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

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Response to Atlas Shrugged -- Final Observations

This fall, in reviews of the two new biographies of Rand, there has been savage public criticism of the novel and Rand's fiction writing more broadly. A savage attack by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic, a "hit piece" in Salon, seething hostility and rage in GQ. The writer in The New Yorker called her fiction "crackpot". The New York Times speaks of the book as a "revenge fantasy", "plotting and characterization in her books [are] vulgar and unbelievable..cartoonish and sexed-up". It says she advocates "elitism" in Atlas, "businessmen [as] Übermenschen". Even an editor of Reason(Nick Gillespie, the Wilson Quarterly) gets a few punches in the beating.

Here are my observations about major factors which seem to be behind the onslaught of negative responses by intellectuals (both present and past) to a powerful and original novel, deeply loved by millions:

A. In the Culture [among the dominant intellectuals, the critics, the academics - as opposed to the general public, who tend to love the book and keep buying it by the hundreds of thousands every year]:

After reading all these comments, Whittaker Chambers is still most revealing -- because he is not a mixed reaction but a clear cut case of Rand loathing -- because he focuses solely on Atlas -- because he expresses his view in well-written essentials. [i disagree with pretty much every essential he offers.]

Even those who have a mixed reaction to Rand will probably share one or more of his attitudes.

No matter how well-written, Atlas would never win a Pulitzer or a Noble Prize for Literature. Despite the protestations, the driving force still behind "Rand-loathing" is not any major "deal-breaking" flaw in her magnum opus. It is overwhelming cultural brainwashing form the churches, schools, colleges, newspapers, literature, and movies: Rand would not have received the reaction she does (from intellectuals and 'the well-read') in the century of Sir Walter Scott, of Kipling, of Tennyson. The 20th Century has produced a steady rain of contrary perspectives, of which post-modernism is only the most toxic and extreme. Since childhood, and by every influential medium or role model, we have been taught that the ideas, emotions, and literary style of someone such as Rand are laughable and old-fashioned, childish and wrong. Here's the result:

1. PSYCHOLOGICAL HOSTILITY - Chambers, coming from a metaphysics of the good Christian should be humble, soft-spoken, kind, non-arrogant before God because man is fallible, weak, originally sinful. Well, what reaction might you expect to the style of Atlas? It is incredibly offensive: "Overriding arrogance" on page after page. If religion [or modern philosophy - much of Chambers' reactions are shared culturally] leads you to lack of certainties, to greyness, then you will be put off by her "dogmatism". And this will translate into a tone of "shrillness". What strikes him most? "Inflexibly self-righteous".

2. IDEOLOGICAL HOSTILITY - Those who take notes in class have internalized that the rich and clever oppress the poor and weak, that the group must take from them so the poor don't get poorer or starve, that businessmen are exploiters and the little guy who uses his muscles every day is the virtuous one, that selfishness means taking advantage or abusing. That without oversight and regulation, the world would turn into dog-eat-dog. That people are irrational, vicious. That true love involves negation of self...What reaction will they have to a novel which defiantly body slams and stomps on their ethics and politics?

3. LITERARY, ESTHETIC HOSTILITY - Those who have been taught respect for the ambiguous, more nuanced, more complex, more gray, for unresolved conflicts, for naturalism are not going to like Rand (or be unwilling to admit they do so, will think it's a sign of how shallow they are). Chambers again: "[The] story is preposterous", "everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad", [the heroes are] "operatic caricatures". People are taught life is not like Rand's universe, there is no possibility of the purely black or the purely white. Journalism and the media hold up cynicism and failure. The lead story is about the criminal, psychotic, dumb, dishonest, corrupt. Jerry Springer and "Reality" shows.

And so, for them, the idea of a "face that bore no mark of pain or fear or guilt" is not unplifiting or inspiring. It is baffling - because they can't connect it to anything. They've never been shown people even remotely like that in any medium beyond very simple children's literature. And simply ludicrous - because they don't believe any human could be that unscarred or un-downtrodden by life.

4. GROUPTHINK - There are many who may not deeply agree with 1-3, but they are hesitant to challenge the group and cultural consensus on literature and writing, on ideas and values. The hesitance can be internal - they don't know what to think, are shaky, don't think about these issues. Or it can be external -- they are unwilling to "lean against the wind" publicly or in print.

B. In our Subculture (Objectivists and libertarians, on this list):

1. They may hold ome of the above atitudes, numbered 1-4, in diluted or less extreme form. Especially if they are theists or otherwise non-Objectivists (DF, Jeffrey Xray, Brant, Adam, J?) -- on this list, they have been the ones who have expressed the strongest dislike or disapproval of Atlas. (And, if I recall, non-Oists, have the most negative appraisals also at Mises or Rockwelll or Reason??)

2. Negativity and nitpicking: In a book of this length and trying to do so much, to juggle so many balls in the air, if really determined to find flaws will find them. A charitable reading would have a certain tolerance and more of an acknowledging of what Rand does well. An example is you look for a plot flaw or a character you would have handled differently and then that is your excuse to dismiss the whole book when in fact you are hostile for deeper reasons. You don't like someone, they disgust you and can't or won't name why but just looking for them to make a single misstep so you can say "see, that's my reason".

C. What about outright "evasion"?

What I've left out of the above lists is knowing Rand is right, but wanting to deny it to yourself. I've known a lot of people, and I simply don't see that happen very often, and it's clear the 'opponents' of Rand's writing are not lying to themselves or us when they say they genuinely don't like much of it.

The reasons may come from brainwashing across a lifetime, from not being very insightful or introspective or independent thinkers, from misstaken or shallow views about life or people or literary excellence. But those mistaken views are deeply implanted and honestly held.

<<well, that's probably it: BFN -- bye for now>>

Edited November 10, 2009 by Philip Coates

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Subject: The Response to Atlas Shrugged -- Final Observations

This fall, in reviews of the two new biographies of Rand, there has been savage public criticism of the novel and Rand's fiction writing more broadly. A savage attack by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic, a "hit piece" in Salon, seething hostility and rage in GQ. The writer in The New Yorker called her fiction "crackpot". The New York Times speaks of the book as a "revenge fantasy", "plotting and characterization in her books [are] vulgar and unbelievable..cartoonish and sexed-up". It says she advocates "elitism" in Atlas, "businessmen [as] Übermenschen". Even an editor of Reason(Nick Gillespie, the Wilson Quarterly) gets a few punches in the beating.

Here are my observations about major factors which seem to be behind the onslaught of negative responses by intellectuals (both present and past) to a powerful and original novel, deeply loved by millions:

A. In the Culture [among the dominant intellectuals, the critics, the academics - as opposed to the general public, who tend to love the book and keep buying it by the hundreds of thousands every year]:

After reading all these comments, Whittaker Chambers is still most revealing -- because he is not a mixed reaction but a clear cut case of Rand loathing -- because he focuses solely on Atlas -- because he expresses his view in well-written essentials. [i disagree with pretty much every essential he offers.]

