Why did Dagny and Hank assume the motor had been invented by a single man?

[Xray]

A while ago on the Great Literature thread, a discussion had started about alleged "objective standards" (claim by J. Riggenbach) for judging proficiency at writing, combined with another claim by JR: that AR not only meets these standards but is one of greatest writers of the 20th century. By great 'writer' JR referred to the technical/artistic skills, not to content.

To my regret, the discussion was terminated before it got into full gear, but imo the topic raised by JR is too interesting to see it 'buried' over there.

Since here on this thread, a vivid and excellent discussion has been going on about AR's fiction, I hope the participants are also interested in what JR had to say. I have brought it over here (got the idea from Philip C. who pointed out how scattered over various threads the discussion on Rand's fiction already is).

To my regret, both JR and Phil have recently left the board, but maybe they change their mind and (hopefully) will return.

I'll start with JR's post to Phil C.:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=160 (quoted in # 166)

JR: But it would be helpful if you were willing to admit when you don't know what you're talking about. You don't have any idea what the objective standards for judging proficiency at writing are, do you? You've never given it a moment's thought, have you? You've always just figured, "If I like a writer, s/he must be a good writer," right?

So JR claims there are objective standards for judging proficiency at writing.

But do there exist objective standards? Isn't a standard always chosen?

I replied to JR: (in the same # 166 post):

As for "standards" in general, they can't be objective at all. That (many) people subjectively agree upon a standard (or are by law obliged to accept it) does not make the standard "objective".(Xray)

# 168 has a back and forth exchange during which I both asked JR to name these alleged objective standards and demonstrate by what "objective standards" Rand is one of the greatest writers of English in the 20th century.

# 188, # 208 circled somewhat around the issue but didn't get to the core, and I would like to get to the core here.

More back and forth followed, but then in # 249 JR finally offered something to hang one's hat on: a catalog of literary 'standards of value' http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=240

But again: where does it say these standards are in any way 'objective'?

Imo JR failed to offer proof that they are. For example, there have been times in which completely different standards for judging literature existed, where e. g. it was not considered as plagiarism when authors copied from each other, etc.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=180, # 197

JR: A "good yarn" is a narrative that pleases the individual who describes it as a "good yarn." What makes it seem "good" to that individual is the fact that it formulates a theme consistent with that individual's own sense of life."

Precisely.

And imo JR' catalog of alleged 'objective crtieria' for judging "good writing" is an arbitrary collection of what pleases him personally in an author's writing style, of what he finds appealing in a written product.

Edited November 5, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged (Continued)

I'm winding down participation, so I'll rush through a couple points:

1. I've been impressed that Part III is not a let-down. Last parts of novels sometimes pick up speed as they resolve conflicts and issues and mysteries carefully built-up. This is fair and natural. In Part III there is a lot of brutal and inexorable logic. Given the nature of the kind of society, this is also appropriate. This is 'apocalyptic' fiction, deliberately so.

And it is a right of the author - not open to literary criticism - to choose to tell that kind of story. For philosophical or other reasons.

One of the many clever things Rand does in denouement is she leavens the apocalyptic destruction all around (of people, of bridges and tunnels, of velvet-gloved dictatorship, of premises come to fruition, of the chains of guilt..) with very positive stories of how the heroes have compassion for ordinary people, lesser mortals so to speak. I'm talking about the Wet Nurse story and the Cherryl story. Very good thinking to put them in Part III!

2. I'm led to wonder about the reasons why people don't like this great book. (Or find more feet of clay in it than actually exist; or nitpick the book to death.) It's not only among the literati but among many on this board. Some find the characters interchangeable, two-dimensional, laughable, or over-the-top. Some find the plot too melodramatic, don't like the writing, don't like the repetitiousness or didacticism or speeches. Some think Rand is cold, hard-hearted, non-empathetic.

These views are almost ludicrously mistaken, if you read the book fair-mindedly and if you know literary conventions: Other than repetitiousness (but only in part -- some of it is multiple applications or contexts for the same principle - very different from outright repetition...and very necessary, given the newness or unconventionality of these principles and insights about people and philosophy and society), I've given a number of long posts with counter-examples, but this has had no effect: You can't argue someone out of a deep esthetic response. It's tied to personal preferences, to philosophical views, to sense of life . . . and much more.

So why do intelligent people (the people on this thread have at least -argued- a bit for their derogatory views, unlike the snarky MSM and elite magazine and academic critics of Rand and her 'simplistic' writing?)

There is more than one answer, but the word 'simplistic' is a pivotal conceptual key . . . [i'll try to conclude this later]

--Phil

Edited November 5, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Subject: The Last Part of Atlas Shrugged (Continued)

2. I'm led to wonder about the reasons why people don't like this great book. (Or find more feet of clay in it than actually exist; or nitpick the book to death.) It's not only among the literati but among many on this board. Some find the characters interchangeable, two-dimensional, laughable, or over-the-top. Some find the plot too melodramatic, don't like the writing, don't like the repetitiousness or didacticism or speeches. Some think Rand is cold, hard-hearted, non-empathetic.

