We knew this would return to bite us

[Chris Grieb]

Jeff; Thanks for the recommendation of the book Intruder in the Dust.

You mentioned Night of the Hunter which is a movie I enjoy. The lynch mob is led by the Spoons who are one of the most disgusting couples in any movie. They are employers of Wila, the Shelly Winter character, who are completely taken in by Rev. Powell, Robert Mitchum's great villain.

Night of the Hunter was the only movie ever directed by Charles Laughton. The box office failure of Night met Laughton never got another chance to direct.

Interestingly Laughton could not direct the two children in the movie and Mitchum had to take over.

[bmacwilliam]

If you're saying that her reason for being interested in Hickman is because he was anti-social - as I've pointed out before, so is every convict serving time. So is every child molester and killer walking the planet. If that attitude a source of pride?"

The crime is not social nonconformity; many brilliant thinkers, writers, inventors, industrialists, etc., have been nonconformists as well.

Nonconformists are the "extremists" that Rand talks about in her notes, and she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive. Her point is that when social factors discourage and repress extreme nonconformity by praising the average get-along Joe and other mediocrities as morally superior, and when social institutions shut out the nonconformists to the point where they can barely make a living, those nonconformists tend to become bitter and angry, and sometimes lash out against society at large. This is very interesting analysis. I might even go so far as to call it brilliant.

Ghs

OK, lemme get this straight...Repression of extreme non-conforming social outliers - interesting insight?

Let's say, hypothetically, that Rand's morality is adopted by society at large, and we're living in our almost-perfect little utopia. Our "get-along Joe's" like me are good little Randians. But also, let's say there are extreme angry socialist nonconformist commies on the fringe. It's a real big stretch to think our commie friends would be repressed, discouraged by social factors, thought to be morally inferior, and shut out of social institutions. They might even become bitter and angry!

Oh yeah, and just about every REAL society that ever existed that had extreme nonconformists, also had repressed bitter and angry extreme nonconformists, who might even "lash out".

Like, helloooo Captain Obvious....

"I might even go so far as to call it brilliant. "

Ha ha...Good one...

George:"...and the gal was only 23 when she wrote them. Very impressive, and I'm not easily impressed."

Uh...Really??? See above.

Bob

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[dan2100]

If you're saying that her reason for being interested in Hickman is because he was anti-social - as I've pointed out before, so is every convict serving time. So is every child molester and killer walking the planet. If that attitude a source of pride?"

The crime is not social nonconformity; many brilliant thinkers, writers, inventors, industrialists, etc., have been nonconformists as well.

Nonconformists are the "extremists" that Rand talks about in her notes, and she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive. Her point is that when social factors discourage and repress extreme nonconformity by praising the average get-along Joe and other mediocrities as morally superior, and when social institutions shut out the nonconformists to the point where they can barely make a living, those nonconformists tend to become bitter and angry, and sometimes lash out against society at large. This is very interesting analysis. I might even go so far as to call it brilliant.

Ghs

OK, lemme get this straight...Repression of extreme non-conforming social outliers - interesting insight?

Let's say, hypothetically, that Rand's morality is adopted by society at large, and we're living in our almost-perfect little utopia. Our "get-along Joe's" like me are good little Randians. But also, let's say there are extreme angry socialist nonconformist commies on the fringe. It's a real big stretch to think our commie friends would be repressed, discouraged by social factors, thought to be morally inferior, and shut out of social institutions. They might even become bitter and angry!

Oh yeah, and just about every REAL society that ever existed that had extreme nonconformists, also had repressed bitter and angry extreme nonconformists, who might even "lash out".

Like, helloooo Captain Obvious....

"I might even go so far as to call it brilliant. "

Ha ha...Good one...

George:"...and the gal was only 23 when she wrote them. Very impressive, and I'm not easily impressed."

Uh...Really??? See above.

George did say, "she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive." So he seems to already have encapsulated your view here.

Also, have you read We the Living? In it, I think Rand does depict at least one communist character who has appeal -- and he seems to be the type who chooses to follow his ideals over conformity. (Maybe Rand was also channeling Dostoyevsky's The Idiot here and, in terms of altruism, generally.)

I also think you're taking something from someone's private notebooks when she was fairly young and expanding that into a condemnation of her in toto. I actually agree with George here -- that it's a brilliant insight. But had Rand remained at that stage of thinking, I don't think we'd be discussing her today. (To be sure, probably some people interested in Nietzsche and de Sade would.)

