Weirdest, snarkiest and... er... funny(?)

[Selene]

Are there many child suicide attempts amongst your child students?

[Barbara Branden]

Michael: "The moment you accept that you are not allowed to laugh at something or someone, and you embrace the hatred that always comes with that kind of demand, that is the moment a really lethal kind of tribal power is born."

No one - certainly not I -- is telling you what you are or are not allowed to do. Disagreement does not constitute a command. But when someone calls the movie of The Fountainhead "right-wing objectiivist claptrap," calls a book I love "ridiculous," describes Roark and Dominique as "fascists,' and calls Rand "a raging hypocrite" -- I don't think it's funny.

Tell me, would you have shown this article to Rand, and expected her to think it was funny?

Barbara

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tell me, would you have shown this article to Rand, and expected her to think it was funny?

Barbara,

Of course not.

I value my serenity...

Anyway, Rand wrote specifically that humor was destructive—not constructive. From The Art of Fiction, p. 165:

"Humor is a metaphysical negation."

She also stated that humor was only morally acceptable when laughing at evil. Moreover, humor was evil when laughing at the good.

It is proper to laugh at evil (the literary form of which is satire) or at the negligible. But to laugh at the good is vicious. If you laugh at any value that suddenly shows feet of clay, such as in the example of the dignified gentleman slipping on a banana peel, you are laughing at the validity of values as such.

(I don't think this position was distorted by the editor Mahew. At least the excerpts sound like her.)

I don't agree with Rand on this. Her whole section on Humor in that book is a gross oversimplification. Her standard of morally acceptable humor even trashes most of the Jewish humor I know of (if applied) by claiming it would be evil for Jews to laugh at themselves. But Jews have done that most charmingly for centuries. The message of the Jewish jokes by Jews I have heard was most emphatically not "laughing at the validity of being Jewish as such."

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Tell me, would you have shown this article to Rand, and expected her to think it was funny?

Barbara,

Of course not.

I value my serenity...

Anyway, Rand wrote specifically that humor was destructive—not constructive. From The Art of Fiction, p. 165:

"Humor is a metaphysical negation."

She also stated that humor was only morally acceptable when laughing at evil. Moreover, humor was evil when laughing at the good.

It is proper to laugh at evil (the literary form of which is satire) or at the negligible. But to laugh at the good is vicious. If you laugh at any value that suddenly shows feet of clay, such as in the example of the dignified gentleman slipping on a banana peel, you are laughing at the validity of values as such.

(I don't think this position was distorted by the editor Mahew. At least the excerpts sound like her.)

I don't agree with Rand on this. Her whole section on Humor in that book is a gross oversimplification. Her standard of morally acceptable humor even trashes most of the Jewish humor I know of (if applied) by claiming it would be evil for Jews to laugh at themselves. But Jews have done that most charmingly for centuries. The message of the Jewish jokes by Jews I have heard was most emphatically not "laughing at the validity of being Jewish as such."

Michael

Officially Rand had a very truncated view of humor, unofficially it was broader but not broad enough to include T.M.'s satire. I once made her laugh and applaud at the wording of a written question sent up to Henry Holzer during one of his law lectures. It was meant to be serious and humorous. If you were to follow me around all day and see my interactions with clerks and tellers and salespeople and people I meet walking my dog, you'd see them laugh and enjoy talking with me and I neither play a clown or someone seeking attention or am destructive. Read some of my posts here. Once one of my butchers in New Jersey thought to take me for a clown. I simply said to him, "You know, there is a natural level of respect we extend to each other just because we are human beings." He instantly knew what I was talking about and that was that. I do have a talent with my humor, but it is a talent I have never consciously cultivated. I do know the genesis of this talent, but that's another story. It is true humor can be a cheap, destructive substitute for anger. The classic insult comic is actually playing the part of the court jester and is allowed to get away with it by giving up his own claim to human dignity, as Rand herself, I believe, once pointed out. A lot of people enjoy being insulted in such a context because they are made the center of attention, at least until the next victim. Frank Sinatra loved being insulted by one such comedian.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

That's all good Brant, but did you ever try to hit that? I heard she had nice legs.

rde

Just another two-liner.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Rich Engle]

But when someone calls the movie of The Fountainhead "right-wing objectiivist claptrap," calls a book I love "ridiculous," describes Roark and Dominique as "fascists,' and calls Rand "a raging hypocrite" -- I don't think it's funny.

No, it's not funny. Usually, consider the source. Toohey-ism. There's those that make and those that do not. It's the same old thing, you know, jokes....in the music business:

Q: How many guitar players does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

A: 1 to hold the chair, 1 to screw it in, and then as many as you can get to stand around and say "I could have done that better."