Even those who have a mixed reaction to Rand will probably share one or more of his attitudes.

No matter how well-written, Atlas would never win a Pulitzer or a Noble Prize for Literature. Despite the protestations, the driving force still behind "Rand-loathing" is not any major "deal-breaking" flaw in her magnum opus. It is overwhelming cultural brainwashing form the churches, schools, colleges, newspapers, literature, and movies: Rand would not have received the reaction she does (from intellectuals and 'the well-read') in the century of Sir Walter Scott, of Kipling, of Tennyson. The 20th Century has produced a steady rain of contrary perspectives, of which post-modernism is only the most toxic and extreme. Since childhood, and by every influential medium or role model, we have been taught that the ideas, emotions, and literary style of someone such as Rand are laughable and old-fashioned, childish and wrong. Here's the result:

1. PSYCHOLOGICAL HOSTILITY - Chambers, coming from a metaphysics of the good Christian should be humble, soft-spoken, kind, non-arrogant before God because man is fallible, weak, originally sinful. Well, what reaction might you expect to the style of Atlas? It is incredibly offensive: "Overriding arrogance" on page after page. If religion [or modern philosophy - much of Chambers' reactions are shared culturally] leads you to lack of certainties, to greyness, then you will be put off by her "dogmatism". And this will translate into a tone of "shrillness". What strikes him most? "Inflexibly self-righteous".

2. IDEOLOGICAL HOSTILITY - Those who take notes in class have internalized that the rich and clever oppress the poor and weak, that the group must take from them so the poor don't get poorer or starve, that businessmen are exploiters and the little guy who uses his muscles every day is the virtuous one, that selfishness means taking advantage or abusing. That without oversight and regulation, the world would turn into dog-eat-dog. That people are irrational, vicious. That true love involves negation of self...What reaction will they have to a novel which defiantly body slams and stomps on their ethics and politics?

3. LITERARY, ESTHETIC HOSTILITY - Those who have been taught respect for the ambiguous, more nuanced, more complex, more gray, for unresolved conflicts, for naturalism are not going to like Rand (or be unwilling to admit they do so, will think it's a sign of how shallow they are). Chambers again: "[The] story is preposterous", "everything, everybody, is either all good or all bad", [the heroes are] "operatic caricatures". People are taught life is not like Rand's universe, there is no possibility of the purely black or the purely white. Journalism and the media hold up cynicism and failure. The lead story is about the criminal, psychotic, dumb, dishonest, corrupt. Jerry Springer and "Reality" shows.

And so, for them, the idea of a "face that bore no mark of pain or fear or guilt" is not unplifiting or inspiring. It is baffling - because they can't connect it to anything. They've never been shown people even remotely like that in any medium beyond very simple children's literature. And simply ludicrous - because they don't believe any human could be that unscarred or un-downtrodden by life.

4. GROUPTHINK - There are many who may not deeply agree with 1-3, but they are hesitant to challenge the group and cultural consensus on literature and writing, on ideas and values. The hesitance can be internal - they don't know what to think, are shaky, don't think about these issues. Or it can be external -- they are unwilling to "lean against the wind" publicly or in print.

B. In our Subculture (Objectivists and libertarians, on this list):

1. They may hold ome of the above atitudes, numbered 1-4, in diluted or less extreme form. Especially if they are theists or otherwise non-Objectivists (DF, Jeffrey Xray, Brant, Adam, J?) -- on this list, they have been the ones who have expressed the strongest dislike or disapproval of Atlas. (And, if I recall, non-Oists, have the most negative appraisals also at Mises or Rockwelll or Reason??)

2. Negativity and nitpicking: In a book of this length and trying to do so much, to juggle so many balls in the air, if really determined to find flaws will find them. A charitable reading would have a certain tolerance and more of an acknowledging of what Rand does well. An example is you look for a plot flaw or a character you would have handled differently and then that is your excuse to dismiss the whole book when in fact you are hostile for deeper reasons. You don't like someone, they disgust you and can't or won't name why but just looking for them to make a single misstep so you can say "see, that's my reason".

C. What about outright "evasion"?

What I've left out of the above lists is knowing Rand is right, but wanting to deny it to yourself. I've known a lot of people, and I simply don't see that happen very often, and it's clear the 'opponents' of Rand's writing are not lying to themselves or us when they say they genuinely don't like much of it.

The reasons may come from brainwashing across a lifetime, from not being very insightful or introspective or independent thinkers, from misstaken or shallow views about life or people or literary excellence. But those mistaken views are deeply implanted and honestly held.

<<well, that's probably it: BFN -- bye for now>>

Phil,

I also think that people have an orientation to proto-philosophical method that develops quite early in life. If one of these orientations is at significant variance with Rand, there is little chance for agreement. Damasio has commented that the thought process consists of narratives of mental images. I think early in a child's development, he develops preferences for how to syntactically manipulate these narratives. I think these preferences become fairly hardwired.

Jim

[Xray]

The New York Times speaks of the book as a "revenge fantasy", "plotting and characterization in her books [are] vulgar and unbelievable..cartoonish and sexed-up". It says she advocates "elitism" in Atlas, "businessmen [as] Übermenschen".

"Revenge fantasy" hits the nail on the head.

Interesting though that Rand was not able to present a convincing portait of "the enemy" her heroes' hatred was directed against. All those "subjectivsts" who seem to deny that reality exists - they are clearly strawmen she set up to thrash.

Imo the inane "arguments" she puts in their mouth are among the weakest parts in the book because they are just plain ridiculous.

Like for example, Dr. Pritchett suggesting that the mother of the dead son can't really "know whether he existed" (p. 498); or in another passage where Dagny lambasted the alleged "savages of the non-objective" as people who seeing the farmer gather a harvest, can consider it only as mystic phenomenon unbound by the law of causality and created by the farmer's omnipotent whim" (917). Priceless.

I'm afraid the "savage of the non-objective" here was Ayn Rand, with those so-called "subjectivists" of hers being portrayed so unvonvincingly that they can clearly be identified as mere fanatsy creations, as local residents in the author's mind only.

Here are my observations about major factors which seem to be behind the onslaught of negative responses by intellectuals (both present and past) to a powerful and original novel, deeply loved by millions:

Deeply loved by millions - what does that say? Countless novels are deeply loved by millions, like for example 'kitschy' love stories.

No matter how well-written, Atlas would never win a Pulitzer or a Noble Prize for Literature.

What precisely is so well written? J. Riggenbach, when asked to back up his claim about Rand being one of the greatest writers of the 20th century, failed to provide quotes from her work. I'd be interested in concrete examples.

