Great Literature

[Xray]

Yes, I'd say so. But every time I try to say so, I'm caricatured as an "attack dog" and psychologized about at length in "blind" posts on other threads. So you can see why I might be hesitant about saying any more.

What do you mean by "blind" posts?

[Brant Gaede]

Yes, I'd say so. But every time I try to say so, I'm caricatured as an "attack dog" and psychologized about at length in "blind" posts on other threads. So you can see why I might be hesitant about saying any more.

What do you mean by "blind" posts?

I think that's posting complaints about posters not mentioning names but strongly implying who they are on threads they themselves aren't posting on. It amounts to a collectivist libel because you are never quite sure who really is or isn't being fingered.

--Brant

[Xray]

Yes, I'd say so. But every time I try to say so, I'm caricatured as an "attack dog" and psychologized about at length in "blind" posts on other threads. So you can see why I might be hesitant about saying any more.

What do you mean by "blind" posts?

I think that's posting complaints about posters not mentioning names but strongly implying who they are on threads they themselves aren't posting on. It amounts to a collectivist libel because you are never quite sure who really is or isn't being fingered.

--Brant

Thanks for the info, Brant.

[Xray]

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. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

How would you try to convince somebody who disagrees with your view?

I have a lot of concerns with AS, as well as with The Fountainhead.

The heros often exhibit a lack of empathy bordering on the autistic, lik e. g. Howard Roark. But Rand created this character "as man should be". It makes me cringe to even think of such a type.

Dagny's first meeting with John Galt:

"It was as if he were a single whole, grasped by her first glance of him, like some irreducible absolute, like an axiom not to be explained any further,as if she knew everything about him by direct perception and what awaited her now was only the process of identifying her knowledge". (end quote)

An "irreducible absolute" - now what is that? Imo this sounds pretty wooden when Rand is trying here to squeeze her epistemology into a man-woman encouter.

John Galt reminds me more of an automaton, and his 'happy valley' makes me think unfavorably of some other version of Brave New World.

Imo the reason why many readers like Eddie Willers is because he is one of the few halfway 'human' characters in the novel.

Or take Francisco D'Anconia, who right from the start is introduced in the novel as the wonder kid and later the young man who can do everything, excels at everything. He is of course (surprise, surprise ) dazzlingly good-looking also.

And the "bad guys" lik e. g. Wesley Mouch are mostly described as physically "ugly". Quite a primitive psychological pattern exposed there, isn't it?

It made me laugh when reading Rand's description of Rearden & Co (cold, determined look, "taut skin", etc.) because it produced in me the mental image of some comic strip-like figures.

Edited October 3, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

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. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

How would you try to convince somebody who disagrees with your view?

I have a lot of concerns with AS, as well as with The Fountainhead.

The heros often exhibit a lack of empathy bordering on the autistic, lik e. g. Howard Roark. But Rand created this character "as man should be". It makes me cringe to even think of such a type.

Dagny's first meeting with John Galt:

"It was as if he were a single whole, grasped by her first glance of him, like some irreducible absolute, like an axiom not to be explained any further,as if she knew everything about him by direct perception and what awaited her now was only the process of identifying her knowledge". (end quote)

An "irreducible absolute" - now what is that? Imo this sounds pretty wooden when Rand is trying here to squeeze her epistemology into a man-woman encouter.

John Galt reminds me more of an automaton, and his 'happy valley' makes me think unfavorably of some other version of Brave New World.

Imo the reason why many readers like Eddie Willers is because he is one of the few halfway 'human' characters in the novel.

Or take Francisco D'Anconia, who right from the start is introduced in the novel as the wonder kid and later the young man who can do everything, excels at everything. He is of course (surprise, surprise ) dazzlingly good-looking also.

And the "bad guys" lik e. g. Wesley Mouch are mostly described as physically "ugly". Quite a primitive psychological pattern exposed there, isn't it?

It made me laugh when reading Rand's description of Rearden & Co (cold, determined look, "taut skin", etc.) because it produced in me the mental image of some comic strip-like figures.

If you don't like the novels just say so. Why should anyone here try to make you like them or explain why they do?

--Brant

[Xray]

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. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

How would you try to convince somebody who disagrees with your view?

I have a lot of concerns with AS, as well as with The Fountainhead.

The heros often exhibit a lack of empathy bordering on the autistic, lik e. g. Howard Roark. But Rand created this character "as man should be". It makes me cringe to even think of such a type.

