Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AYN RAND MARILYN MONROE

Rate this topic


suvine
 Share

Recommended Posts

Has anybody read her article

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=3247

What do you think?

I always thought Ayn didn't think beauty was important. But in this article she does. Where did I read that?

I was in 1964 Playboy magazine. Not what I call Rand approved magazine.. really, what do you think? AM I mistaken?

Edited by suvine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've certainly read it, it was reprinted in The Voice of Reason, after all. And how would you come to the conclusion that Ayn Rand didn't think beauty was important? Why should she disapprove of Playboy? Where are you getting this from?

Beauty is of great spiritual value, and all values are important. It may not be *more* important than some other values, but it should be on the list *somewhere*.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused: I don't know what to say...

I've been duped.

Every single article, documentary or opinion I've ever heard about Miss Munroe has painted her as a vacuous air head, bimbo or slut...

Except this one.

I'm actually quite angry...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused: I don't know what to say...

I've been duped.

Every single article, documentary or opinion I've ever heard about Miss Munroe has painted her as a vacuous air head, bimbo or slut...

Except this one.

I'm actually quite angry...

That is the Hollywood version of her. She was forced into a mold, and that's what eventually destroyed her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is the Hollywood version of her. She was forced into a mold, and that's what eventually destroyed her.

Do you mean, she allowed herself to be forced into a mold and she eventually destroyed herself?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you mean, she allowed herself to be forced into a mold and she eventually destroyed herself?

Yes. The conflict between what she was inside, and how she was protrayed externally caused her to be in conflict with herself, leading to dispair and destruction. Like Rand says in the article, she did not realise her own power, unlike people such as Joan Crawford did. There was a certain vunerability in her character that likely was caused by the way she was raised.

Would things be different today? Actresses have more control over thier own carrers now than under the studio contract model, but I think that Hollywood still hates the good for being the good. And celebrates still, to a much larger degree, the vulgar over beauty.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On this topic, you might want to read Ayn Rand's article "Through Your Most Grievous

Fault" published in one of Miss Rand's periodicals (I think The Objectivist but I'm not sure).

[added on edit: Oops...that was the original article, in full, I think...didn't follow the link before writing]

I wrote a brief article about it on my website in support of Marilyn Monroe, and I have a beautifully framed poster of her in that elegant gold dress, and a copy of the original Life Magazine interview of her.

She wanted to play more serious roles, but Hollywood prevented that; and this unfortunately led her to become unraveled at a fairly young age. She was beautiful and intelligent, but Hollywood would never let her shine, and Ayn Rand thinks they actively tried to destroy her spirit.

Edited by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Evidently, Time magazine's last interview of Marilyn Monroe is available on-line by an admirer of hers. Don't know right of hand if it is complete, or if is a violation of copyright, but the copyright notice is given at the bottom. It's hard to read with the background, and I suppose you could order copies of the original from Time-Life or your local library.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • 3 years later...
  • 1 month later...

Could it be maybe that she saw in Marilyn Monroe pride in being beautiful in a time when modesty was required and expected from women. (pride in one own's body is the opposite of modesty, but not as far opposite as to constitute non subtle exhibitionism; very much like Howard Roark who admired his own body but was also jealous of it, and who enjoyed nudism so long as he was alone by the quarry, the lake, or Wynand's yacht)

Ayn Rand explicitly condemned Pornography while defending its right to be legal (Capitalist Manifesto), but I highly doubt that she considered Playboy 'Pornography' since it doesn't show any sexual act, it simply celebrates the beauty of woman.

Back to The Fountainhead, the novel that deals with beauty, let's remember the Temple of the Human Spirit. As a central object (of worship or admiration) is the shape the sculpture of a beautiful naked woman. The (misled) public interprets this as pornography, when in the architect's and the author's mind it was a celebration or ode to the most honorable and downright objectively beautiful qualities.

@Suvine, Read or re read The Fountainhead and you'll find a renewed pride in having posed for Playboy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Suvine, Read or re read The Fountainhead and you'll find a renewed pride in having posed for Playboy.

