Brant, I have a box full of old NBI, Mary Ann Sures, and other ephemera from that period, including the art print offerings. But thanks for offering. I don't recall about "the Aronson Method" but you could be right. It rings a faint bell.

You could also be right about the value of the original. In the right auction with competing bidders, maybe. There is an element of unpredictability in these things. But I doubt it. That's neither here nor there in regard to what it is worth to you of course.

Phil: “Brendan, the indisputable way to tell if a phrase like 'ad hominem' is used in more ways than one is *the dictionary*.”

Yes. Preferably a dictionary of philosophy. The ad hominen is used in more ways than one. Just not the ways you think.

Brendan

Fred: “Really? Whose [history]?”

The victor’s, I imagine. They usually write it. No need to sharpen your quill.

“And if it is "history" why do we have to be subjected to your pretentious babble now?”

It’s called the first draft. Yours can stay in the bottom drawer. It’s rather sad, Fred. Our relationship began so well. You even offered to mentor me, on logical fallacies as I recall. Then you turned all curmudgeonly. What happened to that benevolent impulse?

Brendan

I believe there were two sets of printings. I have the one from the printing sold by Mary Ann Sures in the very early 1970s. Another, earlier method of reproduction, I was told tended to fade or change colors after a releatively short period of time. I can't confirm this, but it was "The Aronson Method." If you want a copy of the NBI brochure for Frank O'Connor painting reproductions, which may include some of Joan M. Blumenthal's, I'll send it to you if I still have more than one copy. I'll need a mailing address.

Value of the original? In excess of $100,000. I don't know who has it. Probably Leonard Peikoff. I determined this value by what I might sell it for if I owned it and needed the money. If I were a serious seller of the print, +$5000.

--Brant

"The ultimate judge of any piece of art is history."

Really? Whose?

And if it is "history" why do we have to be subjected to your pretentious babble now? Are you a fortune teller?

I've only seen one other copy of the signed/limited edition of Frank O'Connor's "Diminishing Returns". Whadda they know on OL? I recall selling it to a customer for $1500. That was some years ago, maybe 6-7. I would imagine it's gone up since then. But keep in mind it is a print. You are probably in the right ballpark - $10,000-$20,000 - for the original though, maybe more.

Btw, a #6, being a low number, adds a bit to the value.

Make sure you have it archivally matted and framed - and keep it out of sunlight.

Btw, even the regular prints - since they have been unavailable for many years - could probably fetch several hundred dollars.

Brendan, the indisputable way to tell if a phrase like 'ad hominem' is used in more ways than one is *the dictionary*. You may not solely rely on the one way you have seen it used (e.g., in a logic text).

Please don't waste time with nit-picky points like this.

> you seem to be implying that my argument is faulty because of some personal defect.

Reasoning or process error, not a character defect. Please retain the distinction between what I said and what Linz said.

Phil gives a purported example of ad hominen: “…you microscopic, pomo-wanking louse etc.”

I think you’re mistaken Phil. That’s just abuse. The ad hominen is a fallacious argument, not just a series of words. Certainly, the ad hominen can be a character attack, but not necessarily. The important point is that it takes the form of an argument, implied or explicit, along the lines: “Linz has no aesthetic taste, therefore his views on art are worthless.”

I am aware of the difference between describing someone as mistaken for x reasons, and employing an ad hominen. When you say that I “don't seem to be able to get the sensory or visual aspects of Rand's writing” you seem to be implying that my argument is faulty because of some personal defect.

Perhaps you’re not saying that, in which case I take the points you raise in your previous post, but disagree for the reasons I have also noted previously. As I said earlier, aesthetic taste has a lot to do with liking Rand. The ultimate judge of any piece of art is history.

Brendan

Linz: “…your arbitrary rationalistic strictures as to what constitutes good writing are bullshit.”

I disagree. I have presented a case and supported my views with reasoned argument, focusing on the text, with examples against which to compare and contrast. Some of my comments have been sardonic. So what?

For what it’s worth: blog posts are by nature brief; a quote can be representative of the whole.

Brendan

You can send me a SOLO P message or BrantGaede@aol.com

--Brant

> Anybody who sends me their e-Mail address will get from me a copy of Jack Wheeler's ("To The Point") explanation of the smile on the Mona Lisa.

Brant, I'm very interested in this (having never understood it), but when I clicked on your profile its says you are not accepting emails.

> "You're not –visualizing… you are out of focus” Ad hominen Phil. [Brendan]

It's not an ad hominem to attack a person's method or mental processing. An ad hominem is an attack on an opponent's *character* rather than...an answer to the contentions made [Merriam-Webster Dictionary, emphasis added].