Dagny's first meeting with John Galt:

"It was as if he were a single whole, grasped by her first glance of him, like some irreducible absolute, like an axiom not to be explained any further,as if she knew everything about him by direct perception and what awaited her now was only the process of identifying her knowledge". (end quote)

An "irreducible absolute" - now what is that? Imo this sounds pretty wooden when Rand is trying here to squeeze her epistemology into a man-woman encouter.

John Galt reminds me more of an automaton, and his 'happy valley' makes me think unfavorably of some other version of Brave New World.

Imo the reason why many readers like Eddie Willers is because he is one of the few halfway 'human' characters in the novel.

Or take Francisco D'Anconia, who right from the start is introduced in the novel as the wonder kid and later the young man who can do everything, excels at everything. He is of course (surprise, surprise ) dazzlingly good-looking also.

And the "bad guys" lik e. g. Wesley Mouch are mostly described as physically "ugly". Quite a primitive psychological pattern exposed there, isn't it?

It made me laugh when reading Rand's description of Rearden & Co (cold, determined look, "taut skin", etc.) because it produced in me the mental image of some comic strip-like figures.

If you don't like the novels just say so. Why should anyone here try to make you like them or explain why they do?

--Brant

Because the discussion is about alleged 'objective' standards for "judging" literature, and I would like to see them exemplified in AS. Maybe you can give it a try?

Edited October 3, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

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. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

How would you try to convince somebody who disagrees with your view?

I have a lot of concerns with AS, as well as with The Fountainhead.

The heros often exhibit a lack of empathy bordering on the autistic, lik e. g. Howard Roark. But Rand created this character "as man should be". It makes me cringe to even think of such a type.

Dagny's first meeting with John Galt:

"It was as if he were a single whole, grasped by her first glance of him, like some irreducible absolute, like an axiom not to be explained any further,as if she knew everything about him by direct perception and what awaited her now was only the process of identifying her knowledge". (end quote)

An "irreducible absolute" - now what is that? Imo this sounds pretty wooden when Rand is trying here to squeeze her epistemology into a man-woman encouter.

John Galt reminds me more of an automaton, and his 'happy valley' makes me think unfavorably of some other version of Brave New World.

Imo the reason why many readers like Eddie Willers is because he is one of the few halfway 'human' characters in the novel.

Or take Francisco D'Anconia, who right from the start is introduced in the novel as the wonder kid and later the young man who can do everything, excels at everything. He is of course (surprise, surprise ) dazzlingly good-looking also.

And the "bad guys" lik e. g. Wesley Mouch are mostly described as physically "ugly". Quite a primitive psychological pattern exposed there, isn't it?

It made me laugh when reading Rand's description of Rearden & Co (cold, determined look, "taut skin", etc.) because it produced in me the mental image of some comic strip-like figures.

If you don't like the novels just say so. Why should anyone here try to make you like them or explain why they do?

--Brant

The discussion is about alleged 'objective' criteria for judging literature, and I would like to see them exemplified in AS. Maybe you can give it a try?

Your own "objective criteria" are taking bits and pieces and making fun of them.

Your can objectify your likes and dislikes and say why you like what you do, but you'll still be a long way from an objective esthetics in literature or any other art. Rand did a pretty good job with literature and Jeff knows what he is talking about so what more do you want--something cut into granite for the ages?

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

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. Her best writing is to be found in her fiction (mostly in Atlas Shrugged), but that's happenstance - probably relating to the fact that her heart was more in her fiction than in her nonfiction.

How would you try to convince somebody who disagrees with your view?

I wouldn't bother.

I have a lot of concerns with AS, as well as with The Fountainhead.

The heros often exhibit a lack of empathy bordering on the autistic, lik e. g. Howard Roark. But Rand created this character "as man should be". It makes me cringe to even think of such a type.

Dagny's first meeting with John Galt:

"It was as if he were a single whole, grasped by her first glance of him, like some irreducible absolute, like an axiom not to be explained any further,as if she knew everything about him by direct perception and what awaited her now was only the process of identifying her knowledge". (end quote)

An "irreducible absolute" - now what is that? Imo this sounds pretty wooden when Rand is trying here to squeeze her epistemology into a man-woman encouter.

John Galt reminds me more of an automaton, and his 'happy valley' makes me think unfavorably of some other version of Brave New World.

Imo the reason why many readers like Eddie Willers is because he is one of the few halfway 'human' characters in the novel.

Or take Francisco D'Anconia, who right from the start is introduced in the novel as the wonder kid and later the young man who can do everything, excels at everything. He is of course (surprise, surprise ) dazzlingly good-looking also.

