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

[anonrobt]

A constant running through AS is the disimissal of suffering. It is called "unimportant", even "nonsensical" if memory serves.

Imo this is a flat-out denial of the reality of suffering. There are enough situations life where a person will suffer, and no Objectivist doctrine is going to change that.

Imagine parents living through the tragedy of losing their child in an accident. So, according to Rand, their suffering is to be regarded as 'unimportant'?

I don't think Ayn Rand meant it in the way you suggest.

I am reminded of the last scene of We The Living when Kira focuses her attention on the vision she had of the kind of life and the kind of world she longed to live in rather than to be distracted by the pain she must have felt by the wound inflicted by the unwitting servant of the careless State which stood for anti life on Earth.

The trick is to be loyal to your highest values and not to let any pain and suffering stop you from achieving your own personal goals.

gulch

www.campaignforliberty.com 233,136

Quite true - it is not a denial that suffering exists, but its priority in importance compared to joy, happiness, purposefulness, etc... a contrast to much of history where, thanks largely to religions, the view of life as 'going thru a vale of tears' or some similarity, where suffering was glorified in many cases, and certainly taken as 'the course of things'...

Edited November 21, 2009 by anonrobt

[Xray]

Heller said about Rand that she has to be understood to be believed. I have the opposite impression: that many believe her without realizing what it is about. Many of these first time readers seem to be very young; I doubt that a 15 year-old can fully grasp the monstrosity of Roark dynamiting the building, or grasp to what extent the violence described in the sexual scenes manifests a disturbing lack of empathy. What makes it so detrimental: this lack of empathy is actively propagated as value by the characters, and an impressionable young person may be led to believe that's how it ought to be.

Imo both Roark and John Galt have traits of a stalker. Roark suddenly shows up at Dominique's place and the following scene might as well have been part of a crime story.

As for Galt, his following Dagny around almost for 12 years is downright eery. The first sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt, that too occurred in a location more suited for a crime scene imo.

The sexual symbolism (tunnel, vault) is quite obvious; Alfred Hitchcock for example used it too in "Strangers on a Train" where the killer tries to commit the murder in the "tunnel of love" at the fair.

It would interest me how how others perceived that scene in AS. I associate abandoned tunnels with being full of dirt, rats, spiders etc. I found the setting disgusting and the encounter itself disgusting in its absence of caring and presence of violence

"The next span of moments was like flashes of light in stretches of blinded unconsciousness - the moment when she saw his face, as he stopped beside her, when she saw the unastonished calm, the leashed intensity, the laughter of understanding in the dark green eyes - the moment when she knew that what he saw in her face, by the tight, drawn harshness of his lips - the moment when she felt his mouth on hers, when she felt the shape of his mouth both as an absolute shape as liquid fillig her body - then the motion of his lips down downn the line of her throat, a drinking motion that left a trail of bruises - then the sparkle of her diamod clip against thetrembling copper of his hair."

That "prelude" could as well be part of a story featuring a vampire. Or part of a crime story ending in murder.

The scene continues with more violence, also on Dagny's part.

Rand is also trying to squeeze in her theory of values during the sex scene, an attempt that borders on the comical.

So while the heroine is being carried away in ecstatic physical pleasure, she - oh miracle - is simultaneously able to theorize:

"Then she was conscious of nothing but the sensation of her body, because her body acquired the sudden power to to let her know her most complex values by direct perception." (AS, p. 956)

How on earth how does that work?

Edited November 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Quite true - it is not a denial that suffering exists, but its priority in importance compared to joy, happiness, purposefulness, etc... a contrast to much of history where, thanks largely to religions, the view of life as 'going thru a vale of tears' or some similarity, where suffering was glorified in many cases, and certainly taken as 'the course of things'...

The glorifying of suffering is as extreme, and at the other end of the spectrum. Rand rightly identified it as detrimental.

galtgulch: The trick is to be loyal to your highest values and not to let any pain and suffering stop you from achieving your own personal goals.

