The problem with Rand is that she never drops down into the specific enough, to be telling the truth about a person. It hovers always in high emotion, pride and narcissism...pride being the useful tone for those looking for an example to live by, for sure.
So, Rand's invented a patriarchy soap opera.
Which is very similar to the bloat in the "scenes of people talking" in the series presented as binge, except they lack the art of the soap opera, and instead...perhaps its the actors, are blanks. It broke out first for me in the 1st season of "The Lost", this inflation, and the blanks feeling in other shows seemed to increase as characters got to know one another.
Whedon has this problem, but manages it, to take advantage of plot exposition. But Star Trek did it better than Whedon.
But then I might like frame stories, like Dexter...where its the same plot really again and again, but the characters change. So maybe I am biased.
There is a kind of bloat in Rand like this, that covers over, romantic hero story like...and similar to Tolkien, a component lack of humble realism in self-examination.
Well, that was what Tolkien strove to dig for, to found in the flat thinking of fantasy, at least a step in the right direction out, toward a truer assessment of character.
So, that makes Tolkien more realist than Rand. However, because of a lack of literacy...readers of Rand think the reverse.
Rand, you see, is also stagery for a philosophy based on 3-d thinking, which makes it creak with programmed digression (to frequently didactic tone emerges in Rand as well),
and
a bully platform; Rand says "now that I have you transfixed with Narcissistic possibility..." See the Ring here? "...let me just indulge in telling you how to be."
Remember, this is a program of the Baby Boom...and this is where they split, Harper Lee and Ayn Rand.
The long speech really violates all sense of literature. Its not narrative or specific, its RHETORIC, a gigantic boring political rant meant to instill, by mere rote domination of your attention, an internal thought process.
The problem with that Toynbee/Nietzche-internal-thought-process, is that it denies pride a suspicious place for motivation. Hence, its never suspected of narcissism, which hides perfectly well in plain sight as pride.
And this she lack as well. I mean really, who did Any Rand think she was? A philosopher? Well, yes. A storyteller, well, that to that two. Despite the fancy footwork though...I mean really bravo...sorta....despite the fancy footwork, its still not so good on either count as story or philosophy.
But its not that bad either. She should have written script for Hollywood after Fountainhead.
Her descriptions are about as good as pedestrian Sci fi writers like Hubbard, still, there is a kind emotional integrity and reflecting on mental discipline. Useful. Who doesn't do that naturally though? Can the hysteria, we all have egos.
It proposes a kind of secondary literature that we can down reference as that which was peculiar to its time, along with Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, Gone with the Wind, Tarzan...
American Lit classes do have a survey of ages...Rennaisance, Restoration (obscure...it refers to the three or four generations of political turmoil), Neoclassical...which is also just fancy for Greco-Roman Revivalof wide consumption...anyway
Rand, you see, is also stagery for a philosophy based on 3-d thinking, which makes it creak with programmed digression (to frequently didactic tone emerges in Rand as well),
and
a bully platform; Rand says "now that I have you transfixed with Narcissistic possibility..." See the Ring here? "...let me just indulge in telling you how to be."
Remember, this is a program of the Baby Boom...and this is where they split, Harper Lee and Ayn Rand.
The long speech really violates all sense of literature. Its not narrative or specific, its RHETORIC, a gigantic boring political rant meant to instill, by mere rote domination of your attention, an internal thought process.
The problem with that Toynbee/Nietzche-internal-thought-process, is that it denies pride a suspicious place for motivation. Hence, its never suspected of narcissism, which hides perfectly well in plain sight as pride.
And this she lack as well. I mean really, who did Any Rand think she was? A philosopher? Well, yes. A storyteller, well, that to that two. Despite the fancy footwork though...I mean really bravo...sorta....despite the fancy footwork, its still not so good on either count as story or philosophy.
But its not that bad either. She should have written script for Hollywood after Fountainhead.
Her descriptions are about as good as pedestrian Sci fi writers like Hubbard, still, there is a kind emotional integrity and reflecting on mental discipline. Useful. Who doesn't do that naturally though? Can the hysteria, we all have egos.
It proposes a kind of secondary literature that we can down reference as that which was peculiar to its time, along with Catcher in the Rye, Grapes of Wrath, Gone with the Wind, Tarzan...
American Lit classes do have a survey of ages...Rennaisance, Restoration (obscure...it refers to the three or four generations of political turmoil), Neoclassical...which is also just fancy for Greco-Roman Revivalof wide consumption...anyway
Modern standard is codified by 1930, bolstered in great part by the sins of Industrialism: child slaver, racial slavery, ongoing Imperialism, Capitalist running on Coal...really, oil covering everything and local population extinctions...but I think the self consciousness of the Mid Modern, is exemplified best by Joyce.
The blind romantic confidence in Conan or Tarzan...really, Ayn should have written scripts for these characters.