Here's an example with the i) ad hominems, ii) non-substantive or very general, and iii) legitimate, fair, or substantive attacks or contentions labelled (whether true or false has to be taken on a case by case basis):

"Brendan, you microscopic, pomo-wanking louse [triple ad hominem]: your arbitrary rationalistic [legitimate] strictures as to what constitutes good writing are bullshit [general]. You wouldn't know good writing if it bit you on your sorry, snotty, snide, supercilious postmodern ass [five ad hominems, one is borderline]. If you had a soul [ad hominem], I would commend to your attention the Rearden/Wet Nurse scene [legitimate], that you might be touched. But you don't [ad hominem], so I won't. Wank on, Lois [double ad hominem]. And when you've written an epoch-changing best-seller, let us know.[non-substantive or not relevant]"

I hope you can see the difference between saying someone is out of focus, or rationalistic, or has made some kind of other mental error in his comments -and- attacking his character or motives, using essentially invective or insult.

--PASP
(Prissy and Annoying Schoolmarm Phil)

I once had two different paintings by the same artist. I preferred one to the other. An expert told me why the one I didn't like so much was superior to the one I did. Everything he said made sense and no difference to me.

I own a print of Frank O'Connor's "Diminishing Returns." Some *&^*&^^ or two on OL in the midst of deriding him as an artist derided this painting. I like it as much as I ever did and it's not for sale, unless you cough up 20,000 dollars. Don't tell me it's not worth that (It's 6 out of 100 signed by the artist); by the time it is I'll want a lot more.

Anybody who sends me their e-Mail address will get from me a copy of Jack Wheeler's ("To The Point") explanation of the smile on the Mona Lisa. (To otherwise access it you have to subscribe to ToThePoint.) The bonus is that Jack tells how the painting is being used to fight islamo-fascists.

--Brant

edit: I had to change 10,000 to 20,000 dollars when I realized somebody might offer me 10g.

Sade's Philosophy in the Bedroom having academically-respectable prose.

It's not that some of AR's prose can't be criticized--AS is well over 600,000 words long--but that you'd need many more examples of this or that to arrive at a valid, general criticism. Even on my first reading in 1963 I found points of criticism which I certainly didn't dwell on. I could hardly put the book down! My Mother owns scores of "literary" books I can't read or don't care about. I remember one "literary" novel I found unreadable: "Two Girls, One Thin, One Fat," which I picked up because there was supposed to be some allusion to Objectivism or AR. 99.90% of literature might as well be (and probably is) garbage as far as I'm concerned. I'm not sure; I read very little fiction. If you want a good, non-Objectivist read, try "Treasure Island."

--Brant

... you microscopic, pomo-wanking louse: your arbitrary rationalistic strictures as to what constitutes good writing are bullshit. You wouldn't know good writing if it bit you on your sorry, snotty, snide, supercilious postmodern ass. If you had a soul, I would commend to your attention the Rearden/Wet Nurse scene, that you might be touched. But you don't, so I won't. Wank on, Lois. And when you've written an epoch-changing best-seller, let us know.

Linz

James, all power to your response to AS. But your subjective response tells us nothing about the quality of the writing, does it?

Phil: “Visualize and –focus… You're not –visualizing… you are out of focus”

Ad hominen Phil. I’m disappointed. We’re talking about the quality of Rand’s writing, not my state of mind.

Fred: “First of all, in commenting on Rand's writing he is only focusing on her literary style and based on that characterizing her as a writer.”

Yes, just as I said I was going to do, in one of the first comments of my first post: “…the ultimate test of any writer is the quality of the written word.” I’m criticising Rand’s writing ability, not her themes.

“Some years ago Modern Library did a survey of the 100 best novels of the 20th Cent...”

You may not know much about ‘literary theory’, Fred (nor do I, I take style as I read it) but you will know about self-selection in surveys. And you are surely not suggesting that quality is a popularity contest.

Brendan

The smallness of your nitpicking is like the squirming commas near the sight of Francisco D'Anconia. It just seems so utterly Lilliputian and so obviously irrelevant.

That was perilously close to being a KASS post. I dread to think what might happen if you make a habit of it.

Don't worry about pomo-wanker Brendan. Lilliputian nit-picking is what he does.

Linz

Brendan,

I still remember when I first read Atlas as a 16 year old. The vitality and fire of the central protaganists Hank, Dagny and Francisco are burned into my brain. For many young people, including myself it projected a future which was glorious and which is ours. Through engineering school, graduate school, my first job, my wedding overlooking the sea on Maui, helping build the first 300 mm high volume semiconductor fab in the world, forging my way to a successful technology launch as a bleeding edge semiconductor integration engineer and now as a successful high volume semiconductor engineer with a 40 hour workweek and lots of time for fun, Rand gave me the strength and the vision.

For me, Rand's Atlas was the equivalent that Howard Roark's Monadnock was to the boy on the bicycle. It gave me the courage to face a lifetime. The smallness of your nitpicking is like the squirming commas near the sight of Francisco D'Anconia. It just seems so utterly Lilliputian and so obviously irrelevant.

Jim

She once said the book was "almost too long". I think it could have been cut about 10% to 900 pages.

...no I'll amend that:

8.57%.

“Things streaked past - a water tank, a tree, a shanty, a grain silo. They had a windshield-wiper motion: they were rising, describing a curve and dropping back. The telegraph wires ran a race with the train, rising and falling from pole to pole, in an even rhythm, like the cardiograph record of a steady heartbeat written across the sky.”