[bmacwilliam]

If you're saying that her reason for being interested in Hickman is because he was anti-social - as I've pointed out before, so is every convict serving time. So is every child molester and killer walking the planet. If that attitude a source of pride?"

The crime is not social nonconformity; many brilliant thinkers, writers, inventors, industrialists, etc., have been nonconformists as well.

Nonconformists are the "extremists" that Rand talks about in her notes, and she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive. Her point is that when social factors discourage and repress extreme nonconformity by praising the average get-along Joe and other mediocrities as morally superior, and when social institutions shut out the nonconformists to the point where they can barely make a living, those nonconformists tend to become bitter and angry, and sometimes lash out against society at large. This is very interesting analysis. I might even go so far as to call it brilliant.

Ghs

OK, lemme get this straight...Repression of extreme non-conforming social outliers - interesting insight?

Let's say, hypothetically, that Rand's morality is adopted by society at large, and we're living in our almost-perfect little utopia. Our "get-along Joe's" like me are good little Randians. But also, let's say there are extreme angry socialist nonconformist commies on the fringe. It's a real big stretch to think our commie friends would be repressed, discouraged by social factors, thought to be morally inferior, and shut out of social institutions. They might even become bitter and angry!

Oh yeah, and just about every REAL society that ever existed that had extreme nonconformists, also had repressed bitter and angry extreme nonconformists, who might even "lash out".

Like, helloooo Captain Obvious....

"I might even go so far as to call it brilliant. "

Ha ha...Good one...

George:"...and the gal was only 23 when she wrote them. Very impressive, and I'm not easily impressed."

Uh...Really??? See above.

George did say, "she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive." So he seems to already have encapsulated your view here.

Also, have you read We the Living? In it, I think Rand does depict at least one communist character who has appeal -- and he seems to be the type who chooses to follow his ideals over conformity. (Maybe Rand was also channeling Dostoyevsky's The Idiot here and, in terms of altruism, generally.)

I also think you're taking something from someone's private notebooks when she was fairly young and expanding that into a condemnation of her in toto. I actually agree with George here -- that it's a brilliant insight. But had Rand remained at that stage of thinking, I don't think we'd be discussing her today. (To be sure, probably some people interested in Nietzsche and de Sade would.)

You're not understanding my point. It has nothing to do with communism or a condemnation of Rand, other than the point (re nonconformity) is an obvious one (and I agree).

I was simply stating that her point seemed to be a blantantly obvious one, barely even interesting because it's so obvious. "Obviously" George was impressed. I then disagreed with his statement that he's not easily impressed, because that's "obviously" not the case.

Bob

Edited March 31, 2010 by Bob_Mac

[dan2100]

If you're saying that her reason for being interested in Hickman is because he was anti-social - as I've pointed out before, so is every convict serving time. So is every child molester and killer walking the planet. If that attitude a source of pride?"

The crime is not social nonconformity; many brilliant thinkers, writers, inventors, industrialists, etc., have been nonconformists as well.

Nonconformists are the "extremists" that Rand talks about in her notes, and she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive. Her point is that when social factors discourage and repress extreme nonconformity by praising the average get-along Joe and other mediocrities as morally superior, and when social institutions shut out the nonconformists to the point where they can barely make a living, those nonconformists tend to become bitter and angry, and sometimes lash out against society at large. This is very interesting analysis. I might even go so far as to call it brilliant.

Ghs

OK, lemme get this straight...Repression of extreme non-conforming social outliers - interesting insight?

Let's say, hypothetically, that Rand's morality is adopted by society at large, and we're living in our almost-perfect little utopia. Our "get-along Joe's" like me are good little Randians. But also, let's say there are extreme angry socialist nonconformist commies on the fringe. It's a real big stretch to think our commie friends would be repressed, discouraged by social factors, thought to be morally inferior, and shut out of social institutions. They might even become bitter and angry!

Oh yeah, and just about every REAL society that ever existed that had extreme nonconformists, also had repressed bitter and angry extreme nonconformists, who might even "lash out".

Like, helloooo Captain Obvious....

"I might even go so far as to call it brilliant. "

Ha ha...Good one...

George:"...and the gal was only 23 when she wrote them. Very impressive, and I'm not easily impressed."