Yet, then as rooted in the fifties, Rand and Lee, I would have to add the reading habits and how those inspired the generation that read them...Catcher in the Rye being a good example, but then, another example is Hermann Hesse or N. Scott Momaday, etc.
The point being they looked back and read stuff, and what from the past did they equate or find mirrored in the present...
that is a secondary frame based on, but not limited to, the Literary canon taught by way of College.
Because I interacted with the Baby Boomers a lot. I was right behind them in the transition. My older sister not have much trace of the Baby Boomer at all, and certainly more a GenX.
The oldest, he was a Baby boomer.
But I studied them...I deliberately read "their books", as suggested from a variety of sources.
This does not include almost all the books assigned in School, from elementary to a degree in English, which is odd to think about. Some crossed over...
Joyce..crossed over paths, as did Fitzgerald. I enjoyed Chandler the most, which is probably dropping to the secondary tier of Literature-to-be-studied.
Shakespeare, Chandler, but then other writers in genre's other than stories.
So, speaking of Philosopher-Novelists: Umberto Eco tells a better story than Rand...yet, is similar in having a kind of creakiness, perhaps a lack of a few stronger dramatic choices set aside for reflection, erudition, exposition; bloating.
Similar in that way in having a corruption from a didactic tone.
Yet, Eco's didacticism is more self aware. He pokes fun at himself.
Yet, you want to include him, make people read him, because of the really cool Semiotics book he wrote. Some stuff which would be okay but not qualifying, should be included merely for the quality of the philosophy.
Do we really need any other Semiotics book than Eco's?
No. Its a great manual for training one to think more along a scientific basis and not an internal emotional strain of personhood and will...the Modern, OR iron age eloquence.
Which one, do you ask, is more error prone?
Well, back in the industrial, the poor scientist was limited to books at hand...well, no, way over there, or, over there...while the lab was...over there....
but not anymore.
Anyway, Pirsig...who kind of taps Joyce as a similar demeanor, more graceful in inserting reflections...he seems to be polite and I think apologizes a few times? Pirsig hits the precise tone of the late Modern. Soldiers overseas, others traveling the roads...a road trip. A head trip which is the self consciousness of the Mid Moderns informing the 50's kids: Grapes of Wrath, On the Road, Catcher in the Rye, Atlas Shrugged, Lord of the Rings, Demian...and the one to come out of all that, To Kill A Mockingbird.
Its a really good story, beyond the moral message that really is a great deal of the effort behind the anti-Capitalist...later assuaged down into the not so for Communist but still estranged from the Capitalist...this crowd...Late Modern, To Kill hits all the social reform, and Zen the internal mind set so desperately sought in the early self consciosness.
Mid Modern was deprogramming, as the subject of Portrait of the Artist.
The tone increased, found traction in an audience much more aware of the old Capitalist criminal etiology: expect mere dystopia: Brave New World, 1984, Iron Heel...
all pinned into To Kill A Mockingbird.
For as I am still referring to be inside the Modern, the late Modern, the Modern that turned a crank on the Oral Tradition,
there is a "village idiot" in the Modern...the Boo of Mockingbird is exactly who the Roark of Rand would deem an easy target. The Forrest Gump...the divine fool, Perriot, codified in the Modern, fashioned out of the old reflection on the worst of humanity, the Commedia.
In Modern thought is a great deal of gene anxiety, or we dont know what genetics are, but they seem visible, sort of. This emerging out of Europe in the 1900's.
There is an analogy: German Archeaology of the 1860's, is like British Social Darwinism of the 1890's (frequently confused with Protestant Work Ethic)
is like American Eugenics of the 1920's.
Neither knew what they were talking about...but then Paradigm shifts later, the politics this spawned; genocide (not new), arranged marriages (not new), eugenic (Sparta? Amazons?), gene therapy, genetic diseases, genetic markers for traits...there you go. Racism.
Really, race, the term, is not so one sided anymore. Its not the same but still out there in the sticks, it has not got past To Kill A Mockingbird.
What balking them is "White Overreach": they cant be allowed to learn about others as races, because its Federally sponsored.
You know, the reactionaries in the rural communities. A lot Mexicans do not want to learn English. Many Chinese do not want to either. Communities are exclusive.
Cant just count them out, a lot of them run things, responsibly.
Thats always a voting bloc, too. Race.
No non-whites, no women, maybe, just maybe a Catholic.
Those people. They aren't bad, they just are holding onto power while being oblivious to Historical context...we might call it illiteracy but its a kind of illiteracy. A lack of reading creates a lot of ignorances in different subjects.
Cant really say if we can depose them but then again, their power is limited by law and there are plenty of exchanges of money based on civil lawsuits.
I remember those days. Back when there seemed to be a lot more lawsuits mentioned. Then there was a courtroom thriller novel, seems well-market-timed at this point.
Has the law been gamed since?
Libertarians complain.
Tort reform....you dont hear that anymore.
The blind romantic confidence in Conan or Tarzan...really, Ayn should have written scripts for these characters.