2. Negativity and nitpicking: In a book of this length and trying to do so much, to juggle so many balls in the air, if really determined to find flaws will find them.

Analyzing literature involves detail work, it has nothing to do with nitpicking.

A charitable reading would have a certain tolerance and more of an acknowledging of what Rand does well.

Imo Rand was far better and quite convincing in describing technical things (e. g. furnaces, the rails in AS, architecture in TF), or processes involving things (e. g. the pouring of metal) than she was in describing people's feelings.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Is he really gone? I'm tired of Phil's group smearing and in my case misrepresentation of who I am and what I think, for instance, of AS. So on and so forth.

--Brant

don't be a teacher unless someone pays you money for it

[Xray]

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.

The ideas are "thrown" at the reader instead of developed, and the cumbersome formal way in which this is done is in big "chunks" in the form of 'speeches'.

The biggest chunk is Galt's speech which bulges out at the end of the AS like an atheroma of verbosity.

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.

Unreal, yes - but psychotic? O maybe you mean psychopathic?

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.

Imo the Objectivist doctrine of love is absurd. I couldn't help laughing when reading what N. Branden wrote in "The Psychology of Pleasure" about the heroic Objectivists and their matching 'heroines'.

Edited November 11, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

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.

I don't think that "love by its very nature involves the negation of the self".

Edited November 12, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

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.

I don't think that "love by its very nature involves the negation of the self".

You should elope with Phil then you will truly understand the negation of the self.

Adam

Brant and I will bring the ladder later, we will even throw in rungs for free

[Xray]

From Jeffrey Riggenbach's catalog: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=240, (# 249):

JR: The questions relevant to determining whether someone is a "good writer" are questions like these:

Is his or her meaning crystal clear? If s/he writes a passage that is ambiguous, are there grounds for arguing that this ambiguity in itself conveys a clear and relevant meaning? (Example: a key passage in a novel seems at first blush to refer to one group of characters - say, the members of a particular juvenile street gang, as in West Side

Story, but on closer reflection it becomes clear that the passage actually could

refer to either of two groups of characters - either the Sharks or the Jets. On still further reflection, it becomes clear that this is in itself an example of clear and unambiguous formulation, since one of the themes of the novel in question is the many ways in which seemingly opposed and irreconcilable groups of people are actually very similar.)

Does s/he display an ear for the "music" of prose? A word, as Rand herself noted in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology "is . . . a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept." Even as we read silently we are at least subliminally aware of the sound of the words we are reading. (Some of us are more than just subliminally aware of this issue - on the one hand, there are those advanced readers who understand the crucial role the sound of language can play in advancing meaning;

on the other hand, there are those who are relatively inexperienced readers, whose own use of language is much more tied up with speech than with writing, and who are ignorantly mocked by "educators" bent on getting them to stop "subvocalizing" when they read.) Does the writer accused of being a "good writer" give evidence of understanding this issue? Does s/he employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal? Does s/he control rhythm in such a way as to give his or her writing a fluid quality, so that it seems to flow smoothly, carrying the reader with it, from topic to topic and from chapter to chapter? Does s/he control rhythm in such a way that when his or her subject matter reaches a full stop, so does the cumulative rhythm of the prose?

Does s/he vary the length and type (simple, compound, complex, compound complex) of his or her sentences? Does s/he make intelligent and suitably infrequent use of the passive voice? Is s/he precise and exact, rather than abstract, vaporous, and vague? It is astonishing how many writers (especially of fiction), some of whom are touted as "good writers" by their confused readers, give no evidence whatever of ever having read Strunk and White, much less having internalized their more useful rules of thumb.

Does s/he make skillful use of patterned imagery in extended passages, such as chapters? Are metaphors employed and dropped, or are the images of which they are constituted re-used systematically so as to stress the ongoing relevance of the comparison that underlay the metaphors?

This is the form analysis of prowess at writing needs to take.

JR did not illustrate that catalog of his with direct quotes from Rand (e. g. "internal" rhyme, "intelligent" use of rhythm, "patterned imagery", "time-honored techniques" (of assonance, alliteration ...) etc."

What for example is "intelligent" use of rhythm as opposed to "stupid" use?

He also believes that what he outlined above are "objective standards" by which to judge "good writing", presenting his personal tastes and subjective valuations as "objective".

Again, it is the fallacy of objective value leading to the illusion of objective standard.

Even if other people should happen to share JR's subjective preferences, still they remain subjective since others may come up with a different catalog. JR's criteria are not only completely arbitrary, unless he provides examples, they also remain unanchored to Rand's work.

For when looking at JR's standards, where does Rand's work meet them? I can see more evidence of the contrary (they are not met), and would be interested in other posters' opinion on that.

Is his or her meaning crystal clear?

Certainly not in ITOE (JR made no difference between fiction and non-fiction regarding writing - imo it is a methodical mistake to lump these two areas of writing together, since (among other things) the writer of fiction has far more artistic freedom in experimenting with language as such).

(I'll address the "meaning" in AS in a separate post).

Also, asking whether "the meaning is crystal clear" generalizes too much. The meaning of Mickey Mouse stories is "crystal clear" too, and the writers of pulp fiction stories rarely leave the reader in doubt as to what is meant.

If s/he writes a passage that is ambiguous, are there grounds for arguing that this ambiguity in itself conveys a clear and relevant meaning?

Where does it say that ambiguity has to convey a clear and relevant meaning? It may be precisely the author's intention to keep the reader in the state of ambiguity. For reasons of suspense, or to suggest an unreliable narrator, or in experimental prose to 'deconstruct' the reader's expectaton to get clear meaning.

Does s/he display an ear for the "music" of prose?

Does s/he control rhythm in such a way as to give his or her writing a fluid quality, so that it seems to flow smoothly, carrying the reader with it, from topic to topic and from chapter to chapter?

Ayn Rand's throwing those cumbersome 'speech chunks' at the reader hardly qualifies as conducive to a smooth flow, on the contrary, it seems to have hit a sour note. with many.

For it looks like quite a few readers have declined to take a swim in this alleged "fluid quality" by skipping most of Galt speech which is way too long and bulges out of the novel, suggesting more the the medical comparison with an atheroma than an association with anything "musical".

Edited November 12, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

The fallacy of the fallacy of objective value.

--Brant

I can do it too

[Selene]

Totally unsubstantiated with any object number. Just the last refuge of rhetorical cowardice the use of the slippery "many". And very, very obvious to many?

"...it seems to have hit a sour note. with many."

Just like many of your statements Ms. Xray.

In many ways you are just like your favorite pin cushion.

Many people see right through what you write many times over and over in many posts using many of the same phrases.

This is fun!

Adam

[Xray]

The fallacy of the fallacy of objective value.

--Brant

I can do it too

The truth shining through in jest here is indeed: once you have grasped that objective value is a fallacy, you will easily identify other fallacies resulting from the false premise.

[Disclaimer to MSK to avoid any misunderstanding: I don't believe Brant has "abandoned objectivism". ]

Totally unsubstantiated with any object number. Just the last refuge of rhetorical cowardice the use of the slippery "many". And very, very obvious to many?

Check your premises, Selene. The term "many" is by definition not denotatively quantity specific.

Another example: "Many believe in the fallacy of objective value". There is no statistics here which lists a specific number.

Selene: Many people see right through what you write many times over and over in many posts using many of the same phrases.

My responses merely address the repeated fallacy of objective value/standards of value permeating Rand's thinking as well as that of her advocates.

(BTW, I haven't seen you reply yet at Epistemology to post # 3 (thread: "What is the Objectivist theory of knowledge?"), or Post # 51 (thread: "Is there really such a concept as 'Existence'?). You wanted to get into a detailed discussion on this, remember?

Edited November 13, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

The fallacy of the fallacy of objective value.

--Brant

I can do it too

The truth shining through in jest here is indeed: once you have grasped that objective value is a fallacy, you will easily identify other fallacies resulting from the false premise.

[Disclaimer to MSK to avoid any misunderstanding: I don't believe Brant has "abandoned objectivism". ]

Totally unsubstantiated with any object number. Just the last refuge of rhetorical cowardice the use of the slippery "many". And very, very obvious to many?

Check your premises, Selene. The non-fixed quantity term "many" is used precisely because no object number can be given.

Another example: "Many believe in the fallacy of objective value".

Selene: Many people see right through what you write many times over and over in many posts using many of the same phrases.

My responses merely address the repeated fallacy of objective value/standards of value permeating Rand's thinking as well as that of her advocates.

(BTW, I haven't seen you reply yet at Epistemology to post # 3 (thread: "What is the Objectivist theory of knowledge"), or Post # 51 (thread: "Is there really such a concept as existence?).

Pots and kettles and creatures of the night that are black.

Ms. Xray: When I see something worth responding to, I will.

Adam

glad she is keeping track, but guesses it is getting easier since not many of the many posters and of the many people in the world that have access to the many computers would read her many posts many times though...

[Xray]

JR: Does s/he control rhythm in such a way as to give his or her writing a fluid quality, so that it seems to flow smoothly, carrying the reader with it, from topic to topic and from chapter to chapter? Does s/he control rhythm in such a way that when his or her subject matter reaches a full stop, so does the cumulative rhythm of the prose?

Agin, this presupposes that "the reader" wants to be carried smoothly from chapter to chapter.

"The reader" does not refer to an individual entity but to a category, which leaves out all those readers of fiction for whom to be "carried smoothly" from topic to topic is of no interest, but who value other aspects instead.

Re 'rhythm': demanding that the cumulative rhythm has to stop each time the subject matter reaches a full stop makes about as much sense as demanding that each section in a piece of music has to end with a flourish.

Edited November 13, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

From Jeffrey Riggenbach's catalog: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=240, (# 249):

JR: The questions relevant to determining whether someone is a "good writer" are questions like these:

Is his or her meaning crystal clear? If s/he writes a passage that is ambiguous, are there grounds for arguing that this ambiguity in itself conveys a clear and relevant meaning? (Example: a key passage in a novel seems at first blush to refer to one group of characters - say, the members of a particular juvenile street gang, as in West Side

Story, but on closer reflection it becomes clear that the passage actually could

refer to either of two groups of characters - either the Sharks or the Jets. On still further reflection, it becomes clear that this is in itself an example of clear and unambiguous formulation, since one of the themes of the novel in question is the many ways in which seemingly opposed and irreconcilable groups of people are actually very similar.)

Does s/he display an ear for the "music" of prose? A word, as Rand herself noted in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology "is . . . a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept." Even as we read silently we are at least subliminally aware of the sound of the words we are reading. (Some of us are more than just subliminally aware of this issue - on the one hand, there are those advanced readers who understand the crucial role the sound of language can play in advancing meaning;

on the other hand, there are those who are relatively inexperienced readers, whose own use of language is much more tied up with speech than with writing, and who are ignorantly mocked by "educators" bent on getting them to stop "subvocalizing" when they read.) Does the writer accused of being a "good writer" give evidence of understanding this issue? Does s/he employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal? Does s/he control rhythm in such a way as to give his or her writing a fluid quality, so that it seems to flow smoothly, carrying the reader with it, from topic to topic and from chapter to chapter? Does s/he control rhythm in such a way that when his or her subject matter reaches a full stop, so does the cumulative rhythm of the prose?

Does s/he vary the length and type (simple, compound, complex, compound complex) of his or her sentences? Does s/he make intelligent and suitably infrequent use of the passive voice? Is s/he precise and exact, rather than abstract, vaporous, and vague? It is astonishing how many writers (especially of fiction), some of whom are touted as "good writers" by their confused readers, give no evidence whatever of ever having read Strunk and White, much less having internalized their more useful rules of thumb.

Does s/he make skillful use of patterned imagery in extended passages, such as chapters? Are metaphors employed and dropped, or are the images of which they are constituted re-used systematically so as to stress the ongoing relevance of the comparison that underlay the metaphors?

This is the form analysis of prowess at writing needs to take.

JR did not illustrate that catalog of his with direct quotes from Rand (e. g. "internal" rhyme, "intelligent" use of rhythm, "patterned imagery", "time-honored techniques" (of assonance, alliteration ...) etc."

What for example is "intelligent" use of rhythm as opposed to "stupid" use?

He also believes that what he outlined above are "objective standards" by which to judge "good writing", presenting his personal tastes and subjective valuations as "objective".

Again, it is the fallacy of objective value leading to the illusion of objective standard.

Even if other people should happen to share JR's subjective preferences, still they remain subjective since others may come up with a different catalog. JR's criteria are not only completely arbitrary, unless he provides examples, they also remain unanchored to Rand's work.

For when looking at JR's standards, where does Rand's work meet them? I can see more evidence of the contrary (they are not met), and would be interested in other posters' opinion on that.

Is his or her meaning crystal clear?

Certainly not in ITOE (JR made no difference between fiction and non-fiction regarding writing - imo it is a methodical mistake to lump these two areas of writing together, since (among other things) the writer of fiction has far more artistic freedom in experimenting with language as such).

(I'll address the "meaning" in AS in a separate post).

Also, asking whether "the meaning is crystal clear" generalizes too much. The meaning of Mickey Mouse stories is "crystal clear" too, and the writers of pulp fiction stories rarely leave the reader in doubt as to what is meant.

If s/he writes a passage that is ambiguous, are there grounds for arguing that this ambiguity in itself conveys a clear and relevant meaning?

