RoR: Forum

"If, on rereading a random page, I conclude ... ." You would not use that method on Ulysses, and you should not use it here.

Post 61

Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 5:51pm

Thursday, February 21 - 4:35pm

"If, on rereading a random page, I conclude ... ." You would not use that method on Ulysses, and you should not use it here.

Rodney, you bet your okole I not only would use that on Ulysses, I in fact have done so in the past and have no regrets about continuing to do so. Ulysses is an mess, one of those books that many people want to have read, but almost nobody wants to read. In fact, speaking of Ulysses-type writing brings me to this:

***

Re: the challenge thrown down earlier about Atlas Shrugged, here goes:

I went to the library and got a Signet paperback version of Atlas Shrugged from 1992, with 1,069 pages for the novel itself. Opening it at random, I found myself on page 382. I fully concur with all the philosophy on this page -- it is brilliant and correct, and I wish that everyone on the earth understood and followed it. The following is an attempt to explain what I find objectionable in the literary technique only, technical flaws that would, from my perspective, keep many literate people from sticking with this book, and which I myself found offputting when I read it a decade ago, and still find offputting.

1) Just look at the page. It is a nearly solid block of exposition, just five paragraph breaks, with hardly any of what editors call "white space" -- breaks in the text from dialogue, short sentences, shifts in speaker, any of that. Read most books on writing style, and they will tell you that the appearance alone of such relentless exposition is intimidating, and will cause many potential buyers browsing through the book who spot this to not purchase the book.

(I used to think "white space" was simply a descriptive term, referring strictly to the ratio of black ink to white paper, but thanks to the eye-opening comments by Erica on the Obama thread, I now suspect that this phrase has subtle racist underpinnings, with lots of "white space" being a positive thing, and no one being tactless enough to say that lots of "black space" is a bad thing. Thanks for the paranoia, Erica. ;) )

2) This block of exposition is part of a nearly five-page long block consisting of a single remark/lecture/tirade allegedly delivered by Francisco D'Anconia at a party to a group of guests. This completely destroys the principle of the "willing suspension of disbelief", where the author introduces all their improbabilities early on, and then sticks to a plausible and believable sequence of consequences within that framework, so that the reader feels they are actually there and observing the events. Bystanders at real parties don't passively let someone deliver a huge lecture like this without interruption or commentary, especially when the protagonist is saying things that run completely counter to the belief system of the listeners.

3) The author is violating one of the cardinal principles of novel writing technique -- "show, don't tell". You should try to make points like this by showing them in some sort of action -- having two or more people having an animated discussion, with short paragraphs and lots of consequent white space; having people DO something that illustrates the principle and lets the reader discover it for themselves without having to endure a lecture; anything but what is going on here.

4) Even if you, as an author, are foolhardy or brave enough to risk losing your readers by having a single character deliver a pages-long lecture in such a situation, it should be broken up by "bits of action" that place the reader back into the scene itself -- gestures by the speaker, quick remarks or questions by the listeners, little diversions of interesting things happening in the scene, a waiter spilling wine, someone lighting a cigarette, spouses quarreling in the background, sensory impressions -- anything to periodically remind the reader that they are in this novel's world watching supposedly real events unfold.

5) Another rule hammered home in books on how to write novels is to sneak scraps of exposition into the ongoing plot and character development, so it's barely even noticeable, rather than shoveling a truckload in all at once like this.

I could go on about other stuff on this one page out of 1,069, but if you're still thinking by now that Atlas Shrugged is a perfect, polished gem with no technical literary flaws and absolutely no room whatsoever for improvement, I think further remarks would be falling on unreceptive ears.

Post 62

Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 6:08pm

In art, nothing is to be judged in isolation. All parts are parts of larger integrated wholes, and all wholes within the work are themselves integrated with each other to make up the total artistic effect. Moreover, in a literary work, if it is not itself a poem, there are poetic elements that depend on much more for their effect than can be analyzed by looking at a small part. And finally, one must not overlook that the artist may have a unique vision that necessitates breaking new artistic ground.