Yet, then as rooted in the fifties, Rand and Lee, I would have to add the reading habits and how those inspired the generation that read them...Catcher in the Rye being a good example, but then, another example is Hermann Hesse or N. Scott Momaday, etc.
The point being they looked back and read stuff, and what from the past did they equate or find mirrored in the present...
that is a secondary frame based on, but not limited to, the Literary canon taught by way of College.
Because I interacted with the Baby Boomers a lot. I was right behind them in the transition. My older sister not have much trace of the Baby Boomer at all, and certainly more a GenX.
The oldest, he was a Baby boomer.
But I studied them...I deliberately read "their books", as suggested from a variety of sources.
This does not include almost all the books assigned in School, from elementary to a degree in English, which is odd to think about. Some crossed over...
Joyce..crossed over paths, as did Fitzgerald. I enjoyed Chandler the most, which is probably dropping to the secondary tier of Literature-to-be-studied.
Shakespeare, Chandler, but then other writers in genre's other than stories.
So, speaking of Philosopher-Novelists: Umberto Eco tells a better story than Rand...yet, is similar in having a kind of creakiness, perhaps a lack of a few stronger dramatic choices set aside for reflection, erudition, exposition; bloating.
Similar in that way in having a corruption from a didactic tone.
Yet, Eco's didacticism is more self aware. He pokes fun at himself.
Yet, you want to include him, make people read him, because of the really cool Semiotics book he wrote. Some stuff which would be okay but not qualifying, should be included merely for the quality of the philosophy.
Do we really need any other Semiotics book than Eco's?
No. Its a great manual for training one to think more along a scientific basis and not an internal emotional strain of personhood and will...the Modern, OR iron age eloquence.
Which one, do you ask, is more error prone?
Well, back in the industrial, the poor scientist was limited to books at hand...well, no, way over there, or, over there...while the lab was...over there....
but not anymore.
Anyway, Pirsig...who kind of taps Joyce as a similar demeanor, more graceful in inserting reflections...he seems to be polite and I think apologizes a few times? Pirsig hits the precise tone of the late Modern. Soldiers overseas, others traveling the roads...a road trip. A head trip which is the self consciousness of the Mid Moderns informing the 50's kids: Grapes of Wrath, On the Road, Catcher in the Rye, Atlas Shrugged, Lord of the Rings, Demian...and the one to come out of all that, To Kill A Mockingbird.
Its a really good story, beyond the moral message that really is a great deal of the effort behind the anti-Capitalist...later assuaged down into the not so for Communist but still estranged from the Capitalist...this crowd...Late Modern, To Kill hits all the social reform, and Zen the internal mind set so desperately sought in the early self consciosness.
Mid Modern was deprogramming, as the subject of Portrait of the Artist.
The tone increased, found traction in an audience much more aware of the old Capitalist criminal etiology: expect mere dystopia: Brave New World, 1984, Iron Heel...
all pinned into To Kill A Mockingbird.
For as I am still referring to be inside the Modern, the late Modern, the Modern that turned a crank on the Oral Tradition,
there is a "village idiot" in the Modern...the Boo of Mockingbird is exactly who the Roark of Rand would deem an easy target. The Forrest Gump...the divine fool, Perriot, codified in the Modern, fashioned out of the old reflection on the worst of humanity, the Commedia.
In Modern thought is a great deal of gene anxiety, or we dont know what genetics are, but they seem visible, sort of. This emerging out of Europe in the 1900's.
There is an analogy: German Archeaology of the 1860's, is like British Social Darwinism of the 1890's (frequently confused with Protestant Work Ethic)
is like American Eugenics of the 1920's.
Neither knew what they were talking about...but then Paradigm shifts later, the politics this spawned; genocide (not new), arranged marriages (not new), eugenic (Sparta? Amazons?), gene therapy, genetic diseases, genetic markers for traits...there you go. Racism.
Really, race, the term, is not so one sided anymore. Its not the same but still out there in the sticks, it has not got past To Kill A Mockingbird.
What balking them is "White Overreach": they cant be allowed to learn about others as races, because its Federally sponsored.
You know, the reactionaries in the rural communities. A lot Mexicans do not want to learn English. Many Chinese do not want to either. Communities are exclusive.
Cant just count them out, a lot of them run things, responsibly.
Thats always a voting bloc, too. Race.
No non-whites, no women, maybe, just maybe a Catholic.
Those people. They aren't bad, they just are holding onto power while being oblivious to Historical context...we might call it illiteracy but its a kind of illiteracy. A lack of reading creates a lot of ignorances in different subjects.
Cant really say if we can depose them but then again, their power is limited by law and there are plenty of exchanges of money based on civil lawsuits.
I remember those days. Back when there seemed to be a lot more lawsuits mentioned. Then there was a courtroom thriller novel, seems well-market-timed at this point.
Has the law been gamed since?
Libertarians complain.
Tort reform....you dont hear that anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment