and Lilian makes a deeper impression on the reader than e. g. the happy union between Kay Ludlow and Danneskjöld in the 'Eu'topian Galt's Gulch. Especially since the latter are presented in a very unrealistic way, with their outward beauty matching their inner nobleness having an almost "kitschy" touch to it.

Or take the horror marriage between Cheryl and Jim Taggart.

It looks Rand devoted more time in her novels to describing the unhappy marriages than the happy ones.

I was reporting the impression that remained from her novels, many years after reading them, and I do not recall the happy marriages at all.

With the exception of the Danneskjöld/Ludlow marriage, I don't recall the happy marriages either (I have only read AS and TF of Rand's fiction though).

So anyone would list here the happy marriages in her fiction, TIA.

For a young Objectivist, my impression is that he seeks an equal, a soulmate to love and worship.

The idea of one human being worshiping another is blasphemous.

Admire yes, worship no.

People can worship whomever they want, and the term "blasphemy" only makes sense in a religious context.

One can of course personally reject the idea of worshiping a person (or of being worshiped).

I have never worshiped anyone I knew personally, and would also have felt extremely odd if anyone had ever shown a worshiping attitude toward me.

Of course we humans have the inclination to idealize the one we love, especially at the beginning of a romance. Nothing wrong with that. It is probably an evolutional trick of nature to ensure successful reproduction.

But this is not what Ayn Rand meant by "worship". She really meant "hero" worship. One cannot worship an equal. She was also clear as a bell regarding the male/female hierarchy; for example, she verbatim called Dominique Francon "the perfect priestess" for Roark.

One can't hold it against Rand; after all, she had been socialized in a patriarchal age.

Imo Objectivism as a movement is already history.

Since there exists no such thing as a standstill in life, many of Objectivism's premises can't survive scrutiny anymore today.

Vita in motu.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daunce,

For the record, I happen to agree with several of your observations.

But see what careless statements about someone like Rand does? Instead of us discussing relationships with some kind of seriousness and what to do to improve the human lot, we now have "AYN RAND IS DEAD AND USELESS" people like Xray crawling out of the wood-works.

It's one of the banes of public forums.

(I will grant you that Rand's heroes and heroines do not normally fit into happy family environments as adults. She liked the racy stuff better for dramatic purposes.)

Michael

[caroljane]

Daunce,

For the record, I happen to agree with several of your observations.

But see what careless statements about someone like Rand does? Instead of us discussing relationships with some kind of seriousness and what to do to improve the human lot, we now have "AYN RAND IS DEAD AND USELESS" people like Xray crawling out of the wood-works.

It's one of the banes of public forums.

(I will grant you that Rand's heroes and heroines do not normally fit into happy family environments as adults. She liked the racy stuff better for dramatic purposes.)

Michael

I must protest against your characterization of my fellow woman.

I don't know what your history is with her here, but I thought her comment on my post was sensible and on-topic.

You have my mea culpa already, you want blood now?

[kiaer.ts]

Rand wisely portrayed no happy marriages in her fiction...

Come one Daunce.

Have you even read Rand?

I stand in awe at how people just lay out BS as if it were fact.

Read Rand's books and you'll see plenty of happy marriages portrayed.

I'm not even going to debate this. But I will offer a suggestion.

A little familiarity with Rand's works would be useful before telling folks what she did and didn't do.

Michael

The comment is correct, Rand did not portray any happy marriages. She mentioned, for example, that Ragnar was happily married to the actress, but she did not portray it.

Heinlein portrays happy marriages/relationships well. See Time Enough for Love.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Hostility and Oneupsmanship vs. Respect and Benevolence

> I'm not even going to debate this...A little familiarity with Rand's works would be useful before telling folks what she did and didn't do [MSK]

> I like to read people who know what they are talking about. {Brant]

.

.

> As to her nonfiction, I remember that better and will double-check if I ever dare to comment again. [Daunce]

One of the signs of a decline of conversation (or of the sense of community in a forum) is the tendency to jump down someone's throat rather than politely correct him (in this case her). I'm not the only one who has encountered this kind of hostility on "Objectivist Loathing". It has been pointed out **many, many, many** times by lots of people including those who have become less active or vanished.