And the "bad guys" lik e. g. Wesley Mouch are mostly described as physically "ugly". Quite a primitive psychological pattern exposed there, isn't it?

It made me laugh when reading Rand's description of Rearden & Co (cold, determined look, "taut skin", etc.) because it produced in me the mental image of some comic strip-like figures.

I thought we were talking about writing.

I said that Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Characterization is not writing; it is storytelling. In any case, your objections to Rand's techniques of characterization boil down to the proposition that you don't agree with Rand about human nature, human psychology, common character types, etc. It is your sense of life that human beings are not like that. Moreover, you seem to disagree with her about certain uses of stylization in narrative - specifically the symbolic use of physical beauty in connection with characterization. Bottom line: you don't like her fiction. The problem is that we weren't talking about anyone's personal likes and dislikes. We were talking about whether Rand was a great writer of English. Like what and whomever you like; I couldn't care less. Nor do I attempt to talk anyone into liking someone or something that person doesn't like. I'm indifferent to people's likes and dislikes. I'm interested in whether Rand was a good writer.

JR

[Philip Coates]

> posting complaints about posters not mentioning names but strongly implying who they are on threads they themselves aren't posting on. It amounts to a collectivist libel because you are never quite sure who really is or isn't being fingered. [brant]

So wouldn't your own post be an example?

Edited October 3, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> If you don't like the novels just say so. Why should anyone here try to make you like them or explain why they do? [brant]

> We weren't talking about anyone's personal likes and dislikes. We were talking about whether Rand was a great writer of English. [Jeff]

Brant and Jeff, you are both -way- off base here:

(1) Brant, your hostility is uncalled for (just as it was obliquely toward me in your previous condemnation of blind posting - picking a different fight off topic and trying to get into a hijack in which I have to explain to you why it's appropriate and non-libelous). (2) Jeff, this is a thread on Great Literature, so she can certainly explain why she doesn't like AR and try to make her case or raise her questions. She doesn't have to stick to your subtopic, but can open a new avenue or aspect. And you should be more open to discussion.

Both of you, I don't know what experience you had with Xray on other threads, but she has been thoughtful and intelligent on this thread. [although I often disagree with her.] Learn to not carry grudges over. Learn to not be so angry. Learn to not be so harsh or aggressive or personal attack-oriented.

Both of you! Shape up!!! (sound of schoolmarm rapping knuckles...again) (and, yes, you do need me to come here and patronize you or condescend to you when you do -objectively- wrong things. and no I won't stop doing it.)

,,,,,,,,,,,,

Okay, now let me try to address her points with courtesy and attentiveness (even though I surmise we won't agree on Rand's literature):

> The heros often exhibit a lack of empathy bordering on the autistic, lik e. g. Howard Roark. But Rand created this character "as man should be". It makes me cringe to even think of such a type [Xray]

I think JR hit on the answer, although he expressed it in a rather abrasive or contemptuous manner: "stylization" is Objectispeak. What it means is that Rand doesn't expect you to take literally or as model's for actions all of her heroes' concrete actions or attitudes or emotions. Let's take Roark: when he says to Toohey "I don't think of you", that is intended to symbolize that he is independent, not a social metaphysician, rises above a whole room or a whole society or the entire profession of architecture shouting him down or being against him.

Too many Oists or Rand admirers have unfortunately taken his total unconcern with other people's disagreement or hostility literally and repress their emotions, not admit them or let themselves feel them.

Or they feel virtuous in not wanting to even answer or try to convince them (enormously foolish or enormously damaging attitude of isolating oneself from the race and from persuasion and dialogue and changing of minds among honest people - but that's a whole other topic.)

In real life, if I were to be shouted at or vilified by, say, a whole room full of posters on a website or a college classroom (this has happened) who dislike me or oppose me or think I'm an idiot or a neanderthal, I might be independent and stubbornly keep up what I have to say, but I would not be impervious, oblivious. I would feel lonely or hurt by that. To be emotionally a stoic is to always be a fool.

And so should Roark feel these things in real life -- feel alienation and loneliness and anxiety and self-doubt from time to time (as well as underlying or deeper satisfaction and serenity that comes from triumph and self-confidence). But it would be a mistake to include being irate at or hurt by Toohey in the novel because you can't include everything and that would take away from the broad brushstrokes needed to stylize or portray his independence. Another example, you show Sean Connery as James Bond in the movies always have aplomb, always be on top of things and that symbolizes his efficacy. Not relevant that he would have trouble with his fly zipper stuck one morning. Would be a worse movie if you put that in because it's "realistic" rather than stylized. [Rand discusses this thinking in Romantic Manifesto....I don't know if you've read it or simply don't share her esthetic philosophy.]

