In a recent skimming of Peikoff’s OPAR I came across the following paragraph. I will quote the whole paragraph.

“So much has been lost so fast. In not time at all, the West moved from “perpetual peace” [surely LP knows that PERPETUAL PEACE is the title of a work by Kant] to perpetual war; from the rapture of Victor Hugo to the tongue in the asshole of Molly Bloom; from progress taken for granted to Auschwitz taken for granted.” (458) [I don’t know anyone who takes Auschwitz for granted.]

Since Peikoff brought it up, I would like to discuss Molly’s asshole. First question, why Molly’s asshole? Why specifically, soooo specifically, a “tongue in the asshole of Molly Bloom?” Notice how lacking in balance the Hugo-Molly clause is compared with the other two clauses with “perpetual peace” balancing “perpetual war” and the two disparate things both “taken for granted.” Why isn’t it Hugo vs. Joyce? Hugo is the author of a body of literary works and so it Joyce. LP could have contrasted the “rapture” of Hugo with the “degradation” of Joyce. And notice, it’s not even the rapture of Hugo’s literature—it’s just the rapture of Hugo. Does he mean Hugo the man? I think he wants to mean Hugo the artist, but one isn’t sure given the way the clause is written. Are we meant to compare “the tongue in the asshole of Molly Bloom” with Hugo’s entire oeuvre? Or with the man’s philosophy? Surely not with his mysticism or socialism. Give me “the tongue in the asshole of Molly Bloom” any day over either mysticism or socialism.
Perhaps we are meant to compare the absolute very best thing Hugo wrote with “the tongue in the asshole of Molly Bloom.” But that seems to be unfair. Talk about loading the dice. One should compare Hugo at his best with Joyce at his best. If you don’t like the tongue-asshole image, then instead of the Penelope chapter, (738) we could consider the wonderful Scylla and Charybdis chapter (186) with its discussion of Shakespeare and the superiority of Aristotle over Plato.
What seems even more unfair is the way LP cheery picks his examples. Instead of Hugo to Joyce to highlight how fast so much has been lost, why not instance Kant to Rand to highlight how fast so much has been gained.
But I like sex. And remember, Rand says somewhere that the only thing a philosopher has to know about sex is that it is good. So let’s get back to “the tongue in the asshole of Molly Bloom” And what about the “tongue?” I’m no expert on Joyce but can anyone tell me if a “tongue” even appears in Molly’s soliloquy. As I remember it she is alone in bed masturbating and daydreaming. Of course, she could be daydreaming about having a “tongue up her asshole.” Maybe it Peikoff’s fantasy. Maybe it was a Freudian slip. Anyway, if sex is good, then there is nothing intrinsically wrong about tongues in assholes. Just like there is nothing wrong with “rough” sex, provided it’s consensual. Mutual tongues up mutual assholes that transport lovers to an “animals sensation of pleasure” (AS 254) is not, as Dagny knew and Hank didn’t, depravity, but the celebration of love.
But here’s a test for Peikoff and those who share the view that the 20th century is so bad. Would you trade places and live in Hugo’s day? Would you give up Ayn Rand in order not to have to face James Joyce and Molly’s asshole. Imagine no Frank Lloyd Wright, no Puccini, no Mahler, no Borglum. No Roark. No Dagny. As Charles Murray put it in HUMAN ACCOMPLISHMENT, “To live in today’s (2003) world is not only to have access to all the best that has come before, [and Murray mentions Joyce in the very paragraph I’m quoting from!] but also to have a breath and ease of access that is incomparably greater than that enjoyed even by our parents…” let alone in Hugo’s generation. If Molly’s asshole is the price one has to pay, it’s a bargain.

Fred