Post 63

Thursday, February 21, 2008 - 7:00pm

But don't take this as a defense of Ulysses.

Post 64

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 1:36am

Ed,

Dennis, post 45 was as exacting as it was critical.

As they say from the bull pen: "Good eye!"

Thanks, man. But it ain't exactly like I'm swinging at 90 mile an hour fast balls, if you know what I mean.

Post 65

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 1:48am

Jim,

Dennis -- "Atlas Shrugged" sells well despite the technical flaws in the writing style. …I've read reviews of it, and talked with very literate people, and the technical flaws turn many people off who might otherwise read it and adopt Objectivist viewpoints. Do I really need to take a random page from Atlas Shrugged and enumerate some the little technical things that would mar the experience for many literate people? Would that help you understand what I am driving at, or at least give you a basis to try to refute the point I'm trying to make?

Thank you for giving us such a wonderfully insightful example of why you think Atlas Shrugged is “clumsily written and replete with cartoonish characters and stilted dialogue..” I can understand why “literate people” like you would say that “the appearance alone of such relentless exposition is intimidating, and will cause many potential buyers browsing through the book who spot this to not purchase the book.” If Ayn Rand had wanted to appeal to cerebral readers such as yourself, she would have been well-advised to include some nice big pictures on every other page. (However, I’m not sure that qualifies as a “technical flaw.”)

Francisco d’Anconia’s “lecture/diatribe” (your term) is one of the most famous scenes in Atlas Shrugged. I googled “Francisco D’anconia money speech” and came up with 3,160 hits, and most of the comments I saw were enthusiastically favorable. The speech has been widely praised by economists for its perspicacity and is often cited as a source for anyone questioning the notion that money is “the root of all evil.” Given the context of where it occurs in Atlas, it works perfectly.

The speeches in Atlas Shrugged are not tacked on to the story in a way that disrupts the plot—they are integral to the plot. They serve a specific literary purpose: to identify and interpret the dramatic progression of the events like a kind of philosophical summation. Atlas Shrugged presents a radical new view of morality and human nature. It would have been simply impossible for her to do this without some lengthy expository passages, but Rand did not want to present her ideas didactically. She crafted her novel so as to first provide a dramatic demonstration of a theme and then used devices such as the famous ‘money speech’ to help clarify the meaning of the events that had come before.

A key philosophical element of the novel is the mind-body dichotomy, and the dashing character of Francisco d’Anconia is given the task of liberating industrialist Hank Rearden from that way of thinking and helping him to appreciate his own moral stature. The speech occurs at James Taggart’s wedding party, and is triggered by an off-hand remark suggesting that Francisco (the worthless ‘playboy’) is the depraved product of greed. Rearden is the target of Francisco’s eloquent explanation of the true nature of wealth. If and when there is a film version, you can bet there will be a lot of people, myself included, who will be desperately hoping they include some abbreviated version of that scene.

It is certainly true that “most books on writing style” would not endorse the unorthodox literary method employed in Atlas Shrugged. Then again, there has never been a novel comparable to the sheer integrative complexity of Atlas Shrugged. And the authors of books on style have rarely sold anything close to 24 million copies of their works. Rand did not give a rat’s behind for the advice in “most books on writing style.” As you said (post #59), “the quality or lack thereof in demonstrated literacy in my posts here should count as objective evidence of whether I'm Teh Stooppid.”

I certainly have all the evidence I need.

Post 66

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 4:03am

Run that by me again…

Bob says,

The human brain is essentially an accident, but even so, it works pretty well. It does all those things that idealists attribute to Mind (which is a bogus concept).

I started to do an in depth analysis of this, but then I realized there was nothing to analyze, because there was no one to post it…

Post 67

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 4:15am

Like it just appeared out of nowhere.

I AM somebody. I am my pre-frontal cortex. The rest of my body is just a transport mechanism for carrying it around.

