About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 7:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This exposure is good.

Now, Colbert parodies everything he gets his hands on, it's his modus operandi. I even know two liberals who think he's a closet liberal. However, without research, I'd bet a bucketload of money that he's a conservative. He knows the right answers to things. He speaks them, even if only in parody (due to the context he works within).

Ed


Post 1

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 9:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
No question but that this is a very interesting thing, her book becoming so prominent like this on today's issues - one could almost hear her in her grave - "I told you so!" ;-)

Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 26, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 10:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My attitude after watching this was- well- it could have been a lot worse. My problem with the Atlas coverage is the way it stresses the wealth of the strikers not their intelligence. The story is "the Mind on strike", not the wealthy. James Taggart throws $100 bills to bums- that doesn't make him a hero. I've even read coverage describing John Galt as "the richest man in the country" leading a strike of other rich people. Again, not true and I think It's important to point out.

Post 3

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 11:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Richard Gleaves, good point. Although in this video I think that they said a number of times things like "wealth producers" which in my mind is the critical thing... not just being wealthy but producing wealth.

Ed, I'd agree that it seems like Colbert understands the material. But I have no idea what his political position is. I think if he was socialist then he would not just poke fun, but misrepresent Rand's ideas. I think he was pretty honest, which leans me towards thinking he is capitalist.

Post 4

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 11:55amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Dean, you really think Colbert was honest? With his equation of Atlas being about Rich vs. Poor, and the liberal equation of Objectivists being assholes and Satan worshippers?

Post 5

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 2:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, I guess, in a way,... exposure is good. Really, though, none of his viewers can come away with even a remotely accurate idea of what Objectivism is really about,... nor do I think they would feel inspired to want to learn more.

Parody or not, I would have felt better if there were at least some glimmer of true Objectivist concepts that shone through, but it didn't happen.

jt

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." ~ Mohandas Gandhi

Stage two is still in full force, methinks. But it's still only stage two. Or two-and-a-half {g}

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 6:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The other vicious meme out there is "Ayn Rand is a terrible writer". Where does this one come from? It seems that the criterion for whether someone is a good writer is whether the author has achieved their literary purpose. If Ayn Rand is still affecting the national political debate 52 years after publication and almost 30 since her death, she has certainly achieved her purpose- to communicate a unique point of view through memorable characters and an original plot..

Every time I read "Ayn rand is a terrible writer" I return to my favorite passage from Atlas Shrugged- the scene of Dagny at the window that Rand discussed at length in her fiction writing course. I even set this passage to music (see my XCowboy2 channel on YouTube):

"Clouds had wrapped the sky and had descended as fog to wrap the streets below. As if the sky was engulfing the city. She could see the whole of Manhattan Island. A long triangular shape cutting into a invisible ocean. It looked like the prow of a sinking ship. A few tall buildings still rose above it like funnels, but the rest was disappearing under grey-blue coils, going down slowly into vapor and space. This is how they went, she thought: Atlantis, the city that sank in the ocean, and all the other kingdoms that vanished; leaving the same legend in all the languages of men and the same longing..."

THIS is a bad writer?
(Edited by Richard Gleaves on 3/13, 6:13pm)


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Friday, March 13, 2009 - 7:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For many people, fine writing means reading about flawed characters that don't challenge anyone to be better. Even more desirable, these flaws lets them feel superior to the characters or lets them feel justified in their own flaws. And it certainly doesn't awaken them to the idea of being judged themselves.

The proof of her accomplishment lies in the extremes of the readers reactions. No mediocre writer could engender those reactions.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, March 14, 2009 - 7:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've always seen that argument "Rand is a terrible writer" as being used as a back door to criticizing her philosophy - i.e. "well, if she isn't even a good writer...". It is nonsense. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard that she had a wonderful talent.

The only objections I have ever seen about her writing that have had any merit (I think), is that she painted one dimensional characters. Critics using this argument usually point to her lead characters, but I personally feel her lead characters are nuanced enough. Her villains are far more stereotyped. However, Rand's key objective was to present the stark contrasts between the philosophies of these characters, and Rand (Objectivism) looks at philosophy in more black & white - not gray - terms. Therefore her writing emphasizes the heroic in good characters, and the disgusting in bad characters.

Atlas Shrugged will always be my favorite book.

jt

Post 10

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 7:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There's a reason so many people have criticized Ayn Rand's writing -- it conveys wonderful ideas, but the presentation is off. I've heard people who are passionate about literature say similar things, say they just couldn't bear the writing style, so it's not just me. There are people who say nothing of any consequence beautifully and eloquently -- and then's there's Ayn Rand.

Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are like a beautiful, enthralling personality wrapped in the body of a very plain woman -- one has to overlook the surface to see the beauty within.

Post 11

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's hard to get a grasp of what Colbert's actual political philosophy is, because he almost never breaks character, playing this over-the-top blowhard conservative pundit whose buffoonery gives a knowing wink to liberal sensitivities. But, he clearly does understand what libertarians, Objectivists, conservatives, and liberals all stand for, he's repeatedly said he's neither a conservative nor a liberal, and in at least one episode he said he was a libertarian.

