Reading DeLillo's Cosmopolis Through Ayn Rand

[seymourblogger]

Someone sent me this quote, suggesting that the unnamed people at the unnamed list are we the living here.

"Right now I am getting into all this with the Randian Objectivists and they are howling mad. I have some cred there as I took Barbara Branden's lectures on Objectivism in 1960 in Philadelphia for two years before going off to grad school in psychology, and on to other things.

They are howling mad? Sounds awful.

So you go to disqus and have me on your follow list. I have to check that. I rpobably meant solo tho.

[seymourblogger]

Phil,

Stop the damn preaching and collectivism.

You aren't going to make a clique here on OL to fight your imaginary wolfpack.

Michael

EDIT: If anyone is interested in more of Phil's garbage on this topic, they can find it in the Garbage Pile: Latest Installment of Garbage from Phil.

Michael

Michael somewhere else you accused me of saying Barbara Branden was promoting Toohey.

What I said was the person who thought her bio of Rand showed deep intuition and was well written. It was then I made the Toohey quote meaning that the person who thought her biography showed deep intuition and was well written just didn't know what a well written bio was. And that led into Tooyey's speech on how you destroy discrimination in the masses instead of fostering it, enabling excellence.

And then you said I was dangerously close to crossing the borders of what was acceptable here by saying that BB was promoting Toohey. How you got that I don't understand. Please explain.

[seymourblogger]

By the way, seymourblogger, part of the "smearing" here, is that once people don't like what you said and begin to resent you for your views, they will go back and scour your record and look for anything they don't like you may have said in the past** or for any inconsistencies or if you worded something more strongly or too loosely anywhere at any time and if it's different, they won't allow that you may have changed your view or been imprecise, they will call you a hypocrite.

**Michael just did that on this thread with your posts on other sites. WSS has done that with me as I recall.

It's sleazy 'emotionalist' behavior because it is a departure from focusing on and trying to understand what someone is saying now. It's very reminiscent of the dirtiest phenomenon in public life - poliitical campaigns and "opposition research" where you look for skeletons in the closet to discredit someone or assassinate their character

That's OK someone just went on another site to see what I said about here. I probably was talking about solo but I can't remember. Just google me and you'll find out more. The worst is under abbeysbooks from the dailykos. That's where the gestapo came after me in the middle of the night.

There's a great one of mine there without purging on Robert Altemeyer and his book The Authoritarians that John Dean used in his Conservatives Without Conscience. In the hundreds of comments that went on al one sat afternoon you will find comments and answers from both Altemeyer and Dean. Altemeyer's book is on PDF for free if you want to download. Awesome.

Also on thedailykos are my embarrassing awful posts on Obama that I wish I could gt back on to erase they are so bad. All Before Foucault I am forced to add. They make me want to run and hide. And then to have McCain use my one on The One in an ad showing Moses parting the Red Sea is too much for me to even think about. But as long as past dirt is being scummed up I'll give you the worst.

And here's the most readable book on diaries and biographies by Thomas Mallon: http://www.amazon.com/Book-Ones-Own-People-Diaries/dp/1886913021/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327966557&sr=1-9

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

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

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

[seymourblogger]

I'm sorry I don't like your writing. What's wrong with that? Rothbard said that Rand was furious when Barbara Branden was criticized in her writing group. Well, maybe if she had listened her book on Rand would have been better.

What exactly do you criticize about B. Branden's book on Rand? Imo the book is full of deep insight and very well written.

I answered this somewhere else on this thread.

[seymourblogger]

Seymourblogger,

You think Barbara Branden's intention in writing Passion was Ellsworth Toohey kind of evil?

(If you bothered to read the posting guidelines, you will see that this actually does start cutting into your so-called "dominating discourse.")

I want to be sure before I say more.

Michael

No of course not. How did you read that in my words. BB had nothing to do with what I said. I was referring to x-ray saying he thought it was deeply insightful and well written. It was neither BTW, but it is one of the only 2 accounts written by the 2 people who knew her best. If there had been more who knew her and wrote about her, BB would not have been so likely to get published or would have had certain things highly edited out of it. I cannot even imagine how so much got through an editor.

My criticism was of the person who showed a lack of discrimination. IMO. Does that soften it?

[seymourblogger]

Re post #66:

Is there any indication if "Janet Abbey" is "Seymourblogger"s real name?