Bob Kolker

Post 68

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 4:59pm

(I used to think "white space" was simply a descriptive term, referring strictly to the ratio of black ink to white paper, but thanks to the eye-opening comments by Erica on the Obama thread, I now suspect that this phrase has subtle racist underpinnings, with lots of "white space" being a positive thing, and no one being tactless enough to say that lots of "black space" is a bad thing. Thanks for the paranoia, Erica. ;) ) (Jim)

Most people who know me would conclude that, while I don't have pretensions or illusions that I'm the best writer in the world, I do know something about how to write. Finally, the quality or lack thereof in demonstrated literacy in my posts here should count as objective evidence of whether I'm Teh Stooppid. ;) (Jim)

The example at the top of this page doesn't seem like very effective writing to me, Jim...are you sure you're really in a position to criticize any other writer?

Post 69

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 6:19pm

(I used to think "white space" was simply a descriptive term, referring strictly to the ratio of black ink to white paper, but thanks to the eye-opening comments by Erica on the Obama thread, I now suspect that this phrase has subtle racist underpinnings, with lots of "white space" being a positive thing, and no one being tactless enough to say that lots of "black space" is a bad thing. Thanks for the paranoia, Erica. ;) ) (Jim)

Jim, you may want to stop making snap character judgments of others you've only encountered in a couple of posts, on a single topic.

Your implication that I am a paranoid, obsessed person who sees racism everywhere is offensive beyond belief, as it doesn't begin to describe me, despite what you may think you understand from my posts in the other thread.

And since we're on the topic of "what works in writing, and what doesn't":

The quoted paragraph above most certainly doesn't work...it isn't informative or funny; it does not help to address the quality of Rand's writing, or that of the editing of her book (which I thought was the purpose of the post.) The paragraph exists only to take a personal swipe at another person, who, up until now, hadn't even appeared on this thread.

Erica -- There appears to be a misunderstanding here. I wasn't saying you were paranoid. I wasn't taking a personal swipe at you or making a snap character judgment or anything else like that. I was, if you take my words literally, saying I was paranoid -- but I wasn't being literal at all, I was using "paranoid" in what was intended to be a enormous overstatement for the purpose of humor -- humor which fell SO flat. Did you notice the "wink" at the end of the sentence implying that this was intended as humor?

This was intended to be banter, nothing else. I was taking an innocuous technical literary phrase, and pretending to find something racist in it, and pretending that you were somehow indirectly responsible for this over-the-top, totally tweaked-out and unrealistic interpretation of something utterly benign and unobjectionable.

I'm frustrated as hell. I'm thinking about ditching this site and never coming back, because people here keep taking personal offense at attempts at humor. I feel like a stand-up comic working the world's toughest room in a senior center, where no matter what he or she says, and no matter how funny it might be to onlookers, the audience of blue-haired senior citizens just sit there gumming their Melba toast and looking puzzled at the nice young person saying oddly phrased stuff, and occasionally getting irate.

Is there something about the study of Objectivism that surgically deadens one's sense of humor?

Post 70

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 7:45pm

This was intended to be banter, nothing else. I was taking an innocuous technical literary phrase, and pretending to find something racist in it, and pretending that you were somehow indirectly responsible for this over-the-top, totally tweaked-out and unrealistic interpretation of something utterly benign and unobjectionable.

I would have preferred not to have been mentioned here at all, and especially not in this light. (You may want to see my last post on the Obama thread to understand better.)

I'm frustrated as hell. I'm thinking about ditching this site and never coming back, because people here keep taking personal offense at attempts at humor. I feel like a stand-up comic working the world's toughest room in a senior center, where no matter what he or she says, and no matter how funny it might be to onlookers, the audience of blue-haired senior citizens just sit there gumming their Melba toast and looking puzzled at the nice young person saying oddly phrased stuff, and occasionally getting irate.

Is there something about the study of Objectivism that surgically deadens one's sense of humor?

I'm not sure if you're new to internet forums in general, but you're definitely new here, and you haven't really gotten a good enough read of people here yet in order to joke with them successfully, it seems. (And by "read of people" I mean individually...we are not a bunch of Randroids who all think the same way; in fact, I believe you've managed to offend people who don't even like each other very much.) So always resorting to the "What's wrong with you Objectivists?" line doesn't really help you when someone says something you don't like; we are definitely not of one mind.

