Great Literature

[Selene]

> But it was my understanding that the Nobel Prizes are awarded only to living people. [Adam]

That would be unfair and would make no sense. Someone does something great in old age and dies the year after? Do you have any hard proof of this?

Phil:

Jeffrey made the statement. It is true.

"...unfair..." ???? I used to tell my students to bring in their birth certificates to the second defensive driving class. At the first class, drivers would complain that the ticket they properly received was "not fair".

I asked them to point out the "fairness doctrine" on their birth certificate.

Get the point?

Adam

[merjet]

> But it was my understanding that the Nobel Prizes are awarded only to living people. [Adam]

That would be unfair and would make no sense. Someone does something great in old age and dies the year after? Do you have any hard proof of this?

See here, especially the 'posthumous recognition' section. In all likelihood Fischer Black would have received the Nobel Prize when Scholes and Merton did if he had survived.

[Dragonfly]

> But it was my understanding that the Nobel Prizes are awarded only to living people. [Adam]

That would be unfair and would make no sense. Someone does something great in old age and dies the year after? Do you have any hard proof of this?

I thought that was common knowledge. Who said that life is fair? And especially with prizes. I know someone who made an essential discovery for which his boss got the Nobel Prize (in the first half of the 20th century). Einstein never got a Nobel Prize for his relativity theory.

[Selene]

All is FAIR now... WOW a Nobel peace prize...what a great man ...Gore...Arafat...Carter...Wilson deeply awed by the presence of ....

BARACK HUSSEIN O'BIWAN HMMM HMMM HMMMN

HALLELUJAH

HOSSANA

I am personally moved.

Adam

Ich ein bin marxist

[merjet]

"While posthumous nominations are not permitted, awards can occur if the individual died in the months between the nomination and the decision of the prize committee."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Prize

[Xray]

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

To say something is good writing is saying nothing more than it suits the purpose, i.e., the personal preference of the speaker. There may be some general guidelines that may be helpful in conveying what the writer wishesto convey, but general is not an objective absolute.

"Good writer" is actually just a figure of speech indicating finding the written product appealing. An individual (entity identity) engages in the practice of setting forth thoughts/ideas in written form. It is the end product that is judged as suited or unsuited to personal preference. This may be on content and/or structure. In the end, the final appraisal is always a (subjective) value judgement.

In the issue and question of good or bad writing, the first order of business is to define the terms to stand as reference. In your thinking and presentation, there is no definition of the term, good, as means suited to purpose. Since purpose is subjectively chosen, "good" or "bad" can be determined only with respect to the chosen purpose.

Further, since one individual's purpose can be an odds with another individual's purpose, the element of subjectivity must be factored in. This eliminates the notion of objective standard. There may be generally understood and generally accepted elements of writing, but it's still subjective choice, not objective discovery.

Edited October 10, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

[Note: Despite some initial enjoyment of this thread as the best on OL, in recent weeks, I'm not finding much serious engagement...so this "post" on my current rereading of Hamlet is simply an unedited entry from my diary in which I write without caps for speed. No reason for me to want to polish it for this audience ==> ]

<> hamlet, 10/8 -

.i started to read it in an old 'four tragedies' paperback whose binding unexpectedly broke in two in my hand. so now, i am reading it in my two volume complete works of shakespeare. i am finding that very satisfying way to read the play for several reasons: it's sturdy; i can write on the paper without damage; much more appears on one page and that actually makes it easier to read faster and make more sense of shakespeare than if only a smidgeon of dialogue were on a page (and the facing page explained individual words)...since it's a play it's meant to be apprehended fast, and, most surprisingly of all, i'm understanding virtually everything...everything hamlet says, all wordplay, etc. finally, i prefer hardbounds now to paperbacks...they are not really heavier and the bindings don't fall apart, esp. w older pb's.