My own reaction is usually to simply to return contempt with contempt, putdowns with putdowns. And/or to post less frequently because I simply don't want to interact with those who are mean-spirited or small of soul.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Philip Coates

[kiaer.ts]

Subject: Hostility and Oneupsmanship vs. Respect and Benevolence

> I'm not even going to debate this...A little familiarity with Rand's works would be useful before telling folks what she did and didn't do [MSK]

> I like to read people who know what they are talking about. {Brant]

.

.

> As to her nonfiction, I remember that better and will double-check if I ever dare to comment again. [Daunce]

One of the signs of a decline of conversation (or of the sense of community in a forum) is the tendency to jump down someone's throat rather than politely correct him (in this case her). I'm not the only one who has encountered this kind of hostility on "Objectivist Loathing". It has been pointed out **many, many, many** times by lots of people including those who have become less active or vanished.

My own reaction is usually to simply to return contempt with contempt, putdowns with putdowns. And/or to post less frequently because I simply don't want to interact with those who are mean-spirited or small of soul.

I wish you would post more often, Phil. I value your topic based threads.

[Philip Coates]

Thanks, Ted.

I expect to be starting my own blog in the first half of this year. That way I can control who says what on it.

I don't know if I'll allow comments, but if I do it will be heavily moderated -- meaning I'll filter out the trash beforehand and only post a few gems or really good questions:

One thing I've learned from this list and from Atlantis and SoloP and so on is that if you let people post for free and on impulse, you tend to draw - like maggots to rotting meat - those who post every hour or two or when they are drunk or during the commercials of a football game or when they are feeling mean and bilious and spiteful.

And, like abrasive, drunken louts unsure of their footing, spilling beer all over the rest of the people in a bar, they tend to discourage most of the civilized or more thoughtful people who just get sick of the atmosphere.

The blog will not be on Objectivism. I'll probably let you and a few others know of its existence when I get around to doing it.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Hostility and Oneupsmanship vs. Respect and Benevolence

My own reaction is usually to simply to return contempt with contempt, putdowns with putdowns. And/or to post less frequently because I simply don't want to interact with those who are mean-spirited or small of soul.

I hope that's comforting. I'm these things because I cannot stand someone running their fingernails innocently over the blackboard?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

What I like about Phil is that he's a master of context. He will butt into any conversation on any subject, not know anything that has gone on, and lay a Phil egg.

He only groks one context, so I guess he has to master it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks, Ted.

I expect to be starting my own blog in the first half of this year. That way I can control who says what on it.

I don't know if I'll allow comments, but if I do it will be heavily moderated -- meaning I'll filter out the trash beforehand and only post a few gems or really good questions:

One thing I've learned from this list and from Atlantis and SoloP and so on is that if you let people post for free and on impulse, you tend to draw - like maggots to rotting meat - those who post every hour or two or when they are drunk or during the commercials of a football game or when they are feeling mean and bilious and spiteful.

And, like abrasive, drunken louts unsure of their footing, spilling beer all over the rest of the people in a bar, they tend to discourage most of the civilized or more thoughtful people who just get sick of the atmosphere.

The blog will not be on Objectivism. I'll probably let you and a few others know of its existence when I get around to doing it.

IF you get around to doing it. Phil, it's all about control with you. I'd never have guessed. Do you even know the difference between a thought and a ton of lead?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The comment is correct, Rand did not portray any happy marriages. She mentioned, for example, that Ragnar was happily married to the actress, but she did not portray it.

Ted,

Does this mean anything?

And are you sure it's 100% correct?

Think about it.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Rand did not portray any happy marriages.

Happy marriages aren’t dramatic. Nor is happy anything. And they lived happily ever after is where a story ends.

He will butt into any conversation on any subject, not know anything that has gone on, and lay a Phil egg.

He only groks one context

Phil is but an egg? Lots of Stranger in a Strange Land from you lately, been rereading it?

[PDS]

Thanks, Ted.

I expect to be starting my own blog in the first half of this year. That way I can control who says what on it.

I don't know if I'll allow comments, but if I do it will be heavily moderated -- meaning I'll filter out the trash beforehand and only post a few gems or really good questions:

One thing I've learned from this list and from Atlantis and SoloP and so on is that if you let people post for free and on impulse, you tend to draw - like maggots to rotting meat - those who post every hour or two or when they are drunk or during the commercials of a football game or when they are feeling mean and bilious and spiteful.

