Great Literature

[Philip Coates]

> Aspects of the Novel

Alright, I just ordered it from Amazon.

[Xray]

"The act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." Part 2, chapter 2

Sure, it was "rape by engraved invitation" (Rand). Since Rand thought of her character Roark "as man should be" one gets the picture.

In AS, several other sex scenes show the same pattern.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"The act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." Part 2, chapter 2

Sure, it was "rape by engraved invitation" (Rand). Since Rand thought of her character Roark "as man should be" one gets the picture.

In As, several other sex scenes show the same pattern.

I suppose if Roark had let Dominque be on top it wouldn't have been "rape."

--Brant

[Xray]

Here's how to think about this issue, folks. .....

Could you illustrate that catalog of yours (# 249) with direct quotes from Rand? (e. g. "internal" rhyme, "intelligent" use of rhythm, "patterned imagery", "time-honored techniques" (of assonance, alliteration ...) etc."

Edited October 5, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> Roark "as man should be" one gets the picture. In As, several other sex scenes show the same pattern.

Xray, I don't remember which scene or character, but somewhere I recall the words "don't ask, don't ask, just do it" seem to fit along this line as well..was it Galt in the railway tunnel? Rand's sexual ideas are certainly not part of Oism, but Rand's own psychology which a novelist probably needs to present. Just like her strange idea that a healthy woman would not want to be a President is her own too. Those are probably the two examples where you find Oists most parting ways with her?

The problem is she is a strong writer and she -fuses- her views on psychology with her philosophy in a novel. And it's done in a way that so many Oists and those influenced by her like libertarians who went thru a Rand phase or still admire her sometimes go a lifetime and never disentangle. You constantly meet "Roarkdroids" (my play on Randroid, but more psychological than philosophical). They are the saddest little people I've ever seen...mental castrati.

I would much prefer to meet Franciscodroids. Not much of that around, though. Other than myself...ha ha :-)

I disagree, not with her basic view of man's potential and rational power and emotions as secondary but with a number of her specific psychological applications (You and Jeffrey and I might actually be closer on this than on philosophy or literary preferences). But I agree with Oism (which is meta + epist + eth + pol). It's also esthetics, and there I may have some disagreements but I need to reread RM to be sure.

> Phil thanks for this terrific summary.

Thanks Jim - I'm glad for feeback by you an dJR, so that will motivate me to write part two later today. It was pretty much stream of consciousness, so I left out as much as I included. Thanks for your additional points. The interesting thing is that her political and economic parts are the only ones that are causing the general public and the conservatives to look at her again. Most of them won't get past the religion and altruism thing, though.

[Philip Coates]

> Could you illustrate that catalog of yours (# 249) with direct quotes from Rand?

I would also like that. Sometimes it can be hard to find something in such long novels though. I remember Harry Binswanger on those occasions where he deigned to have a conversation with such as me (or in my presence) seemed to not only remember everything R had said, but where it was in which novel.

My memory doesn't work that way as well. I retain the residue, the overall conclusion but it's often a big effort to find the supporting details. I have a better shot at locating things in the non-fiction essays or in the periodicals, since I know all that fairly thoroughly and could remember the context or wider point.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> I suppose if Roark had let Dominque be on top it wouldn't have been "rape."

And, Brant, what was it you were saying about MY sense of humor a few days back?????

(If Dominque were on top, would that mean it was a sandwich -- with Dominique on the bottom?)

[Xray]

"The act of a master taking shameful, contemptuous possession of her was the kind of rapture she had wanted." Part 2, chapter 2

Sure, it was "rape by engraved invitation" (Rand). Since Rand thought of her character Roark "as man should be" one gets the picture.

In As, several other sex scenes show the same pattern.

I suppose if Roark had let Dominque be on top it wouldn't have been "rape."

--Brant

All we can go by is the text passage we have in the book, therefore any speculation as to "what would have been what" is futile.

When reading that scene, I had the impression of Roark being a total psychopath.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray, I don't remember which scene or character, but somewhere I recall the words "don't ask, don't ask, just do it" seem to fit along this line as well..was it Galt in the railway tunnel? Rand's sexual ideas are certainly not part of Oism, but Rand's own psychology which a novelist probably needs to present. Just like her strange idea that a healthy woman would not want to be a President is her own too. Those are probably the two examples where you find Oists most parting ways with her?

Imo Ayn Rand was not able to identify her personal preferences as subjective, but instead was of the opinion (and quite often demanded) that others "ought to" value what she preferred. If they didn't, they were called "irrational".