Uh...Really??? See above.

George did say, "she claims that such extremists tend to be either very productive or very destructive." So he seems to already have encapsulated your view here.

Also, have you read We the Living? In it, I think Rand does depict at least one communist character who has appeal -- and he seems to be the type who chooses to follow his ideals over conformity. (Maybe Rand was also channeling Dostoyevsky's The Idiot here and, in terms of altruism, generally.)

I also think you're taking something from someone's private notebooks when she was fairly young and expanding that into a condemnation of her in toto. I actually agree with George here -- that it's a brilliant insight. But had Rand remained at that stage of thinking, I don't think we'd be discussing her today. (To be sure, probably some people interested in Nietzsche and de Sade would.)

You're not understanding my point. It has nothing to do with communism or a condemnation of Rand, other than the point (re nonconformity) is an obvious one (and I agree).

I was simply stating that her point seemed to be a blantantly obvious one, barely even interesting because it's so obvious. "Obviously" George was impressed. I then disagreed with his statement that he's not easily impressed, because that's "obviously" not the case.

Bob

I brought up the communist thing to show that Rand was not limited extreme noncomformity in her published work to people she would otherwise admire -- and to show that Rand might have already anticipated some of your claim.

I'm not sure her point as George sees it -- "when social factors discourage and repress extreme nonconformity by praising the average get-along Joe and other mediocrities as morally superior, and when social institutions shut out the nonconformists to the point where they can barely make a living, those nonconformists tend to become bitter and angry, and sometimes lash out against society at large." -- seems not to be "blatantly" obvious and might not have likely been obvious to people at that time. Even people who might come close to this view -- such as Nietzsche -- seem to have posited not so much "social factors" as just there being people who don't fit in for non-social reasons and this leading, inevitably, to conflict.

Of course, my view here is predicated on my reading of her times and I freely admit to being no expert on that period -- just a casual student of it.

Finally, Rand and George were not just talking about there being a general social acceptance of one worldview with outliers being shut out, but of mediocrity and "get-along Joe's" being seen as the moral ideal -- which tends to happen in egalitarian or democratic societies. Not the problem here is not rival value systems per se, but a particular kind of value system. Here, Rand is, of course, borrowing from Nietzsche.

Others, such as Max Scheler and Helmut Schoeck, have also noticed this and adopted Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment... And even here the problem is not, again, just nonconformity but the ideal of a certain kind of uniformity as being destructive. If I'm reading Shoeck correctly, he actually believes egalitarianism actually foments more social antagonism -- more the more strongly it's pursued. In other words, as people become more equal in all sorts of outward ways, they become much more hostile to each other. The slightest deviation from the norm, too, becomes either a source for envy for others or something one must hide to avoid such.

[bmacwilliam]

Finally, Rand and George were not just talking about there being a general social acceptance of one worldview with outliers being shut out, but of mediocrity and "get-along Joe's" being seen as the moral ideal -- which tends to happen in egalitarian or democratic societies. Not the problem here is not rival value systems per se, but a particular kind of value system. Here, Rand is, of course, borrowing from Nietzsche.

Others, such as Max Scheler and Helmut Schoeck, have also noticed this and adopted Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment... And even here the problem is not, again, just nonconformity but the ideal of a certain kind of uniformity as being destructive. If I'm reading Shoeck correctly, he actually believes egalitarianism actually foments more social antagonism -- more the more strongly it's pursued. In other words, as people become more equal in all sorts of outward ways, they become much more hostile to each other. The slightest deviation from the norm, too, becomes either a source for envy for others or something one must hide to avoid such.

Yep, sure, fine, no problem. I figured this out though when my mother read the Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches" book to me when I was 3 or 4 years old.

True as it is, rare or "brilliant" insight it is not.

Bob

[George H. Smith]

OK, lemme get this straight...Repression of extreme non-conforming social outliers - interesting insight?

Let's say, hypothetically, that Rand's morality is adopted by society at large, and we're living in our almost-perfect little utopia. Our "get-along Joe's" like me are good little Randians. But also, let's say there are extreme angry socialist nonconformist commies on the fringe. It's a real big stretch to think our commie friends would be repressed, discouraged by social factors, thought to be morally inferior, and shut out of social institutions. They might even become bitter and angry!