What if a person's highest values don't happen to be those listed in the Objectivist catalog? What if they are even diametrically opposed? Would Rand still recommend to be loyal to one's highest values in such cases?

Edited November 21, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Scene in the tunnel (ctd from # 452 )

AS, p. 957:

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure. (end quote)

Again, the violence stands out.

A question: "then she felt when it hit her throat"

What does "it" refer to?

Edited November 21, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray, your misuse of the smiley face simply constitutes a sneer. Whenever I see it I become disinclined to address anything in your posts. In two or three repetitive ways all you really do here is sneer at and belittle Ayn Rand and Objectivism. I am very critical of her and her philosophy which is only her philosophy as opposed to Objectivism the philosophy of whomever, but not to the point of sneering or gross dis-appreciation. I've been on to you almost to the day you arrived last spring, I just don't know if you are any more onto yourself than Rand was onto herself. I'll always wonder if somehow the idea of such self knowledge didn't terrify her because she wasn't nihilistically bunkered down. OPAR is not universalizable, simple Objectivism is because reality is. One strives to be an Objectivist the same way one strives to understand reality, but when one strives to be a Randian Objectivist one eventually ends up on the rocks two different ways as opposed to Rand who ended up on the rocks one way--her way. The trick is to avoid the rocks but one can't if she's steering your boat.

--Brant

[Selene]

Heller said about Rand that she has to be understood to be believed. I have the opposite impression: that many believe her without realizing what it is about. Many of these first time readers seem to be very young; I doubt that a 15 year-old can fully grasp the monstrosity of Roark dynamiting the building, or grasp to what extent the violence described in the sexual scenes manifests a disturbing lack of empathy. What makes it so detrimental: this lack of empathy is actively propagated as value by the characters, and an impressionable young person may be led to believe that's how it ought to be.

Imo both Roark and John Galt have traits of a stalker. Roark suddenly shows up at Dominique's place and the following scene might as well have been part of a crime story.

As for Galt, his following Dagny around almost for 12 years is downright eery. The first sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt, that too occurred in a location more suited for a crime scene imo.

The sexual symbolism (tunnel, vault) is quite obvious; Alfred Hitchcock for example used it too in "Strangers on a Train" where the killer tries to commit the murder in the "tunnel of love" at the fair.

It would interest me how how others perceived that scene. I associate abandoned tunnels with being full of dirt, rats, spiders etc. I found the setting disgusting and the encounter itself quite disturbing in its absence of caring.

"The next span of moments was like flashes of light in stretches of blinded unconsciousness - the moment when she saw his face, as he stopped beside her, when she saw the unastonished calm, the leashed intensity, the laughter of understanding in the dark green eyes - the moment when she knew that what he saw in her face, by the tight, drawn harshness of his lips - the moment when she felt his mouth on hers, when she felt the shape of his mouth both as an absolute shape as liquid fillig her body - then the motion of his lips down downn the line of her throat, a drinking motion that left a trail of bruises - then the sparkle of her diamod clip against thetrembling copper of his hair."

That "prelude" could as well be part of a story featuring a vampire. Or part of a crime story ending in murder.

The scene continues with more violence, also on Dagny's part.

Rand is also trying to squeeze in her theory of values during the sex scene, an attempt that borders on the comical.

So while the heroine is being carried away in ecstatic physical pleasure, she - oh miracle - is simultaneously able to theorize:

"Then she was conscious of nothing but the sensation of her body, because her body acquired the sudden power to to let her know her most complex values by direct perception." (AS, p. 956)

How on earth how does that work?

Folks: Observe the face of the gender feminist socialist educational intellectual.

"I doubt that a 15 year-old can fully grasp the monstrosity of Roark dynamiting the building, or grasp to what extent the violence described in the sexual scenes manifests a disturbing lack of empathy. What makes it so detrimental: this lack of empathy is actively propagated as value by the characters, and an impressionable young person may be led to believe that's how it ought to be.

Imo both Roark and John Galt have traits of a stalker. Roark suddenly shows up at Dominique's place and the following scene might as well have been part of a crime story."