I'm being reminded of a person who for awhile posted extensively on ATL, and the age given matches. But there could be two such, I suppose, both of whom claim to have been students of Barbara's in 60-61.

Ellen

EDIT, 4:14 p.m.: Scratch the suspicion that "Seymourblogger" is the former ATL-poster, too different in subject matter, and in style, on closer examining.

I sure would like to know that link. I remember some people there, but not all. Her name?

[seymourblogger]

What exactly do you criticize about B. Branden's book on Rand? Imo the book is full of deep insight and very well written.

I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio.

This statement of yours voices a mere personal opinion without replying to what I had asked you: " What exaclty do you criticize about B. Branden's book on Rand?"

So if you would please be more specific.

This is exactly the message Toohey gave in Fountainhead; Ignore and render obsolete the excellent, reduce the aesthetic taste of the masses to mediocrity and you have destroyed excellence. <b>This is what evil is. This is why Rand brands Toohey as evil. Not because he is a hatchet murderer. </b>

See above. Copying 'Toohey's message' and suggesting that this constitues evidence to support your claim is a thinking error. Its fallacy lies in presenting a mere personal opinion as alleged evidence.

I'll say it again. A good bio does not go on for pages about their panic attacks (no insight at all into them BTW) and her inability to achieve orgasm with her husband, who was the "greatest psychologist in the world" meant ironically I suppose. And as Nathaniel said, she took alimony from him for years until he got relief. Gee even before I was a Randian I didn't want alimony from my ex. Please, where is that at. Unless Branden was lying, which I don't think so.

[seymourblogger]

Seymourblogger: "Somehow I don't think you wanted this."

Thanks for taking the time to answer. What I wanted is to see how you reconciled your theories with that passage, since you say Rand's fiction is Nietzschean in nature (versus her non-fiction). (As far as your claims, while I'm not versed in Foucault, Baudrillard, or DeLillo, the ideas I recognize from the crossover of quantum theory into artistic theories, as described in ART AND PHYSICS: PARALLEL VISIONS IN SPACE, TIME, AND LIGHT by Leonard Shlain.The Rand quote about circles and lines goes against the postmodern trends in art of compression and non-linearity, and the book shows how art in general progressed as scientific theories progressed, so, even if one disagrees with postmodernism, the trend itself can't be ignored.

When you say that we are "no longer in linear time," are you speaking of the effect of quantum physics on thought? Is that related to your claims about other's responses to you being of 'the dialectic?" Your writing style and train of thought seems to be similar to the "quantum" influence in art, manifested as "compression", overlaying many trains of thought on top of each other ("read through,"). (Easier to convey in visual art, but harder to translate in writing, since writing is more "linear" by nature...)

Thanks in advance.

I am not conscious of physics in this, only a few examples Baudrillard discusses as a non-expert. I am pretty bored now with linear fiction and linear movies, Altho movies can get away with it with jump cuts. But the really fine ones are not usually linear at all. To get involved with long arguments for this and that the way I am getting stuck here is my own fault. I know better and I am sinking in the glue, the quicksand. Getting accused of accusing BB promoting Toohey for crissakes. Can't people read? Sorry Michael, fawn fawn fawn lol.

[seymourblogger]

Subject: Biographical Writing

> I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. [sB]

What would be some examples you've read that you would consider better than BB's? What are the greatest ones** you've read?

I'm not asking this skeptically. I would be very interested and especially if you*** could mention what are your standards for what makes a -great- biography. (Bios are one area or genre where I haven't read as much as I should so I'm looking for information*.)

**I hope they are not all political.

***If others are big bio enough readers as well (not all political) to have some basis for comparison....

* My tentative view is that biography is one of the more difficult writing forms.

Elsewhere I said try Thomas Mallon's A Book of One's Own http://www.amazon.com/Book-Ones-Own-People-Diaries/dp/1886913021/ref=sr_1_9?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1327966557&sr=1-9 NOt exactly what you were asking for but it will do.

Do not talk about your own sex life in a bio about someone else. Save that for your own. Or call it your own not The Passion of Ayn Rand. Glug. What an unfortunate choice of a title. And she was my teacher so I feel free saying what I want about her. Has anyone else here watched her and listened to her for two years straight. Hello.......

[seymourblogger]

I'm sorry I don't like your writing. What's wrong with that? Rothbard said that Rand was furious when Barbara Branden was criticized in her writing group. Well, maybe if she had listened her book on Rand would have been better.

