Dystopian Art

Aesthetics Visual Arts
21

But woudlnt that presume that you want to show good triumphing over evil?

Of course it does!

Which was not really the point of We the Living as such.

Then I do not care for We the Living and see no value in it.

n the case of We the Living, such a rebellion that the heroes could have in theory tried to establish wouldnt have worked anyway. Many such rebellions were tryed in Russia, all were brutally put down..

Ayn Rand could of presented it an illustration of the fact that enough people rebelled the government is powerless to stop them, as they can never have an armny big enough.

Besides the point. The point is to show the [full] evil of socialism, not as such the power of the good to overcome it, but to show t hat the good are brutally destroyed under such an evil (which also destroyes itself). Them escaping would undermine this message.

I repeat: I see absoluetely no value in that by itself and only see value in that with heroes succeeding eventually or some other way of showing heroes succedding eventually. Besides, in Faith of the Fallen Terry Goodkinjd managed to show the Communist-like evil of the Imperial Order while still having the good get a victory, so the two can be done together quite well.

That is grossly missing the point. DarkReavers “art” portrays that which is pretty much unintelligeable. What is it meant to portray? Apparently the nature of some evil, but it fails in this goal. We the Living however is very very clear in the message it seeks to portray, the two could hardly be more different both in nature, style and clarity, success and other ways, even though its INTENDED goal might be similar.

OK, it is different in that way, but it is not different in the sense of showing evil and destructive while not also showing evil as impotent. Evil wins in the end really. So evil is not shown as impotent. That is what I meant before.

Ultimately, and this is talking more about my own writing style now, I could never do to my heroes what Ayn Rand done to hers in We the Living. I care too much for my heroes to do that. I sort of think of them as my children, so I could not do that to them. As it is it is going to be hard for the handle writing the part where the Empire tortures Fortis and Ktelris.

22

I repeat: I see absoluetely no value in that by itself and only see value in that with heroes succeeding eventually or some other way of showing heroes succedding eventually. Besides, in Faith of the Fallen Terry Goodkinjd managed to show the Communist-like evil of the Imperial Order while still having the good get a victory, so the two can be done together quite well.

Well I would argue We the Living done a much better job of showing just how evil such is…much better. But that was not Faith of the Fallens main point, it was to show the nobility and dignity of the human spirit, even in the face of overwhelming evil and how the good should never sacrifice their beliefs or their dignity to those who would strip them of if it. Quite different to what WTL tries to do, so comparing WTL and FOTF in this way is kind of pointless.

OK, it is different in that way, but it is not different in the sense of showing evil and destructive while not also showing evil as impotent. Evil wins in the end really. So evil is not shown as impotent. That is what I meant before.

Ultimately, and this is talking more about my own writing style now, I could never do to my heroes what Ayn Rand done to hers in We the Living. I care too much for my heroes to do that. I sort of think of them as my children, so I could not do that to them. As it is it is going to be hard for the handle writing the part where the Empire tortures Fortis and Ktelris.

Actually WTL does show evil as impotent, very impotent, read it sometime. Sure, it kills the heroes, but it is shown as impotent again and again throughout the novel.

23

Actually WTL does show evil as impotent, very impotent, read it sometime. Sure, it kills the heroes, but it is shown as impotent again and again throughout the novel.

I would call the good characters dying as evil winning vis a vis, evil not appearing as impotent. As for reading it, why the hell should I read something of no value to me? The answer is, of course, that I should not. Also, I tried reading your copy of We The Living once remember? Before I knew of the ending. I got bored by it. The beginning was monotonous and boring. it was of no interest or value to me.

24

Oh no, its shown as impotent to acheive its alleged goals, to produce, to feed its citizens, to produce wealth, prosperity etc. This is shown quite clearly and is quite important. But anyway…I have one more thing to say about WTL in this thread:

It might not appeal to everyoen as fiction. However if one ever wanted to find out just what life was like for an those living under Communism, then it could be a pretty valuable insight, as it a fairly realistic insight, assuming you can actually bear the book of course. Possilby better than some non-fiction you will find on the subject. Though I have a pretty decent book on the general subject you can borrow one day if you wish DragonMaci.

