Ayn Rand's life in webcomics by Darryl Cunningham

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ayn Rand's life in webcomics by Darryl Cunningham

For those interested in comic books, there's an online version of Ayn Rand's life by an author named Darryl Cunningham (you have to go to the site on the link below to read it):

Ayn Rand (webcomic on act-i-vate)

I skimmed through this and it seems to follow The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara Branden pretty closely, although Cunningham is more critical of Rand than Barbara is.

I'm not a fan of Cunningham's crude art work, even as comic book art, but to each to his own. Some people apparently like it a lot.

I'm glad Cunningham did this work as it presents Rand's life to a bunch of people who would otherwise know of her only from mainstream media accounts and cultural mythology. And anyone who starts learning about Rand knows how distorted that is.

The overall impression I got from the webcomic was positive--that it is a good starting point for younger people to learn about Rand's life, a good basis to later look deeper into her and her work. Cunningham did a pretty darn good job.

Incidentally, I learned about this from an article I got on a Google news feed:

Webcomic biography of Ayn Rand puts her works in context
by Lauren Davis
September 29, 2013
io9.com

From the article:

Ayn Rand is a divisive figure in literature and political thought, and her life story helps us understand a great deal about her philosophy. Cartoonist Darryl Cunningham delivers a brief biography of Rand, from her childhood on.

The author of Psychiatric Tales and How to Fake a Moon Landing, Cunningham is adept at creating fascinating non-fiction comics using his simple, efficient art style. His 63-page (so far) biography of Rand takes us from Rand's childhood in Russia to New York and Hollywood and examines Rand's family, work, and relationships up until her illness later in life.

Enjoy--if this is your kind of thing. And even if it isn't, I still say enjoy.

Michael

[Francisco Ferrer]

You'd think Cunnigham would at least get the spelling of Branden's name right.

It's clear that Cunnigham is not a fan of her novels or her ideas. Regarding Rand's collecting Social Security checks, he writes,

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wouldn't say Cunnigham's not a fan.

I don't sense him doing a black or white presentation. Smear job. Hidden agenda. Progressive mythology. Death premise. Intrincisism. Social metaphysics. Emotionalism. George Soros attack dog. I don't sense any of that.

I would say he takes some and rejects some. I get the feeling he treats Rand just like he would any other historical figure. The controversies that raged around Rand are just not important from that angle. They happened. Maybe you mention something, maybe you don't. That's all there is to it.

Try to sound intelligent about what you do mention, and if you have no opinion, borrow one from the culture somewhere.

Other people's mileage may vary, but that's the way the work came off to me. And I celebrate the fact that Rand is treated as normal, warts and all (by this I mean not Rand's warts, instead the treatment's warts). That's an indication to me of how deeply her influence is accepted in today's culture.

I would have to look, but my impression is Cunnigham probably said more good things about Rand than bad. And uses his... er... stylized art work to illustrate the narrative as he sees it.

I agree about one thing. Spelling Branden as Brandon is pretty lame. I hope he fixes it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It's all crap. Crappy art and two-bit recounting of the POAR. It's interesting to know someone is doing this, sort of, that's all. Thank God he doesn't know how to draw.

--Brant

[Reidy]

In addition to the misspelling, his story of the origin or the name is a myth that seems to have originated in Nora Ephron's 1968 article on The Fountainhead in the NYT Sunday book review section. To judge from these excerpts, it's the same old hatchet job that we've been seeing for over half a century. You'd think these people would realize that it isn't effective.

[PDS]

I guess we have now solved the age-old "does Objectivism work as a comic book topic?" question...

[Reidy]

Peikoff is on record saying that we'll know Objectivism has arrived when we see it in comic books, citing Ditko as a case in point. I wonder if this would lead him to reconsider.

[Francisco Ferrer]

I wouldn't say Cunnigham's not a fan.

In that case, I wouldn't say I'm not a fan of her "contradictions . . . her soap opera trashiness, overwrought emotions, and thin characterisations."

[BaalChatzaf]

How accurate are those comic thingies?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How accurate are those comic thingies?

Bob,

Relatively. The broad strokes are generally accurate. Not bad. Some of the controversies have been debated to death by the nitpickers, agenda-driven people, and those accustomed to the love-Rand hate-Rand polemics in our subculture. This comic will not contribute anything to such people.

I get the impression Cunnigham is a younger person. Someone like that will take what he gets from the culture and not digest it much.

Which is why this attempt pleases me. Look where Rand has trickled down to. Kids who read that thing can correct their views one way or another as they get older. But at least they are exposed to Rand in a relatively accurate manner on their level.

For that context, I like it. I wouldn't swear by everything in it and, of course, a couple of opinions are overblown relative to the rest of the work, but in general, I'm glad the guy did it.

Michael

[Peter]

Michael wrote:

I'm glad the guy did it.

end quote

SoamI. He does condense history well into a comic book fashion. I would buy this comic for a younger person. My favorite comics by the time I was in the fifth grade were, "Classics Illustrated."

[Samson Corwell]

Not exactly webcomic, but:

[Brant Gaede]

Now that I like! Much better art too!

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That is cool.

I like it.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

People are commenting about Cunningham's comic right on the site.

And it's starting to get pretty spirited. See here.

As one Mr. Bear said over there, "It seems that you're ticking off the right people, Mr. Cunningham. Excellent work."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

People are commenting about Cunningham's comic right on the site.

And it's starting to get pretty spirited. See here.

As one Mr. Bear said over there, "It seems that you're ticking off the right people, Mr. Cunningham. Excellent work."

Michael

I don't like it

I didn't like it

I won't like it

You can't make me like it

So there!

--Brant

I am not for turning

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am not for turning

Oh God!

[Brant Gaede]

For the content of a comic it's not too bad. I have quibbles. But the art work? It's not that I could draw better than that; it would take years for me to develop what I consider to be acceptable skill for me to do such a comic. No, my point is I can draw that good right now with no developed talent whatsoever. But it would never have entered my mind to take my no skill and go, go, go with it.

--Brant

and that is my contempt--it's the terrible visual esthetics

[Brant Gaede]

Time to reprise some fun.

[Backlighting]

Time to reprise some fun.

Especially since the anniversary of her death (March 6, 1982) was yesterday...33 yrs sure have flown by.

-J

[Brant Gaede]

Time to reprise some fun.

Especially since the anniversary of her death (March 6, 1982) was yesterday...33 yrs sure have flown by.

-J

And 33 years before that she hadn't even finished part one of AS, but look at how prescient it has been and every year that passes even more so. In that department only 1984 matches up, except for the bleakness. Orwell was a genius, but his psychology was all screwed up and his novel a downer. There is no transition from one novel to the other. It's completely separate worlds. Each world a suicide to the other and to the respective authors.

--Brant

[Backlighting]

Time to reprise some fun.

Especially since the anniversary of her death (March 6, 1982) was yesterday...33 yrs sure have flown by.

-J

And 33 years before that she hadn't even finished part one of AS, but look at how prescient it has been and every year that passes even more so. In that department only 1984 matches up, except for the bleakness. Orwell was a genius, but his psychology was all screwed up and his novel a downer. There is no transition from one novel to the other. It's completely separate worlds. Each world a suicide to the other and to the respective authors.

--Brant

"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force" -Ayn Rand