What exactly do you criticize about B. Branden's book on Rand? Imo the book is full of deep insight and very well written.

I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. This is exactly the message Toohey gave in Fountainhead; Ignore and render obsolete the excellent, reduce the aesthetic taste of the masses to mediocrity and you have destroyed excellence. <b>This is what evil is. This is why Rand brands Toohey as evil. Not because he is a hatchet murderer. </b>

This apparently was your answer and Michael's follows about the posting guidelines on OL.

I saw that. I can't even imagine how he misread it that badly. Did you? Don't say yes or my vote on your poll will go way down.

[seymourblogger]

What exactly do you criticize about B. Branden's book on Rand? Imo the book is full of deep insight and very well written.

I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio.

This statement of yours voices a mere personal opinion without replying to what I had asked you: " What exaclty do you criticize about B. Branden's book on Rand?"

So if you would please be more specific.

Doubt it. You're just part of the DD dialectic.

--Brant

I already said so.

[seymourblogger]

Someone sent me this quote, suggesting that the unnamed people at the unnamed list are we the living here.

"Right now I am getting into all this with the Randian Objectivists and they are howling mad. I have some cred there as I took Barbara Branden's lectures on Objectivism in 1960 in Philadelphia for two years before going off to grad school in psychology, and on to other things.

They are howling mad? Sounds awful.

So you go to disqus and have me on your follow list. I have to check that. I rpobably meant solo tho.

And someone sent me this quote. Oh just like Catie Couric does:

You know: <b>Some people say......</b> and then she throws it out. typical mass medi8a journalist trick.

And you: Some people say William......

[seymourblogger]

Seymourblogger,

You think Barbara Branden's intention in writing Passion was Ellsworth Toohey kind of evil?

(If you bothered to read the posting guidelines, you will see that this actually does start cutting into your so-called "dominating discourse.")

I want to be sure before I say more.

Michael

No of course not. How did you read that in my words. BB had nothing to do with what I said. I was referring to x-ray saying he thought it was deeply insightful and well written. It was neither BTW, but it is one of the only 2 accounts written by the 2 people who knew her best. If there had been more who knew her and wrote about her, BB would not have been so likely to get published or would have had certain things highly edited out of it. I cannot even imagine how so much got through an editor.

My criticism was of the person who showed a lack of discrimination. IMO. Does that soften it?

Edited out: The last page:

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

The Fountainhead

Remember that page.

[seymourblogger]

What does all this stupid shit have to do with Cosmopolis and Rand. It's just a smokescreen for not wanting to talk about the topic.

[9thdoctor]

I'll say it again. A good bio does not go on for pages about their panic attacks (no insight at all into them BTW) and her inability to achieve orgasm with her husband, who was the "greatest psychologist in the world" meant ironically I suppose. And as Nathaniel said, she took alimony from him for years until he got relief. Gee even before I was a Randian I didn't want alimony from my ex. Please, where is that at. Unless Branden was lying, which I don't think so.

I remember the panic attacks, particularly the one portrayed in the film, since it was important to the plot, but the rest of this? I certainly don't recall Barbara writing about her orgasms in The Passion of Ayn Rand. And if NB said something about alimony it wasn't in The Passion of Ayn Rand, and isn't that the book you're critiquing? I don't recall any of this being in Judgement Day either, but I didn't care much for that book so I may have missed some things.

[caroljane]

Subject: Biographical Writing

> I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. [sB]

What would be some examples you've read that you would consider better than BB's? What are the greatest ones** you've read?

I'm not asking this skeptically. I would be very interested and especially if you*** could mention what are your standards for what makes a -great- biography. (Bios are one area or genre where I haven't read as much as I should so I'm looking for information*.)

**I hope they are not all political.

***If others are big bio enough readers as well (not all political) to have some basis for comparison....

* My tentative view is that biography is one of the more difficult writing forms.

Elsewhere I said try Thomas Mallon's A Book of One's Own http://www.amazon.co...27966557&sr=1-9 NOt exactly what you were asking for but it will do.

Do not talk about your own sex life in a bio about someone else. Save that for your own. Or call it your own not The Passion of Ayn Rand. Glug. What an unfortunate choice of a title. And she was my teacher so I feel free saying what I want about her. Has anyone else here watched her and listened to her for two years straight. Hello.......bio

Your rules (or Mallone's, haven't read him) are interesting. In part, technically, you are right in that Barbara's bio did incorporate part memoir, and she presented this honestly.