Bitter people cannot be funny: you have to be joyous for that.

rde

I mean, this thread was talking about humor, so...

Edited June 19, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

No one - certainly not I -- is telling you what you are or are not allowed to do. Disagreement does not constitute a command.

Barbara,

Just to be clear, I never meant you were trying to do this nor meant to insinuate it.

Let's say I had a few other people in mind when I talked about what they would or would not allow others to find funny...

Michael

[Xray]

Tell me, would you have shown this article to Rand, and expected her to think it was funny?

Barbara,

Of course not.

I value my serenity...

Anyway, Rand wrote specifically that humor was destructive—not constructive. From The Art of Fiction, p. 165:

"Humor is a metaphysical negation."

She also stated that humor was only morally acceptable when laughing at evil. Moreover, humor was evil when laughing at the good.

It is proper to laugh at evil (the literary form of which is satire) or at the negligible. But to laugh at the good is vicious. If you laugh at any value that suddenly shows feet of clay, such as in the example of the dignified gentleman slipping on a banana peel, you are laughing at the validity of values as such.

This is a classic illustration of Rand thinking that her personal subjective value judgements ("morally acceptable") were "objective", (as in "Life proper to man / "it is proper/improper to do this or that").

In short, Rand arbitrarily decides what is proper or not, which is basically nothing else than postulating that everyone "ought to" value what she prefers.

No indeed, Rand would not have laughed at that piece of satire quoted at the beginning of this thread.

Imo "sense of humor" implies that one is also able to laugh at oneself, something she was completely unable to do (see the passage in B. Branden's book where she totally disagreed with F. L. Wright who thought how important it was to be able to laugh at oneself too).

Imo being able to do laugh at oneself proves that a person has enough distance to his/her own psychological make-up. Rand totally lacked this ability - a lack also very apparent in her writings.

Imo Rand never get over the emotional wounds she had received as a child and and also later in life.

Rejected by her mother, unable to enter into social contact with children of her age etc., growing up in an oppresive political system, and so on.

Imo all this lies at the root of her clinging to the idea of not letting pain overwhelm her, to laugh at evil. Laughing as a defense mechanism, as her magic ritual to ban fear, so to speak.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Xray

[Jonathan]

I thought that parts of the review were somewhat funny, or at least approaching funny -- the comments on Toohey's power, on the jury's decision, and on Dominique's over-the-top behavior.

Even though Rand named her art "Romantic Realism," it's sometimes a bit lacking in the "realism" department. Her characters are sometimes little more than blunt narration devices who meander off into exposition or step out of character to serve the plot. At times they might as well be saying "Dear reader, forgive our breaking the fourth wall, but we want to make extra sure that the message is extra clear..." and I don't have a problem with anyone joking about things like that.

As for the nature of humor, I think that Rand is probably one of the last persons I would want advising me on what is or is not funny and why. Richard Prior, George Carlin and Dane Cook are people I'd listen to about funny. Not Rand.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

You are making the same oversimplification mistake as Rand did from the other end.

There is no single "laugh at yourself" as a universal value. It always happens in a context. There is no one size fits all.

People laugh at themselves for different reasons. Why you do so or not depends on your reason. But that does not mean universal values do not exist.

Let's take my disagreement with Barbara as an example. I think she gives far too much importance to statements by Tallulah Morehead and she thinks I give far too little.

In Xray-speak, this would be proof that values are subjective.

But here's the rub. The universal values that Barbara and I hold are identical. If one day I were ever to grant the importance to a madcap presentation like Tallulah Morehead that she does, I would feel the same pain and outrage as she does for the identical reasons. The Fountainhead is not "right-wing Objectivist claptrap," nor is it "ridiculous," nor are Roark and Dominique "fascists," nor is Rand "a raging hypocrite," and on and on. If these statements were made (seriously or mockingly) by, say, Keith Olbermann or Reverend Jeremiah Wright, I would find no humor at all in it and consider the remarks to be deserving of total contempt.

I have no doubt if Barbara saw Tallulah Morehead in the manner I do (simple comedy with a naughty streak), she would dismiss those parts as I do—with a scoff as an overreach in trying to be funny and nothing more. I don't speak for her, but this is the way I think of her in my heart.

Now look at how your oversimplification mistake plays out in practice. You wrote:

This is a classic example of Rand thinking that her personal subjective value judegements ("morally acceptable") were "objective", (as in "Life proper to man" "it is proper/improper to do this or that").