The problem is she is a strong writer and she -fuses- her views on psychology with her philosophy in a novel. And it's done in a way that so many Oists and those influenced by her like libertarians who went thru a Rand phase or still admire her sometimes go a lifetime and never disentangle.

I think AR's main appeal to many lies less in stylistic prowess than in the ideological message of the novels, and the characters offering identification for the people sharing Rand's values.

I can an imagine that younger persons may be especially susceptible to the superman/superwoman characters presented there. I recall quite a few posters here saying they read her novels at quite a young age.

You constantly meet "Roarkdroids" (my play on Randroid, but more psychological than philosophical). They are the saddest little people I've ever seen...mental castrati.

I would much prefer to meet Franciscodroids. Not much of that around, though. Other than myself...ha ha :-)

Of course.

But kidding aside, imo Francisco D'Anconia is extremely unreal even for a Rand character. He can do everything, excels at everything, is dazzlingly good-looking, etc.

Then there is also the scene when he slaps Dagny in the face for voicing an opinion not in sync with his values.

Rand's heroes are quite prone to violence. What happened to her credo of non-initiation of force?

Edited October 5, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[Xray]"For up to now, nothing specific has come from you here yet in regard to the writing in AS, that is, no quotes from the book to demonstrate your evaluation of the writing, etc., but then we have just got started, so I hope there is more to come than just the personal opinion you gave that 'AR was one of the greatest writers of the 20th century.'"

That's not a personal opinion; it's a statement of fact.

No. It is a mere personal value judgement presented by you as fact. Your alleged objective standards for judging writing which you listed in # 249 are no more "objective" than if I would claim that my favorite dish tastes "objectively better" than your favorite dish because mine has such and such ingredients and is prepared in such and such way.

JR: Writing is writing. The standards for judging it are the same whether it's fiction, poetry, or nonfiction. Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century.

From your catalog:

Is s/he precise and exact, rather than abstract, vaporous, and vague?

In her non-fiction, Rand's use of language is often remarkably imprecise and confusing.

For example, she claims that insentient plants "seek values", while at the same time stating that the concept "value" can't exist without an entity capable of acting to achieve goal in the face of an alternative, and that without an alternative, no goals and values are possible. This is just one example of the many contradictions in her use of terms.

"The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the

question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of

acting to achieve a goal in in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." (Rand)

Edited October 5, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> is extremely unreal even for a Rand character. He can do everything, excels at everything, is dazzlingly good-looking, etc.

Xray, why do you think it's unreal for someone to excel in so many areas? Haven't you met (or heard of) anyone who does?

Edited October 5, 2009 by Philip Coates

[anonrobt]

> is extremely unreal even for a Rand character. He can do everything, excels at everything, is dazzlingly good-looking, etc.

Xray, why do you think it's unreal for someone to excel in so many areas? Haven't you met (or heard of) anyone who does?

True enough - he was my fave character because he was most like myself in ability [and wished for spirit]...

[jeffrey smith]

> is extremely unreal even for a Rand character. He can do everything, excels at everything, is dazzlingly good-looking, etc.

Xray, why do you think it's unreal for someone to excel in so many areas? Haven't you met (or heard of) anyone who does?

The only people I've ever known who come even close to excelling at everything are generally stuck-up and vain about their accomplishments (ie, egotists in contrast with egoists), or don't have the dazzling good looks. In other words, there's always some blazing imperfection.

But it is a novel, and I remember liking Francisco more than most of the other characters, in part because he thought more deeply than most of the others, John Galt included. I do remember him slapping Dagny, because I remember my reaction to it, which was that it was not only well deserved but well overdue.

BTW, I'm fairly certain that you will find Aspects of the Novel eminently worth reading.

Jeff S.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Greatness and Power of Atlas Shrugged - Part 2

{I'm sort of winding down and won't give as much time to Part 2]

Given the many virtues of Rand's writing which I mentioned in Part 1, there is still very little chance that everyone is going to love her novels. Especially among the intellectuals there will continue to be a very strong dislike and a real contempt for her work (even among people who may agree with part or all of her philosophy. The reason is that her way of coming at the world is unreal, unserious, childish to them. Just as for me, the 'dark' writers - the James Joyces, the 'modernist' ones who think man is beset by flaws and can't be ideal or the tragic or failed is what is worth delineating, is important -- these are the ones who are silly, foolish, unreal, unserious.

I first noticed this in my adolescence. I loved the Disney movies and characters, for example. But for many of my classmates and for the modern ascendant critics, movies and stories with happy endings or with heroism were unserious. Tragedy was of literary value. By analogy, for them Rand's characters might be "too perfect". Even stylization is too pat". From this view, it's just not the way the world is. You need to have characters with more nuance or more problems or more struggle. The very attempt to portray an ideal which doesn't have this is either naive or simplistic.