These views are almost ludicrously mistaken, if you read the book fair-mindedly and if you know literary conventions: Other than repetitiousness (but only in part -- some of it is multiple applications or contexts for the same principle - very different from outright repetition...and very necessary, given the newness or unconventionality of these principles and insights about people and philosophy and society), I've given a number of long posts with counter-examples, but this has had no effect: You can't argue someone out of a deep esthetic response. It's tied to personal preferences, to philosophical views, to sense of life . . . and much more.

So why do intelligent people (the people on this thread have at least -argued- a bit for their derogatory views, unlike the snarky MSM and elite magazine and academic critics of Rand and her 'simplistic' writing?)

There is more than one answer, but the word 'simplistic' is a pivotal conceptual key . . . [i'll try to conclude this later]

Philip, from the content level, I think it boils down to J. Riggenbach's assessment who wrote:

JR: A "good yarn" is a narrative that pleases the individual who describes it as a "good yarn." What makes it seem "good" to that individual is the fact that it formulates a theme consistent with that individual's own sense of life."

I found the message in AS (as well as in the Fountainhead) very contrary to my own sense of life. For example, its dismissing caring for others als despicable "altruism".

I read the "The Fountainhead" first, after which I had the feeling of the writer lacking in empathy and being without much consideration for anyone else.

The rape scene was barbaric and disgusting. It was just plain gutter-level sexual assault.

Rand can dress it up in all the flowers she likes, but imo it is still appalling.

That scene had so much danger in it that imo it could as well have been in some hard-boiled crime story where the rapist then killed the victim.

In AS, several (not all) of the sexual encouters between Dagny and her lovers were quite cruel too.

As for the plot, what in the beginning kept me interested was the question "Where on earth do all those people vanish?"

More later.

Edited November 6, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I read the "The Fountainhead" first, after which I had the feeling of the writer lacking in empathy and being without much consideration for anyone else.

The rape scene was barbaric and disgusting. It was just plain gutter-level sexual assault.

A lot of adolescent virgins who really don't understand rape probably find the scene much more palatable than an experienced, mature adult. I also suspect it was much more acceptable in the 1940s than today amongst young men and women fantasizing about forceful ravishing and being ravished as a desirable way to have sex.

It is interesting to contrast Dominique's supposed need to be sexually overcome that way with how Roark treated Wynand's attempt to subvert him--with a flick of his wrist. Imagine Roark appearing in Dominique's room and instead of what was depicted they just talked the whole thing out and the sex was put off. But then you wouldn't have a crazy acting heroine helping to power the plot, at least not in the way she did. This is the part of the novel that Rand just didn't have time to write properly, not to say the sex would have been any different if she had. I don't think it would have been for Roark's character would have had to have been quite different too.

Women tend to be shunted aside in her novels. Francisco didn't give Dagny much information concerning his going on strike in AS. That was so she would be his enemy. I mean, just a little bull with Galt and HE goes on strike giving up her? He goes off to college and doesn't apprise her of what is going on in his head? It's artificial contrivance, but the artificiality makes her novels go.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Rand Haters and Rand Admirers

I suspect Ayn Rand would say that those who fundamentally hate her work are bad people, either with an 'anti-life' view of man and the universe (their sense of life) or evaders, who know her ideas and creations are valid, but try to deny it.

I think that's wrong. The reasons for loving and for hating Rand's ideas are complex. Let's take the fiction first, since it helps with reactions to the non-fiction.

There are many, many people whose reactions to Rand's novels change from favorable to unfavorable - as the years pass and life experiences accumulate ("Oh, I liked her as an adolescent, but I grew up. I find many more problems, things not to like when I reread her"). This can occur for two reasons - the repeated reading effect & a change of values. Repeated reading can actually be less enjoyable for a very common sense reason. The thrill is gone, the newness. You already know the story. You take for granted the parts that moved you, changed your life permanently and so now you tend to look more at flaws, places that never bothered you literarily before and now you look at it like a disinterested spectator and nitpick.

Very common is what makes many critics call reading Rand an adolescent fascination or fad. They no longer think that such individualism or fighting against society or cold, single-minded dedication to a goal - or any number of other Randian attitudes or romantic attitudes or heroic attitudes are 'realistic'. Life is not like that. I haven't met people like that. I can't be a person like that. I don't want to be a person like that. I've tried to be as single-minded as Roark or Rearden or to be as dedicated or productive or loving of a career, but I can't. Life isn't like that. They are caricatures... and so on.

I don't agree with those changes of values -- let's call them the character or struggle or effort values -- to any noticeable extent. I don't know if this is true in the majority of people, but there is a major extent to which the dreams many people once had die, the idea of conquering the world gets submerged. If someone no longer finds the heros and ideals of Rand bright, shiny, exciting and new - their emotional response will dwindle. If "a face that bore no mark of pain or fear or guilt" seems corny or comic (or too high up and far away on some gut level) when once it inspired you with possibilities, that is just one more thing in Atlas that doesn't work for you. Rand would say "do not let the hero in your soul perish.." But I'm focusing for now on the fact that these value changes that occur in many, many lives are very real - and they are deeply held. I'm not focusing here on whether any or all of them are valid or not.