And, like abrasive, drunken louts unsure of their footing, spilling beer all over the rest of the people in a bar, they tend to discourage most of the civilized or more thoughtful people who just get sick of the atmosphere.

The blog will not be on Objectivism. I'll probably let you and a few others know of its existence when I get around to doing it.

I would like to be made aware of this as well, if you deem it appropriate.

[Philip Coates]

> I would like to be made aware of this as well, if you deem it appropriate.

Thanks PDS. If you send me your email I'll start a list of people who specifically want to know.

[caroljane]

The comment is correct, Rand did not portray any happy marriages. She mentioned, for example, that Ragnar was happily married to the actress, but she did not portray it.

Ted,

Does this mean anything?

And are you sure it's 100% correct?

Think about it.

Michael

I don't know about the 100%, but this means something about the topic and is on point. Literary portrayal is the demonstration of a theme through the actions of the characters. The Reardens and Taggarts had unhappy marriages which were shown and I remember them vividly. Ragnar and Kay were happy and the reader was told about it, which I had totally forgotten. It's fictional hearsay.

[9thdoctor]

Ragnar and Kay were happy and the reader was told about it, which I had totally forgotten. It's fictional hearsay.

There was a tape of a lecture by Nathaniel Branden called Sex and Love in the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, or something like that, I have it somewhere. There’s a funny anecdote in there, he says that in part 3 of Atlas Shrugged she originally had Ragnar showing up and going straight to the annual meeting with Galt and Francisco. Nathaniel and/or Barbara told Rand it couldn’t be like that, that Ragnar’s been gone for a 11 months, his wife doesn’t know if he’s alive or dead, then he shows up and says “Hi honey, I’m alive, see you in a couple hours!” So Rand switched it so that he arrives the night before.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ragnar and Kay were happy and the reader was told about it, which I had totally forgotten.

There's a lot more that seems to be forgotten.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Rand addresses the difference between showing/portraying/dramatizing and telling/mentioning/exposition in The Art of Fiction.

Rand does not portray any truly happy marriages - although I am reminded in private email that there were positive aspects to Dominique and Wynand's tragic marriage.

Edited January 30, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ayn Rand filtered through Tore Boeckmann addresses writing stuff in the fiction writing book.

I find it stifling for beginning writers, too.

And the proof is in the pudding. Look at how many actual successful writers say they learned fiction writing from it. In fact, are there any at all?

I intend to do an analysis of this books later, and the other one on nonfiction writing.

To her credit, Rand at least wrote best-sellers. I am unaware of any world-class opuses from Boeckmann. (Check here if anyone is interested--it's a pdf file.)

Anyway, I seriously doubt Daunce had Ayn Rand's definitions in mind when she used the word "portray." I imagine Daunce had Daunce's meaning in mind, which I imagine to be the more mainstream one. (Maybe we should ask her...)

Michael

EDIT: Note to myself for later. If you really want to stifle the creative juices of aspiring writers in storytelling, teach the aspiring writer to remove action from a concept and call it the theme. That is exactly what Rand did. ("The men of the mind on strike" for AS, for example. And that is more of a genre idea than theme. Much more on this later.)

All storytelling is based on someone or something doing something or intending to do something. It does not describe a static state as its fundamental process. I think Rand sensed this problem and tried to fix it with a sui generis idea called a "plot theme," but that only made it worse from the aspiring writer's view.

He will try to make a "plot theme" and use action to portray a static description as his driving motor, not use descriptions to help portray action, which is universal. He's dead in the water before he gets started if he tries to do it the way.she presented. And what's worse, using description of a static state in the place of action is boring.

Rand could write like no one, but she was not a good writing teacher. On the other hand, Barbara has told me that she was really good one-on-one critiquing a specific work.of an aspiring writer. I have heard that from others, too. So my comments need that qualification.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Rand does not portray any truly happy marriages - although I am reminded in private email that there were positive aspects to Dominique and Wynand's tragic marriage.

Ted,

Keep going. You will be "reminded" of a lot more as time goes on.

Michael