. surprises, observations so far: i had the impression hamlet was supposed to be either hard to understand or wordy or talky. but this is very much an -action- play...lots of activity and events and relatively little overlong soliloquies or dialogue. and the indecisive and over-intellectualized hamlet? a character i wouldn't like because of that? i'm in act iv, two thirds through approximately and i'm not getting that. he makes perfect sense, i like him, he's biding his time and reacting to the situation. clear cut and well-written play. so far... [ i remember from h.s and from my own general cultural knowledge - which is wide] that there is a messy duel in which everyone dies....so i guess that's coming up.]

amazingly, this is a page turner. i had remembered it as putting me to sleep when i was fifteen. i was sitting at mcdonald's having a burger and a latte this morning and even after an hour, couldn't put it down and the longer i waited i would have to walk home close to a mile in the steadily heating up noonday sun and humidity of NPPNP ( 90 plus plus 90 plus) in florida even in october.

we'll see what i think when i finish. i am fortunate in not having read a lot of lit crit on hammy, so i'll record my reactions totally unaffected by those of others or of myself when i read it as an assignment in high school.

[re casting pearls in the barnyard-->patience dropped to about zero with these lazy, carping, anti-intellectual ol types--thought they were better than solopissants. suspect may not post further on this if my efforts continue to be met with stony silence and no one says 'interesting' or reacts to this so far. keep it in my journal. and piss on 'em]

Edited October 10, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, _____________________________________________.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

more thought content than your usual defecating on every thread

[Selene]

all mighty phil ...we are not worthy...your greatness diminishes us...

<< i feel all beat up

phil i knew e.e. cummings...and you're no e.e. cummings...see texas v.p. debate referring to jfk and dan "the i can't spell potatoe man" quayle

live long and

adam

[Philip Coates]

Adam, I guess that means you didn't have the brains to read the long post on why Atlas is a great novel either.

(winding down...starting to get more and more short-tempered with the intellectual habits and psychologies of so many people here....good time to take a break - when I sink to their anti-intellectual level)

Edited October 10, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

(winding down...starting to get more and more short-tempered with the intellectual habits and psychologies of so many people here....good time to take a break)

<praying

for

<peace

[Brant Gaede]

more thought content than your usual defecating on every thread

It's natural, I suppose, you'd think of such a thing after what you wrote.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Adam, I guess that means you didn't have the brains to read the long post on why Atlas is a great novel either.

(winding down...starting to get more and more short-tempered with the intellectual habits and psychologies of so many people here....good time to take a break - when I sink to their anti-intellectual level)

Careful. I don't think you can tell down from up.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

[Note: Despite some initial enjoyment of this thread as the best on OL, in recent weeks, I'm not finding much serious engagement...so this "post" on my current rereading of Hamlet is simply an unedited entry from my diary in which I write without caps for speed. No reason for me to want to polish it for this audience ==> ]

<> hamlet, 10/8 -

.i started to read it in an old 'four tragedies' paperback whose binding unexpectedly broke in two in my hand. so now, i am reading it in my two volume complete works of shakespeare. i am finding that very satisfying way to read the play for several reasons: it's sturdy; i can write on the paper without damage; much more appears on one page and that actually makes it easier to read faster and make more sense of shakespeare than if only a smidgeon of dialogue were on a page (and the facing page explained individual words)...since it's a play it's meant to be apprehended fast, and, most surprisingly of all, i'm understanding virtually everything...everything hamlet says, all wordplay, etc. finally, i prefer hardbounds now to paperbacks...they are not really heavier and the bindings don't fall apart, esp. w older pb's.