25

Oh no, its shown as impotent to acheive its alleged goals, to produce, to feed its citizens, to produce wealth, prosperity etc.

It was hardly impotent when it came to Kira and the rest. Quite the reverse.

It might not appeal to everyoen as fiction. However if one ever wanted to find out just what life was like for an those living under Communism, then it could be a pretty valuable insight, as it a fairly realistic insight, assuming you can actually bear the book of course. Possilby better than some non-fiction you will find on the subject. Though I have a pretty decent book on the general subject you can borrow one day if you wish DragonMaci.

I would rather read a non-fiction book on it if I was evet to study Communism, which I am not going to. With fiction I only care for stories with successful heroes as I see no value in any other sort.

26

In regard to Darkreaver’s responses about his art. If you haven’t made art in 3 years, the question that seems relevant to me is ‘Why haven’t you been inspired to make work since these last pieces?’ Your curiosity about rules of Aesthetics seems to be based more on an urge in you now to make art that has relevance to your current state of mind. You seem to be wondering where to go from the last place you left off. Do you think that Objectivist rules of Aesthetics will expand or confine your personal art style?

In regard to We the Living

In making art there is a power to influence the audience. It seems that Ayn made the decision to kill Kira with the full intention of causing pain in the reaction of the reader. Why? What was her ultimate intention in causing such a situation to happen in her story? Any Rand had no lack of controversy in her works. She understood that the intensity and contrast of repulsion had motive power to it. Such a shock to the system has staying power, affecting people on deeper levels. Taking the emotions on a ride like that will attach stronger memory connections to the point of the story. Putting the reader in mortal fear of their own ability to loose everything they value. The reaction against such a situation is shown strongly in DragonMaci’s position. That feeling may be exactly what she wants you to feel, because she sees a value in making you feel so intensely.

It depends on what you see as ultimate success. Is the happy ending of a Fictional story truly a success? It does not necessarily guarantee that the reader will be as determined to succeed in their own endeavors. If you know the hero will win from the beginning won’t you question on some level if the hero was ever in any real danger at all?

Just because your characters are guaranteed a happy ending doesn’t mean that you are. You could die in a car crash tomorrow, or a terrorist bombing. In a way happy endings can offer a false sense of security.

Ayn’s own life was filled with real people who had succumbed to the death of their sense of life. She said that it was as close to an autobiography as she would ever come to writing. Kira’s death can be seen as an homage to the tragedy of all of the people and potentials Ayn Rand saw perish first hand due to the circumstances of communism. It also symbolizes to me a reflection of what would have happened to Ayn if she hadn’t escaped. Is Kira’s death any less tragic than the death of Ayn’s friends and family? Every day of Ayn’s life seems to be a heroic claim to her sense of life, the very fact that she was able to publish her story from this side of the iron curtain is a testament to the success of the book. In a way she had to kill Kira, because she could never be that girl trapped in Russia again.

27

It seems that Ayn made the decision to kill Kira with the full intention of causing pain in the reaction of the reader.

And why the hell would I actually want to read a book that induces pain? There is no value in having a book induce an emotion of pain in me. I care only for the induction of happyness. I do not care to suffer. I care to feel pleasure.

Taking the emotions on a ride like that will attach stronger memory connections to the point of the story.

Well, I actually find a ride that ends with happiness will attach a stronger memory in me than pain will.

The reaction against such a situation is shown strongly in DragonMaci’s position. That feeling may be exactly what she wants you to feel, because she sees a value in making you feel so intensely.

No, my feeling is that I do not read the book as it is of no value at all. That is clearly not what she wanted.