There are other value changes, which I'm going to call the soft values, the "humanistic" values. As people's lives become more complicated, as they have romantic involvements, have children and families, friends, as they enjoy mature personal relationships, they tend to find some of Rand's stoic, contemptuous, sometimes a touch Nietzschean heroes unpalatable. Or they view some of the sex as suggesting a lack of warmth in the entire relationship. Or they read in a lack of empathy.

I am of two minds about this: First, I think the personal growth and the "soft" values and virtues (kindness, empathy, benevolence, involvement, caring what people think) are healthy and valid ones. And necessary to a mature, developed human being. But on a different level [i've explained this in a number of posts], to accuse Rand as lacking these because she doesn't stress them enough for the reader's taste in fiction plots where a lot of the 'soft' traits aren't fully relevant -- this is a literary mistake.

There is also the reaction of the 'educated liberal' (and also of some conservatives, and even Objectivists). The person who believes that Rand's view of what the world is like (as opposed to values, the normative) is very wrong. On example: If someone has been taught in school in every grade that single minds don't invent new motors or metals lighter and harder than steel, or invent wholly new approaches to architecture, that its a cooperative or group effort, then what are they to make of Rearden? Or Roark? They will -- properly from their context of knowledge -- think that they are either comicbook or grandiose big shots who stole ideas from others and passed them off as their own. They will hardly like the rest of the novel. And they will -hate- Ayn Rand's individualist, capitalist philosophy. (This could explain many of the Jonathan Chaits out there.) . . .

. . . Bien, c'est enfin pour maintenant, mes enfants, je suis fatigue et il faut que je vais cherchez un petit boisson. . . .

Edited November 7, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Xray]

Subject: Rand Haters and Rand Admirers

I suspect Ayn Rand would say that those who fundamentally hate her work are bad people, either with an 'anti-life' view of man and the universe (their sense of life) or evaders, who know her ideas and creations are valid, but try to deny it.

Imo she would call "irrational" those who don't share the values propagated in her work, like for example the hero being entitled to dynamite buildings.

Very common is what makes many critics call reading Rand an adolescent fascination or fad. They no longer think that such individualism or fighting against society or cold, single-minded dedication to a goal - or any number of other Randian attitudes or romantic attitudes or heroic attitudes are 'realistic'. Life is not like that. I haven't met people like that. I can't be a person like that. I don't want to be a person like that. I've tried to be as single-minded as Roark or Rearden or to be as dedicated or productive or loving of a career, but I can't. Life isn't like that. They are caricatures... and so on.

I don't agree with those changes of values -- let's call them the character or struggle or effort values -- to any noticeable extent. I don't know if this is true in the majority of people, but there is a major extent to which the dreams many people once had die, the idea of conquering the world gets submerged. If someone no longer finds the heros and ideals of Rand bright, shiny, exciting and new - their emotional response will dwindle.

On another thread, General Semanticist commented:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7822&pid=83187&st=20entry83187 (# 25)

GS: Well if it's a natural outcome of O-ist theory that you can blow up buildings if you own the design then there is something wrong with O-ist theory.

Imo Roark's blowing up the building is a huge red flag indicating that the writer lacked empathy and was without much consideration for anyone else.

Roark had no quarrel except with Keating who broke the contract. Yet, Roark's actions were not directed at Keating only, but many others as well. The "collateral damage" involved destroying the work and property of many innocent parties.

Did he ever once consider who owned the property, or the pride the workman had in the construction? No. Literally, nothing else mattered except his "will be done."

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Imo Roark's blowing up the building is a huge red flag indicating that the writer lacked empathy and was without much consideration for anyone else.

Roark had no quarrel except with Keating who broke the contract. Yet, Roark's actions were not directed at Keating only, but many others as well. The "collateral damage" involved destroying the work and property of many innocent parties.

Did he ever once consider who owned the property, or the pride the workman had in the construction? No. Literally, nothing else mattered except his "will be done."

Do you think for an instant that Rand would give up this fantastic climax to her novel for any of these or other reasons? Hah!

Roark's actions were directed at himself for doing the design in the first place. He was willing to go to prison consequently.

The government owned the property. Screw the government. If they hadn't been in the housing project business Roark wouldn't have been shunted aside in seeking the commission by a much of moral and aesthetic retards with political pull and power.

Sure you cannot in real life blow up a six-building housing project expecting no one would get hurt just by sending off the lone watchman, and Roark would never have gotten off criminally and civilly.

He had nothing against Keating and was not trying to get back at him.

The workmen got to work on it again--remember?