.....

> Rand describes the rhythmical arc of the telegraph wires, and then just in case we haven’t got it, she spells it out. [Brendan]

A good writer doesn't just -tell- but -shows- and that's what the point of her comparisons is. This successfully paints a picture.

> That bathos thing again.

Bathos means an unintentional change in mood from the important and serious to the trivial or ridiculous. You're misusing the word here. It's like you learned impressive, intimidating words in a class somewhere and are sticking them in to criticize someone you don't like even where the words don't apply.

> there’s the incongruity of things streaking past, but also rising and curving.

You're not -visualizing- what its like to be riding in the train cab. Visualize and -focus- Brendan.

> And the padding: “…describing a curve…”? Why not ‘curving’?

You call two words "padding"? Again you are out of focus on the precise meaning: Windshield wipers don't -curve- themselves, just as a piece of chalk on a blackboard doesn't curve, it -draws- or -describes- a curve.

> There’s not much speed or urgency in “ran a race with”, where one could use ‘raced’

Ran a race with is more visual: it makes you picture two people or things side by side racing each other. Brendan, you don't seem to be able to get the sensory or visual aspects of Rand's writing. It's *good* writing to make you feel it, see it, experience it with multiple senses and multiple comparisons.

I'm guessing you probably didn't like the comparison of a piece of music to other things that rise and soar in the description of the Concerto of Deliverance. You probably thought the multiple or extended comparions too "wordy" or "overwrought". You probably didn't like the sensory power of the Apollo 11 launch in Rand's essay of the same name or the length of her description of it. Padding?!?!

> she doesn’t trust her reader, so she over-eggs the pudding

Finally, a criticism I will (partly) agree with!

She could have cut some of the comparisons, especially when they repeat themselves. Don't ask me where off the top of my head...but after hundreds of pages I do know that there are things that she had already said, comparisons she had already made.

Claudia: “The safety in Dagny's exalted feeling of her leading the way with full consciousness obliterates any sensation of unsafety due to obstacle.”

Perhaps, but that’s hardly the point, is it? An exalted feeling is no protection against an unexpected obstacle.

“Ownership - she thought, glancing back at him - weren't there those who knew nothing of its nature and doubted its reality? No, it was not made of papers, seals, grants and permissions. There it was - in his eyes.”

No doubt Reardon will soon be turning his ownership eyes upon Dagny, an ownership not unmixed with contemptuous triumph, and accompanied, I’m sure, by nothing but a mocking smile. (Or is that Franscisco?) One imagines Rand hunched over her typewriter, dabbing her brow as she plans the coming ownership action.

“Things streaked past - a water tank, a tree, a shanty, a grain silo. They had a windshield-wiper motion: they were rising, describing a curve and dropping back. The telegraph wires ran a race with the train, rising and falling from pole to pole, in an even rhythm, like the cardiograph record of a steady heartbeat written across the sky.”

“Things” streaked past, Claudia? How visually arresting. “They had a windshield-wiper motion…” That bathos thing again. This phrase is a real plodder – read it aloud and hear its pedestrian tread. Then there’s the incongruity of things streaking past, but also rising and curving. And the padding: “…describing a curve…”? Why not ‘curving’? There’s not much speed or urgency in “ran a race with”, where one could use ‘raced’. Rand describes the rhythmical arc of the telegraph wires, and then just in case we haven’t got it, she spells it out.

Which highlights another drawback with Rand’s writing: she doesn’t trust her reader, so she over-eggs the pudding, to ensure the dullest reader catches her drift. I grant that that the cardiograph symbol is a good one, and in keeping with the notion of the machine as an expression of man’s mind. But stylistically it could be better.

Brendan

Phil: “You've taken one sentence or passage out of context and, read that way, it's awkward.”

Phil, when a previous poster made a global criticism of Rand’s writing, you asked – out of ‘intellectual curiosity’ – for details. Having been provided with one person’s view, you’re now complaining that the passage was taken out of context. But I merely took my cue from another poster, who thought this was an eloquent and meaningful piece of writing.

Fact is, if you want to critique someone’s writing, you have to look at the actual writing, which means selecting particular passages. There’s no other way to do it.

Brendan

Mr Weiss is absolutely correct.

As a full-time professional writer, I know first-hand how difficult it is to do what Rand did so superlatively.

Critics who dislike Rand's work, even apart from and more fundamentally than finding her ideas offensive, object not only to what she says but to the way her mind works.

To which the only proper response I can muster right now is a phrase I haven't used in years -- Check your premises.

> By the way, the equivalent today of "Who is John Galt?" accompanied by a resigned shrug is the word "Whatever".

Ted Keer made some good points on RoR recently about the obnoxious "Whatever" phrase and what it suggests. That's what made me make this connection.

Fred, thanks for the long passage from your friend, Mr. Barker. His analysis of how the giving up sense of the phrase "Who is John Galt?" and the sense of decay and gradual loss of a civilization are captured by the ebbing light, the yellow glint in the eyes ( a very eerie and chilling effect if you visualize the scene), etc. is right on target.

Most people miss how Rand works on the subconscious with her writing and how skillful and, yes, "literary" it is. The clock tower with the month and day in the early pages of the book is another example of setting the mood and capturing the sense of a silent destruction through images, concretes, the full use of the senses. As is the oak tree with the hollowed, out, shattered, empty center.

By the way, the equivalent today of "Who is John Galt?" accompanied by a resigned shrug is the word "Whatever".

There is also the fact of precision in word choice for someone for whom English is her second (or third?) language: ebbing [not fading or dim or muted] mocking and still [not resentful and empty or angry and half-closed], causeless uneasiness [not strange terror or mysterious dread] are just the right words here. Why? in part, because they are meant to barely suggest in a subtle way, not give everything away at the start of the book.

Ayn Rand takes great pains to choose *exactly the right word* in her fiction and that carried over into her writing of philosophy, which is why she seems to be using surgeon's scalpels in the concepts and formulations she uses, while modern academics seem to be clumsily flailing around with polo mallets or cavemen's clubs.

Her taking of great pains in her fiction trained her to become a great philosopher.

I know very little about literary theory, so I can't say much in any detail about this. I can only give you my general reaction to Mr. Hutching's comments. It is pretentious bullshit.

First of all, in commenting on Rand's writing he is only focusing on her literary style and based on that characterizing her as a writer. Style was not unimportant to her. Quite the contrary. But of all the elements in writing she regarded it as less important than plot and characterization.

In "The Art of Fiction", style is not discussed until "Chapter 8". The discussion does encompass 3 chapters. But it comes after plot and characterization.

I'm also mentioning this so that any of you interested in Ayn Rand's own views on writing should read this book. For example, she discusses in considerable detail why she wrote certain passages exactly the way she did. And I mean *exactly*, to the word.

Mr. Hutchings has *no idea* - or to be more blunt about it, he doesn't know wtf he is talking about.

I once loaned a copy of Atlas Shrugged to a friend of mine, not someone I thought would react favorably to it. But in fact he did. Not so much to the ideas but to the writing. I was surprised when he told me, "You get the distinct impression that she carefully selected every word and that every word has a precise purpose". He was a jazz musician/composer so maybe there was some connection there in terms of his focus and the degree of his appreciation.

Some years ago Modern Library did a survey of the 100 best novels of the 20th Cent. First they asked academics and literati who picked James Joyce's Ulysses as #1. Of course nothing by Ayn Rand was mentioned (with Ulysses as #1 that would have been impossible). Then they opened it up to the general public. They picked Atlas Shrugged as #1. (AR's other novels also came up in the top 10).

There was a forum set up in connection with the survey where people could express their views and of course there was the predictable outrage at Ayn Rand being ranked so high. A lot of the comments were along the lines of Hutching's. An acquaintance of mine - George Barker - posted the following and with his permission I had it on my web page for a number of years. I thought some of you might enjoy it.

"I judge a book first and foremost as a work of art. The artistic elements of a work of literature are its theme, plot, characterization, and style. All of these elements must be present for a book to even qualify as literature. In a great work of literature they are each executed masterfully and integrated seamlessly. The theme is the driving force and each other element an expression of the theme.

I consider Atlas Shrugged to be the greatest literary work of the 20th century because it embodies these values more than any other book I've ever read. The result is that I get immense pleasure in reading it. The theme, plot, characterization, and style are present in practically every sentence.

Take the first few sentences: "Who is John Galt? The light was ebbing, and Eddie Willers could not distinguish the bum's face. The bum had said it simply, without expression. But from the sunset far at the end of the street, yellow glints caught his eyes, and the eyes looked straight at Eddie Willers, mocking and still - as if the question had been addressed to the causeless uneasiness within him."

The theme of Atlas Shrugged is the role of the mind in human existence. This is demonstrated by the plot: the men of the mind go on strike. The characterizations illustrate the nature of those who live by their minds and those who do not. The style stresses the role of the mind in every aspect of human life. In the above example, the theme is introduced in the very first sentence of the book. The phrase "Who is John Galt?" is itself symbolic of society's neglect of the men of the mind and is developed throughout the novel. The next sentence: "The light was ebbing . .." Here theme, plot, and style all work together. Stylistically, the phrase has described dusk, but in such a way as to convey a sense of gradual loss. This integrates to the plot, the life source of the world is disappearing. The theme: the role of the mind, symbolized here by the light, in man's life. Then comes the characterization of the bum. His voice is expressionless, though there is mockery in his eyes which are caught by yellow glints "from the sunset far at the end of the street . . ." Nothing is left of this man but a reflection of what was. The sunset, representative of the disappearing mind, leaves a reflection in his eyes. He has given up. His mind is gone.

This level of integration is kept up throughout the book. The novel is not so much written as it is painted and composed. Add to this the fact that its content puts forth wholly unprecedented ideas; a revolutionary philosophy. It is the work of a towering genius."

Bill: “I would however like to see some examples of passages from writers that you consider superior to Rand.”

Here is one example: “Everything that lived or grew was oppressed by
the glare; except the lizard, passing swiftly over rough stone walls, and the cicada, chirping its dry hot chirp, like a rattle. The very dust was scorched brown, and something quivered in the atmosphere as if the air itself were panting.”

There’s nothing particularly symbolic about this passage. It’s just part of a much longer piece about a very hot day. The words – “rough stone walls”, “dry hot chirp”, “quivered”, “panting” – speak to our senses and bring us the experience of oppressive heat. They don’t just tell; they also show. And notice that while this author also uses a general term “something” and the “as if” construction, they don’t impede the flow of text.

And: “On the eve of his departure Luzhin stood on the tiny balcony of his room in his long nightshirt and looked at the moon, which was tremblingly disengaging itself from some black foliage, and while thinking of the unexpected turn taken by his defence against Turati, he listened through these chess reflections to the voice that still continued to ring in his ears, cutting across his being in long lines and occupying all the chief points…
…But the moon emerged from behind the angular black twigs, a round, full-bodied moon – a vivid confirmation of victory – and when finally Luzhin left the balcony and stepped back into his room, there on the floor lay and enormous square of moonlight, and in that light – his own shadow.”

Here the author shows his character’s state of mind primarily by describing a scene. The hero is about to embark on a couple of life-changing events, and he’s feeling trapped. The writer shows his hero standing on his balcony looking at the moon, which appears to be trapped in the foliage.

By the end of the passage, the moon has escaped from the foliage and is now a symbol of victory. The writer has taken a rather tired cliché and not only freshened it by his writing skill, but he’s also made it perform double-duty, as a symbol of both despair and triumph.

You don’t have to know anything about literary theory to recognise good writing. Much of it is in the construction and flow of words. Both these writers use plain enough language to convey their meaning, but they do so economically and without straining for effect.

Another sign of a writer in command of his craft is the length of the first sentence – 76 words, almost 30 more than this: “She wondered why she felt safer than she had ever felt in a car behind the engine, safer here, where it seemed as if, should an obstacle rise, her breast and the glass shield would be first to smash against it." And yet the longer sentence is the more flowing.

Brendan

Well I fucking could - they rip her down and then say that's why real academics don't take her seriously!

When James Joyce's work is ranked top in the hundred greatest book list, I couldn't give two rat's asses about the critic's opinion's of Rand as a writer. Screw the Critics, Screw Stephen King, let them even try to attempt what Rand did.

"Fuck you, I like it." -Frank Zappa

Some of the literary points that Ayn is criticized for are actually her greatest strengths as a novel writer and will one day become hallmarks of modern literature outside of Objectivism, I believe.

Because she managed to fold her philosophical perspectives so neatly and comprehensively into fiction, her style of novel writing was groundbreaking. It's comparable to nothing.

Take this as an ingenius example of what I mean: (on the very same page of Atlas as the one critiqued by Brendan)

He stood, hands in pockets, feet apart, braced against the motion, looking ahead. There was nothing he could now care to see by the side of the track: he was looking at the rail.

Ownership - she thought, glancing back at him - weren't there those who knew nothing of its nature and doubted its reality? No, it was not made of papers, seals, grants and permissions. There it was - in his eyes. [AS]

And as for the perception of her prose lacking flow, it doesn't come any better than this...

Things streaked past - a water tank, a tree, a shanty, a grain silo. They had a windshield-wiper motion: they were rising, describing a curve and dropping back. The telegraph wires ran a race with the train, rising and falling from pole to pole, in an even rhythm, like the cardiograph record of a steady heartbeat written across the sky.[AS]

Her minds eye consistently pictures then translates to words this kind of visual clarity throughout over a thousand pages! No small accomplishment.

Ayn does indeed draw strongly on simile but not at all heavily, for it visually propels her story forward with an intense grace, rather than bogging it down in any unnecessary fashion.

Interesting comments. How about your thoughts on AR's description of the first run of the John Galt Line in toto?

--Brant

Brendan,

You've taken one sentence or passage out of context and, read that way, it's awkward. But it's not meant to be read in isolation. It integrates to many things about Dagny, about the dangers and conflicts in life and in the book.

In a thousand page book I'm sure you could find hundreds of sentences that you would be able to find flaws in. Whether this one is flawed in context, if one reintegrates it to the context is a separate issue.

Dagny’s sense of security is misplaced, because it derives from her knowledge of the capabilities of train and track, not her knowledge of random obstacles. Rand hasn’t established her case for Dagny’s confidence. [Brendan Hutching]

Brendan, thanks for your thoughtful post.

In this passage Ayn takes care to explain Dagny's source of confidence by her comparing being at the very front of the train as opposed to being in a car behind:

She wondered why she felt safer than she had ever felt in a car behind the engine, safer here... [AS page 225]

Then...

It was the security of being first, with full sight and full knowledge of one's course - not the blind sense of being pulled into the unknown by some unknown power ahead. It was the greatest sensation of existence: not to trust, but to know. [AS]

The safety in Dagny's exalted feeling of her leading the way with full consciousness obliterates any sensation of unsafety due to obstacle. I think Ayn laid a lovely case for Dagny's confidence.