Imagine your healthy male child being subjected to this type of indoctrination in the public schools. This type of indoctrination is going on in your neighborhood schools my friends. Worse than what is occurring is that your productively earned money is being spent to further weaken your civil society.

Adam

[anonrobt]

Heller said about Rand that she has to be understood to be believed. I have the opposite impression: that many believe her without realizing what it is about. Many of these first time readers seem to be very young; I doubt that a 15 year-old can fully grasp the monstrosity of Roark dynamiting the building, or grasp to what extent the violence described in the sexual scenes manifests a disturbing lack of empathy. What makes it so detrimental: this lack of empathy is actively propagated as value by the characters, and an impressionable young person may be led to believe that's how it ought to be.

Imo both Roark and John Galt have traits of a stalker. Roark suddenly shows up at Dominique's place and the following scene might as well have been part of a crime story.

As for Galt, his following Dagny around almost for 12 years is downright eery. The first sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt, that too occurred in a location more suited for a crime scene imo.

The sexual symbolism (tunnel, vault) is quite obvious; Alfred Hitchcock for example used it too in "Strangers on a Train" where the killer tries to commit the murder in the "tunnel of love" at the fair.

It would interest me how how others perceived that scene. I associate abandoned tunnels with being full of dirt, rats, spiders etc. I found the setting disgusting and the encounter itself quite disturbing in its absence of caring.

"The next span of moments was like flashes of light in stretches of blinded unconsciousness - the moment when she saw his face, as he stopped beside her, when she saw the unastonished calm, the leashed intensity, the laughter of understanding in the dark green eyes - the moment when she knew that what he saw in her face, by the tight, drawn harshness of his lips - the moment when she felt his mouth on hers, when she felt the shape of his mouth both as an absolute shape as liquid fillig her body - then the motion of his lips down downn the line of her throat, a drinking motion that left a trail of bruises - then the sparkle of her diamod clip against thetrembling copper of his hair."

That "prelude" could as well be part of a story featuring a vampire. Or part of a crime story ending in murder.

The scene continues with more violence, also on Dagny's part.

Rand is also trying to squeeze in her theory of values during the sex scene, an attempt that borders on the comical.

So while the heroine is being carried away in ecstatic physical pleasure, she - oh miracle - is simultaneously able to theorize:

"Then she was conscious of nothing but the sensation of her body, because her body acquired the sudden power to to let her know her most complex values by direct perception." (AS, p. 956)

How on earth how does that work?

Folks: Observe the face of the gender feminist socialist educational intellectual.

"I doubt that a 15 year-old can fully grasp the monstrosity of Roark dynamiting the building, or grasp to what extent the violence described in the sexual scenes manifests a disturbing lack of empathy. What makes it so detrimental: this lack of empathy is actively propagated as value by the characters, and an impressionable young person may be led to believe that's how it ought to be.

Imo both Roark and John Galt have traits of a stalker. Roark suddenly shows up at Dominique's place and the following scene might as well have been part of a crime story."

Imagine your healthy male child being subjected to this type of indoctrination in the public schools. This type of indoctrination is going on in your neighborhood schools my friends. Worse than what is occurring is that your productively earned money is being spent to further weaken your civil society.

Adam

yes, always wondered what a post-modernist, unsystemic mindset would be like - and here's a great example...

[Xray]

Xray, your misuse of the smiley face simply constitutes a sneer. Whenever I see it I become disinclined to address anything in your posts.

Imo it is less the smiley which bothers you but the question asked which you can't answer. Or can you? I have no idea how a body can acquire the sudden power to let a person know his/her most complex values by direct perception. (??)

[Xray]

Imagine your healthy male child being subjected to this type of indoctrination in the public schools. This type of indoctrination is going on in your neighborhood schools my friends. Worse than what is occurring is that your productively earned money is being spent to further weaken your civil society.

anonrobt: yes, always wondered what a post-modernist, unsystemic mindset would be like - and here's a great example...

Selene/anonrobt:

Not one single argument in my posts has been addressed by you (simply highlighting keywords won't do the job, Selene).