Where does it say that ambiguity has to convey a clear and relevant meaning? It may be precisely the author's intention to keep the reader in the state of ambiguity. For reasons of suspense, or to suggest an unreliable narrator, or in experimental prose to 'deconstruct' the reader's expectaton to get clear meaning.

Does s/he display an ear for the "music" of prose?

Does s/he control rhythm in such a way as to give his or her writing a fluid quality, so that it seems to flow smoothly, carrying the reader with it, from topic to topic and from chapter to chapter?

Ayn Rand's throwing those cumbersome 'speech chunks' at the reader hardly qualifies as conducive to a smooth flow, on the contrary, it seems to have hit a sour note. with many.

For it looks like quite a few readers have declined to take a swim in this alleged "fluid quality" by skipping most of Galt speech which is way too long and bulges out of the novel, suggesting more the the medical comparison with an atheroma than an association with anything "musical".

I've left in the entire original post so folks can note:

1) Absence of substantial examples by Xray (where are those "direct quotes" which you so value, Xray?)

2) Persistence in parading out evaluations suggesting broad agreement such as "seems to have hit a sour note, with many" or "quite a few readers" ---- where are all those readers? Are they people who have actually read Rand carefully and commented thoughtfully (unlike Xray, who seems to major in rhetorical questions, summary evaluations without justifications, and other rhetorical devices which really don't deserve a detailed response by anybody)?

3) Arbitrary statements with confusion about what clarity means (now, that's amusing!). One can keep the reader in suspense and still have clarity. Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is marvellously clear - and nonetheless most readers are in suspense up until the very end on the question "who is the murderer." That suspense doesn't conflict with the clarity of the writing at all.

There's just no substance in what you are typing, Xray. Yes - you have typed many words. If that is your goal - mission accomplished. But you should offer some substance if you want people to respond. Most of us have grown very bored with your posts of the kind I mention above. If you want substantive responses - post something with content.

Bill P

[Xray]

I've left in the entire original post so folks can note:

1) Absence of substantial examples by Xray (where are those "direct quotes" which you so value, Xray?)

My post was addressed to JR' claims. It was he who made them and it was he who failed to back up his claims with quotes from Rand's work.

As for me, I already referred to Galt's speech as example.

If you want more direct quotes, no problem.

2) Persistence in parading out evaluations suggesting broad agreement such as "seems to have hit a sour note, with many" or "quite a few readers" ---- where are all those readers? Are they people who have actually read Rand carefully and commented thoughtfully (unlike Xray, who seems to major in rhetorical questions, summary evaluations without justifications, and other rhetorical devices which really don't deserve a detailed response by anybody)?

Read my # 336 post re 'quantity'.

If you happen to be one of those who think Galt's speech is not too long and overly repetitive, feel free to elaborate why.

3) Arbitrary statements with confusion about what clarity means (now, that's amusing!). One can keep the reader in suspense and still have clarity. Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is marvellously clear - and nonetheless most readers are in suspense up until the very end on the question "who is the murderer." That suspense doesn't conflict with the clarity of the writing at all.

What statement by JR are you referring to? Where he mentioned clarity or where he mentioned ambiguity?. Please be specific.

Here are the quotes again:

Quote:

Is his or her meaning crystal clear? (JR)

Quote:

Certainly not in ITOE (JR made no difference between fiction and non-fiction regarding writing - imo it is a methodical mistake to lump these two areas of writing together, since (among other things) the writer of fiction has far more artistic freedom in experimenting with language as such).

(I'll address the "meaning" in AS in a separate post).

Also, asking whether "the meaning is crystal clear" generalizes too much. The meaning of Mickey Mouse stories is "crystal clear" too, and the writers of pulp fiction stories rarely leave the reader in doubt as to what is meant. (Xray)

Quote:

"If s/he writes a passage that is ambiguous, are there grounds for arguing that this ambiguity in itself conveys a clear and relevant meaning?" (JR)

Quote: "Where does it say that ambiguity has to convey a clear and relevant meaning? It may be precisely the author's intention to keep the reader in the state of ambiguity. For reasons of suspense, or to suggest an unreliable narrator, or in experimental prose to 'deconstruct' the reader's expectaton to get clear meaning". (Xray)

As for "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd", the author is deliberately misleading the reader into wrongly interpreting Dr. Sheppard's statements. Sheppard is both the first person narrator and murderer. Sheppard is a so-called 'unreliable narrator'.

So what is your point?

There's just no substance in what you are typing, Xray. Yes - you have typed many words. If that is your goal - mission accomplished. But you should offer some substance if you want people to respond. Most of us have grown very bored with your posts of the kind I mention above. If you want substantive responses - post something with content.

Bill P

I have the impression that you are evading to get into a detailed discussion.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ms. Xray:

You would have gotten a D or an F in my argumentation course.

Rambling, incoherent disjointed argumentation with supportive evidence with little or minuscule probative value.

Adam

[Xray]

"Ms. Xray: When I see something worth responding to, I will."

I suppose facing the obligation of explaining how an axiom is not only absolute, but precedes sensory input as the root of all knowledge does tend to dampen the desire to respond.

How an "absolute axiom", or any axiom, came about without the antecedent process of sensory input, integration and establishing entity identity by difference, I do not know. I was so looking forward to you explaining it to me.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

I've left in the entire original post so folks can note:

1) Absence of substantial examples by Xray (where are those "direct quotes" which you so value, Xray?)

My post was addressed to JR' claims. It was he who made them and it was he who failed to back up his claims with quotes from Rand's work.

As for me, I already referred to Galt's speech as example.

If you want more direct quotes, no problem.

2) Persistence in parading out evaluations suggesting broad agreement such as "seems to have hit a sour note, with many" or "quite a few readers" ---- where are all those readers? Are they people who have actually read Rand carefully and commented thoughtfully (unlike Xray, who seems to major in rhetorical questions, summary evaluations without justifications, and other rhetorical devices which really don't deserve a detailed response by anybody)?

Read my # 336 post re 'quantity'.

If you happen to be one of those who think Galt's speech is not too long and overly repetitive, feel free to elaborate why.

3) Arbitrary statements with confusion about what clarity means (now, that's amusing!). One can keep the reader in suspense and still have clarity. Agatha Christie's The Murder of Roger Ackroyd is marvellously clear - and nonetheless most readers are in suspense up until the very end on the question "who is the murderer." That suspense doesn't conflict with the clarity of the writing at all.

What statement by JR are you referring to? Where he mentioned clarity or where he mentioned ambiguity?. Please be specific.

Here are the quotes again:

Quote:

Is his or her meaning crystal clear? (JR)

Quote:

Certainly not in ITOE (JR made no difference between fiction and non-fiction regarding writing - imo it is a methodical mistake to lump these two areas of writing together, since (among other things) the writer of fiction has far more artistic freedom in experimenting with language as such).