My take on Colbert is that he's a bit like Gail Wynand, the newspaper mogul in The Fountainhead. I get the impression that Colbert's a closet left-libertarian-leaning person playing to an audience largely composed of hardcore modern liberals, and that while he might try to stealthily introduce his audience to a more libertarian perspective, ultimately the demands of his show force him to pander to the worldview of his audience and spread their philosophy. Like Wynand, I suspect Colbert may think he's in charge, but in reality the audience controls the message, and any serious attempt to deviate from their POV would result in precipitous declines in viewership.

That said, I enjoy the Colbert Report way more than Stewart's The Daily Show, since Stewart is clearly locked into a hardcore liberal mindset and thus frequently makes asinine, cringeworthy remarks in his interviews and generally fawns over the statists he interviews. Whereas Colbert gives all of his guests ample opportunity to make an ass of themselves.

Post 12

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 8:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've never had a question about Colbert's affiliations. He's really funny but it seems obvious to me that he's pretty much on the left side of the spectrum. I'm pretty sure I've never seen an episode where he lampooned the left much, while the entire show is a lampoon of the right and libertarian party. Not that they need much help in making themselves look foolish. Making one side look completely ridiculous while avoiding touching the other seems to be a somewhat obvious tactic. If I couldn't crush an opponent straightaway I'd certainly attempt to make them a laughingstock.
(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 3/15, 9:01am)


Post 13

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 10:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim,

I disagree with your evaluation of Rand's writing. I find it evocative and beautiful. I find many of the writers touted by the critics to be painful to read. I think some of this is objectively demonstrable, but that some of it is a matter of the taste we form for a style and some of it is what our subconscious wants in a novel (what kind of novel).

Her characterization was constrained by the plot requirements. There is no way to implement a theme as broad as those she chose, and to do detailed personality expositions - those are two different kinds of literature - separated by an impossible chasm unless you want to have a novel that goes from about a thousand pages to say ten thousand pages. The other constraint on her characterization was her purpose of showing man as he could and should be. That requires drawing characters in a specific fashion. These limits were necessary to achieve her ends and I find no problem other than someone wanting a different kind of novel and feeling less satisfied ("kind" not "quality").

Out of curiosity, when you read the quote given in post 7 above, do you see that as plain? She discussed the purposes behind the writing of that paragraph somewhere - but I can't find it just now.

Post 14

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 12:40pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I had thought it was in The Romantic Manifesto, but it wasn't - it is in Nathaniel Branden's Who Is Ayn Rand?, the essay "The Literary Method of Ayn Rand"...
[page 136 in the hardbound edition]
(Edited by robert malcom on 3/15, 12:41pm)


Post 15

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 3:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Without adding my voice to those criticizing Rand's writing, I disagree with your literary point, Steve, that close characterization is not possible in a story such as Atlas Shrugged.

Post 16

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 4:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have always been surprised at the proclamation of Ayn's characters in her novels as being 'cardboard' or 'cut-outs' or one-dimensional... with the possible exception of Galt himself, all were quite well realized, from Roark to Mallory to Gail to Hank to especially Francisco and Dagney... indeed, Francisco has always been my favorite, much as I grasped the nuances of Roark and sought to avoid becoming too much 'like him' in imitating, artist that I am, and the intense loneliness of being a 'Roark'... of course, later, came to understand that those cries were evoked because with the exception of Hank, none had the uncertainty of all things, as Balzac or Updike or Fitzgerald's characters did... and the counter-punching of claiming the antagonists were all 'stereotyped' [note - not cardboard, but typecasted] of course seeks to deny any fundamentalities of characteristics pertaining to them - typical pragmatic or non-principled reactions...

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 5:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jim wrote:

There's a reason so many people have criticized Ayn Rand's writing -- it conveys wonderful ideas, but the presentation is off. I've heard people who are passionate about literature say similar things, say they just couldn't bear the writing style, so it's not just me. There are people who say nothing of any consequence beautifully and eloquently -- and then's there's Ayn Rand.

Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead are like a beautiful, enthralling personality wrapped in the body of a very plain woman -- one has to overlook the surface to see the beauty within.


If there was anything that can be called a post-modernist critique, this is it.

Post 18

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 5:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Robert:

I have always been surprised at the proclamation of Ayn's characters in her novels as being 'cardboard' or 'cut-outs' or one-dimensional... with the possible exception of Galt himself, all were quite well realized, from Roark to Mallory to Gail to Hank to especially Francisco and Dagney...


Robert, it's just people trying to make a name for themselves by attacking something better than they are ever capable of achieving.

Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 19

Sunday, March 15, 2009 - 5:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some of what is offered as literary criticism is, I would claim, psychological blindness. After all, we have direct access to the inner workings of only one mind, our own, and our comprehension of others depends on analogizing from that knowledge. What a supreme self-confidence is like, and the emotional satisfactions of egoism, etc., are a blank to people who live in perpetual anxiety and practice social metaphysics non-stop.

Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.