[i'll try to continue with your other points later...but this post is already too long...and of course, Jeff and Brant will try to attack me in the interim. Since they are now boiling mad at how I criticized them - in a "non-blind" post -- Like Roark I have absolutely not problem with everyone on a thread or in the venue or room ganging up on me on not being on my side ..ha, ha... ]

Edited October 3, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Would you like a thread that just you and Xray could post to so you could discuss things without comments from others? Something might be arranged...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Michael,

You're being snarky again instead of acknowledging the valid points I made. There is a saying about people for whom ridicule and undercutting is their leitmotif when a serious topic is at hand.

And you deliberately equated honest comment from others with personal attack. Which is what I was criticizing -- as you know very well.

Do you want to know that saying?

Edited October 3, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Selene]

Phil:

It is you and snarky is justified see irritation.

However, up to a certain point the time risk reward ratio works with you, but in xyz's case, I am abandoning the field, she is just not worth even snarkiness.

snarky (comparative snarkier, superlative snarkiest)

Positive

snarky

Comparative

snarkier

Superlative

snarkiest

1. (informal) Snide and sarcastic; usually out of irritation.

And I am not being nasty or harsh, but you just get really tiring with the underlining lesson plan format, e.g.

Adam

[Xray]

I thought we were talking about writing.

I said that Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Characterization is not writing; it is storytelling.

Yes we are also talking about writing - we are on the same page here.

'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly.

I have the impression that you are somewhat uncomfortable with the idea of examining Rand's

'hero worhsip' attitude more closely, and try to nip this discussion in the bud because you don't want to go there.

I know I know, your answer will be that you "couldn't care less". ;)

In her Rand biography, B. Branden argued very convincingly that AR never stopped loving Cyrus, the hero of her childhood readings, and modeled her fiction heros after him.

How do you assess the influence the "Cyrus" character had on Rand?

Moreover, you seem to disagree with her about certain uses of stylization in narrative - specifically the symbolic use of physical beauty in connection with characterization.

Oh, this technique is applied in cheap romance novels as well, where the heros/heroines are mostly described as being physically beautiful too.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Phil,

Would you like a thread that just you and Xray could post to so you could discuss things without comments from others? Something might be arranged...

Michael

As long as no one else could read it.

--Brant

[jriggenbach]

I thought we were talking about writing.

I said that Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Characterization is not writing; it is storytelling.

Yes we are also talking about writing - we are on the same page here.

'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly.

It is perfectly obvious that there is a difference between what is written and how it is written - between the subject matter of a piece of writing, and the writing itself. If you are too obtuse to grasp this, we have nothing to talk about.

JR

[Selene]

I thought we were talking about writing.

I said that Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Characterization is not writing; it is storytelling.

Yes we are talking about writing - we are on the same page.

'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly.

Yes we are talking about writing - we are on the same page.

'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly.

Well that tears it for me - this whole post is going in my archive of "really stupid things that I have read in print."

Nice talking with you xray

I for one am completely done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ftWerL1Wcs

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

Ah! And I was having so much fun!

--Brant

be reasonable: do it my way

[Brant Gaede]

> posting complaints about posters not mentioning names but strongly implying who they are on threads they themselves aren't posting on. It amounts to a collectivist libel because you are never quite sure who really is or isn't being fingered. [brant]

So wouldn't your own post be an example?

I suppose you could say that. It seems your technique has seduced me.

--Brant

ruined

[Xray]

Phil,

Would you like a thread that just you and Xray could post to so you could discuss things without comments from others? Something might be arranged...

Michael

I have nothing at all against comments from others - if this were the case, I would not post on a forum. Edited October 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

I thought we were talking about writing.

I said that Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Characterization is not writing; it is storytelling.

Yes we are also talking about writing - we are on the same page here.

'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly.

It is perfectly obvious that there is a difference between what is written and how it is written - between the subject matter of a piece of writing, and the writing itself. If you are too obtuse to grasp this, we have nothing to talk about.

JR

I don't buy it from you that Rand's mere technique of writing got you to love her fiction.

So when we speak of a "great writer", this does of course also have the connotation of the message conveyed via the writing; surely you (I'll borrow your words) are not too obtuse to grasp this?

So we can talk about both here - her subject matter and her style of writing.

I asked you about Cyrus in # 214. Would you agree that this fictional character of a story Rand read as a child influenced her immensely, becoming something like the epitome of the 'male hero' she longed to worship all her life?