Here's the thing, Jim...anyone's jokes can fall flat, sure, but you keep actually offending people. And that has nothing to do with the "deadened sense of humor" of Objectivists. Your "jokes" don't really come across that way because they're not humorous asides, they're sarcastic remarks that cut right to the heart of the argument in question*, (with a smiley face added.) So, should people assume that you take the other poster's argument seriously, or not? Getting a "dig" in, then adding a smiley face, is what it looks like to the person you're talking to.

Now, the "banter" involving me here does not address the heart of this thread's discussion, (which is why I shouldn't even be mentioned here) but it does involve the Obama thread discussion. And I could try to take your word for it that you're just kidding, except for this:
You made a similar move in the Obama thread with this "joke":

I suppose it would be out of bounds to sarcastically rewrite your sentence to read, "The point is this: people who are unfamiliar with certain Objectivist terms and catch phrases, have to start at zero at rebirthofreason.com and then be "sanctioned" (read: pat on the head) to prove their self-worth and acceptability to Objectivist elites in order to not be told to shut up and let the adults talk, kid." So I will pointedly refrain from making that rephrasing, yeah? ;) http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Banter/0258_3.shtml#78

This had nothing at all to do with the topic being discussed there, but it was clearly aimed at another poster, in another thread. I didn't realize until I finally read this thread that your target was right here. (Though I do remember thinking it was an odd thing to stick in that post.)

Is it really that much of a mystery why people think you're being insincere when you protest, "..but it was just a joke!...see my smiley face?!"

Maybe we're all wrong. Maybe you've been completely misinterpreted.
I can entertain that idea; one of the drawbacks of the internet is that it is difficult to tell one's intent and tone, and misunderstandings do occur. But that's why it's a good idea to lurk a little and get to know people, and their sense of humor, before trying to tease them. Oh, and it's a good idea to NOT make the actual point of contention the basis for the joke. That's a bad idea in any discussion, unless you are shooting for sarcasm.

If you choose to stick it out here on RoR, then I hope what I've said helps.

Post 71

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 8:03pm

Erica -- My profuse apologies. I've obviously jumped in here way too soon, and wandered into minefield after minefield of unwritten rules, and misread people, and generally apparently made a complete ass of myself.

I'm used to the libertarians on Reason.com's Hit and Run, who enjoy teasing and banter, and who generally get my sense of humor, and where pretty much anything goes, and if you go too far and screw up, all but a handful of asshats there are ready to accept your contrition.

I'm not lumping Objectivists all together, I try to treat people as individuals, and if I did commit that sin, again, my apologies. I have noticed a huge cultural difference on average between Objectivists and libertarians, even though individuals of course vary from that average.

I've got my copy of OPAR today. I'll read it, and refrain from posting on this site for a couple of weeks, and decide then whether I can fit in here or not.

What I'd like to know is whether I'm welcome here or not. I don't want to be somewhere where I'm not appreciated or liked or accepted.

So, to you and everyone else with whom I've interacted here -- do you want me here or not? If I get more than 1 or 2 no's, I'm out.

Aloha, Jim

Post 72

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 11:16pm

Jim,

If I know Erica, I think she'll accept your apologies. I drew a similar conclusion concerning her take on "subtle" racism. She evidently didn't intend it, but she gave the impression that she and other blacks and minorities had to endure racist remarks on regular, ongoing basis. See her latest post on the Obama thread in which she downplays this.

You seem like a well-meaning guy, so I wouldn't expect anyone here to run you off! Besides, you don't have to be an orthodox Objectivist to post here. I'm not, and there are several others who aren't as well. Generally, the contributors have a sincere interest in the philosophy, but they don't all agree on everything that Rand or Peikoff says.

I'll be interested in what you think of OPAR!

Take care.

- Bill

Post 73

Friday, February 22, 2008 - 11:55pm

I, personally, have enjoyed your humour in earlier posts but you do seem to have dug a hole for yourself re. the whole 'racist' thread and Erica is right to pull you up on it. You appear to have become too emotionally involved and your recent posts reflect this.