. surprises, observations so far: i had the impression hamlet was supposed to be either hard to understand or wordy or talky. but this is very much an -action- play...lots of activity and events and relatively little overlong soliloquies or dialogue. and the indecisive and over-intellectualized hamlet? a character i wouldn't like because of that? i'm in act iv, two thirds through approximately and i'm not getting that. he makes perfect sense, i like him, he's biding his time and reacting to the situation. clear cut and well-written play. so far... [ i remember from h.s and from my own general cultural knowledge - which is wide] that there is a messy duel in which everyone dies....so i guess that's coming up.]

amazingly, this is a page turner. i had remembered it as putting me to sleep when i was fifteen. i was sitting at mcdonald's having a burger and a latte this morning and even after an hour, couldn't put it down and the longer i waited i would have to walk home close to a mile in the steadily heating up noonday sun and humidity of NPPNP ( 90 plus plus 90 plus) in florida even in october.

we'll see what i think when i finish. i am fortunate in not having read a lot of lit crit on hammy, so i'll record my reactions totally unaffected by those of others or of myself when i read it as an assignment in high school.

[re casting pearls in the barnyard-->patience dropped to about zero with these lazy, carping, anti-intellectual ol types--thought they were better than solopissants. suspect may not post further on this if my efforts continue to be met with stony silence and no one says 'interesting' or reacts to this so far. keep it in my journal. and piss on 'em]

This seems at least a little apropos.

Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in

Bear't that th'opposed may beware of thee.

Give every man thine ear, but few thy voice,

Take each man's censure, but reserve thy judgment.

As to the substance--

I think of Hamlet as a glorious failure. Shakespeare tried to do two things: write a gobsmacking good revenge tragedy, of which Elizabethan/Jacobean theater has loads, while at the same time do a psychological study of a deeply conflicted man: but he couldn't mix them together very well. Which is, paradoxically, why Hamlet has such a grand appeal. People find all sorts of things they want to figure out as they read it.

BTW, best film version I've seen of Hamlet was the one with Mel Gibson (of all people) as Hamlet. It's a first rate production mostly due to the supporting cast (most importantly, Glenn Close as Gertrude).

And then there's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (Tom Stoppard wrote that, didn't he?) with Richard Dreyfuss in the leading role (which is the Player King, not R. or G.)--which is essentially a entertaining and well thought out cadenza on Hamlet itself.

More standard versions of the revenge tragedy, all of them page turners

Kyd: Spanish Tragedy

Tourneur: Atheist's Tragedy and Revenger's Tragedy

Webster: White Devil and Duchess of Malfi

Webster wrote poetry that is in many places equal to Shakespeare and, at least in these plays, was his equal as a dramatist. Kyd's play was the beginning of the breed, so to speak, while Tourneur's plays are full of wierdness. For instance, in Revenger's Tragedy, the protagonist (I'm not sure if "hero" is appropriate here) appears at the opening of the play walking around with the skull of his dead mistress...and it gets better from there.

BTW, off topic: where in Florida did you live? Here in SoFla, it's been a NPPNP day for the last week, with a couple of record highs. We're actually praying for a cold front to finally come on through....

Edited October 11, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Selene]

Adam, I guess that means you didn't have the brains to read the long post on why Atlas is a great novel either.

(winding down...starting to get more and more short-tempered with the intellectual habits and psychologies of so many people here....good time to take a break - when I sink to their anti-intellectual level)

Nope, actually some tedious, condescending, pompous individual, with a self righteous streak, and a self inflicted wound that makes it impossible to alter his inability to communicate across different human emotional states - like humor, beat my brains out. See post above, supra.

Additionally, does the word "long" have a way of giving you a clue as to why, you, who do have the brains, cannot grasp the concept of brevity which is the soul of wit' which "...means that articulate and intelligent communication (speech and writing) should use few and wisely chosen words. It is best associated with the play 'Hamlet,' by William Shakespeare."

Phil, you ain't no Hamlet.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

Subject: an older and wiser Laertes' response to Polonius

> Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in

Bear't that th'opposed may beware of thee. [Jeffrey]

You're aware that Polonius was a big windbag, aren't you.

(Seriously though, I know my comments and take no prisoners way of expressing my views will piss people off tremendously, make me cordially detested by those who have felt the sandpapering of my tongue. One example outside of this thread is my decades-long criticisms of the hamfisted, inept, complacently smug Objectivist movement over a number of decades... The reason is because a bad Oist movement could literally allow the ideas to be swept aside. So I'm going to bitch slap it - and its members, great or small - every time it's deserved, no matter which 'side' or person is doing something destructive or hubristic or sloppy.)