It depends on what you see as ultimate success. Is the happy ending of a Fictional story truly a success? It does not necessarily guarantee that the reader will be as determined to succeed in their own endeavors. If you know the hero will win from the beginning won’t you question on some level if the hero was ever in any real danger at all?

I am not talking about the reader knowing that the hero will succeed. I am just saying if it does not happen by the end of a book I see no value in the book.

Just because your characters are guaranteed a happy ending doesn’t mean that you are. You could die in a car crash tomorrow, or a terrorist bombing. In a way happy endings can offer a false sense of security.

Only if someone is stupid enough to be unable to seperate the fiction in the book and reality. I am not going to cater for the morons that cannot do so. I do not cater to morons.

Ayn’s own life was filled with real people who had succumbed to the death of their sense of life. She said that it was as close to an autobiography as she would ever come to writing. Kira’s death can be seen as an homage to the tragedy of all of the people and potentials Ayn Rand saw perish first hand due to the circumstances of communism. It also symbolizes to me a reflection of what would have happened to Ayn if she hadn’t escaped. Is Kira’s death any less tragic than the death of Ayn’s friends and family? Every day of Ayn’s life seems to be a heroic claim to her sense of life, the very fact that she was able to publish her story from this side of the iron curtain is a testament to the success of the book. In a way she had to kill Kira, because she could never be that girl trapped in Russia again.

I am sorry but that adds no value whatsoever to the book.

28

The reaction against such a situation is shown strongly in DragonMaci’s position. That feeling may be exactly what she wants you to feel, because she sees a value in making you feel so intensely.

That is I beleive what is at least part of what she intended…and I can see why shoudl would intend that, as few certainly at the time saw that evil as it truly was, to the extent it really was so, and in fact few still really understand it. She sought to make it as fully, dramatically, painfully clear as possible so that none could honestly evade the full horror of it…and having a happy ending is not consistent with this.

To DragonMaci:

Say it is of no value all you like, but there is really no point saying it over and over, we get it.

29

That is I beleive what is at least part of what she intended…and I can see why shoudl would intend that, as few certainly at the time saw that evil as it truly was, to the extent it really was so, and in fact few still really understand it. She sought to make it as fully, dramatically, painfully clear as possible so that none could honestly evade the full horror of it…and having a happy ending is not consistent with this.

Um, why would she want people to fee that they do not read the book as it is of no value at all? Because that is what I feel, not whatever the hell you and Tenderlysharp think I feel. I do not know what you two think I feel, but that is what I feel and that is clearly not what she wanted people to feel.

EDIT:

To DragonMaci:

Say it is of no value all you like, but there is really no point saying it over and over, we get it.

Wrong. I was correcting what Tenderlysharp thought I felt.

30

Um, why would she want people to fee that they do not read the book as it is of no value at all? Because that is what I feel, not whatever the hell you and Tenderlysharp think I feel. I do not know what you two think I feel, but that is what I feel abd that is clearly not what she wanted peopel to feel.

I never said she expected people to read it if they see no value in it. I dont knwo why you think I did say it. I was clarifying the facts of the matter, you can interpret that as me trying to tell you to read the book again if you wish, but it was not that.

What is what she wanted people to feel?

31

I never said she expected people to read it if they see no value in it.

I never said you said that. I said she did nmot want peoploe to not value it and decide not to read it. That is quite different to what you thought I said.

I dont knwo why you think I did say it.

Well, as I just said I don’t. I don’t know why you thought I did as nothing in my wording said or implied I did.

I was clarifying the facts of the matter, you can interpret that as me trying to tell you to read the book again if you wish, but it was not that.

I did not interprete it that way, nor did I say or imply uoi were trying to tell me that.

What is what she wanted people to feel?

I have no idea, nor do I care. What I care about is that the heroes die, thus ruining the story for me, and the fact the when I tried to read it the start was monotonous and boring. If the book had of been of interest to me I would care, but since it is not I do not care.