I've admired your honesty across several posts and -- as a newbie myself -- have empathised with your perspective on several issues.

I've also admired your bravery at even attempting to join in with very knowledgeable discussions on what appears to me to be the most intellectual and 'hardcore' Objectivist forum I've found to date.

I think you're right to 'take a breather'... but do come back...

Jo

Post 74

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 11:54am

If I know Erica, I think she'll accept your apologies. (Bill)

Jim, you don't owe me any apologies. And I'm certainly not in any position to run anyone off anywhere. (And neither is anyone else, except for the site's owner, Joe Rowlands, and if he had a problem with you, you would know about it already!)

I drew a similar conclusion concerning her take on "subtle" racism. She evidently didn't intend it, but she gave the impression that she and other blacks and minorities had to endure racist remarks on regular, ongoing basis. See her latest post on the Obama thread in which she downplays this. (Bill)

Nice backhand, Bill.

Actually, I did say that minorities are subject to subtle racism frequently...what I tried to amend in my final post, Bill, was the impression of others (like yourself), that I believed that this subtle racism necessarily "victimizes" minorities in a grand way, keeping them from progressing in their lives. I have never suggested that, nor do I believe it. And I didn't realize that people might have that impression until you started bringing up ''proof" of the progress of blacks (like Obama) and actually using terms like "victim".
I was trying to put the subject back in its proper perspective; I wasn't trying to "downplay" anything I'd previously said, Bill. (Now I'm dishonest, I suppose.)

Look, Bill, I understand that the reason you don't understand my position well enough to describe it accurately is because I have not been clear enough in presenting it. I can, and do, accept the blame for that. But please don't try to explain to others what I mean. You're not getting it right, and besides, I really do want to be done with this subject.

As for Jim:
You don't have to go anywhere if you don't want to. No one can run you off.

(I however, do need to take a breather from RoR.)

(Edited by Erica Schulz on 2/23, 6:53pm)

Post 75

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 5:43pm

Erica says,

(I however, do need to take a breather from RoR.)

I'm sure I am not the only member who was disappointed to read this. Please make it a short breather. You will be missed.

...I understand that the reason you don't understand my position well enough to describe it accurately is because I have not been clear enough in presenting it.

I think you are being too nice. You go out of your way to make your posts as clear as possible. There is an unfortunate tendency for many participants on forums like RoR to "blurt" thoughtlessly without taking the time to genuinely grasp what another person is trying to say. You are obviously not in that category.

Post 76

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 7:10pm

Dennis,

Thank you for your kind words, but I'm afraid that I have been just as guilty of sometimes blurting out before really comprehending, as well. (I'm sure Bill Dwyer will agree! :-)

It's something I need to work on in the future. (I actually get more upset when I own up to, and try to correct, my mistakes, and people don't seem to hear that.)

Also, I have been meaning to apologize to you for being a part of the complete hijacking of this thread. I never intended to disrespect the original topic of discussion prompted by your article submission (which was excellent, by the way.)

Erica

Post 77

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 7:29pm

I wrote (in response to Erica), "I drew a similar conclusion concerning her take on "subtle" racism. She evidently didn't intend it, but she gave the impression that she and other blacks and minorities had to endure racist remarks on regular, ongoing basis. See her latest post on the Obama thread in which she downplays this." She replied,

Nice backhand, Bill.

Actually, I did say that minorities are subject to subtle racism frequently. ...what I tried to amend in my final post, Bill, was the impression of others (like yourself), that I believed that this subtle racism necessarily "victimizes" minorities in a grand way, keeping them from progressing in their lives.

But that wasn't my impression. Evidently, you drew that conclusion, because I used the word "victimized," but I didn't intend it in that sense of the term.

I have never suggested that, nor do I believe it. And I didn't realize that people might have that impression until you started bringing up ''proof" of the progress of blacks (like Obama) and actually using terms like "victim".

Right, but I was using the Obama example to make a different point. See below.