In short, Rand arbitrarily decides what is proper or not, which is basically nothing else than postulating that everyone "ought to" value what she prefers.

I say your comment is a classic example of a Rand-Roaster pouncing on a weakness by Rand and treating it as if that were proof that her strengths did not exist.

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

You are making the same oversimplification mistake as Rand did from the other end.

There is no single "laugh at yourself" as a universal value.

I did not say it is a universal value. For there exist no universal values, no objective values. It is a subjective value in my opinion, and obviously a fact that Rand could not laugh at herself, lambasting this as "morally wrong" - which in Ramd speak means "objectively" wrong.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Xray

[Michelle]

Would you laugh at yourself for how deeply you care about your husband/wife?

Would you laugh at yourself if you remember back to earlier years when you made stupid decisions/believed untrue things?

Laughing at oneself, like everything else, happens in context.

As to Jews telling Jew jokes and the such, I always took it to mean that they are asserting their superiority over insecurity. By this, I mean that they have gotten to the point where their identity is solid, and they use a destructive medium (humor) to highlight this. If a Jew tells a joke about Jews, or a gay a joke about gays, they are in effect saying: "You can't hurt me anymore. I'm sure of who and what I am now."

[Michelle]

I thought that parts of the review were somewhat funny, or at least approaching funny -- the comments on Toohey's power, on the jury's decision, and on Dominique's over-the-top behavior.

Even though Rand named her art "Romantic Realism," it's sometimes a bit lacking in the "realism" department. Her characters are sometimes little more than blunt narration devices who meander off into exposition or step out of character to serve the plot. At times they might as well be saying "Dear reader, forgive our breaking the fourth wall, but we want to make extra sure that the message is extra clear..." and I don't have a problem with anyone joking about things like that.

As for the nature of humor, I think that Rand is probably one of the last persons I would want advising me on what is or is not funny and why. Richard Prior, George Carlin and Dane Cook are people I'd listen to about funny. Not Rand.

J

I think people who see some degree of truth in it (like me) are going to find it funnier than people who think she's off the mark.

Now, this is a bit unfair, isn't it? I think Rand's characterizations in The Fountainhead are magnificent, by-and-large. And even in AS, which is a "social novel," according to Rand's notes, several figures (Francisco, Rearden, Dagny, Cheryl, Stadler, etc.) have very strong characterizations. Although Galt and a majority of the strikers, yes, are 'blunt narrative devices.'

Richard Prior is irritating. George Carlin swore up a storm and thought that made him funny. Dane Cook's humor is mediocre and uninspiring. I certainly wouldn't want them advising me!

As much as I disagreed with him on just about everything, I wouldn't have minded the advice of the brilliant comedian Bill Hicks.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Michelle R

[Brant Gaede]

T. Morehead is a vicious, destructive twit. I found some of what she wrote to be funny.

Barbara Branden once devoted significant effort to writing a play script for The Fountainhead. You only do something like that out of love and deep appreciation for the material and the author. There is no funny out of that context--the total immersion in the novel for an artistic enterprise of a complementary venue. I'd bet that's like yesterday to her.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Being able to do laugh at oneself proves that a person has enough distance to his/her own psychological make-up.

I did not say it is a universal value.

Heh.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Tell me, would you have shown this article to Rand, and expected her to think it was funny?

Barbara,

Of course not.

I value my serenity...

Anyway, Rand wrote specifically that humor was destructive—not constructive. From The Art of Fiction, p. 165:

"Humor is a metaphysical negation."

She also stated that humor was only morally acceptable when laughing at evil. Moreover, humor was evil when laughing at the good.

It is proper to laugh at evil (the literary form of which is satire) or at the negligible. But to laugh at the good is vicious. If you laugh at any value that suddenly shows feet of clay, such as in the example of the dignified gentleman slipping on a banana peel, you are laughing at the validity of values as such.

This is a classic example of Rand thinking that her personal subjective value judegements ("morally acceptable") were "objective", (as in "Life proper to man" "it is proper/improper to do this or that").

In short, Rand arbitrarily decides what is proper or not, which is basically nothing else than postulating that everyone "ought to" value what she prefers.

No indeed, Rand would not have laughed at that piece of satire quoted at the beginning of this thread.

Sense of humor implies that one is also able to laugh at oneself, something she was completely unable to do (see the passage in B. Branden's book where she totally disagreed with F. L Wright who thought how important it was to be able to laugh at oneself too.

Being able to do laugh at oneself proves that a person has enough distance to his/her own psychological make-up. Rand totally lacked this ability - a lack also very apparent in her writings.