Nor have you obviously been able to answer the two questions asked in # 452 and # 454. Or can you answer them?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Heller said about Rand that she has to be understood to be believed. I have the opposite impression: that many believe her without realizing what it is about. Many of these first time readers seem to be very young; I doubt that a 15 year-old can fully grasp the monstrosity of Roark dynamiting the building, or grasp to what extent the violence described in the sexual scenes manifests a disturbing lack of empathy. What makes it so detrimental: this lack of empathy is actively propagated as value by the characters, and an impressionable young person may be led to believe that's how it ought to be.

Imo both Roark and John Galt have traits of a stalker. Roark suddenly shows up at Dominique's place and the following scene might as well have been part of a crime story.

As for Galt, his following Dagny around almost for 12 years is downright eery. The first sexual encounter between Dagny and Galt, that too occurred in a location more suited for a crime scene imo.

The sexual symbolism (tunnel, vault) is quite obvious; Alfred Hitchcock for example used it too in "Strangers on a Train" where the killer tries to commit the murder in the "tunnel of love" at the fair.

It would interest me how how others perceived that scene. I associate abandoned tunnels with being full of dirt, rats, spiders etc. I found the setting disgusting and the encounter itself quite disturbing in its absence of caring.

"The next span of moments was like flashes of light in stretches of blinded unconsciousness - the moment when she saw his face, as he stopped beside her, when she saw the unastonished calm, the leashed intensity, the laughter of understanding in the dark green eyes - the moment when she knew that what he saw in her face, by the tight, drawn harshness of his lips - the moment when she felt his mouth on hers, when she felt the shape of his mouth both as an absolute shape as liquid fillig her body - then the motion of his lips down downn the line of her throat, a drinking motion that left a trail of bruises - then the sparkle of her diamod clip against thetrembling copper of his hair."

That "prelude" could as well be part of a story featuring a vampire. Or part of a crime story ending in murder.

The scene continues with more violence, also on Dagny's part.

Rand is also trying to squeeze in her theory of values during the sex scene, an attempt that borders on the comical.

So while the heroine is being carried away in ecstatic physical pleasure, she - oh miracle - is simultaneously able to theorize:

"Then she was conscious of nothing but the sensation of her body, because her body acquired the sudden power to to let her know her most complex values by direct perception." (AS, p. 956)

How on earth how does that work?

Folks: Observe the face of the gender feminist socialist educational intellectual.

"I doubt that a 15 year-old can fully grasp the monstrosity of Roark dynamiting the building, or grasp to what extent the violence described in the sexual scenes manifests a disturbing lack of empathy. What makes it so detrimental: this lack of empathy is actively propagated as value by the characters, and an impressionable young person may be led to believe that's how it ought to be.

Imo both Roark and John Galt have traits of a stalker. Roark suddenly shows up at Dominique's place and the following scene might as well have been part of a crime story."

Imagine your healthy male child being subjected to this type of indoctrination in the public schools. This type of indoctrination is going on in your neighborhood schools my friends. Worse than what is occurring is that your productively earned money is being spent to further weaken your civil society.

Adam

yes, always wondered what a post-modernist, unsystemic mindset would be like - and here's a great example...

Selene/Anonrobt

Not one single argument in my post has been addressed by you.

Nor have you obviously been able to answer the two questions asked in # 452 and # 454. Or can you answer them?

Of course I can answer them...1) yes 2) no 3) I do not recall 4) I do not remember or 5) a number ____. Which of these answers would you prefer for #452, I am torn between #3 and # 4 which would you prefer it be Ms. Xray.

Now # 454, that's a tough one. After much thought and consternation, I would have to answer that "it" refers answer # 5 6 inches to 7inches .

Ok, your turn.

What is your answer to # 452?

And what about # 454?

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

Rand is also trying to squeeze in her theory of values during the sex scene, an attempt that borders on the comical.

So while the heroine is being carried away in ecstatic physical pleasure, she - oh miracle - is simultaneously able to theorize:

"Then she was conscious of nothing but the sensation of her body, because her body acquired the sudden power to to let her know her most complex values by direct perception." (AS, p. 956)

How on earth how does that work?

