Rand: Chapter 5: What is Romanticism? "Romanticism is a category of art based on the recognition of the principle that man possesses the faculty of volition" - and presents "what Man could be" (Page 81)
As distinguished from 'Naturalism' which denies it, and presents "how Man really is" And that is the dialectic which Rand will use to examine 19th and 20th C. literature, presenting her A, B, and C list of Romantic, or near-Romantic novelists, and mentioning a few of the despised Naturalists (for example, Zola). My problem with following her discussion is that I haven't read (or can't much recall) many of the novels which she mentions. I've spent the last 20 years reading translations of either ancient, medieval, or Asian literature, so have pretty much, but not completely, avoided the period that interests her. She does mention "Scarlet Letter" as one of her exemplary romantic novels -- and I suppose that story is driven by the conflict between willful individuals and the society where they live. And I was thrilled by it - but probably for what she would consider the wrong reasons - i.e. I was more interested in its historical depiction of a world where sermonizing was the highest art. And going back to my younger days, my favorite writers from the recent centuries, Melville and Joyce, would hardly qualify as 'Romantics' - at least by her definition. So, I suppose, I'm just a damned Naturalist. Not that I deny that "man possesses the faculty of volition", but that I'm not interested in literature driven by that issue more than any other. I want stories that feel real -- real people in real places - and I want those people to at least be smart enough to be responsible for their own problems. While the character that really interests me the most is the one on the other side of the text, i.e. the author. I want the author to be way-way smart, and wise, and perceptive. And unfortunately, for me, Ayn Rand, the novelist, fails in all of the above. (but I don't know about Victor Hugo -- I'll have to read him sometime in the upcoming year) And it seems that more than just "the faculty of volition", Rand is specifically interested in some specific ideals to be chosen: personal freedom and happiness, which don't really qualify, for me, as the highest ideals. What about 'truth', for example ? As I recall, this is an important issue for the Objectivists whom I have met, but Rand has yet to mention it at all. What happens when truth conflicts with the pursuit of personal freedom and happiness? (as should have happened in the career of the outspoken Objectivist who once worked for Enron and is currently arguing on behalf of unfettered capitalism in a televised debate that Joseph Berg recently mentioned) I'm just not sure that 'Romanticism', as Rand conceives it, is worth pursuing. (although, I was more attracted by Barzun's broader notion of it, which seems to have included the "Naturalism" of which Rand speaks) ____________________________________________________________ Easy-to-use, advanced features, flexible phone systems. Click here for more info. http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxcAB3JwgXq0fV760RdRWZZWE pKoXgD69xKsXlAEiu4ZFuEZmfdncU/