Oh yeah, and just about every REAL society that ever existed that had extreme nonconformists, also had repressed bitter and angry extreme nonconformists, who might even "lash out".

Like, helloooo Captain Obvious....

"I might even go so far as to call it brilliant."

Ha ha...Good one...

As the theme for a dark novel as Rand was developing it, yes, it might have been a brilliant idea. Are you familiar with the word "context." or should I have repeated everything I had written before about Rand's notes so you could keep up with everyone else?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

You're not understanding my point.

I feel your pain, Bob.

Ghs

[dan2100]

Finally, Rand and George were not just talking about there being a general social acceptance of one worldview with outliers being shut out, but of mediocrity and "get-along Joe's" being seen as the moral ideal -- which tends to happen in egalitarian or democratic societies. Not the problem here is not rival value systems per se, but a particular kind of value system. Here, Rand is, of course, borrowing from Nietzsche.

Others, such as Max Scheler and Helmut Schoeck, have also noticed this and adopted Nietzsche's notion of ressentiment... And even here the problem is not, again, just nonconformity but the ideal of a certain kind of uniformity as being destructive. If I'm reading Shoeck correctly, he actually believes egalitarianism actually foments more social antagonism -- more the more strongly it's pursued. In other words, as people become more equal in all sorts of outward ways, they become much more hostile to each other. The slightest deviation from the norm, too, becomes either a source for envy for others or something one must hide to avoid such.

Yep, sure, fine, no problem. I figured this out though when my mother read the Dr. Seuss's "Sneetches" book to me when I was 3 or 4 years old.

As, of course, your journals will reveal after they're published.

Also, that story was, according to Wikpedia, published in 1961. You had the benefit of reading or having read it to you. Rand did not. She would've, if my calculations are correct, been writing her journal entries on Hickman in the 1920s.

True as it is, rare or "brilliant" insight it is not.

I don't know. Rand's point seemed to be not so much difference being punished, but a certain type of difference. It's not so much the ugly duckling message going on here, but something a bit more sophisticated, don't you think?

[bmacwilliam]

something a bit more sophisticated, don't you think?

Ok, a bit.

Bob

[Barbara Branden]

Rand’s too-easy, too-sweeping condemnation of the majority of human beings was perhaps the inevitable consequence of her demand for human perfection. I have always loved and been inspired by her exalted concept of the human potential -- but I think she often lost sight of the fact that she was speaking of a potential, not an actuality, a goal, not a point of departure. If you damn man for a failure to possess an unbreached rationality – then in fact, in reality, you damn man.

A further consequence of this demand was that, in order to remain sane in a world of imperfect people, in order to find some values in a world rife with irrationality -- she had to turn the people she loved – Frank, Nathaniel, the collective, (even what she perceived as an aspect of Hickman) – into fantasy figures, into giants of he intellect, giants of ability, giants of rationality. And when a fantasy figure failed her, he inevitably became, in her mind, a monster: there were no excuses for imperfection,

Barbara

[Rich Engle]

And when a fantasy figure failed her, he inevitably became, in her mind, a monster: there were no excuses for imperfection,

Which makes me wonder what means she used to cope with her own imperfections, which I can only assume she saw.

[Xray]

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

It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw. He had left OL in between but now that he's back, reviving the thread with the two of you trying to make their case should be interesting to read. A poster here (Brant Gaede) wrote that JR "doesn't debate" (is that really the case?), but you sure do engage in debates.

As for the abstract speeches, imo they are far too long, sticking out in the novels like a verbal "atheroma".

For adults, my logic goes, how can you correctly judge something if you have identified it incorrectly? You can't.

Indeed, for this would mean basing one's judgement on a false premise.

MSK: Rand did the opposite of adults at times (at many times, in fact). She used the epistemological methodology of an infant. She formulated her normative abstraction firmly before the cognitive part. She judged something--in all or nothing terms--then sought out bits of identification here and there to make reality equal to what she judged.

Well said.

MSK: Rand certainly did this with Hickman and common people. Although she acknowledged the monstrosity of Hickman's acts, she did not allow that to have any input into her harsh condemnation of common people. Why? I believe it was because she had already judged common people as irredeemably corrupt and needed some facts as corroboration. A brutal murderer was a dramatic way to do that. The facts that didn't fit could be easily discarded.

Reality is not so accommodating, but who cares when you have an all-or-nothing judgment at stake?