Xray's evaluation was right, and yours was wrong. The book was insightful, it was beautifully written. Furthermore, it was as objective as she could make it, I think, and as well researched as it could have been, given the constraints the "heir to the Estate" put on materials and even people who could give information.

I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?

[9thdoctor]

What does all this stupid shit have to do with Cosmopolis and Rand. It's just a smokescreen for not wanting to talk about the topic.

No one on this forum has read Cosmopolis. Notice that not a single person chimed in to contradict me when I claimed that earlier. And I doubt anyone's going to get motivated to give it a try based on your recommendation; please try to recognize what a loon you've been coming across as.

[seymourblogger]

I'm not sure I know what you mean by Order of Production and Order of Seduction, but on the surface, it sounds like my real interest comes way before chopping my head off from my heart like that. What you saw as a ping-pong feels more like 3D pool in a space as large as the Milky Way to me. I was just thinking out loud and my fingers can't keep up with the speed of my thoughts. Good thing, too. Most of that stuff is not for public viewing. Imagine if it happened. What a way to lose all your credibility and reputation in one whack!

The most beautiful example of the Order of Production came from selene in his comparison table of Rand and Nietzsche so it must be towards the end of that post on Rand and Nietzsche.. It's a very very long comment. I would link it but I can't gt easily from one page to another yet. I said easily. A TOSHIBA IS NOT AN APPLE!

The example of the Order of Seduction would be Rand's fiction, especially in Fountainhead.

Are you clear on what Baudrillard means by this now?

[seymourblogger]

I'll say it again. A good bio does not go on for pages about their panic attacks (no insight at all into them BTW) and her inability to achieve orgasm with her husband, who was the "greatest psychologist in the world" meant ironically I suppose. And as Nathaniel said, she took alimony from him for years until he got relief. Gee even before I was a Randian I didn't want alimony from my ex. Please, where is that at. Unless Branden was lying, which I don't think so.

I remember the panic attacks, particularly the one portrayed in the film, since it was important to the plot, but the rest of this? I certainly don't recall Barbara writing about her orgasms in The Passion of Ayn Rand. And if NB said something about alimony it wasn't in The Passion of Ayn Rand, and isn't that the book you're critiquing? I don't recall any of this being in Judgement Day either, but I didn't care much for that book so I may have missed some things.

If she didn't say she wasn't having orgasms then how would I know? Branden certainly didn't say that about her. I'm not critiquing Passion I have gotten myself sucked into this mess about BB. Evidently no one is supposed to say anything negative about her. I am only saying what she has already said about herself. Go look. She said it.

Having worked with a number of women with panic attacks under Joseph Wolpe who developed the therapy for working with them, what BB said about herself is accurate. the two things go together. Me I'll take psychoanalysis any day.

Jeez I didn't break a few windows. It looks like I blew up the whole goddamn building!

[seymourblogger]

Subject: Biographical Writing

> I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. [sB]

What would be some examples you've read that you would consider better than BB's? What are the greatest ones** you've read?

I'm not asking this skeptically. I would be very interested and especially if you*** could mention what are your standards for what makes a -great- biography. (Bios are one area or genre where I haven't read as much as I should so I'm looking for information*.)

**I hope they are not all political.

***If others are big bio enough readers as well (not all political) to have some basis for comparison....

* My tentative view is that biography is one of the more difficult writing forms.

Elsewhere I said try Thomas Mallon's A Book of One's Own http://www.amazon.co...27966557&sr=1-9 NOt exactly what you were asking for but it will do.

Do not talk about your own sex life in a bio about someone else. Save that for your own. Or call it your own not The Passion of Ayn Rand. Glug. What an unfortunate choice of a title. And she was my teacher so I feel free saying what I want about her. Has anyone else here watched her and listened to her for two years straight. Hello.......bio

Your rules (or Mallone's, haven't read him) are interesting. In part, technically, you are right in that Barbara's bio did incorporate part memoir, and she presented this honestly.

Xray's evaluation was right, and yours was wrong. The book was insightful, it was beautifully written. Furthermore, it was as objective as she could make it, I think, and as well researched as it could have been, given the constraints the "heir to the Estate" put on materials and even people who could give information.

I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?

Right and wrong, here we go, back into the dialectic.

Here's my answer.

Recently I ate at a restaurant and at the check out she pasted on a smile and said, "How was your mean today?"