It is a plain and actually very precise description of the acquisition of mystical knowledge, in the usual sense and not the generalized definition Rand used.

Of course, it stands to reason that Xray can't figure that out.

What surprises me Rand wrote it, and presumably meant it to be taken in a positive way, given the persons involved: it seems to stand in direct contradiction to most of what she wrote.

Jeffrey S.

[Xray]

Rand is also trying to squeeze in her theory of values during the sex scene, an attempt that borders on the comical.

So while the heroine is being carried away in ecstatic physical pleasure, she - oh miracle - is simultaneously able to theorize:

"Then she was conscious of nothing but the sensation of her body, because her body acquired the sudden power to to let her know her most complex values by direct perception." (AS, p. 956)

How on earth how does that work?

It is a plain and actually very precise description of the acquisition of mystical knowledge, in the usual sense and not the generalized definition Rand used.

Of course, it stands to reason that Xray can't figure that out.

What surprises me Rand wrote it, and presumably meant it to be taken in a positive way, given the persons involved: it seems to stand in direct contradiction to most of what she wrote.

Jeffrey S.

Rand would turn in her grave at the mere mention at the term "mystical".

If you would be so kind to describe to me how a person's body can let them know their most complex values by direct perception, and what exactly you label as "mystical".

(I have a fairly good idea what Rand meant but think she got it backwards by putting the direct perception first; I'll will await your reply though before continuing).

If you would you also take a look at the question I had asked in #454:

AS, p. 957:

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure. (end quote)

Again, the violence stands out.

A question: "then she felt when it hit her throat"

What does "it" refer to?

J. Riggenbach posted his catalog of criteria about "good" writing and one demand was that the author's meanng had to be crystal-clear. Imo Rand is far from crystal-clear here.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Selene/Anonrobt

Not one single argument in my post has been addressed by you.

Nor have you obviously been able to answer the two questions asked in # 452 and # 454. Or can you answer them?

Of course I can answer them...1) yes 2) no 3) I do not recall 4) I do not remember or 5) a number ____. Which of these answers would you prefer for #452, I am torn between #3 and # 4 which would you prefer it be Ms. Xray.

It is amazing how often people can't just simply say "I don't know".

In short, you have no idea. Nor have I, since from the way Rand formulated it, this can't work.

I do have an idea of what she meant but think she got it backwards. I'll await J. Smith's reply first before continuing (see post # 462)

Now # 454, that's a tough one. After much thought and consternation, I would have to answer that "it" refers answer # 5 6 inches to 7inches .

Ok, your turn.

What is your answer to # 452?

(See above)

And what about # 454?

Very difficult to say. I'll ask the question over at this other thread - maybe CNA or Ch. Anderson can answer it.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure.

Wow, no wonder Adam liked AS so much when he was 15

[Xray]

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure.

Wow, no wonder Adam liked AS so much when he was 15

He says he has read AS at least as many times as the years I have spent on earth, which would make it at least 54 times.

"then she felt when it hit her throat". Do you have any idea what "it" refers to?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure.

Wow, no wonder Adam liked AS so much when he was 15

He says he has read AS at least as many times as the years I have spent on earth, which would make it at least 54 times.

"then she felt when it hit her throat". Do you have any idea what "it" refers to?

"It" was what Dagny "knew only as an upward streak of motion that ...." In other words she went orgasmic, I suppose.

--Brant

[Selene]

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure.

Wow, no wonder Adam liked AS so much when he was 15

He says he has read AS at least as many times as the years I have spent on earth, which would make it at least 54 times.

"then she felt when it hit her throat". Do you have any idea what "it" refers to?

"It" was what Dagny "knew only as an upward streak of motion that ...." In other words she went orgasmic, I suppose.

--Brant

Is that like Sarah Palin going rouge?

Who cares what Ayn meant in her little sexual fantasy in the tunnel...geez does it get more Freudian than that. Well sure. her phallic fantasies of the erect buildings rising ...I was waiting for Wyatt's torch to spurt a new ejaculate that would power the world just in case John's kinetic energy motor broke!