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: an older and wiser Laertes' response to Polonius

> Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in

Bear't that th'opposed may beware of thee. [Jeffrey]

You're aware that Polonius was a big windbag, aren't you.

(Seriously though, I know my comments and take no prisoners way of expressing my views will piss people off tremendously, make me cordially detested by those who have felt the sandpapering of my tongue. One example outside of this thread is my decades-long criticisms of the hamfisted, inept, complacently smug Objectivist movement over a number of decades... The reason is because a bad Oist movement could literally allow the ideas to be swept aside. So I'm going to bitch slap it - and its members, great or small - every time it's deserved, no matter which 'side' or person is doing something destructive or hubristic or sloppy.)

I think you're pushing the OL envelope there, Phil.

--Brant

[Selene]

Subject: an older and wiser Laertes' response to Polonius

> Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in

Bear't that th'opposed may beware of thee. [Jeffrey]

You're aware that Polonius was a big windbag, aren't you.

(Seriously though, I know my comments and take no prisoners way of expressing my views will piss people off tremendously, make me cordially detested by those who have felt the sandpapering of my tongue. One example outside of this thread is my decades-long criticisms of the hamfisted, inept, complacently smug Objectivist movement over a number of decades... The reason is because a bad Oist movement could literally allow the ideas to be swept aside. So I'm going to bitch slap it - and its members, great or small - every time it's deserved, no matter which 'side' or person is doing something destructive or hubristic or sloppy.)

Polonius beware the English longbow, the blade sinister and the needle. All fatal to windbags.

"...the sandpapering of my tongue..." that would make you a pussy? < cheap shot. but you opened the door dude...

"So I'm going to bitch slap it - and its members, great or small - every time it's deserved, no matter which 'side' or person is doing something destructive or hubristic or sloppy."

Well make sure of that first initiation of physical force, some folks hit back ...hard.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Subject: an older and wiser Laertes' response to Polonius

> Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in

Bear't that th'opposed may beware of thee. [Jeffrey]

You're aware that Polonius was a big windbag, aren't you.

(Seriously though, I know my comments and take no prisoners way of expressing my views will piss people off tremendously, make me cordially detested by those who have felt the sandpapering of my tongue. One example outside of this thread is my decades-long criticisms of the hamfisted, inept, complacently smug Objectivist movement over a number of decades... The reason is because a bad Oist movement could literally allow the ideas to be swept aside. So I'm going to bitch slap it - and its members, great or small - every time it's deserved, no matter which 'side' or person is doing something destructive or hubristic or sloppy.)

I think you're pushing the OL envelope there, Phil.

--Brant

Brant,

This is going to sound like a quip, but I am serious.

I think it is an attempt to bring the vulgar bossy spirit of Solo Passion here as normal behavior.

In my conception, individual thinkers don't need peer pressure to keep to a party line. Apparently Phil not only wants this, he wants to be the "bitch slap" enforcer.

How on earth that will contribute to an "Objectivist movement" is beyond me.

It's a vanity thing and nothing more.

Entertainment value, I guess...

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: an older and wiser Laertes' response to Polonius

> Beware

Of entrance to a quarrel; but being in

Bear't that th'opposed may beware of thee. [Jeffrey]

You're aware that Polonius was a big windbag, aren't you.

(Seriously though, I know my comments and take no prisoners way of expressing my views will piss people off tremendously, make me cordially detested by those who have felt the sandpapering of my tongue. One example outside of this thread is my decades-long criticisms of the hamfisted, inept, complacently smug Objectivist movement over a number of decades... The reason is because a bad Oist movement could literally allow the ideas to be swept aside. So I'm going to bitch slap it - and its members, great or small - every time it's deserved, no matter which 'side' or person is doing something destructive or hubristic or sloppy.)