(I'll address the "meaning" in AS in a separate post).

Also, asking whether "the meaning is crystal clear" generalizes too much. The meaning of Mickey Mouse stories is "crystal clear" too, and the writers of pulp fiction stories rarely leave the reader in doubt as to what is meant. (Xray)

Quote:

"If s/he writes a passage that is ambiguous, are there grounds for arguing that this ambiguity in itself conveys a clear and relevant meaning?" (JR)

Quote: "Where does it say that ambiguity has to convey a clear and relevant meaning? It may be precisely the author's intention to keep the reader in the state of ambiguity. For reasons of suspense, or to suggest an unreliable narrator, or in experimental prose to 'deconstruct' the reader's expectaton to get clear meaning". (Xray)

As for "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd", the author is deliberately misleading the reader into wrongly interpreting Dr. Sheppard's statements. Sheppard is both the first person narrator and murderer. Sheppard is a so-called 'unreliable narrator'.

So what is your point?

There's just no substance in what you are typing, Xray. Yes - you have typed many words. If that is your goal - mission accomplished. But you should offer some substance if you want people to respond. Most of us have grown very bored with your posts of the kind I mention above. If you want substantive responses - post something with content.

Bill P

I have the impression that you are evading to get into a detailed discussion.

Xray -

I can't figure out how you find it so hard to read something another writes and get the meaning - whether Rand or someone on this forum. But there's no point in continuing to attempt communication with you - - - either you are unable, or you are unwilling, to have a conversation. I don't know which, and I'm done with trying to communicate or to find out what the problem is. You can't reasonably hope others will continue to try, if you show no more concern for attempting to carefully read what you are responding to and then to respond intelligibly than you do in your response above. They will eventually tire of wasting their time, also.

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray -

I can't figure out how you find it so hard to read something another writes and get the meaning - whether Rand or someone on this forum. But there's no point in continuing to attempt communication with you - - - either you are unable, or you are unwilling, to have a conversation. I don't know which, and I'm done with trying to communicate or to find out what the problem is.

Bill,

I keep seeing this moment come with one person after another and that is a good thing. Sometimes just saying something does not resonate with people, especially those who think for themselves. They are not content to simply read what someone else says, then follow it. They have to experience it on some level to properly identify it and judge it. Xray allows such experience to happen.

In your specific case above, the problem is with the word "conversation." You obviously mean a two-way conversation between equals. (I mean moral equal when I say "equal" here. Obviously, there can be a difference in learning, expertise, etc.) A person has to want to communicate in that manner before it can take place.

Those who use a plethora of persuasion techniques and rhetorical baiting maneuvers (like Xray) have anything but two-way communication between equals in mind. The meaning of conversation they practice is a bit different: two-way communication between a superior and an inferior in all matters. This is their underlying premise and it impacts every word they write or say.

Some call this having an agenda, but it goes further. Look close and you will see that it is stubborn blind prejudice at the root, and just as ugly as bigotry.

I suggest you take a good look at your interaction with Xray. Seriously. Reread some of that stuff and look for the following. You treat her has an equal. She treats you as an inferior—sight unseen—and constantly seeks ways to correct you, even to the point of constantly demanding you provide examples of your erroneous thinking (and your reasons) so she can correct them. When you show signs of signing off, she baits you by totally misrepresenting something you or Rand wrote, or by using Objective hot buttons (like saying you are "evading" as in this last case for an easy example).

You presume she is correct (or at least attempting to be correct) until she says something that is flat-out wrong. At that point you try to correct her. But she presumes you are flat-out wrong about almost everything except a bone or two she sometimes throws out (that also applies to Rand) and will employ any and all rhetorical and persuasion means to get you to fall in line, starting with doubting yourself.

I like her presence on OL because she is a great practical example of how intellectual poison is spread through persuasion methods, but inept enough to be obvious. You can learn much from her, not from her ideas but from her methods. All you have to do is look at her writing from a different angle (method instead of idea) and everything—all the perplexing misunderstandings and talking past each other—neatly falls into place.

Michael

[Xray]

I have the impression that you are evading to get into a detailed discussion.

Xray -

I can't figure out how you find it so hard to read something another writes and get the meaning - whether Rand or someone on this forum. But there's no point in continuing to attempt communication with you - - - either you are unable, or you are unwilling, to have a conversation. I don't know which, and I'm done with trying to communicate or to find out what the problem is. You can't reasonably hope others will continue to try, if you show no more concern for attempting to carefully read what you are responding to and then to respond intelligibly than you do in your response above. They will eventually tire of wasting their time, also.

This only confirms my impression from above.

Discussing AS with an opponent whose view is different would offer an excellent opportunity for you and others to make your case. Jmpo, but if I were convinced of the value of AS, I would welcome challenge by an opponent in a debate.

Making a case takes more than complaining "AS is such a great novel and I can't understand that others don't seem to like it". When reading some of P. Coates' posts I got the impression that he grappled with that: people not sharing his view on a novel which obviously means much to him.

I have nothing at all against opposing views, and forums usually thrive on (fair!) debate.

This is how it could look like:

For example, I asked you "If you happen to be one of those who think Galt's speech is not too long and overly repetitive, feel free to elaborate why".(Xray)

So in case you belonged to that group, you could have listed your reasons.

Imo it is not too long because:

1) ...

2) ...

3) ...

and ask me if I can refute it. Point per point.

As for the unreliable narrator Dr. Sheppard in A. Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd": no, the meaning is notcrystal clear while one is reading, for the reader is deliberately misled.

AFTER the solving of the puzzle, it becomes of course crystal clear because everything falls into place and the reader sees that the author deliberately used ambiguity.

In The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, A. Christie makes use of the reader's expectation to deal with a reliable narrator. When the narrator is later unmasked as the killer, that's quite a bombshell. TMORA is one of my favorite A. Christies (I have read them all).

But back to JR's catalog: The issue is that he demanded "crystal clarity" in terms of meaning and allows "ambiguity" only if it conveys clear meaning in itself.

These are arbitrary criteria of course, and that was the point of my post.

But there are enough passages in AR's work where JR's subjective standard of value is not met.

Example: the episode where Cherryl commits suicide. Rand makes an effort to present it as conscious choice, but from the way it is decribed, I got the impression that Cherryl had lapsed into a paranoia-like psychotic break culminating in her drowning herself.

Imo this passage becomes ambiguous (against the author's intent) (conscious clear-minded choice versus psychotic break preventing clear thinking) and the ambiguity does not convey a clear meaning - it is just there because Rand got so carried away in the description.

Another ambiguity is her presentation of the altruists in her works. Since these enemies are moved by self-interest every bit as much as the heroes, imo her attempt fails to breathe life into the ideology of altruism by setting up strawmen her heroes can fight.

If her message had been: "altruism does not exist", that would have conveyed a crystal-clear meaning. But this message is not given.