Ms. Xray your fixations betray you. If you dislike almost every premise that Ayn maintained, what are you attempting to establish here at OL - conversions?

Name the top five of Ayn's basic premises that you agree with?

In other words, fish or cut bait and we all know about the pot part,

Adam

[Xray]

Then she felt the mesh of burlap striking the skin of her shoulders, she found herself lying on the broken sandbags, she saw the long tight gleam of her stockings, she felt his mouth pressed to her ankle, then rising in a tortured motion up the line of her leg, as if he wished to own his shape by means of his lips, the she felt her teeth sinking into the flesh of his arm, she felt the sweep of his elbow knocking her head aside and his mouth seizing her lips with a pressure more viciously painful than hers - then she felt when it hit her throat, that which she knew only as an upward streak of motion that released and united her body in a single shock of pleasure.

Wow, no wonder Adam liked AS so much when he was 15

He says he has read AS at least as many times as the years I have spent on earth, which would make it at least 54 times.

"then she felt when it hit her throat". Do you have any idea what "it" refers to?

"It" was what Dagny "knew only as an upward streak of motion that ...." In other words she went orgasmic, I suppose.

--Brant

That she went orgasmic is quite obvious.

But what does "upward streak of motion" refer to exactly? And what is the "it" which "hit her throat"?

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[Dragonfly]

That she went orgasmic is quite obvious.

But what does "upward streak of motion" refer to exactly? And what is the "it" which "hit her throat"?

A very powerful ejaculation, I suppose (perhaps anatomy wasn't her strong suit).

[Xray]

That she went orgasmic is quite obvious.

But what does "upward streak of motion" refer to exactly? And what is the "it" which "hit her throat"?

A very powerful ejaculation, I suppose (perhaps anatomy wasn't her strong suit).

Seems so.

I would extend it and say: preciseness in general was not her strong suit, to put it mildly.

Makes me think of ITOE, the most chaotic piece of non-fiction I have read in my whole life.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Xray

[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.

Phil and JR have returned; here's for those interested two detailed posts by each: (originally on the Great Literature thread http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7596&st=240 (posts #244 and #249)

ViewPost Philip Coateson 04 October 2009 - 09:03 PM, said:

: Subject: The Greatness and Power of Atlas Shrugged

I'm going to cover a lot of ground. Each point will be terse.

-- In addressing whether or not the characters are three-dimensional vs. cardboard, context of the novel is relevant. The canvass of Atlas is vast compared to Fountainhead (where the central focus is on one character.) If you have three or four major characters and a dozen minor ones entering and leaving the stage, you can't allow too many of them to hog the limelight. In a play, the audience wants to focus on the lead(s). If the cleaning lady in the background draws too much attention that takes away the focus. True in a novel, you can always go back and reread, but the principle remains the same. What's skillful in the novel is to develop Dagny, Francisco, Rearden, James Taggart, Lillian, Dr. Stadler, Galt, and a handful of others all so well and distinctively, given that you have to give each of them fewer pages than you do the major characters in Fountainhead, due to the needs of a much more complex plot...and a whole philosophy. Think of a painting. If there is a large canvas containing a vast landscape or dozens of people, one has to give less space and less development to each element. They are tinier than if you do a close-up portrait.

-- It's a mistake to evaluate Atlas by purely literary standards. In a way, it's not a work of literature, not exclusively. It is a hybrid - both a work of literature and one of philosophy. Purely literarily, it's a mistake to have a speech of the length of Galt's. It causes the story to come to a screeching halt. But the speech -definitely- was a good decision. Wny? Because the criterion is that the book is a work of philosophy as well. And the speech is necessary to tie all the philosophical elements together. This is not the first fiction work that has been talky and yet is respected for all the ideas. I'm told "The Magic Mountain" is only one example of a well-liked work that is that way. Late Heinlein is very talky with little action and seems a vehicle for his ideas. What's amazing is that Rand is able to pull off something so impossible as well as she does and the action doesn't vanish and make you want to snooze as late Heinlein does. Stranger in a Strange Land? the bizarrities of Lazarus Long?

