New.

[driver]

I'll be lurking for the most part, but I thought I'd introduce myself.

I'm a 34-year old law clerk for a state circuit judge. Before law school, my undergraduate majors were English and philosophy.

My hobbies are Brazilian jiu-jitsu, strength training, reading, and spending time with my 6 ferrets and my wife.

I've read all of Ayn Rand's major works, but don't really consider myself an objectivist, though my own ideas are most often in line with objectivist political thought. I have to confess that while I thoroughly support many (if not most) of Ms. Rand's ideas, I think her writing itself is so overwrought and turgid as to border on berserk. Sorry. I believe she was a fine writer of polemics but a wretched novelist.

In any case, I look forward to reading through the back pages!

[softwareNerd]

Welcome to the forum.

From what you've written, I assume that you have read much of Ayn Rand's non-fiction, but may have skipped some of the fiction.

6 ferrets! Are they intelligent?

[driver]

Welcome to the forum.

From what you've written, I assume that you have read much of Ayn Rand's non-fiction, but may have skipped some of the fiction.

I've also read Anthem (was a big Rush fan back in the 80s) and We the Living, haven't read either in almost two decades, I'd say. I re-read Fountainhead and Atlas this summer.

6 ferrets! Are they intelligent?

I'd say, baseline, they're about as smart as cats. For some tasks, i.e., tasks you don't want them performing, they're probably as smart as a small primate; for others, they're roughly as smart as a large cabbage. Temperamentally, they're somewhere between "kitten" and "marmoset," and they thrive on frequent and extensive interaction with their owners and with other ferrets. Very high maintenance animals, although they sleep about 16 out of 24 hours.

My wife and I shun the company of human children, but happily spend hours per day with the ferrets.

[softwareNerd]

Okay, now I'm confused. Why would you read 4 books of fiction by an author and then re-read two of them if you consider the author "a wretched novelist"? The conclusion I draw is that you forced yourself through the fiction for the sake of the philosophical ideas you would learn in the process. Is that true, or am I missing some more obvious reason?

... [ferrets] sleep about 16 out of 24 hours. My wife and I shun the company of human children, but happily spend hours per day with the ferrets.   

With that kind of sleep schedule, I'm going to find myself -- some days -- wishing my son was a ferret

Seriously though, children are lots of fun. If you're the parent, you get all sorts of other botheration. If you aren't, you're allowed to keep the fun and let the parents worry about the maintenance.

[Cole]

I have to confess that while I thoroughly support many (if not most) of Ms. Rand's ideas, I think her writing itself is so overwrought and turgid as to border on berserk.  Sorry.  I believe she was a fine writer of polemics but a wretched novelist.

Have you read the book The Romantic Manifesto (specifically the essay "The Goal of My Writing")? Do you dislike the style of Romanticism in general, or is your critique specific to Ayn Rand? Which of her ideas do you not agree with?

[driver]

Okay, now I'm confused. Why would you read 4 books of fiction by an author and then re-read two of them if you consider the author "a wretched novelist"? The conclusion I draw is that you forced yourself through the fiction for the sake of the philosophical ideas you would learn in the process. Is that true, or am I missing some more obvious reason?

The major reason is, as you said, for the ideas. I enjoy a lot of things that weren't necessarily created with the greatest technical proficiency. I'd often rather read a poorly written work expressing great ideas than a brilliantly written work expressing stupid ideas.

[driver]

Have you read the book The Romantic Manifesto (specifically the essay "The Goal of My Writing")? Do you dislike the style of Romanticism in general, or is your critique specific to Ayn Rand? Which of her ideas do you not agree with?

I don't dislike Romanticism in general. My biggest problem with Ms. Rand's writing style in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged - her fiction with which I'm most recently familiar - is that the characterizations in her novels strike me as absolutely unbelievable. I realize that a certain amount of romanticization is a design feature, not a bug.

There's a fine line between romanticism and caricature, though, and I think Ms. Rand overshoots it considerably. The heroes alternate between steely-eyed speechifying, violent copulation, and divining each other's motives almost telepathically; the heroes are square-jawed industrialists, masochistic ubervixens, and Viking pirates named Ragnar. The villains are weak-chinned goobers, thoroughly rotten, irredeemable, and transparent.

Lest you think I logged on simply to bait or troll, I thoroughly enjoy her non-fiction. Her essays on ethics and capitalism have influenced me greatly, probably more than any other political thinker. As far as Ms. Rand's other ideas, the only other major problems I have are with her picayune sense that she was *right* about aesthetics - especially when her own work was reminisicent of a potboiler - and that her ideas had to be accepted in toto or not at all.

[JMeganSnow]

Do you disagree that a certain kind of aesthetics follows from a certain kind of automatized view of the universe? Ayn Rand's biggest achievement in aesthetics was removing it from the realm of the mystical and irrational and pointing out "hey, there are rules for this too" . . . then she went on to explain what her style was and why. She didn't presume to dictate to anyone what THEY should like.

[Cole]

I don't dislike Romanticism in general.  My biggest problem with Ms. Rand's writing style in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged - her fiction with which I'm most recently familiar - is that the characterizations in her novels strike me as absolutely unbelievable.  I realize that a certain amount of romanticization is a design feature, not a bug.

Did you find difficulty in believing that her portrayal of characters accurately reflects they way people do act, or did you find difficulty in believing that her portrayal of heros accurately reflects the way they ought to act? The latter was her goal- not the former. Was there anything in her novels that you judged to be impossible? If not, what was unbelievable about them?

I don't mean to sound like I'm interrogating you, especially in your introductory thread. When I see the words "wretched" and "berserk" used to describe my favorite work of art, this blatant difference in opinion strikes me as an opportunity to learn about a viewpoint that I was previously unfamilar with.

...and that her ideas had to be accepted in toto or not at all.

That's because Objectivism is in integrated philosophy. Its key concepts are deduced from metaphysical axioms. If you can prove that Objectivism is not integrated, and that the deductions are not valid, then it would be understandable to accept some aspects but not others. Until this is proven, the position doesn't make sense

[hunterrose]

Criticizing Galt and Co. is the quickest way to end up on the wrong side of the pitchfork around here. Don't let the "interrogators" scare you off, though.

There's a fine line between romanticism and caricature, though, and I think Ms. Rand overshoots it considerably.  The heroes alternate between steely-eyed speechifying, violent copulation, and divining each other's motives almost telepathically; the heroes are square-jawed industrialists, masochistic ubervixens, and Viking pirates named Ragnar.  The villains are weak-chinned goobers, thoroughly rotten, irredeemable, and transparent.

That's... pretty sharp. I'd agree that her novels aren't perfect from a literary technique POV, but I wouldn't go that far. But then again, her two main novels are my all-time favorites, so who am I to say?

Did you find difficulty in believing that her portrayal of characters accurately reflects they way people do act, or did you find difficulty in believing that her portrayal of heros accurately reflects the way they ought to act? The latter was her goal- not the former. Was there anything in her novels that you judged to be impossible? If not, what was unbelievable about them?

I can't speak for driver, but one thing I find unbelievable would be the odd lack of family in these novels (excluding WtL.) What was the best family relationship of the heroes? Dominique and Guy? That says a lot.