I too know jackshit about literary theory. So I have no way of evalutating your claims other than by the standards of my own taste. Needless to say I don't agree. But I am too ignorant on the subject to debate it.

I would however like to see some examples of passages from writers that you consider superior to Rand.

Update: That would derail this (already partially derailed) thread. So it would be better to start a new thread on that.

I misled where I said that not everyone can be a top-notch writer like the author of Atlas Shrugged. I know next to jackshit about fiction literature and wouldn't pretend to know how to compare her to the other greats. I had in mind her competence as a non-fiction writer, i.e., as communicator of ideas. There, she's first-rate, and it tells me all I need to know about her skills as a writer.

Phil: “I would like to know more fully the reasons Rand is so often disliked as a novelist…”

Good question. Aesthetic taste probably has a lot to do with liking or disliking Rand, but the ultimate test of any writer is the quality of the written word. It might be a worthwhile exercise to take a look at some of her words. Coincidently, another thread on this site provides a ready-made text for consideration.

“She looked ahead, at the haze that melted rail and distance, a haze that could rip apart at any moment to some shape of disaster. She wondered why she felt safer than she had ever felt in a car behind the engine, safer here, where it seemed as if, should an obstacle rise, her breast and the glass shield would be first to smash against it."

This passage highlights several of Rand’s faults as a writer. One consistent flaw is unintentional bathos, here exemplified by the descent from the dramatic “rip apart” to the amorphous “some shape of…” In reverse, there is the move from the leisurely “obstacle rise” to the violent “smash against”. Rand tends to fall back on violent action verbs as a way of injecting drama into her prose. But this creates a dissonance between the nouns and verbs, and a purpling of the prose.

Another flaw is clumsy sentence construction, eg “…a haze that could rip apart at any moment to some shape of disaster…”and “…she felt safer than she had ever felt...”. The padding and repetition slows down comprehension and dulls the impact of whatever imagery is buried in the welter of words.

Rand’s writing also displays a heavy reliance on simile and the hypothetical ‘as if’. There’s nothing wrong with the judicious use of these constructions, but when used to excess they reveal a writer falling back repeatedly on stock constructions. What’s more, Rand has miswritten the “seemed” and “as if”. If the train were to hit an obstacle, Dagny would indeed smash against the glass – no ifs about it.

And this highlights a problem of integration between Rand’s art and philosophy. The haze in this quote could be regarded as a symbol for the unfocused mind and its formless dread of the “unknown shape of disaster”. This phrase covers all forms of train accident, but then we’re told that the unknown shape might be an “obstacle” – perhaps an animal on the track, or a rock fall, or another train. But in that case, Dagny’s sense of security is misplaced, because it derives from her knowledge of the capabilities of train and track, not her knowledge of random obstacles. Rand hasn’t established her case for Dagny’s confidence.

"She smiled, grasping the answer: it was the security of being first with full sight and full knowledge of one's course-not the blind sense of being pulled into the unknown by some unknown power ahead."

Interestingly, when Rand begins talking about knowing, her writing becomes clear and forceful. Despite the abstract language and complexity of this sentence, it works as prose. Rand clearly feels more in command of her material when she’s telling us what she thinks rather than trying to show us what she sees. That is, her forte is the essay rather than the novel.

"It was the greatest sensation of existence: not to trust, but to know."

Even so, she falls at the last hurdle with the vague and ghastly “greatest sensation of existence” to describe the exhilarating experience of knowing what is right and true. Not only that – there’s the philosophical dissonance of labelling the act of knowing as sensation.

So while Rand can write well, her prose lacks the fluency to place her in the top drawer of novelists. That said, one must give Rand her due. She created a unique style – arch, high-camp, shapeless but thrusting – that is instantly recognisable and often imitated.

Brendan

... a testicular trichotomy! LOL. Jesus, some people really shouldn't play with guns!

that Private Phile has not been given the proper motivation?

... has THREE. The notorious trichotomy. What's clear from the fact that he's a blouse, a woolly-woofter, a wuss & a poofter, is that they're not connected up to anything.

THEN SOUND OFF LIKE YOU'VE GOT A PAIR!

"Poofter's Lager. Australian for queer."

> poofter.

Claudia, I don't speaka da kiwi or da limey or da shrimpondabarbie...so I don't know what this means either.

SPEAK AMERICAN!!!!

Ooh, not nice, Claudia. You know Phil's fragile -- he's got emotional problems (beyond pacifism).

"Bullshit! You look like the kind of guy who'd fuck someone in the ass and not have the goddamned common courtesy to give 'em a reach around!"

it means poofter.

Oh, Marnee, I've missed you and the sordid SOLO chat room.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

blouse, as in girl's blouse, I think

KASS is hott.

I know I'm probably going to regret opening myself up like this but, at the risk of asking Linz to translate into actual English the latest of his machete-like ventures into the abuse of the once-fine Kiwi language...

...what is 'blouse'?

Perigo wrote:

If by chance they *are* one & the same, I can only say—come on Phil, if Cathcart can de-blouse, so can you!