This is what the students around me in h.s. and college were absorbing from lit classes and from the Fellini and Bergman movies which were the only cultural 'serious' material available at the campus theater. At a certain point, the brightest students who take ideas seriously imbibe the characters (and situations) they are shown as reality. This is why Rand appeals to the young. They read her before they have been 'socialized' into the dominant world view. Many of my friends and colleagues growing up and I had this very deep disagreement about the way the world was. Many of them had internalized (to one degree or another) a Hobbesian or Freudian view. Perhaps the idea that "man is always a beast to man" or "life is mean, nasty, brutish, and short". Or the idea that we can't rise about our animal or irrational nature.

Note: Rand would summarize this in terms of the concept of "sense of life." That might be one form of it, but a sense of life is "an emotional, subconsciously integrated appraisal of man and of existence." And this difference, this block or separation from "Rand-appreciation" can be conscious, can be intellectual and not necessarily entirely emotional, doesn't have to be sweeping or total or fully integrated. I've met people who grew up in surroundings such that they had never met anyone remotely like her heroes. So they think they are ludicrous. Simple as that. Just that one fact is enough to block them from her, in the same way that for me one flaw or defect in a work of art that I am particularly affected by with block me from that artist in some cases. So "we have a different sense of life" in many cases is too broad, too grandiose or pretentious....and too psychologizing without lots of knowledge.

.

.

[ok, no offense to anyone, but I'm gradually becoming a bit weary of all this now...I like to write and read really long, thorough, detailed posts. Unless I get some really good, detailed, or thorough responses, comparable to my own as opposed to so often one-liners - whether agreeing or disagreeing, I may be done laying out my arguments on the virtues of Atlas oron some other.]

Edited October 6, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

. I'm fairly certain that you will find Aspects of the Novel eminently worth reading.

Thanks, Jeffrey. (we crossposted) Any other lit crit I need to read?

[jeffrey smith]

. I'm fairly certain that you will find Aspects of the Novel eminently worth reading.

Thanks, Jeffrey. (we crossposted) Any other lit crit I need to read?

If you've never read it:

Martinus Scriblerus (=Alexander Pope): Peri Bathous, or the Art of Sinking in Poetry

in which Pope skewered in a surprisingly small number of pages almost everything wrong with 18th century literature, and hilarious to boot.

[Philip Coates]

> Unless I get some really good, detailed, or thorough responses

Although it was less a response to my Atlas points, than a general listing of issues pertinent to good literary criticism, Jeff's post #249 (and a very few others) is a good model of someone trying to thoroughly chew or address an issue.

(This is not a criticism of short answers in every case - Jeffrey's post on Pope,another source on literary criticism is a good example of a helpful one.)

Edited October 6, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> Pope...the Art of Sinking in Poetry

Orwell's Politics and the English Language, although again this is not on the whole topic of lit crit as a positive or as a general blueprint, but on one aspect, one thing that is done corruptly or badly.

Jeff {ok, I'm going to have to refer to Jeffrey and to JR so as to not get any confusion - would one of you two dudes volunteer to change your name or 'sumpin?) mentioned Poe as a more general writer on literary criticism principles. And, of course, it's about time for me to reread The Romantic Manifesto now that I am older and full of wisdom. And have read more literature to apply it to.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

> quote Xray: "D'Anconia is extremely unreal even for a Rand character. He can do everything, excels at everything, is dazzlingly good-looking" (end quote)

Xray, why do you think it's unreal for someone to excel in so many areas? Haven't you met (or heard of) anyone who does?

True enough - he was my fave character because he was most like myself in ability [and wished for spirit]...

Philip/Anonrobt,

There do of course exist people who possess many talents, but imo Rand's description of the D'Anconia sounds downright kitschy:

Francisco is not very good-looking, but "Francisco could do anything he undertook, he could do it better than anyone else, and without effort .". (AS, p. 94)

It goes without saying that is also very good-looking too.

What he chooses to do he is always "doing superlatively", he "could win any game at any local contest". And so forth.

Rarely have I seen an author gush so much over a hero of hers. She almost sounds like an infatuated teenager.

Even writers of cheap romance novels would probably refrain from doing this to such an extent in order not to sound too ridiculous.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Francisco is not very good-looking, but "Francisco could do anything he undertook, he could do it better than anyone else, and without effort .". (AS, p. 94)

It goes without saying that is also very good-looking too.

To late to edit, got interrupted by a phone call and couldn't finish this.