32

No..you said it “it was clearly not what she wanted people to feel” WHAT wasnt.

Edit: Kills errant capital I. :stuck_out_tongue:

33

No..you said it “it was clearly not what she wanted people to feel” WHAT wasnt. I

It is blatantly obvious what I was referring to:

No, my feeling is that I do not read the book as it is of no value at all. That is clearly not what she wanted.

And:

Um, why would she want people to feel that they do not read the book as it is of no value at all? Because that is what I feel, not whatever the hell you and Tenderlysharp think I feel.

Those bits in bold are clearly and obviously what I was talking about. You somehow missed that blatently obvious context. How the hell you missed something so obvious is beyond me.

EDIT: That “I do not read the book…” should read, “I do not want to read…” and that, “… that they do not read…” should read, “they do not want to read…”.

34

We all have the chance to describe how happy/tragic endings influence us personally. You make it abundantly clear how you only like happy endings DragonMaci. My response is to my perception of Aesthetics, and not to antagonize you or convince you of anything you don’t want to be convinced of. I appreciate that we disagree, it is a wonderful world to have differing views.

The reaction against such a situation is shown strongly in DragonMaci’s position. That feeling may be exactly what she wants you to feel, because she sees a value in making you feel so intensely.

I should have written this part better, I did not mean to imply that Ayn Rand wants to make DragonMaci feel one way or another. I was trying to sum up the perception of the common/natural human desire for happy endings, and Ayn Rand’s decision to go against the grain in order to make a point that some people value.

35

I should have written this part better, I did not mean to imply that Ayn Rand wants to make DragonMaci feel one way or another. I was trying to sum up the perception of the common/natural human desire for happy endings, and Ayn Rand’s decision to go against the grain in order to make a point that some people value.

That is as may be, but she did not want people to feel as I do, i.e., that the book is of no value. No author ever wants that.

36

Ahh, that is what I thought you were getting at. No, I know for a fact that she would consider it improper of you to read a book you considered to be of no value. Though of course she would consider your estimation of the book wrong.

37

No, I know for a fact that she would consider it improper of you to read a book you considered to be of no value.

No, you just made the exact same mistake again. The mistake about what I was saying she did not want people to feel.

38

I believe that Ayn Rand understood that some people would not like her choice to end her book with her hero’s death. It was a classic individualist choice to end it the way she wanted to end it, regardless of the opinions of others.

There are probably stories she has read and loved that had happy endings.

39

No, you just made the exact same mistake again. The mistake about what I was saying she did not want people to feel.

Opps sorry, I wasnt paying much attention to you it seems. Yes…she woudnt want peopel to think her book had no value, and she would defintely dispute such an estimation.

I believe that Ayn Rand understood that some people would not like her choice to end her book with her hero’s death. It was a classic individualist choice to end it the way she wanted to end it, regardless of the opinions of others.

There are probably stories she has read and loved that had happy endings.

Definetely, and Im sure she would have been aware that many would disapprove of that ending. But I dont see her caring what they thought as she fully beleived herself that was the better way to end it (clearly I agree).

40

I believe that Ayn Rand understood that some people would not like her choice to end her book with her hero’s death. It was a classic individualist choice to end it the way she wanted to end it, regardless of the opinions of others.

I am sure you are right, but that is beside my point.

Opps sorry, I wasnt paying much attention to you it seems. Yes…she woudnt want peopel to think her book had no value, and she would defintely dispute such an estimation.

Now you have got it! And of course she would despute it as clearly she valued it or she would not of wrote it and submitted it to the publisher. The heroes succeding like the The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged is of more interest and value to me, though, but that is a matter of personal taste.

Definetely, and Im sure she would have been aware that many would disapprove of that ending. But I dont see her caring what they thought as she fully beleived herself that was the better way to end it (clearly I agree).

Yes. While I disagree with the ending I do agree that she clearly thought it was a better way to end it. And clearly she did not care if others agreed. She would of been silly to of cared.