--Brant

if you didn't like the novel just say so and try posting on a Brenden Behan site

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: Rand Haters and Rand Admirers

-----

Phil--As you know, I've started that rereading of AS, and while I don't want to comment generally while I'm still in the early pages, I can tell you what my impressions of those opening chapters are. To put it simply, Whittaker Chambers was right. Or at least, his reaction was a fairly reasonable one.

First off, Rand tries to pack too many philosophical points into the narrative, and the story suffers from that because the reader (or at least, this re-reader) has to stop and digest the point she's making. She's not content with letting her ideas emerge from the background gradually until the reader sees them clearly in the middle or final pages of the book; she has to stop and flag them with neon lights in the opening chapters. This makes a long novel into a very long novel.

Second, Hank Rearden is likely to strike the reader as a psychotic. So is his mother, but that's not a bad thing. It is a bad thing when the hero with whom the reader will probably most identify is depicted as being either psychotic or unreal. And this comes out in the scene at the Rearden home in Chapter II, because of how his relationship with Ma Rearden is presented--in the real world, they might have stopped talking to each other years before (much less live together in the same house!), or Hank might have turned into the same sort of person as his brother--but not the strange melange which Rand presents. Nor does it help that she informs the reader that he does not understand "uncaused affection". (Which is, of course, another of those "neon signs alerting the reader to a philosophical point" moments). It helps that I know where in her philosophy she's drawing that from, but the readers who isn't familiar with the Objectivist doctrine of Love is liable to have a Whiskey Tango Foxtrot moment.

Thinks the reader, "Has the man never seen parents love their children, or siblings love their siblings?" (Well, actually, given his mother and brother, he might well have no idea of such a thing, since obviously whomever his mother and brother have ever loved, it wasn't Hank Rearden--but that just reinforces the psychotic domestic life of the Rearden family.)

And the overall narrative tone often indicates an inner nastiness. I think Rand was trying to communicate how nasty the society in the world of AS had become, but at least some people will see that nastiness as being something innate to Rand, and not to the world she was depicting. Apparently that's what keyed Chambers up to his famous quote about "to the ovens-go!".

Jeffrey S.

[Brant Gaede]

In many ways I've come to think of AS as an antique. There are parts, though, that hold up marvelously well, like Francisco's money speech. The Fountainhead holds up much better overall and literarily imo even though AS is the greater novel.

--Brant

[Xray]

Do you think for an instant that Rand would give up this fantastic climax to her novel for any of these or other reasons? Hah!

Of course not. But Rand did not just build in the explosion because she needed a bombshell-like climax for the story.

I'm convinced that she approved of the act by Roark who in her mind was "as man should be".

Rand was not the type of author who would say that her books are "not a piece of life, but piece of cake". (I think A. Hitchcock said something like that about his films).

But with Rand, it was different. She was serious about this whole thing. She had an ideological message. She meant it.

She also presented cruelty and ruthlessness as virtues in her 'heroic' characters. Again, she meant it.

I read the "The Fountainhead" first, after which I had the feeling of the writer lacking in empathy and being without much consideration for anyone else.

The rape scene was barbaric and disgusting. It was just plain gutter-level sexual assault.

A lot of adolescent virgins who really don't understand rape probably find the scene much more palatable than an experienced, mature adult. I also suspect it was much more acceptable in the 1940s than today amongst young men and women fantasizing about forceful ravishing and being ravished as a desirable way to have sex.

Good point about adolescents not really grasping the scene.

But the one who wrote that scene was an adult of course.

Imo the appalling absence of sympathy and empathy in that scene exposed a psychology of hate with the will to rule.

Imo given Rand's penchant to create a "mind world" to suit with hate and dominance as strong motivation, a main characteristic necessary in her choice of mate was subordination.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Subject: No Comment Necessary

> Hank Rearden is likely to strike the reader as a psychotic

??

> a psychology of hate with the will to rule

?

[Xray]

Subject: No Comment Necessary

> Hank Rearden is likely to strike the reader as a psychotic

??

> a psychology of hate with the will to rule

?

It will help the reader if the source of quotes and post is given each time.

> Hank Rearden is likely to strike the reader as a psychotic (Jeffrey Smith, # 283)

> a psychology of hate with the will to rule (Xray, # 285)

Phil: What do you imply with your phrase "no comment necessary"?

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

As for the plot, what in the beginning kept me interested was the question "Where on earth do all those people vanish?"

More later.

continued from # 278 post to Phil.

What drove the plot forward in the first part is the unanswered question "What is going on in here?" .

D'Anconia leaving Dagny without explanation, inexplicably (both to her and the reader) transforming into a womanizing partying playboy throwing his money out of the window, again it's like a chunk thrown (at the character and the reader) too big to digest emotionally. "What the matter with D'Anconia?", I thought, "Has he lapsed into some kind of psychosis where his personality has fallen apart completely? (More on d'Anconia in my next post, since I want to continue with the plot structure here).