Correction: I meant to delete the first part; the sentence was to start with:

"Francisco could do anything he undertook, he could do it better than anyone else, and without effort." (AS, p. 94)

[Jeffrey Smith]: The only people I've ever known who come even close to excelling at everything are generally stuck-up and vain about their accomplishments (ie, egotists in contrast with egoists), or don't have the dazzling good looks. In other words, there's always some blazing imperfection.

But it is a novel, and I remember liking Francisco more than most of the other characters, in part because he thought more deeply than most of the others, John Galt included. I do remember him slapping Dagny, because I remember my reaction to it, which was that it was not only well deserved but well overdue.

Why do you think it was "well deserved and well overdue?" (??)

As for "egoist" and "egotist", aren't they mere stylistic variants? I have read "egotist" a bit more often in American than in British English and imo there is no real difference of meaning between the two terms.

Edited October 6, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I think the base-line characterization of Francisco is both interesting and completely unreal. To accomplish anything with "effortless amusement" and to do something/anything better than anyone else--what is to be made of that? It's not admirable. What's to admire? To create or accomplish something after a long, difficult and courageous struggle is. But what is a young person to think reading this crap--it's crap all right--and contemplating the life struggles ahead? It's only an inspiration to do nothing. To give up before you get going, really. So I have to agree with Edith Efron that AS should not be read before you're in your 30s. However, I think The Fountainhead is a good go when you are a teen.

--Brant

Edited October 6, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[jeffrey smith]

Why do you think it was "well deserved and well overdue?" (??)

As for "egoist" and "egotist", aren't they mere stylistic variants? I have read "egotist" a bit more often in American than in British English and imo there is no real difference of meaning between the two terms.

[breaking my rule of nonresponsiveness to Xray because the questions are valid and pertinent]

1) It's been too long for me to remember any real details: but I remember my reaction to that particular incident for some reason. So I can't answer it.

2)Best to illustrate the difference this way: an egoist thinks he should be important to himself. An egotist thinks he should be important to everyone else. An egoist thinks he should be the center of his own universe. An egotist thinks he is the center of The Universe.

I think Rand points out the difference somewhere in The Virtue of Selfishness, but I don't have the time to hunt out the passage tonight. Perhaps in Randian terms, it could be said that an egoist esteems himself appropriately, and has reasonable pride and rational humility (that is, understands realistically his own flaws and limits); an egotist esteems himself inappropriately and has unreasonable pride, and lacks all humility, so he has refuses to recognize his own flaws and limits. The opposite of an egotist would be a person who is overly humble.

[jriggenbach]

Phil, you should read The Craft of Fiction by Percy Lubbock and Fiction and the Figures of Life by William H. Gass. The most important critical pieces by Poe are his "Philosophy of Composition" and "The Poetic Principle."

I can't produce illustrative quotations by Rand - illustrative, that is, of my points about the elements of writing - because I'm on the road and have no access to the relevant books.

JR

[Philip Coates]

> Phil, you should read The Craft of Fiction by Percy Lubbock and Fiction and the Figures of Life by William H. Gass. The most important critical pieces by Poe are his "Philosophy of Composition" and "The Poetic Principle."

Jeff, I'm buying too freakin' many books. Will there be a quiz? After all, I put people on the spot with pop quizzes. There's no reason why you can't. Ha ha [They can't be arcane or pedantic though.]

More seriously though, thank you: I'll look into those, as the sun spins on its axis. Each time I've geared up to teach a lit course I've read up a bit more (plus outside lit crit a range of rhetorics and grammars), but still feel I need more. Romantic Manifesto was not enough (Art of Fiction and Art of Nonfiction were not enough for composition), alhough I felt it was until I actually had to teach literature (and composition). I need contrasting viewpoints to Rand's and much more detail. In recent years, much of my reading in literary standards or lit crit have been in readers like one of the Norton's, Heath, and other standard collections which have good in the front or within subdivisions like Poetry, Drama, etc. or in some of the AP guides I used for teaching AP English Literature and Ap English Language. This is good: "The Principles of Literature" by Shaffer. Not only packed with definitions but great examples throughout from every branch of literature. I also have 'how to read literature like a professor' which I've dipped into but not read straight through.

Edited October 7, 2009 by Philip Coates

[jeffrey smith]

Phil, for somewhat lighter reading, may I suggest Gaudy Night by Dorothy Sayers. Harriet Vane, Sayers' stand in for herself, is a mystery writer, and part of the book depicts her travails in writing her latest story. It doesn't bulk large in comparison to the rest of the novel (which revolves around academic integrity and feminism as it was seen in 1930s Britain), but the chance to see a great mystery writer talking about the craft of writing mysteries should not be missed. And of course, no book which features marriage proposals made and answered in Latin should be ignored.