I said, "It was awful. Thank you for asking." (She was a woman of color.)

A guy behind me said, "I thought it was really good. I'll come back again."

I said, "Well I guess it was really good if you are used to eating at McDonald's."

It's all relative said Einstein.

Don't feel bad about not teaching at the Sorbonne. Foucault couldn't even come close to getting an appointment there. Neither could Baudrillard, so you are in excellent company. And they kicked out Lacan.

[Philip Coates]

> please try to recognize what a loon you've been coming across as. [ND]

Insult boy. Once again.

> I'm not critiquing Passion I have gotten myself sucked into this mess about BB. Evidently no one is supposed to say anything negative about her. [sB]

You're likely to encounter a great deal of hostility [ND is one of the worst offenders but there are five or six of them, a minuscule fraction of the Objectivists movement]. Remember this is the "open" wing of Objectivism. The one thing this small subgroup of a half dozen regulars is not "open" to is criticism of them or their heroes. Just like the "closed" wing.

I haven't read Passion. I'm likely to because in other things she has written, I have develope great respect for Barbara Brandden. I have found her to be a very good writer and one of the more insightful people in Oism. (It's unfortunate that she, like so many others, has bailed in the sense of being absent from this site now.)

But would you like to place any bets on whether I will hold back from posting my views if I -were- to find Passion to be badly written or not insightful? (Aside: I don't mind the hostility and silly psychologiziing about my deepest psychology, personally. This minuscule group of a half dozen or so regular posters are not my friends and I don't expect to encounter most of them in the real world.)

Seymour, you say many things I disagree with or often find turgid, post-modern*, or hard to follow.

But I find your deviatiion from the collective wisdom here to be refreshing. You just have to be thick skinned. And occasionally the criticism you encounter on your writing, or on being more clear (or on deleting that long 'sig file' after every post) will be good. So don't swing to the opposite extreme and "dis" any and all comments from adversaries.

*for me, that is not a positive, I'm sorry to say

[seymourblogger]

Subject: Biographical Writing

> I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. [sB]

What would be some examples you've read that you would consider better than BB's? What are the greatest ones** you've read?

I'm not asking this skeptically. I would be very interested and especially if you*** could mention what are your standards for what makes a -great- biography. (Bios are one area or genre where I haven't read as much as I should so I'm looking for information*.)

**I hope they are not all political.

***If others are big bio enough readers as well (not all political) to have some basis for comparison....

* My tentative view is that biography is one of the more difficult writing forms.

Elsewhere I said try Thomas Mallon's A Book of One's Own http://www.amazon.co...27966557&sr=1-9 NOt exactly what you were asking for but it will do.

Do not talk about your own sex life in a bio about someone else. Save that for your own. Or call it your own not The Passion of Ayn Rand. Glug. What an unfortunate choice of a title. And she was my teacher so I feel free saying what I want about her. Has anyone else here watched her and listened to her for two years straight. Hello.......bio

Your rules (or Mallone's, haven't read him) are interesting. In part, technically, you are right in that Barbara's bio did incorporate part memoir, and she presented this honestly.

Xray's evaluation was right, and yours was wrong. The book was insightful, it was beautifully written. Furthermore, it was as objective as she could make it, I think, and as well researched as it could have been, given the constraints the "heir to the Estate" put on materials and even people who could give information.

I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?

Oh and Mallon doesn't give you rules. He just excerpts form excellent examples and says why he chose them. His book is easier to recommend than a reading list that would take you a few years to go through. If you think POAR is excellent, all that does is say something about you. Just as what I said says something about me. Where does right and wrong come in pray tell?

OH excuse me, how stupid of me, we are in the dialectic, aren't we?

[caroljane]

Subject: Biographical Writing

> I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. [sB]

What would be some examples you've read that you would consider better than BB's? What are the greatest ones** you've read?

I'm not asking this skeptically. I would be very interested and especially if you*** could mention what are your standards for what makes a -great- biography. (Bios are one area or genre where I haven't read as much as I should so I'm looking for information*.)

**I hope they are not all political.

***If others are big bio enough readers as well (not all political) to have some basis for comparison....

* My tentative view is that biography is one of the more difficult writing forms.

Elsewhere I said try Thomas Mallon's A Book of One's Own http://www.amazon.co...27966557&sr=1-9 NOt exactly what you were asking for but it will do.