When finally the riddle is unravelad and the curtain lifted over Galt's Gulch, I found the brave new world there anything but appealing, with Galt having traits of a 'Big Brother is Watching You'.

The valley rule to pay in money all favors and services would make it imposssible to even commit small acts of social grooming (like getting one's friend cup of coffee) without asking to be paid.

To me, this indicates how very little Ayn Rand knew about human nature and people interacting in groups as peers.

In that respect, imo she was almost as far removed from reality as her heroes, having established herself in a world where basically only admirers were allowed to have access.

Imo the surrealisitc elements don't serve the story well either. On the one hand, Rand stressed that the figures as she created them were realistic, but then dressing up the story with science-fiction elements is counterproductive to the message imo.

In a way, Rand weakens her message by proceeding like that, making the Galt valley too removed from reality, more than was her intention I think. The utopian counterworld is too close to fantasyland, to a Dagny in Wonderland scenario, at least this is the impression I got.

So we seem to differ a lot in our views on AS, Phil. But then I have never attended a discussion about literature where people did not disagree on various aspects of both text and author. "It goes with the territory", so to speak.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

ctd. from # 288

Re d'Anconia & Co.

When d'Anconia left Dagny without explanation, inexplicably transforming into a womanizing partying playboy throwing his money out of the window, he almost gives the impression of having lapsed into some kind of psychosis with his personality falling apart completely.

Not that D'Anconia had treated Dagny with much empathy before. He makes disparaging comments about women (he says something like "I hadn't expected such intelligence from a woman"), and just think of the scene at the beginning of the novel where he slaps Dagny in the face. Rand can dress it up in flowers of kinkiness all she wants (suggesting Dagny drew pleasure from it), still the fact remains that Rand entitles her hero to commit an act of physcical violence, and the pattern can be observed again: hate (for some inexplicable reason, D'Anconia felt a surge of hatred when Dagny made this comment) combined with the will to rule, followed by submission of the heroine.

When Rearden, d'Anconia and Galt interact with Dagny, it is often the variation of the same theme, just as with Roark and Dominique.

Cynically speaking, one could say indeed it does not matter whom the author exchanges for whom in the role of Dagny's lover - for they all seem to be cast in the same mold.

When later both d'Anconia and Rearden give up Dagny to Galt with no resistance, not even reluctance - I had more the feeling of witnessing a board game where the author discards figures no longer needed for her strategy.

Edited November 7, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

"A bord game"--we've got to keep this word, somehow. "Bord" is too good to let go but we need a meaning here.

Francisco slapping Dagny: she said something out of character and dumb. It's just too bad she doesn't ever get to slpa him! ("Slpa"--we've got to save this one too!)

I don't know why people are interested in third-party AS deconstruction piece by inevitable piece (through the whole damn novel?). I've been doing this stuff for years but keep most of it in my head. I only remember reading AS cover to cover twice--though there may have been a trice--way back in the mid-1960s. The first time I skipped the big speech the second time I didn't. Subsequently I've read it in bits and pieces and still do. I once read that Nathaniel Branden read The Fountainhead about 40 times in the five or six years before he met the author, a story I believe based on what he said about it being the constant companion of his adolescence and how one could read him any sentence from it and he'd be able to tell you the essence of what was before and after it. I suspect if he had to do it again he'd substitute a lot of that with sex, that being more of an option these days. It's certainly a more fun way to drive yourself crazy and you wouldn't be setting yourself up as much for Ayn Rand.

--Brant

Edited November 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Francisco giving up Dagny for Galt without a fight is understandable. He had that fight (with himself) way back when he decided to go on strike with Galt. That didn't make any but plot-sense either. But I'm not shouting back at the long ago Rand telling her to change anything for one significant change will break down the entire novel and novel-writing project and I'd rather have AS as it is than no AS at all. I do think even with Galt's speech the writing slowed down in the last third after she moved back to New York, probably because of all her new friends and the affair. Writing that speech and her affair and all must have put her into an incredible strain. I think it locked her into the contrived world of AS forever. Look at that tone of voice she put into the speech--necessary for literary reasons--she kept it for the rest of her life. Not a good way to present ideas to a world you want to save--the world we live in--but Galt wasn't trying to save the world he was saying goodbye to it, giving it a moral and intellectual finger, not saving one baby, not doing one really heroic thing in his entire life, not even amongst the saved. At least Francisco blew off a head or two and saved Hank.

Galt's secret: "I did nothing." Heroes don't do "nothing."

AS of course is the lifeboat scenario and Galt got as many of his people into the lifeboat as he could, but he never put himself at any risk. He heroically resisted torture? I suppose, but that heroism was for the author's benefit. He could have agreed to the torturers' demands and been an ineffective dictator. In the army I learned the secret of an enlisted man's power: follow orders literally and then stop. Wait for the next order. Soon the stupid orders stop. They don't work. The torture resistance would have been heroic if it had been to save Dagny. The torture depicted, BTW, was child's play, thank God!

This all makes more sense if you imagine Rand wasn't writing about America so much as she was about Russia.