I was trying to put the subject back in its proper perspective; I wasn't trying to "downplay" anything I'd previously said, Bill. (Now I'm dishonest, I suppose.)

I would never say you're dishonest, but a lot is getting lost in translation here. You wrote, "Bill, as a highly educated white man, you don't have a clue as to what it's like to hear this crap on a regular basis."

I replied, "Seriously, is it that bad? I’ve read Shelby Steele, and he seems to think that it isn’t –- that today, blacks are generally treated pretty well by whites. In fact, it now looks like Barack Obama will be our next president. How is that possible, if blacks are as victimized by a racist white society as you seem to think they are?"

By "victimized," I didn't mean prevented from succeeding in life -- although I now see how you could have gotten that impression. I simply meant treated disrespectfully by being subjected to racist remarks on a regular, ongoing basis, which I now understand was your position. Thank you for clarifying. :-) In any event, I took this to imply that whites are, to a large extent, racially prejudiced, which I viewed as inconsistent with Obama's popularity among white voters.

You then said, "The point is this: people of racial minorities, and certain ethnic groups, have to start at zero and then be "commended" (read: pat on the head) for proving (usually white) people's stereotypes wrong."

I replied, "Even so, in most cases, it doesn’t take very long for that kind of prejudice to be modified or eliminated. Unless people are extreme bigots, they’ll change their minds on the basis of new information. Again, if things are as bad as you say, how is it that someone like Barack Obama, whom most people hadn’t heard of until recently, is now favored to beat Hillary Clinton, who is a household name, having been the wife of the previous president. And it’s not like the other Democratic candidates were racial minorities; all of them were white and are now out of the running."

My point was that if Obama had to start at zero and work his way up, how did he achieve the kind of popularity he now has with white voters so quickly, while better known white candidates like John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich have faded from the scene, and even Hillary Clinton, who has long been a household name, is now losing ground? Sorry, I don't buy it.

- Bill

Post 78

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 7:58pm

Bill, how often Erica runs into compliments with racial qualifiers is immaterial. Her point from the other thread is that when she does get one she doesn't like it because it carries with it a whole lot of baggage of singling her out as a black individual. It's like saying to someone "Oh by the way, you're black" like in my example "Oh by the way, you're Greek" It reveals something to her that the person she is receiving the compliment from is too race obsessed and immediately looks at her in the context of her racial background as opposed to just her own individuality. But it's not any kind of social setting, it's one where one is receiving a compliment in a safe environment, a social gathering if you will. It's not the kind of setting where a cab driver skips over a black individual in a bad neighborhood because the cab driver using statistical discrimination doesn't want to risk his life. Not comparable at all as it is simply dropping context.

The whole Obama succeeding by receiving a lot of white votes example is also a red herring. Erica did not put a time restriction to how long it takes before someone can come to the realization someone is not who they thought they were because of their race. It could be a matter of seconds or months or never for some individuals, that wasn't a contention at least not originally.

I could say to you Bill for an Irish guy you sure are sober most of the time. You don't think that can be easily interpreted to be a back-handed insult? It's like saying "gee, you don't have a negative quality that I expected from you because you belong to an ethnic group that tends to be a bunch of drunkards" It reveals something about the individual that he had his prejudices about you when they were not necessary. Not only is it pointless to add that qualifier "for an Irish guy" but plays into the worst kind of stereotype. It also makes you wonder hmm, so do you assume the rest of my family is a bunch of drunks since you haven't met them yet? The whole idea that Irish are a bunch of drunkards came about from people's derogatory view of Irishmen. I don't look at you as an Irishman, of course that is your ethnic origin but I look at you as a very intelligent individual. That you come across as a sober and very intelligent person did not even occur to me "oh yeah, this guy is Irish, he's not like other Irish people", seriously it never even occurs to me to say or even think that.

In this kind of social setting or any social setting where it is a social gathering for the purpose of friendly conversation, as a given I give everyone a blank slate, and then I take their own words subsequently to come to a judgment about that person.
(Edited by John Armaos on 2/23, 8:03pm)

Post 79

Saturday, February 23, 2008 - 8:25pm