Imo Rand never get over the emotional wounds she had received as a child and and also later in life.

Rejected by her mother, unable to enter into social contact with children of her age etc., growing up in an oppresive political system, and so on.

Imo all this lies at the root of her clinging to the idea of not letting pain overwhelm her, to laugh at evil. Laughing as a defense mechanism, as her magic ritual to ban fear, so to speak.

Xray,

Could it be that you claim to know too much about Ayn Rand? Some of of us here, myself included, have actual, direct experiences with her or of her. She may, for instance, have been incapable of laughing at herself but that is merely reflective of her not laughing at others and taking them seriously. My Father once asked me in an ambiguous situation, "Are you laughing at me?" I thought about it a little and replied, "No. I've never laughed at you." At the deepest core of every human being no one is laughing.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Double-Heh on the X-ray extracts. Talk about smoking guns.

Jesus, anything for a turn on the dance floor. That kind of makes one a word whore.

Or are you EVADING?

heh

[Xray]

Would you laugh at yourself for how deeply you care about your husband/wife?

Would you laugh at yourself if you remember back to earlier years when you made stupid decisions/believed untrue things?

Laughing at oneself, like everything else, happens in context.

Your point being? Why yes, indeed, laughing at oneself is always connected to specific situations. How can it be otherwise?

The discussion is about Rand generally disapproving of laughing at oneself, regardless of the situation.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Being able to do laugh at oneself proves that a person has enough distance to his/her own psychological make-up.

I did not say it is a universal value.

Heh.

Michael

Error on your part: You mistook my statement to be meant as an alleged "universal value" judgement.

At no time did I claim my view on this issue constitutes an "objective value" statement. There exist no objective values Michael, however you slice it.

Edited June 20, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Anyone who can't laugh at themselves is in big trouble. In fact, many people believe that laughing is actually healthy so it doesn't matter what you laugh at as long as you laugh

[Xray]

Xray,

Could it be that you claim to know too much about Ayn Rand? Some of of us here, myself included, have actual, direct experiences with her or of her. She may, for instance, have been incapable of laughing at herself but that is merely reflective of her not laughing at others and taking them seriously. My Father once asked me in an ambiguous situation, "Are you laughing at me?" I thought about it a little and replied, "No. I've never laughed at you." At the deepest core of every human being no one is laughing.

--Brant

"Directly experiencing" a person is always a subjective issue. For example, you and John Doe may have attended Rand's lectures, a Q & A session with her, or even have been a guest at her home - still, each of you may have come to a completely different assessment of her. So much for "direct experience".

The discussion is about Rand arbitrarily claiming that there exist "objective values", and when you read the following quote, humor is clearly labeled as an "objective non-value" by her.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]: Anyway, Rand wrote specifically that humor was destructive—not constructive. From The Art of Fiction, p. 165:

"Humor is a metaphysical negation."

She also stated that humor was only morally acceptable when laughing at evil. Moreover, humor was evil when laughing at the good.

And you guys all nod your head in agreement on that?

Edited June 20, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Methodical error on your part: You have confused my statement with an alleged "universal value" judgement on my part.

Xray,

What method? Looking at your words?

You said "enough distance" and made no qualification. That means your psychological "enough distance" applies to everybody. Universal.

God only knows what you specifically mean by "enough" or "distance," but that is a value.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Anyone who can't laugh at themselves is in big trouble. In fact, many people believe that laughing is actually healthy so it doesn't matter what you laugh at as long as you laugh

I don't think we are talking about the same thing. I'm always making fun of myself but it's fun fun, not contemptuous fun and doesn't represent a generalization about me as a person, but rather humorous situations and things, even some contrived.

--Brant

[Xray]

Methodical error on your part: You have confused my statement with an alleged "universal value" judgement on my part.

Xray,

What method? Looking at your words?

Loking at the words

You said "enough distance" and made no qualification. That means your psychological "enough distance" applies to everybody. Universal.

God only knows what you specifically mean by "enough" or "distance," but that is a value.

Michael

My "enough distance to one's psychological make-up" theory goes to explaining what imo is required for a person to be able to laugh at themselves. It is open for discussion, so if you have other theories re this issue - I'd be be very interested in reading them. It has nothing to do with "objective values".

The SUBJECTIVE value aspect is that I personally like it when people are able to laugh at themselves.

Rand personally disliked the very same thing: which too is a mere subjective value judgement on her part.

Bottom line: no objective value can be seen anywhere here. Do you see any?

Edited June 20, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

But here's the rub. The universal values that Barbara and I hold are identical.

What exactly are those universal values? Could you please name them? TIA.