I am relieved to see that someone other than myself has decided to comment on this last chapter of Rand, and Mr Millers rather sweeping claims (I found his remarks concerning obscurantism and double-talk in the Academe to be particularly dogmatic).
I wonder, however, whether there might not be some merit in trying to disentangle the politics from the theory, at least momentarily, in Rands work. It is one thing, I would think, to show that an argument fails to be convincing, or fails to meet the standards of academic discussion and argument, but it is quite another to reject Rands work on the basis of political leanings, unless of course -- and this remains to be shown -- her aesthetics entails her politics, and her politics entails her aesthetics. I think that only in virtue of such a bi-conditional relationship would we be warranted in rejecting Rand. Regardless, there does not seem to be any kind of precise definition of 'romanticism' (or at least Mr Millers synopses have not included one). It strikes me, that Rands notion of romanticism has nothing to do whatsoever with either German romanticism or with English romanticism. Although both traditions do emphasize human striving, they emphasize failure, pain, and a host of less laudatory excesses (including horror, if I am not mistaken). I also wonder whether "Rand sets her own canon." It seems to me that she is rather oblivious to what actually constitutes the canon. I take it that her (mis)use of terms like 'naturalism' and 'romanticism' is evidence of this. Most importantly, I wonder why we would think that literature represents anything at all. This seems to be one of Rands most basic assumptions, but it is one that strikes me increasingly less tenable. On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 5:59 PM, William Conger <[email protected]>wrote: > ________________________________ > 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/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxRO9o5NngiJegWlB6g3SUYb4%0A9BwqHs0fmNquWeT9kLcs0RPLkDHHq/>