To her, the fact that common people found the lack of Hickman's remorse despicable could only have been rooted in the despicableness of the common people, not in the despicableness of Hickman's acts. I literally don't think it occurred to her that people believed (as I believe) that not having a moral compass with an arrow pointed directly toward simple human decency was evil--and their words were attempts to say that, irrespective of how Rand interpreted them. Depraved indifference is not a virtue, yet Rand tried to elevate it to one in her notes (and, yes, I have read the entire passage).

There's a lot lot of food for thought in what you wrote here.

MSK: As I stated earlier, she could have easily chosen any number of other examples to illustrate the point she was making. She didn't need a total loon. I would need to look at the history books of the times, but life is full of dramatic stuff and no doubt it was full of dramatic stuff back then. Yet Rand settled on a monster. I believe it is a mistake to brush aside this fact as insignificant. I believe you get an incorrect version of Rand--and of cognitive-normative epistemology--by doing that. And of psychology...

Imo Rand had a problem with the feeling of empathy. It is evident in her novels, in her non-fiction, as well as in her live.

Example:

If [people] place such things as friendship and family ties above their own productive work, yes, then they are immoral. Friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite.” (Rand )

http://exiledonline....yn-rands-heart/

MSK: There is another element that is more troubling to me. Rand's cognitive-normative inversion was also illustrated by her 100% adoption of love at first sight in all-or-nothing terms. In her own words, she literally fell in love with Frank O'Connor because he had her kind of face. That was it. The long and short of it. A face in a crowd. There was nothing else.

From BB's book, I got the impresssion that Rand was attracted to Nathaniel Branden from the moment she first saw him. NB happened to have 'her kind of face' too.

MSK: I believe Hickman also had her kind of face and this influenced her even more than her stretched opinion of the true nature of common people.

Hickman also had her type of face, no question about it imo.

MSK: I think most of us understand love at first sight as falling hard for someone, but then keeping an eye open as events unfold to corroborate that initial impression. But there is an unspoken hope that the fist impression is right and a mighty attempt to make it so. But not total certainty that it was right.

Calling it "physical attraction" at first sight would be stating it clearer it these cases. Imo people do have their "types of faces" appealing to them, but usually simple experience of reality is a good litmus test when it comes to getting to know better the person one has found to be physically attractive in the first place.

MSK: Rand needed no such corroboration and had no such hope. She was 100% certain on inconclusive observations. How did she know? Well... she just knew. That's all.

Believing that one's subjective preferences are objective assessments of reality is bound to lead to disaster.

MSK: If the facts did not fit, she blanked them out. (Yes, I know that is the equivalent of an Objectivist cuss word. I just don't know any other term to say it with that conveys such clarity.) For example, Frank was not a true hero? No problem. She waved her mental magic wand and he was a hero on strike until the end of his life.

It looks like Rand made a mental makeover of Frank to justify him as her husband.

Edited March 31, 2010 by Xray

[dan2100]

And when a fantasy figure failed her, he inevitably became, in her mind, a monster: there were no excuses for imperfection,

Which makes me wonder what means she used to cope with her own imperfections, which I can only assume she saw.

The same way, I bet, I cope with mine: deny deny deny.

[Brant Gaede]

And when a fantasy figure failed her, he inevitably became, in her mind, a monster: there were no excuses for imperfection,

Which makes me wonder what means she used to cope with her own imperfections, which I can only assume she saw.

Well she told Nathaniel Branden he was John Galt, "with a few flaws," if I remember correctly. Must be in Judgment Day. So she cut a little slack, but not much.

--Brant

[dan2100]

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

It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw. He had left OL in between but now that he's back, reviving the thread with the two of you trying to make their case should be interesting to read. A poster here (Brant Gaede) wrote that JR "doesn't debate" (is that really the case?), but you sure do engage in debates.

As for the abstract speeches, imo they are far too long, sticking out in the novels like a verbal "atheroma".

There is a difference, don't you feel, between not liking a novel and whether that same novel is well written or great? I have plenty of "guilty pleasures" that I would not think are great works of art and a few great works of art -- works that I believe are actually great and not merely ones that others tell me are great, but I feel might not be -- leave me cold. Or do you believe esthetic judgment is inseparable from personal reactions?

[Philip Coates]

> It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw.