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to read "It was in 1964 Playboy magazine," referring to the Rand article. I doubt Suvine was even alive in '64 if her avatar is her photo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Historical / bibliographical note: "Through Your Most Grievous Fault," on the death of Monroe, ran originally in the LA Times in 1962. The Objectivist reprinted it the same year, and it's available today in The Ayn Rand Column. The 1964 Playboy interview did not talk about Monroe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure that was supposed to read "It was in 1964 Playboy magazine," referring to the Rand article. I doubt Suvine was even alive in '64 if her avatar is her photo.

Who cares? You're always nitpicking the least relevant sentence of a whole paragraph.

It could have been an old photo, or I could not have cared about the new user herself, but about what she had to say.

Of course I stand corrected, not that anybody should care. But since you replied, I'm giving you the courtesy of a quid pro quo.

My regards GRam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who cares? You're always nitpicking the least relevant sentence of a whole paragraph.

The idea that one and the same person could both pose for Playboy and post on OO.net was too wild to leave unexamined or leave unrefuted when I concluded it doesn't hold up. That idea overshadowed the rest of your post which was fairly unobjectionable.

edit: grammar

Edited by Grames
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I truly apologize, I have to admit I felt you were poking ridicule at my assumption (since I misread Suvine's first post) while I had no reason to think it.

The idea that one and the same person could both pose for Playboy and post on OO.net was too wild to leave unexamined....

I know that statistically Objectivism seems to attract (at least temporarily) more exConservatives than exLiberals (hence that thread, 'when did you become a Conservative' (!!!) )

But considering the importance Ayn Rand gave to openly discussing sexuality and the contempt she held for prudish Conservatives and religion, I would not be that surprised if a softcore model beame interested in her philosophy and posted in this rather popular and successful forum. And Suvine only had a couple of posts when she opened this thread.

I have unfortunately met White Supremacists in this forum who had to learn from me that Ayn Rand was born a Jew, even if atheist, a member of Yisroel in the diasporah. One of those individuals reached dozens of posts before understanding how irreconcilable his mindset was from Objectivism. And I know you have met religious fundamentalists here who tried to temporarily forgo the fact that Objectivism owes its name to a principle irreconciliable with anything supernatural.

After those encounters I wouldn't find it that wild to find a proud Miss September interested in Objectivism. But statistically you have a point and maybe it shouldn't go unexamined:

How come a philosphy as adverse to Conservatism as it is to Liberalism, seems to attract more stock from the former (at least superficially)?

This is not a rhetorical question by any means, but one that in fact has sparked much debate and doesn't have a clear answer.

Maybe the answer is simple, there are more religious fundamentalists than libertarians, so there's more stock from one extreme.

Or is it that Objectivism arose in America where the population is rather Conservative, yet the country as a whole is the most literally Progressive?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After those encounters I wouldn't find it that wild to find a proud Miss September interested in Objectivism. But statistically you have a point and maybe it shouldn't go unexamined:

I can agree with this because being interested is a low bar. What I would find more surprising, even shocking, would be "a proud Miss September" who posted on OO.net which is a level of participation greater than being merely interested in Objectivism. It is possible but unlikely.

How come a philosphy as adverse to Conservatism as it is to Liberalism, seems to attract more stock from the former (at least superficially)?
I think it has to do with the psycho-epistemology of accepting the idea that one should live one's life according to a positive method. It is possible switch from one method to what is perceived as a better method, but to switch away from the nihilism of Progressivism and "all truth is subjective, all cultures equally worthy" and Post Modern snark and cynicism is a much bigger task.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I would find more surprising, even shocking, would be "a proud Miss September" who posted on OO.net which is a level of participation greater than being merely interested in Objectivism. It is possible but unlikely.

OTOH, a couple years ago I came across a case where a genuine Randroid was out to convert the denizens of an online S&M community, and I followed it enough to conclude that the guy running the thing, an online porn producer, knew more about Objectivism than the Randroid. And agreed, was living it, so to speak.

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9557&#entry114258

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...