-- Seldom given due credit are the many skills of Rand just as a writer. [she's often derided as a simple-minded, un-nuanced writer best suited to immature adolescents.] To start with, the stories (especially in Atlas) are complex and operate on different levels. As a creator of characters, even the sketchily drawn secondary characters, people constantly say they often capture in pattern people or types who one sees throughout one's life. She is a great satirist, good at witty repartee (the parties are a lot of fun - note in particular the great dialogue involving Francisco). Her descriptions are evocative and effective - not just the major scenes such as the breathtaking ride on the John Galt Line, but scattered throughout - the city sinking into the fog, the blasted oak tree, the peeling skyscrapers. And her essentialized descriptions of people. Part of the appropriateness of making bad guys ugly is that it's often more than just ugliness it's a trembling lip or sagging chin or weak mouth. Or using weak and satirical names (Wesley Mouch, anyone, which suggests a mouse). When you don't have a lot of time to spend on a minor character and can't do a three dimensional character [see my first point in this post], nothing wrong with using shorthand like this. If that bothers you, get over it. It's at very worst a minor blemish. Dickens did it too in his sprawling novels, so the gossip says.

-- Rand has a certain range in being able to capture despair and decline and disillusion as well as a soaring uplift and idealism. And the enormous potential and beauty possible in the world. On this last, I don't know anyone better. "She sat listening to the music. It was a symphony of triumph. ... they seemed to embody every human act and thought that had ascent as its motive."

-- Most original and unprecedented of all is the conveying and making palpable a complete new philosophy. This is impossible in a novel. Yet she comes as close as can be to pulling it off. This is part of the double track nature of the book - telling an exciting story of disappearances and having philosophical implications inserted side by side.

-- When she does get philosophical, it is never too abstract for too long. And the implications for your life are never too far away. She is at her most down to earth and forceful often when she is the most far-reaching, broad, and abstract: "Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved.." Galt's speech alone,(whether you agree with it or not - I do) is a great work of literature as well as revolutionary intellectually.

(I think I'll leave it at this length - short enough to be understood.)

Philip Coates

J. Riggenbach: On the one hand, I don't really disagree with much of anything Phil says in this paragraph. His last point - on the legitimacy of the use of two-dimensional minor characters and the Dickensian naming of such folk - is particularly well taken. You might want to read E.M. Forster's succinct little book, Aspects of the Novel, sometime, Phil. He made this same point back in 1927, albeit with somewhat different terminology and at much greater length.

On the other hand, if you look at Phil's list of points under the main heading "the many skills of Rand just as a writer," you quickly see that the most striking thing about it all is how little most of it has to do with writing.

Here's how to think about this issue, folks. You've got a body of conceptual material - facts; analyses; arguments; made-up "facts," in the case of fiction - that is in need of being written. The body of conceptual material is what you're writing about; it's your subject matter. Coming up with it, arranging it, organizing it - none of this, technically speaking, is "writing" at all. "Writing" is the creation and deployment of sentences and paragraphs. It has to do with words, and also with grammar, punctuation, and other methods of ordering words to advance meaning. It has nothing to do, except indirectly, with ideas. Ideas is what you write about. Ideas is your subject matter.

If you single someone out for praise "just as a writer" - if you say, for example, that someone is among the greatest writers of English of the 20th Century - what you are praising is that person's skill at creating and deploying sentences and paragraphs. What you are saying is that, given some particular body of conceptual material to be formulated in words, this individual displays notable skill in the formulation. 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. Talk of "stories" being "complex" and "operat[ing] on different levels" is irrelevant to whether the author of those stories is a "good writer." Her stories were her subject matter. The arrangement of their elements into a plot or various levels is not writing. It is storytelling. Talk of "characters" resembling "people or types who one sees throughout one's life" is equally irrelevant to the issue of "good writing." Characterization is not writing. It is storytelling. The characters being delineated are the subject matter not the writing. Saying that Rand's "descriptions are evocative and effective" is relevant - but what makes them evocative and effective? Blank out. (Hint: it has to do with Rand's ear for the music of prose.)