Edited November 14, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I have the impression that you are evading to get into a detailed discussion.

Xray -

I can't figure out how you find it so hard to read something another writes and get the meaning - whether Rand or someone on this forum. But there's no point in continuing to attempt communication with you - - - either you are unable, or you are unwilling, to have a conversation. I don't know which, and I'm done with trying to communicate or to find out what the problem is. You can't reasonably hope others will continue to try, if you show no more concern for attempting to carefully read what you are responding to and then to respond intelligibly than you do in your response above. They will eventually tire of wasting their time, also.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This only confirms my impression from above.

Discussing AS with an opponent whose view is different would offer an excellent opportunity for you and others to make your case. Jmpo, but if I were convinced of the value of AS, I would welcome challenge by an opponent in a debate.

Making a case takes more than complaining "AS is such a great novel and I can't understand that others don't seem to like it". When reading some of P. Coates' posts I got the impression that he grappled with that: people not sharing his view on a novel which obviously means much to him.

I have nothing at all against opposing views, and forums usually thrive on (fair!) debate.

This is how it could look like:

For example, I asked you "If you happen to be one of those who think Galt's speech is not too long and overly repetitive, feel free to elaborate why".(Xray)

So in case you belonged to that group, you could have listed your reasons.

Imo it is not too long because:

1) ...

2) ...

3) ...

and ask me if I can refute it. Point per point.

As for the unreliable narrator Dr. Sheppard in A. Christie's "The Murder of Roger Ackroyd": no, the meaning is not crystal clear while one is reading, for the reader is deliberately misled.

AFTER the solving of the puzzle, it becomes of course crystal clear because everything falls into place and the reader sees that the author deliberately used ambiguity.

In The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, A. Christie makes use of the reader's expectation to deal with a reliable narrator. When the narrator is later unmasked as the killer, that's quite a bombshell. TMORA is one of my favorite A. Christies (I have read them all).

But back to JR's catalog: The issue is that he demanded "crystal clarity" in terms of meaning and allows "ambiguity" only if it conveys clear meaning in itself.

These are arbitrary criteria of course, and that was the point of my post.

But there are enough passages in AR's work where JR's subjective standard of value is not met.

Example: the episode where Cherryl commits suicide. Rand makes an effort to present it as conscious choice, but from the way it is decribed, I got the impression that Cherryl had lapsed into a paranoia-like psychotic break culminating in her drowning herself.

Imo this passage becomes ambiguous (against the author's intent) (conscious clear-minded choice versus psychotic break preventing clear thinking) and the ambiguity does not convey a clear meaning - it is just there because Rand got so carried away in the description.

Another ambiguity is her presentation of the altruists in her works. Since these enemies are moved by self-interest every bit as much as the heroes, imo her attempt fails to breathe life into the ideology of altruism by setting up strawmen her heroes can fight.

If her message had been: "altruism does not exist", that would have conveyed a crystal-clear meaning. But this message is not given.

Ms. Xray:

Textbook disassociative techniques do not work here.

This "statement" is replete with: False dichotomies. Question begging phrasing. Poorly worded and weak features and benefits statements.

However, the pièce de résistance:

I have nothing at all against opposing views, and forums usually thrive on (fair!) debate.

Yes you do. You have your own "definitional system" of a rhomboidal categorization system which neither square sticks. round pegs and any non Xray shape does not fit.

Actually, provide us with an example of how you are so well received on another forum which might actually have some probative value.

Finally, we did not seek you out, you joined this forum.

Adam

[Xray]

All quotes: MSK

I keep seeing this moment come with one person after another and that is a good thing. Sometimes just saying something does not resonate with people, especially those who think for themselves. They are not content to simply read what someone else says, then follow it. They have to experience it on some level to properly identify it and judge it. Xray allows such experience to happen.

Michael, I have made the experience that getting to the nitty-gritty in a discussion where beliefs are threatened often results in evasion. I have seen it happen frequently.

In your specific case above, the problem is with the word "conversation."

I would not use the word "conversation" at all, but this is my personal interpretation (I too much connote "small talk" with it). I would use discussion, debate, exchange.

Those who use a plethora of persuasion techniques and rhetorical baiting maneuvers (like Xray) have anything but two-way communication between equals in mind.

"Persuasion technique" makes me laugh each time I read it for I was virtually clueless about that NLP stuff before reading your post suggesting I was a 'practitioner'. I had to go to Wikipedia to get an idea of the basics, but found the entry more confusing than enlightening.

But since you seem to have delved into the issue of such techniques, if you would be so kind to you give me a tip how I can finally, after all those years, "persuade" my DH to hang our keys on the pegs right next to the entrance door instead of randomly leaving them in all kinds of (often unusual) places which makes the family's hunting for them pretty time-consuming at times. TIA for your help.

The same goes for "rhetorical baiting maneuvers". Makes me laugh too. If I were into that, I certainly would have enjoyed haggling for prices far more thant I did when I was in Turkey on vacation. I recall feeling uncomfortable because the shopkeepers expect you to haggle with them of course. They enjoy it, use flowery rhetoric like e. g. "You are my first client today and it brings me luck for the day if I make a sales deal with the first client." Stuff along that line.

I'm neither gifted nor inclined for that - either the price is okay for me or I look elsewhere if it isn't.

As for forum discussions, either arguments are convincing or they aren't. I found JR's arguments not convincing and have started to explain why. If you are of a different opinion, why not offer it here?

Some call this having an agenda, but it goes further. Look close and you will see that it is stubborn blind prejudice at the root, and just as ugly as bigotry.

It is about checking premises. Have you read JR's catalog of alleged objective standards for judging literature? What do you think?

I suggest you take a good look at your interaction with Xray. Seriously. Reread some of that stuff and look for the following.

I encourage that.

If memory serves, Bill P was interested in discussing AS and I wanted to look for a thread.

You treat her has an equal. She treats you as an inferior—sight unseen—and constantly seeks ways to correct you, even to the point of constantly demanding you provide examples of your erroneous thinking (and your reasons) so she can correct them.

Where you get the idea that I treat Bill P as inferior is beyond me.

Look at the insults which have been directed at me by some posters (not Bill) - I would call that treating someone as inferior.

As for examples, they offer something to hang one's hat on. They are illustrative, and serve as the litmus test in tying down floating abstractions to conreteness.

And yes indeed I would point out erroneous thinking. Wouldn't you do the same?

You presume she is correct (or at least attempting to be correct) until she says something that is flat-out wrong. At that point you try to correct her.

I disagree with that. Imo is not presumed that I'm correct. It is presumed that I must be incorrect because I'm no Objectivist.

But she presumes you are flat-out wrong about almost everything except a bone or two she sometimes throws out (that also applies to Rand) and will employ any and all rhetorical and persuasion means to get you to fall in line, starting with doubting yourself.