The quote is relevant to more than one person on this thread.

That's all I'm saying.

Jeff S.

Trying to reserve judgment

Edited October 11, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Xray]

[Xray]: >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?

The passage is on page 108, when Dagny and D'Anconia have their first sexual encounter.

[Phil]:

Rand's sexual ideas are certainly not part of Oism, but Rand's own psychology which a novelist probably needs to present.

DF's comment is interesting in that context.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7712&st=60&p=80888entry80888

(# 68, first paragraph).

Edited October 11, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

> 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?

The passage is on page 108, when Dagny and D'Anconia have their first sexual encounter.

And in the context of the paragraph that began:

"She knew that fear was useless, that he would do what he wished, that the decision was his, that he left nothing possible to her except the thing she wanted most - to submit."

Adam

[Xray]

"Very attractive" doesn't sound right either.

But the message conveyed in AS is that he was exactly that.

To different people for different reasons at different times. We are talking about how he was described by the author. His actual physical looks.

--Brant

I'm fairly certain to have read something in AS re D'Anconia's physical looks, but don't recall where exactly.

In B. Branden's book, page 47, Rand is quoted describing Leo (after whom she later modeled D'Anconia) as

"so perfectly good-looking that he did not look real. It was my type of face, except that is hair was dark. He was very tall and thin with light gray eyes and sharp features.

Itwas very intellient face - very determined clear-cut, aristocratic, confident. What liked most was the arrogant haughty smile, the smile which said "'Well, world, you have to admire me.'" (end quote)

When reading AS, I kept asked myself why she described her characters so often as a having a "mocking", "derisive" smile on their faces, even in sexual encounters, which was quite strange.

But later it occurred to me that AR probably borrowed that mocking, arrogant smile from Leo, of whom I get the image of some 'strutting rooster' type whom Rand was smitten with, but who did not return her feelings.

Writing AS gave her the opportunity to at least artistically compensate this loss by endowing her male heroes (especially D'Anconia) with traits of Leo.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[Philip Coates]:

I was already independent, fully Roarkian in some ways, when I read Fountainhead, but what I desperately needed when I read it was Atlas. Francisco was what I needed to see and learn from.

Jmpo, Philip, but I found D'Anconia to be a very dependent type of person when it came to his relationship to Galt.

For example, he suggests to Galt they could notify the outside world that Dagny is not dead. (AS, p. 7699

Quote:

"After long moment, he turned to Galt: "John, his voice sounded peculiarly solemn, "could we notify those outside that Dagny is alive .. in case there's somebody who ... who'd feel as I did?

Galt was looking straight at him. Do you wish to give any outsider any relief from the consequences of reamaining outside?

Franciso droped his eyes, but answered firmly, "No."

"Pity, Francisco?"

"Yes. forget it. You're right." (end quote)

D'Anconia's attempt at showing empathy is coldy stifled by Galt, and Francisco folds like a wet Kleenex, like a schoolboy reprimanded by the head teacher.

Imo "Big Brother Is Watching You" could well be applied to Galt too.

For how much room here is there really left for individualsim in that valley? Very little.

On the contrary, there is quite a bit of collectivism.

"You are going to stay here for month", Galt tells Dagny.

For the one month of our vacation, like the rest of us.

I'm not asking for your consent - you did not ask for ours when you came here. You broke our rules, so you'll have to take the consequences. Nobdoy leaves the valley during this month. I coud let you go, of course, but I won't." (end quote)

There's something disturbingly wrong with Galt's argumentation.

Since Dagny had no idea that this valley and its rules existed at all, she could not have "broken any rules" when her plane happened to crash there. Galt sounds almost like a cynical Grand Inquisitor confronting an accused with alleged breaking of divine rules.

"Nobody leaves the valley duringg this month." (Galt)

So there's no room for individual choice?

"I could let you go of course, but I won't."

Isn't that typical dictator speak? For what gives Galt the right to rob Dagny of her freedom? HE gives himself the right.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Xray