I'd be interested in being provided examples from Rand's writings which illustrate the "music of prose" issue.

Edited April 4, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

I'd be interested in being provided examples from Rand's writings which illustrate the "music of prose" issue.

Why would you be interested?

--Brant

[Xray]

I'd be interested in being provided examples from Rand's writings which illustrate the "music of prose" issue.

Why would you be interested?

--Brant

It interests me since I don't get the impression of "music of prose" in her fiction. As for the speeches, imo they are out of proportion in their overdimensional length.

I brought the follwing over from the other thread http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=35&t=8330&qpid=95488

Brant Gaede: Avoiding generalities, the first run of the John Galt Line is the best example I know of her tremendous dynamic narrative power.

That part does have a lot of dynamic narrative power, yes.

Quite gripping also how Rand connected the dynamic, pounding energy of the moving train to the sexual tension between Dagny and Rearden during that ride.

But imo in general, Rand was more convincing in her description of events connected to technical objects than in portraying persons. There are also some impressive parts where she describes e. g. the activity of furnaces.

Brant Gaede: But, if I may be blunt, it's what you do or don't find "good" writing by Ayn Rand that should matter to you or not at all. Who has a need for an attenuated, intellectualized discussion about Rand's literary art? Someone who hasn't read any of her fiction?

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. (?)

J. Riggenbach: Just for the record, I will not be discussing Ayn Rand's writing (or anyone else's) with Xray. And I will not be discussing fiction publicly with George.

Still, JR's post is out there, with the advice "Here's how to think about this issue, folks." (JR, the complete post is quoted in # 471 on this thread), which imo could also be considered as an invitation to an exchange.

Declining to then provide examples as evidence to support a claim leaves the claim standing there unsubstantiated.

But since JR has not extended to all OL posters his refusal to discuss Ayn Rand's writing, perhaps he can provide examples of Rand's texts meeting his criteria "great writer" to other posters here with whom he is less reluctant to engage in a discussion.

View Post George H. Smith, on 28 March 2010 - 08:24 PM, said:

Psst -- Jonathan, don't tell anyone this, but I have never been a big fan of Rand's novels. I love the abstract speeches, but her characters rarely speak to me on a personal level. I like the darker, grittier stuff better.

I don't want this to get around because I've already caused enough trouble on OL.

;)

Ghs

Imo it would be pretty uninspiring if we all sang from the same hymn sheet.

I have often heard people say that they learn a lot from their discussion opponents, which is true my case as well.

As for the speeches, they are really non-fiction tractates put in a novel. As for the characters, critics have called them wooden and cardboard.

The lack of empathy in most of them has made AS and TF a tough read for me. Also the coldness and hatred they display in several scenes.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

What I'm trying to say there, Xray, is you nitpick too much and ask questions as a teacher might to her students and you don't seem to have any passionate interest or even a strong disapprobation to Rand's fiction and literature in general. As for Rand's lack of empathy, her empathy, such as it was and there was some, was particularized to whom she saw as victims of altruism, collectivism, and statism as such. She was not a good see-er generally of people, but apparently, according to Nathaniel Branden, she had a way of making you feel visible to her by her way of looking at you and knowing just what questions to ask you and how she commented on your answers.

--Brant

Edited April 5, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

Rand's speeches are generally okay, even excellent; the exception is Galt's: a moralizing harangue from stem to stern, it can only be compared to Hercules diverting a river to clean out the Augean Stables. Giving the world the finger, saying hello and then goodbye, is not great literary art. It does fit the novel, though, and it's impossible to imagine it without it. As I've said before, you cannot make any significant changes to Atlas without collapsing the entire structure that holds it up. Rand's consistency of vision from beginning to end is remarkable. This is why the novel has to be considered in toto for anything big you rip out you have to put back just as you found it and you'll thus refute yourself regarding it overall.

--Brant