Xray, I think I explained it - in a whole series of posts. No need to keep posting that one particular individual hasn't taken the time to give you what you asked for.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

> It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw.

Xray, I think I explained it - in a whole series of posts. No need to keep posting that one particular individual hasn't taken the time to give you what you asked for.

I'm confident that Phil explained why he thinks Rand is a great fiction writer. But - though I don't recall the details of Phil's presentation - I rather doubt that he explained why I think that. So far as I know, I've never discussed in any detail with Phil exactly what my standards are for judging aesthetic quality in fiction. And if he doesn't know what my standards are, he can hardly explain how they apply to a particular writer like Rand.

JR

[Philip Coates]

The 'it' in my my first sentence referred to why AR is a great FW, not why JR thinks that. One of them would require psychic abilities on my part, the other not so much.

[dan2100]

> It would be interesting to see you in a discussion with J. Riggenbach on this who, a while back on the "Great Literature" thread wrote that Rand is a great writer of fiction. Still waiting for JR to explain exactly why he thinks this btw.

Xray, I think I explained it - in a whole series of posts. No need to keep posting that one particular individual hasn't taken the time to give you what you asked for.

Perhaps you could point a newcomer to just where those posts are...

[George H. Smith]

Rand’s too-easy, too-sweeping condemnation of the majority of human beings was perhaps the inevitable consequence of her demand for human perfection. I have always loved and been inspired by her exalted concept of the human potential -- but I think she often lost sight of the fact that she was speaking of a potential, not an actuality, a goal, not a point of departure. If you damn man for a failure to possess an unbreached rationality – then in fact, in reality, you damn man.

A further consequence of this demand was that, in order to remain sane in a world of imperfect people, in order to find some values in a world rife with irrationality -- she had to turn the people she loved – Frank, Nathaniel, the collective, (even what she perceived as an aspect of Hickman) – into fantasy figures, into giants of he intellect, giants of ability, giants of rationality. And when a fantasy figure failed her, he inevitably became, in her mind, a monster: there were no excuses for imperfection,

Barbara

I have always liked this line by the 18th century philosopher James Mackintosh: "It is absurd to expect, but it is not absurd to pursue perfection."

[dan2100]

I have always liked this line by the 18th century philosopher James Mackintosh: "It is absurd to expect, but it is not absurd to pursue perfection."

That is a great line, in my opinion! Did he also invent the variety of apple and that raincoat?

[anthony]

Thinking Hickman again; There's little doubt that Ayn Rand was drawn to the relentless, ruthless type in fiction.

In a few references in The Romantic Manifesto, she showed appreciation for Mickey Spillane's Mike Hammer, ("I,the Jury") and Fleming's Bond.

Both are anti-conventional loners - but in this case on the side of justice.

The charming, but cold, Avenger type.

Amusing to me some years after school was reading her critiques, and remembering how these writers were banned at my school for the sin of not being boring and literary enough (I suppose) - like T.Hardy, D.H.Lawrence, et al. Gave me a kick!

This reminds me of the excellent thrillers of the critically ignored, incredibly popular, John D. MacDonald; although his hero Travis McGee, was possibly too easy-going for Rand - I own the full collection.

Tony

[Barbara Branden]

Tony: "This reminds me of the excellent thrillers of the critically ignored, incredibly popular, John D. MacDonald . . . I own the full collection."

MacDonald was a wonderful writer, who never received the critical understanding and acclaim he deserved. I, too, once owned all his books -- and I now regret that I gave them away. He once did something astonishing. I don't remember what book it was, but in the first two or three pages, he introduced nine or ten characters. each with only a sentence or two of characterization. But so striking and memorable were those characterizations that as the characters kept reappearing throughout the book, one never had to go back to see who any of them were.

Enough said. I don't mean to change the subject of this thread,

Barbara

[Greybird]

[...] Enough said. I don't mean to change the subject of this thread.

I gladly give you a special dispensation.

(Just had to say that! {g})

Anyway, having started this symposium, I'll jump in again to say that of all this productive thinking that's gone on about l'affaire Hickman and tangential matters, Barbara's course (or what I've gleaned from it) is probably the simplest and most useful:

Admit, if and when needed, that Rand made a sizable mistake in the object of her attention, when she was a younger writer learning about American culture. Don't gloss over it. Yet proceed to focus on the profound achievements that she did end up finishing.