Right! And think of the benefits. Chicks dig KASS. I bet Cathcart is finding himself getting laid left, right and centre.

Perhaps the trichotomy comprises three separate personalities? Phil, we'll need to see that other one before we're certain. Personality, I mean.

Jennifer

-- Food Philosophy. Sensuality. Sass.

I thought I'd chime in here. To clarify, I thought Peri's post was crappy. I love Atlas Shrugged; it changed my life. And the sex scenes have been filed away in my spank bank for years. Oh my god, that woman knew how I want it!

But, that said, I don't equate Atlas Shrugged with the great literary classics of the Western world. I don't think the writing is that gorgeous; clear yes, evocative yes, but she doesn't make me see almost like a real world in front of me, like, say, Thomas Hardy or Jane Austen or Tolstoy. I do think the characters are a little wooden, especially Galt. We don't really see him change or grow or anything, just see him presented more like a billboard. Reardon, Francisco, and Dagny are better, but she show them as much as tell them. They are narrated, but they don't live on the page, not like Austen's or Dumas's or O'Conner's characters. Also, I think her novels were a bit too didactic. Galt's speech, for instance, doesn't belong in a novel. It is philosophy. A novel should show philosophy through characters and plot, not through a treatise.

Those are my criticisms of her novels, though I do think the Fountainhead is a better novel over all than Atlas. I think they will go down in history as the beginning of the end of crappy era and the springboard into rational land, but I don't think they will be canonized even in an Objectivist society purely on their literary merits.

Kelly

... raises a very good point (I'm told he always does). The Phil who gave that talk must have been an imposter. It wasn't Phil the Blouse, Prissyholic Phil.

If by chance they *are* one & the same, I can only say—come on Phil, if Cathcart can de-blouse, so can you!

Linz

And remove that offensive photo of you blowing on your own dick.

> It is a gag isn't it Phil? Phil?

Sit down and shut up, young man, or I'll rap your knuckles.

One of the riotously funny things about Phil is that one can never be quite sure whether he knows how riotously funny he is. Can anyone really keep up that school-ma'amishness for so long and it not be a joke?

I like Phil, I really do. When he's not wagging his finger at us he's great - like at his speech at the last SOLO conference, which really was excellent. But I think I'm enjoying this long-running gag of his even more. It is a gag isn't it Phil? Phil?

"I want to note that I found Ms. Sword's post to be entirely lacking in merit."

That's for sure. Frankly, Ms. Sword seems to be quite lacking in certain important areas.

As far as ass-kissing goes, well, all the namby-pamby halfwits can kiss mine. For those of you who are so splendidly full of KASS: rock on!

If ever you needed vindication of your decision to stop being a blouse, you now have it—Precious Prissy Phil disapproves.

Keep goin' with that meltdown, baby!

This is war. While Phil & his philk wank & witter, the world burns.

I suppose that was humor, but I can remember when you were the most intelligent and thoughtful poster on this board, writing long and detailed posts which showed evidence of careful thought. And it was only a month or so ago. Lately you've gone into FMM (Full Metal Meltdown).

Phil,

I think Chris has used that careful and thoughtful brain of his to re-evaluate things Branden, ARI, and TAS/JARS. He's come to the conclusion that he was mislead, and is rightfully pissed off at those doing the misleading. Try to be more understanding

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Phil prefers Peri to Rand - a junior high school crush? Pathetic!

> Had Ayn Rand used your preferred style...

Please don't compare the posting style here to Ayn Rand's.

Phil, it's great to see you speak your mind, even though you've missed your mark. You seem (pomowanker jargon there, I know -- we all have our lapses) to be of the opinion that my eminently entertaining posts don't have substance to them. You seem (oops, again) to be of the opinion that I don't issue, in whatever form, substantive arguments when need be. You should see the recent exchange over on the "Frank's Drinking" thread, where I rightly lament my older posting approach which you like so well. But perhaps you also need to seriously re-examine the sea-change that's been going on in the recent Objectivist scene and the causes underlying it. If you don't get the problem about Ed Hudgins op-ed or the Machan inability to think or express himself like an integrated Objectivist, and what these signal about the intellectual direction of IOS/TOC/TAS, then there's not much more anyone can do to help you.

I submit that you're being selective here, Phil, focusing on the format of expression I can often indulge in, and not giving due credit to when I do substantive ass-kicking. If you were paying attention, you might have gotten a kick out of the way I kicked Linz's ass in the "Zionism" thread, for instance. I did it in the fashion that invites interest and attention -- not the stale, flat and boring way that you prefer. I could have used long-winded beating-around-the-bush, but who would've cared enough to follow it all?

Or take the thorough trouncing that Robert Campbell has recieved in the past week and for good reason. Before, it was people getting so upset and not wanting to even engage him any longer. Thanks in large part to my efforts, he was dragged right out into the open, the absurdities of his viewpoints exposed and ridiculed for what they are. Now, he's no longer a source of anger, but laughter for some, pity for others. Try this instance on for size. Now, composing that post, I was considering how exactly to expose Campbell's incoherence and hypocrisy. But after a little bit of thought on the matter, it easy to boil it all down to the essentials, and to convey the point in all the space that was ever needed -- and it carried all that much more punch. I didn't need to get "all long and detailed" to demonstrate my careful thought.

