________________________________ From: Chris Miller <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, September 14, 2009 10:26:07 AM Subject: Ayn Rand: Romantic Manifesto : Conclusion
The good news about this "Philosophy of Literature" is that Rand aims for clarity in writing, and does not share the modern academic taste for paradox, ambiguity, and double-talk. Double talk is also making broad assumptions without any basis. You use a pop culture smear to characterize "modern academic taste" Once again, for the umpteenth time, you don't know what you're talking about but say it anyway to enhance your dubious views. The other good news is that Rand is an original. She sets her own canon and the principles that would justify if, and boldly states (and re-states) her own definition of art: She's an original what? Her idea of art is exactly what Hitler and most dictators espouse. Even in our USA some of the Tea Party folks and their friends are promoting Rand. It's the extreme right. It never goes away. It's always screaming about freedom when in fact it prefers racism and feudalism. "Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments" That definition fits any art at all, except it uses the term metaphysical, rather odd for an Objectivist. I think Bruce Attah was the last person to make such an attempt on this listerserve, and after the barrage of responses , , he hasn't been heard from ever since. Then should we should mollycoddle ridiculous, pseudo philosophy? The bad news is that her concerns are so narrow, this book serves better as an artist's statement than as a philosophy of art, and from what I can find on the Internet, even her devotees show little concern for identifying the kind of literature which Rand thinks is so important: i.e. the "Romantic" The bad news is good news to me. To hell with Ayn Rand and all her wayward followers. Is the story built around a hero and how he exemplifies certain ideals based on metaphysical values, The "hero" is a self-indulgent slob who would rather destroy all before admitting his dumbness. If so, Rand would call such literature "Romantic" and if the ideals are good, the metaphysics are true, and the story is well told, it can reach the pinnacle of human artistic expression. Romanticism has its virtues but none of them are represented by Rand. The problem is that so many of us find that kind of thing boring. And dumb. Either we like the "bootleg Romanticism" of pulp fiction, or, like myself, we prefer what Rand would call "Naturalism", and, unfortunately, Rand does not discuss (and presumably does not care) how one "Naturalistic" or "Bootleg Romantic" novel might be considered better than another. Romance novels, like chic-lit, is not Romanticism. She suggests that there is a "science of aesthetics", but she offers no details of its theories and no examples of their application. I wonder why??? So, like the rest of us on this listserv, she's just one more chatty person with some opinions. Which is not a bad thing. Immoral, anti-humanist, anti-sensible, irrational opinions (masks for greed and power) are are very bad things. WC ____________________________________________________________ Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here! http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9o5NngiJegWlB6g3SUYb4 9BwqHs0fmNquWeT9kLcs0RPLkDHHq/