In regard to today's world there really isn't any lifeboat or Galt's Gulch. You fight for your values even if you go down with the ship. Sitting around a resort in Argentina sipping wine and bsing with fellow expatriates while the world goes to hell isn't my idea of living.

--Brant

Edited November 7, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

"A bord game"--we've got to keep this word, somehow. "Bord" is too good to let go but we need a meaning here.

I have edited the typo. Why do you think 'bord' is too good to let go?

("Slpa"--we've got to save this one too!)

Don't get that one either. Is that an allusion to the acronym of Perigo's forum?

[Brant Gaede]

"A bord game"--we've got to keep this word, somehow. "Bord" is too good to let go but we need a meaning here.

I have edited the typo. Why do you think 'bord' is too good to let go?

("Slpa"--we've got to save this one too!)

Don't get that one either. Is that an allusion to the acronym of Perigo's forum?

I just like the way they look and sound.

--Brant

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: No Comment Necessary

> Hank Rearden is likely to strike the reader as a psychotic

??

Phil--I said that as a description of how it might strike the general reader--the one who knows only the barest facts about Rand and Objectivism, if that. Your average GOP tea party person, say, or your average suburban liberal.

Since I know what Rand was trying to express, I understand that's he not psychotic (although I still think his mother is)--but the person who doesn't know that Rand thought love had to be, in some fashion, earned (that is, by the beloved living out values shared with the lover), won't react the way you or I do when we read that he didn't understand what it was to have "unearned affection". They'll just think he's rather unbalanced mentally and emotionally. Especially since in real life anyone who had to endure a mother and brother like that would probably be well into neurosis, unless they had fled the family in self defense.

More generally, I'm beginning to wonder if the only way to appreciate AS is to be familiar with Objectivism first. On almost every page, perhaps in every paragraph, there are things which can't be really understand unless you know the philosophical context first. Without knowing that context, a lot of things seem absurd or surreal. For instance, the description in Chapter III of Dagny's career at Taggart Transcontinental--obviously, Rand reveals a lot about Dagny this way, and makes her point about earning one's way in the world in a just way--but in the real world, who would doubt that the daughter of Mr. Taggart would not find someone opening any door in the business she might want to go through--that her career would start much higher up and be eased by nepotism? Or that, as one of the major stockholders as well as VP of Operations, she would not be able to put a much bigger crimp in the plans for the San Sebastian railroad than Rand show us? Knowing the philosophical context, these things (and Rearden's status as a non-psychotic) make sense, but only if you know that philosophical context. Looking back to when I read AS the first time, as a teenager, I'm pretty sure that most of the philosophical points went over my head, and those that didn't struck me as somewhere between unreal and disgusting. Which means I'll probably end up having a much more favorable reaction to AS now, since I'll be getting the philosophy and won't think it unreal and/or disgusting.

BTW, you may remember I said that Rand seems to pack in philosophical points even when it slows down the narrative. The scene which opens Chapter III (James Taggart in the bar with Mouch and the others) packs in the philosophy, but does it in a way that not only does not slow down the narrative, but is integral to it. I would contend that much (but not all)of her philosophically aimed digressions in the first two chapters could be easily jettisoned because they are covered here in Chapter III in a manner that is essential to the story.

Side issue: the chronology suggested for Taggart Transcontinental seems awfully confused. It's founded by Mr. Taggart, Sr. (Dagny and James' father) and made into a major railroad by him, yet it's in a steep decline by the time he dies (since Rand describes it as such when she's talking about James' becoming President of the railroad)--which means that the same man (Mr. Taggart, Sr.) who built it up then allowed it to seriously decline. That doesn't seem quite right. Or are we to imagine some sort of advancing senility that was never serious enough to allow James to become CEO even before his father's death?

Brant--this isn't deconstructing, but exploring AS to see what its strengths and weakness are, especially as it might be experienced by a person who isn't well versed in Objectivism.

Jeffrey S.

[Brant Gaede]

Jeffrey, my idea of critically reading AS is food for thought aside from imagining improving or criticizing the novel as such.

Sometimes we can be too critical creating distorting apperceptions.

Nat Taggart was not Dagny's and James' father.

Millions of people have appreciated AS reading it before they knew of Objectivism or before they got to Galt's speech.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Final Answers (to Atlas Criticisms)

> "unearned affection"

Jeffrey, you're picking a nit here. The context was adult, long-developed family relations. And the idea is if you have bad people in your family, as so many people do, who treat you badly you don't owe them affection. "Well, he's my father [brother, sister, uncle, mother]."

> psychotic

Reader would perceive Rearden as psychotic? No, almost no one would. He's a skillful, accurate, psychologically perceptive dramatization of those who have family issues, not yet philosophically sure, feels unearned guilt. Millions of readers have "been there", get that.

> On almost every page, perhaps in every paragraph, there are things which can't be really understand unless you know the philosophical context first.

YES!!