Edited October 4, 2009 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

I thought we were talking about writing.

I said that Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th Century. Characterization is not writing; it is storytelling.

Yes we are also talking about writing - we are on the same page here.

'Characterization' in literature is expressed in writing too, which is why so your attempt to isolate it won't fly.

It is perfectly obvious that there is a difference between what is written and how it is written - between the subject matter of a piece of writing, and the writing itself. If you are too obtuse to grasp this, we have nothing to talk about.

JR

I don't buy it from you that Rand's mere technique of writing got you to love her fiction.

I never said it did. Apparently you have issues with reading comprehension too?

So when we speak of a "great writer", this does of course also have the connotation of the message conveyed via the writing; surely you (I'll borrow your words) are not too obtuse to grasp this?

I'm not too obtuse to grasp the fact that this is the intellectually sloppy way in which many people speak and write. I've explained to you what I mean when I use these terms. I find it useful to distinguish what is written about from the writing itself. If you want to talk to me, use the terms as I do. If you don't want to do that, talk to someone else. It's really all the same to me.

So we can talk about both here - her subject matter and her style of writing.

Sure, as long as we keep them separate and talk about them one at a time. If you want to ball them up together in a conceptual mishmash, talk to someone else. I'm not interested.

I asked you about Cyrus in # 214. Would you agree that this fictional character of a story Rand read as a child influenced her immensely, becoming something like the epitome of the 'male hero' she longed to worship all her life?

So some people say. I have no opinion on this subject.

JR

[jeffrey smith]

Time to open up my big mouth here

I'm not enthused by Rand the novelist. I think--apparently a view not widely shared--her nonfiction is her best literature; she was a master of rhetoric and a great essayist. Her novels, however--they underwhelmed me enough that I have no real desire to read them again. Or, in the case of Fountainhead, finish reading them.

Atlas Shrugged is particularly weak: I found the characters wooden, meaning that they did things because of their role in the plot, and not because of any innate logic to their personality. In other words, I kept feeling that Dagny (for example) did things because her role in the plot needed her to do it, but I did not think that Dagny did it because she was Dagny, and that's what Dagny would do, and if the plot required her to do otherwise, then throw out the plot.

And very often she wrote the way a second rate writer writes: the sentence that's been used here (Dagny's first sight of John Galt) is a good example. Pompous, about twice as long as it needed to be, and in the end it reduces John Galt to a philosophical proposition.

Fountainhead isn't bad in this way, but the characters are both two dimensional, and almost all of them are toxic: they aren't people with whom I can emphathize (not even Roark), and the collection of moral dwarfs which populate the opening chapters (essentially, everyone except Roark and the architect who first employs him--was his name Cameron?) makes one want to hurry over to the bathroom sink and use some mouthwash. I didn't read beyond the opening chapters because I couldn't get myself to care about any of the characters.

Roark, by the way, as he is described in the opening of the book, is a textbook example of the "theory of mind" hypothesis regarding autism (ie, that autistics have trouble imagining things from the point of view of other people). Since Rand wrote the novel well before "theory of mind" was proposed, one assumes that she had no wish for us to think of Roark as being autistic, but there it is.

In regards to Michael's comment about Hank's role in Rearden--perhaps he and Dagny show the process by which an individual producer became alienated enough from the system to go on strike?

[Philip Coates]

> I kept feeling that Dagny (for example) did things because her role in the plot needed her to do it, but I did not think that Dagny did it because she was Dagny, and that's what Dagny would do

Jeffrey, do you recall an example in the book? Something she did which her characterization would be inconsistent with? There's a difference between someone taking an action their character does not necessitate and taking and action which contradicts the character's thoughts, values, or emotions.

Meanwhile, let my try and digest the rest of your comments...it's a bit too late at night and I have some whim-worshiping to do.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

By the way, I find this a very interesting topic. I'm not going to castigate anyone for great immorality and depravity just because they don't like Rand's novels.

(On the other hand, if they use a soup spoon to eat their breakfast cereal or are brocolli admirers, then all bets are definitely off. )

But since I basically love three of the novels (other than WTL and certain aspects of Roark's characterization) and they were great rays of sunlight for me, I would like to know why well-meaning people can have such very different reactions [and not just because they are ideological/philosophical opponents!].

If they can explain it well / can offer some examples, that would be fascinating to me just as would differences over science fiction, Shakespeare, James Joyce, 'modernist' fiction, etc.

Edited October 4, 2009 by Philip Coates