To fall in line with what? Also, I'm surprised that you seem to believe any Rand advocates here at OL would doubt themselves and waver in their belief. I don't have this impression at all. (??)

I like her presence on OL because she is a great practical example of how intellectual poison is spread through persuasion methods, but inept enough to be obvious.

The "intellectual poison" argument is often used against those not sharing the values of a certain ideology. Didn't Rand use it too?

Edited November 14, 2009 by Xray

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

At this moment I feel like I have felt when I took a multiple choice test where the answer I have in mind is not among the choices.

I agree with you that a jury of Objectivists (not all, but more than enough for comfort) judging Gehry guilty of fraud is a very real danger should this kind of power ever come to their hands. But I don't see this arising from the story or the main themes in it. I do see it arising from later developments in Rand's non-fiction, the early kangaroo courts in Rand's apartment, and from the thirst to control others that sometimes wells up with a lot of acrimony in our subcommunity. I think, in this case, artistic taste would be secondary (and a far, far, far second at that) to plain old meanness of spirit.

I always think it's weird to see Objectivists who say that they love The Fountainhead, yet when it comes to appreciation of architecture in real life, as well as all of the other arts, they're basically extreme classicists or traditionalists who are opposed to the new and the different. Why do they enjoy the character of Howard Roark when in real life they're attitudes about aesthetic individuality and innovation are much closer to Ellsworth Toohey's?

I like your way of thinking, though. I perfectly understand your, "Let's look at it from the other end" way of analysis because I do this myself. But the thing I cannot forget about The Fountainhead is that the first-hand selfishness theme is the point, not any procedure about contract law or how court systems should operate.

I'm not looking at it as an issue of mere contract law, but of criminal law and property rights from an Objectivist perspective, and the relevance that those issues might rightfully have in regard to the meaning that people take away from reading the novel. My point is that there are legitimate grounds on which people can come to different interpretations and evaluations of The Fountainhead.

I know that Xray irritates a lot of people here, but I think she has some legitimate points, or at least some of her arguments coincide with mine even though we may have somewhat different points.

I've found that it's hard to get precision from Objectivist-types on the issue of the alleged objectivity of their aesthetic judgments. It's hard to get them to clearly define their terms and identify their criteria, and to give examples of why they believe that their judgments of art are objective yet others' judgements are not despite the fact that all of them support their views by pointing to the evidence contained in the art.

One of the ways which Rand often illustrated the goodness of her characters was to show them driven to do things that they consciously did not want to do. They succumb to temptation, but the temptation is to be good/productive/life affirming, etc., instead of being evil. The housing project was too good a challenge for Roark to pass up. Rearden couldn't stop himself from going after Dagny. And so on.

From a rather forced angle, you could even say that Roark had to blow up the housing project because he knew in his heart of hearts that, if he were to be consistent, it should not have existed in the first place.

In other words, there is a vast amount more on the table than contract law. In simple contractual terms, Roark was wrong. The problem is that the story is not about a contract.

There is even another angle. I suppose I am a practicing anarchist even though I support limited government. I also think Rand was essentially the same underneath it all.

In my own life, I never let obedience to the government be a guiding factor in my decisions. It has only been a practical concern, i.e., when I have wanted to do something I thought was right and the government was in the way, my only thought has been whether I could get away with it—and how to get away with it. If that meant bribing officials, I have done that. If that meant being an outlaw, well, I have done that, too. If that meant standing in line and getting a slip of paper, I have even done that (with distaste, of course, since that was legal... ). Most of this was in Brazil and I have since mellowed from being beaten up and sewn back together too many times, but my attitude is still the same.

In other words, up to a certain level, I literally don't believe the rules are for me. I never have. (In fact, that's one of the reasons I am hell for bullies.)

This is the meaning of Roark's actions to me. He is not someone to whom normal rules apply and he refuses to allow himself to be bullied.

I think it is a mistake to try to justify his actions (or even try to understand them) from the perspective of following normal rules.

Neitzche anyone?

I've known quite a few people who see The Fountainhead as representing a sort of dark version of Nietzsche -- elitism, oligarchy -- for some of the same reasons that I've been going on about lately (Roark's destroying Cortland despite having no contractual justification to do so; his willingness to conspire to commit fraud in order to get the satisfaction of working on a project whose existence he claims to oppose on philosophical grounds), and hearing Rand's fans claim that Roark was justified according to Objectivism to take the actions he did only supports non-Objectivists' views that Rand and her followers have an elitist bent that implies the possibility of tyrannical behavior. Though I have a different and much more positive response to the novel, I can't say that others' interpretations of it are less valid or objective than mine or any other fan of the novel.

J

[Selene]

Jonathan:

"I've known quite a few people who see The Fountainhead as representing a sort of dark version of Nietzsche -- elitism, oligarchy -- for some of the same reasons that I've been going on about lately (Roark's destroying Cortland despite having no contractual justification to do so; his willingness to conspire to commit fraud in order to get the satisfaction of working on a project whose existence he claims to oppose on philosophical grounds), and hearing Rand's fans claim that Roark was justified according to Objectivism to take the actions he did only supports non-Objectivists' views that Rand and her followers have an elitist bent that implies the possibility of tyrannical behavior. Though I have a different and much more positive response to the novel, I can't say that others' interpretations of it are less valid or objective than mine or any other fan of the novel.

J"

I think you are quite correct as to the underlying self oriented "anarchism" that is clearly expressed in the Fountainhead.

I do not see it as necessarily a "dark version of Nietzsche", but an element of human nature that many folks just flat out refuse to recognize about the human animal.

I know that some of us have thought out those kinds of scenarios, unless they have led a truly charmed life. It is the raw fear of a "heroic" person lashing back with unbridled rage and fury that frankly scares the crap out of anyone who understands the depth and breathe of human emotions and capacities for both extreme "goodness" and extreme "evilness".

Good and evil exists. Many modern "humans" do not want to accept that fact.

The Fountainhead is, frankly, a warning of the potential rage that a Promethean figure could let loose.

You make excellent points Jonathan. Ms. Xray raises or throws out very good disparate points to "hook people". I do not believe she is an honorable or sincere person in balance.

Certainly, after she gets into her broken record repetition that it becomes merely like a compass needle constantly pointing North. Nice if you need to go North, but useless in a conversation about thought and concepts.

Good post.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

On the matter of art, I am not a typical Objectivist (as you probably already perceived).

I do believe objective standards can be set for art, but we cannot sever either the creator, the consumer and the work itself from the equation and still call it objective. Once any one of the three is absent, you do not really have a work of art at all. (btw - In my view, the creator can also be a consumer.)

Since art appreciation deals with the inner realities of the consumer, the nature of those realities are on the table for me. And they include a lot more than volition, although volition is included.

Michael