That's one of the great strengths of the novel. Contrary to the popular criticism that Rand beats you over the head with her philosophy, is too didactic, etc. here is what the book actually does: The philosophical clarity "builds". In the early parts, she raises lots and lots of questions. Then the answers slowly unfold, climaxing in the speech and in part III where people's questions are answered and premises 'cashed in'.

> Without knowing that context, a lot of things seem absurd or surreal.

No, they seem unusual or mysterious. Who is draining the brains? Why are people so ineffectual, confused, weak, "lame"? Remember that Atlas is a mystery story. **You simply must accept the intent and terms and approach of the author as a given**...just like you would if you were reading another major author.

> in the real world, who would doubt that the daughter of Mr. Taggart would not find someone opening any door in the business she might want to go through--that her career would start much higher up and be eased by nepotism?

Don't you remember the part where she deliberately rejected the course of James and being 'helped' and how she wanted to start at the bottom, deliberately, and learn and earn?

> much..of her philosophically aimed digressions in the first two chapters could be easily jettisoned because they are covered..in Chapter III in a manner that is essential to the story

Critics of her as doing too much philosophy forget i) a whole new philosophy contains perhaps a hundred issues from basic metaphysics through personal friends through philosophy of law and dozens of topics in epistemology and ethics each - so if you say 'there are a hundred times she hints at or explicitily mentions philosophy' that is forgetting that many of those are *different* philosophical points, ii) this is a philosophical novel, so the author's purpose is in part to include philosophy - and, as I said, you have to allow the writer his or her style and type of novel.

,,,,,,,,,,,

Okay, that's all folks! I mentioned the clock is ticking down on my participation. One could post endless attacks and charges and if I tried to knock down each fallacy of Jeffrey, Xray, Dragnfly, Brant, I'd never get unstuck from the "tarbaby" that is OL...So that's it on responding to other people's points about Atlas. I've already done -many- posts on that. Now, I'll conclude by posting MY points. The ones I want to make. ===>

(Plus there is a certain cowardice or laziness or intimidation factor in the posters or lurkers or members of the forum who love the book, not fully coming to its defense in any sustained way and defending their values - reminds me of Rick and Victor Lazlo in Casblanca, except that Rick came alive again, took some risks, and rejoined the battle...they'd rather bitch about safe topics like politics or people in the movement they don't like or, in some cases, take refuge primarily in cynical humor or the 'ironic' detachment so akin to that of the modern intellectual.

That disgusted me on SoloP when it was me against five or six people defending Chris Sciabarra against smears and character assassination. It's very rare when someone will post when he is outgunned, outnumbered, in the minority against a number of posters who outnumber him and are vigorously on the attack. No one dared to fully engage in and enter the fight, take the flak post after post on my side, and risk becoming unpopular o rhaving to constantly fight with Linz and Diana and their allies.)

Edited November 8, 2009 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Phil has my gratitude for leaving.

--Brant

[Xray]

This all makes more sense if you imagine Rand wasn't writing about America so much as she was about Russia.

Jmo too.

Imo writing Atlas Shrugged was Rand's way of taking fictional revenge at the 'enemies' whom she often called "they", or the "looters", who had denied her so much quality of life in Russia by rejecting her as an 'unwelcome member of society'.

Edited November 8, 2009 by Xray

[jeffrey smith]

Subject: Final Answers (to Atlas Criticisms)

> "unearned affection"

Jeffrey, you're picking a nit here. The context was adult, long-developed family relations. And the idea is if you have bad people in your family, as so many people do, who treat you badly you don't owe them affection. "Well, he's my father [brother, sister, uncle, mother]."

It's not a nit: it goes to the heart of Rand's philosophy. Rand reduced love to admiration or respect intensified by emotion; she made love affairs into mutual admiration societies with sex included.

That's not love.

An adherent of egoism can never love and remain consistent to his/her egoism. [i'd be better note here that I'm accusing the lot of you of being inconsistent in your egoism, and not that I'm accusing you of being unable to love.]

That's because love by its very nature involves the negation of the self: the lover makes the beloved the focus instead of himself/herself; and the more intensely the lover focuses on the beloved, the more his/her own ego is negated: until in the most intense form of love, the lover is aware only of the beloved and not of himself/herself. If you think I'm wrong, then ask yourself this question: did you love your children from the very day they were born, and if so, why? Certainly at the age of one day old, there's not very much they could have done to "earn" your affection: yet I assume that, like most human beings, you did love them even as newborns.

So Rand, in describing Rearden as being incapable of understanding the idea of "unearned affection", is actually saying that he has no idea of what love is--and that means he'll appear psychotic to a lot of people.

> psychotic

Reader would perceive Rearden as psychotic? No, almost no one would. He's a skillful, accurate, psychologically perceptive dramatization of those who have family issues, not yet philosophically sure, feels unearned guilt. Millions of readers have "been there", get that.