Had Ayn Rand used your preferred style, no one would have cared. Don't you get it?

Jesus, Chris.

I suppose that was humor, but I can remember when you were the most intelligent and thoughtful poster on this board, writing long and detailed posts which showed evidence of careful thought. And it was only a month or so ago. Lately you've gone into FMM (Full Metal Meltdown).

1. The American Revolution was debated in Taverns.

2. If you can't stand heated debate then this is not the place for you. If you aren't prepared to back up every word you say, don't expect to earn respect here. I like the challenge of an environment that demands that kind of full focus. Some do not.

Wm

Phil wants Peri, Phil wants Peri, neener neener neeeener!

Ignoring Kenny's argument from authority and junior high school taunting, my reason for wanting Peri to explain and give examples - to concretize more - is intellectual curiosity. I would like to know more fully the reasons Rand is so often disliked as a novelist even by people who have been influenced by her when it is so different a perspective from my own, which is to view her as an enormously powerful, effective, and brilliant novelist who combines in her mature fiction idealistic passion, emotional force, conceptual precision, a passion for justice, philosophical perceptiveness, and a sense of beauty and nobility.

Especially in Atlas, which is the novel Peri doesn't like.

But she may want to do it on RoR or OL. When you post on this board things that people strongly disagree with, it tends to degenerate after a half dozen posts into personal attacks, accusations of evasion, and a general emotionalist anti-intellectualism. She will get strong disagreement on any Oist board, I imagine...but I for one would be more likely to debate the issue in a non-insulting context.

It's sort of like trying to have a debate in a bar when a bunch of beliigerent drunks are shouting in your ear. It's like trying to debate epistemology when everyone is pissed.

[Yes I realize the word 'pissed' has two meanings...i meant both ]

Perhaps Peri can outline her qualifications to trash a book that has sold millions over several decades and has influenced many successful people in business and the arts.

What have you written Peri? Why don't you post a serious article here so we can review it? Or are you just jealous or cowardly?

Despite several disagreements with several people here, including Lindsay, I want to note that I found Ms. Sword's post to be entirely lacking in merit.

Ethan

Anyone who knows me knows that I do not kiss ass. I either kick it or fuck it depending on the context. It's amazing that you can discern any sort of judgement about me from two little words I typed in sincere appreciation of someone telling it like it is.

Linz's speech hit home with me on issues that were very relevant to my own personal context at the time. In other words, I saw the application of what he was saying to my own life. It really did need a good healthy dose of rage because my personal circumstance warranted such. Since the only purpose philosophy has is to be a tool for living one's life to the fullest, I have sought to apply these principles first hand to my own life. I've made my fair share of mistakes, but I can learn when I've been wrong, why I was wrong, and what can I do in the future to make my own life better.

However, your comment involving me (as well as many other people I respect) indicates that you've got your head on so fucking backwards as to indicate that you find it more pertinent to apply your view of Objectivism to my two little words of applause rather than prove a fucking point that could be made relevant to the task of living by Objectivist principles. Not only that, you had no basis for judging my own context in which I made that remark.

My agreement with Linz or Diana or anyone else on this site does not make me a mindless automaton with no goal in life save to brown nose to his masters. My conclusions about these matters are based solely on my own ability to sift through the information and apply it to my life first hand. I don't agree with anybody on this site because I like who they are, or I want to kiss-up. If I agree with someone, it is because I have investigated the issue for myself and have concluded that they are right.

In other words, go fuck yourself you stupid prick.

Ah, goat fucking. That brings back fond memories of my stint as an apron lifter with the Freemasons

The goat was way better anyway.

[begin press release]

Mr Elliot, under no circumstances, will ever kiss Mr Perigo's ass. Not even if he shaves it. Not even if he says please.

[end release]

Jameson - you write, "I can't tell what a relief it is to get this off my chest... it's a family tradition. It's not my fault. I was goat fucked as a kid."

You have been reading Jerzy Kosinski, Jameson. Linz - are you really going to allow Polish on SOLO?

I can't tell what a relief it is to get this off my chest... it's a family tradition. It's not my fault. I was goat fucked as a kid.

... are taboo here.

Linz

> I don't think that's a debatable issue. Not on an Objectivist board.

What are you, the house Nazi?

Ah, where else do you get discussions of ice crotch in the world of online Objectivist forums?

Get back here and give me an example of Rand's "tedious, turgid, melodramatic and unrealistic prose" !!

I don't think that's a debatable issue. Not on an Objectivist board.

You do a dirty dump on the board insulting Ayn Rand's formidable story telling skills and then you insult our highly esteemed moderator and fellow posters without even having the guts to respond? Now your current ass kisser Mick keeps shootin' off prematurely trying to champion your RUDE behaviour. You can't possibly be this Kassless woman!

Get back here and give me an example of Rand's "tedious, turgid, melodramatic and unrealistic prose" !!