Do not talk about your own sex life in a bio about someone else. Save that for your own. Or call it your own not The Passion of Ayn Rand. Glug. What an unfortunate choice of a title. And she was my teacher so I feel free saying what I want about her. Has anyone else here watched her and listened to her for two years straight. Hello.......bio

Your rules (or Mallone's, haven't read him) are interesting. In part, technically, you are right in that Barbara's bio did incorporate part memoir, and she presented this honestly.

Xray's evaluation was right, and yours was wrong. The book was insightful, it was beautifully written. Furthermore, it was as objective as she could make it, I think, and as well researched as it could have been, given the constraints the "heir to the Estate" put on materials and even people who could give information.

I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?

Right and wrong, here we go, back into the dialectic.

Here's my answer.

Recently I ate at a restaurant and at the check out she pasted on a smile and said, "How was your mean today?"

I said, "It was awful. Thank you for asking." (She was a woman of color.)

A guy behind me said, "I thought it was really good. I'll come back again."

I said, "Well I guess it was really good if you are used to eating at McDonald's."

It's all relative said Einstein.

Don't feel bad about not teaching at the Sorbonne. Foucault couldn't even come close to getting an appointment there. Neither could Baudrillard, so you are in excellent company. And they kicked out Lacan.

Good, instructive answer. Did you paste on the smile because your server was a woman of colour?

Did the other customer praise the food in reaction to your rudeness?

Does the idea of "someone used to eating at McDonald's" influence one's taste buds?

We'll never know.

[seymourblogger]

> please try to recognize what a loon you've been coming across as. [ND]

Insult boy. Once again.

Sorry. I won't be nice t you anymore. I'll treat you just like everyone else does. Then you can whine some more: Oh she doesn't like me either. I don't. So there.

[seymourblogger]

Subject: Biographical Writing

> I can only say that if you think BB bio was "full of deep insight and very well written" that you need to read some great bio. [sB]

What would be some examples you've read that you would consider better than BB's? What are the greatest ones** you've read?

I'm not asking this skeptically. I would be very interested and especially if you*** could mention what are your standards for what makes a -great- biography. (Bios are one area or genre where I haven't read as much as I should so I'm looking for information*.)

**I hope they are not all political.

***If others are big bio enough readers as well (not all political) to have some basis for comparison....

* My tentative view is that biography is one of the more difficult writing forms.

Elsewhere I said try Thomas Mallon's A Book of One's Own http://www.amazon.co...27966557&sr=1-9 NOt exactly what you were asking for but it will do.

Do not talk about your own sex life in a bio about someone else. Save that for your own. Or call it your own not The Passion of Ayn Rand. Glug. What an unfortunate choice of a title. And she was my teacher so I feel free saying what I want about her. Has anyone else here watched her and listened to her for two years straight. Hello.......bio

Your rules (or Mallone's, haven't read him) are interesting. In part, technically, you are right in that Barbara's bio did incorporate part memoir, and she presented this honestly.

Xray's evaluation was right, and yours was wrong. The book was insightful, it was beautifully written. Furthermore, it was as objective as she could make it, I think, and as well researched as it could have been, given the constraints the "heir to the Estate" put on materials and even people who could give information.

I have read hundreds of biographies. Have you? I am fully qualified, although not by the Sorbonne, to read them and judge them as a reader. Are you?

Right and wrong, here we go, back into the dialectic.

Here's my answer.

Recently I ate at a restaurant and at the check out she pasted on a smile and said, "How was your mean today?"

I said, "It was awful. Thank you for asking." (She was a woman of color.)

A guy behind me said, "I thought it was really good. I'll come back again."

I said, "Well I guess it was really good if you are used to eating at McDonald's."

It's all relative said Einstein.

Don't feel bad about not teaching at the Sorbonne. Foucault couldn't even come close to getting an appointment there. Neither could Baudrillard, so you are in excellent company. And they kicked out Lacan.

Good, instructive answer. Did you paste on the smile because your server was a woman of colour?

Did the other customer praise the food in reaction to your rudeness?

Does the idea of "someone used to eating at McDonald's" influence one's taste buds?

Read please: I said SHE pasted on a smile, not me.

Yes I think McDonald's effects your taste buds. They do it deliberately with salt and sugar. Any macrobiotic eater knows that.

Remember Barbaraq Streisand in Prince of Tides:

She orders a dinner for them at a French restaurant, in French.

Nolte says to her, "I thought you didn't cook."

She says, "I don't. But I know how to eat."