It's not the family issues--although psychotics have emerged from families less dysfunctional than the Reardens--but the description of Rearden as being unable to understand "unearned affection" that would strike people as a sign of mental imbalance. (And, come to think of it, I'm one of those readers who have "been there, done that".) His actual relationship with his family is not unrealistic--just merely unlikely (I think in the real world with a mother like his he would have ended up resembling what Rand presents as his brother).

> On almost every page, perhaps in every paragraph, there are things which can't be really understand unless you know the philosophical context first.

YES!!

That's one of the great strengths of the novel. Contrary to the popular criticism that Rand beats you over the head with her philosophy, is too didactic, etc. here is what the book actually does: The philosophical clarity "builds". In the early parts, she raises lots and lots of questions. Then the answers slowly unfold, climaxing in the speech and in part III where people's questions are answered and premises 'cashed in'.

> Without knowing that context, a lot of things seem absurd or surreal.

No, they seem unusual or mysterious. Who is draining the brains? Why are people so ineffectual, confused, weak, "lame"? Remember that Atlas is a mystery story. **You simply must accept the intent and terms and approach of the author as a given**...just like you would if you were reading another major author.

I think she overdoes the philosophy, and could have achieved the same effects without trying to make a point in every paragraph. However, chacun a son gout, and since Rand was the author, not me, her gout decides.

> in the real world, who would doubt that the daughter of Mr. Taggart would not find someone opening any door in the business she might want to go through--that her career would start much higher up and be eased by nepotism?

Don't you remember the part where she deliberately rejected the course of James and being 'helped' and how she wanted to start at the bottom, deliberately, and learn and earn?

I do; but I'm thinking of all those people who would decide it's in their own interest to make life as easy as possible for a Member of the Taggart Family, whether she wanted their help or not--who would open doors so silently that she might not even know there was a door to be opened until she was well past it.

,,,,,,,,,,,

Okay, that's all folks! I mentioned the clock is ticking down on my participation. One could post endless attacks and charges and if I tried to knock down each fallacy of Jeffrey, Xray, Dragnfly, Brant, I'd never get unstuck from the "tarbaby" that is OL...So that's it on responding to other people's points about Atlas. I've already done -many- posts on that. Now, I'll conclude by posting MY points. The ones I want to make. ===>

(Plus there is a certain cowardice or laziness or intimidation factor in the posters or lurkers or members of the forum who love the book, not fully coming to its defense in any sustained way and defending their values - reminds me of Rick and Victor Lazlo in Casblanca, except that Rick came alive again, took some risks, and rejoined the battle...they'd rather bitch about safe topics like politics or people in the movement they don't like or, in some cases, take refuge primarily in cynical humor or the 'ironic' detachment so akin to that of the modern intellectual.

That disgusted me on SoloP when it was me against five or six people defending Chris Sciabarra against smears and character assassination. It's very rare when someone will post when he is outgunned, outnumbered, in the minority against a number of posters who outnumber him and are vigorously on the attack. No one dared to fully engage in and enter the fight, take the flak post after post on my side, and risk becoming unpopular o rhaving to constantly fight with Linz and Diana and their allies.)

Phil, you seem to be the person here who is best able to defend AS as a work of literature. Don't think of yourself as being outgunned and outnumbered. It's more that you have the best guns in the neighborhood.

I'm not trying to attack AS--or at least, I'm trying to recognize its strengths as well as its weaknesses. I'll be reading whatever you decide to post in the future with interest. Consider my posts as being perspective from a reader who is not an Objectivist but does have some knowledge of Objectivism, as a window to how other nonObjectivist readers might view it.

Jeffrey S.

who is very regretful that Phil is leaving

Edited November 9, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Philip Coates]

> " Plus there is a certain cowardice or laziness or intimidation factor in the posters or lurkers or members of the forum who love the book, not fully coming to its defense in any sustained way and defending their values - reminds me of Rick and Victor Lazlo in Casblanca, except that Rick came alive again, took some risks, and rejoined the battle...they'd rather bitch about safe topics like politics or people in the movement they don't like or, in some cases, take refuge primarily in cynical humor or the 'ironic' detachment so akin to that of the modern intellectual. "That disgusted me on SoloP when it was me against five or six people defending Chris Sciabarra against smears and character assassination. It's very rare when someone will post when he is outgunned, outnumbered, in the minority against a number of posters who outnumber him and are vigorously on the attack. No one dared to fully engage in and enter the fight, take the flak post after post on my side, and risk becoming unpopular o rhaving to constantly fight with Linz and Diana and their allies."

I overstated the above, when I said "cowardice or laziness or intimidation factor."

I apologize for overgeneralizing, psychologizing, and dropping context:

I allowed my frustration and strong feelings to cause me to forget that this is a very small list and thus few people in it may be lovers of Atlas as literature and those who I know are admirers don't necessarily post on many subjects regularly or follow every thread religiously. Plus there is no obligation to spring to the defense whenever your values and views are under criticism. Just as I have other priorities than posting all the time or on every issue, so may they.

Edited November 9, 2009 by Philip Coates