Who is John Galt?

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Funny you should mention that. I still really enjoy Catcher In The Rye, but not because I relate to it in the way the younger crowd might. Caulfield isn't a good character because of the "he's got it figured out" nonsense some people attach to, but rather because here and there you can say he makes some sense and the rest of the time you want to choke him. The fact he makes sense periodically makes the choking moments all the greater of a swing to the other side of the emotional spectrum. Since he's a fictitious character that can yank people around like that...I've always thought it was really well done, though granted not for the reasons many others do.

It's the hallmark of great writing to write characters like that who alternately intrigue and repulse you -- pre-alcoholic Hemmingway handles it OK, Tolstoy is IMHO the great master at it. But I think you're giving Salinger way too much credit -- what you see as Caulfield's insights are I think your own. Salinger is, like Rand, an aggressive tool writing approvingly about aggressive tools. The author just isn't that clever or self-aware.

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Given Hollywoods propensity to lean left, I'd be surprised if it got in as many theaters as 9-11. All the more reason I want to see it.

Hollywood is owned by the same people who go to bed at night whispering Rand's fairy tales and rationalizations. A movie that worships the rich and powerful as "deserving" and "productive" and retcons fortunes as the product of hard work and excellence? Yeah, that's really going to face a hard road.

[Wol4ine]

Re: Who is John Galt?

I suppose that is why this movie was 50 years in the making. It seems every year Hollywood puts out a few movies just like it. It's so rare for them to put out a fair movie that rightly villifies the rich and powerful.

[goldy_331]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Hollywood is owned by the same people who go to bed at night whispering Rand's fairy tales and rationalizations. A movie that worships the rich and powerful as "deserving" and "productive" and retcons fortunes as the product of hard work and excellence? Yeah, that's really going to face a hard road.

Just curious, what color is the sky in your workd Kepler?

[Jon]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Like Slayer, I don't trust the 15 year old who doesn't dig it.

So this is the movie equivalent of "Reign in Blood"? Sweet.

[WeWantMore]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Hollywood is owned by the same people who go to bed at night whispering Rand's fairy tales and rationalizations. A movie that worships the rich and powerful as "deserving" and "productive" and retcons fortunes as the product of hard work and excellence? Yeah, that's really going to face a hard road.

Easy there Mel.

[state of hockey]

Re: Who is John Galt?

"You said 'rape' twice".

Anyone?

Hey boys, look what I got here!

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Easy there Mel.

Um. Different "people."

[Jon]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Hey boys, look what I got here!

Where are all the white women at?

[ScottM]

Re: Who is John Galt?

PJ O'Rourke's take on the Rand movie.

http://blogs.wsj.com/ideas-market/20...-and-so-did-i/

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

PJ O'Rourke's take on the Rand movie.

Typically good PJ. And I hope he takes this wife's threat seriously.

His general argument (sans the bizarre inclusion of AQ and the usual misunderstanding of Adam Smith, who after all was just describing a machine, not exempting it from all criticism) is good too.

An update is needed, and not just because train buffs, New Deal economics and the miracle of the Bessemer converter are inexplicable to people under 50, not to mention boring. The anti-individualist enemies that Ayn Rand battled are still the enemy, but they’ve shifted their line of attack. Political collectivists are no longer much interested in taking things away from the wealthy and creative. Even the most left-wing politicians worship wealth creation—as the political-action-committee collection plate is passed. Partners at Goldman Sachs go forth with their billions. Steve Jobs walks on water. Jay-Z and Beyoncé are rich enough to buy God. Progressive Robin Hoods have turned their attention to robbing ordinary individuals. It’s the plain folks, not a Taggart/Rearden elite, whose prospects and opportunities are stolen by corrupt school systems, health-care rationing, public employee union extortions, carbon-emissions payola and deficit-debt burden graft...

... and, he should add, corporate welfare, ever more regressive taxation, and a military-industrial complex that converts middle class dollars into board members bonuses -- all of these things were brought to us by that same government he decried and yet many of his persuasion didn't complain then (to give PJ full credit, he has no love for Regressive Robin Hoods either, and he is quite unwelcome at both sides' feed troughs).

[XYZ]

Re: Who is John Galt?

It's the hallmark of great writing to write characters like that who alternately intrigue and repulse you -- pre-alcoholic Hemmingway handles it OK, Tolstoy is IMHO the great master at it. But I think you're giving Salinger way too much credit -- what you see as Caulfield's insights are I think your own.

If you want to contend that Salinger is a rung below others because he stumbled into something that was merely a representation of himself as opposed to weaving a piece of artistry similar to those consciously derived by the true greats independent of their own thoughts -- I won't argue it. The fact remains, that in my opinion, Caulfield remains compelling simply because he's capable of yanking people around, as opposed to the common perception he's some soothsayer who has it all figured out. To the first point, that's a topic for another class and perhaps more interesting, but that one comes down to the technical merit vs. artistic impression scores, not the fact Caulfield ****es people off...regardless of why he does so.

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

If you want to contend that Salinger is a rung below others because he stumbled into something that was merely a representation of himself as opposed to weaving a piece of artistry similar to those consciously derived by the true greats independent of their own thoughts -- I won't argue it. The fact remains, that in my opinion, Caulfield remains compelling simply because he's capable of yanking people around, as opposed to the common perception he's some soothsayer who has it all figured out. To the first point, that's a topic for another class and perhaps more interesting, but that one comes down to the technical merit vs. artistic impression scores, not the fact Caulfield ****es people off...regardless of why he does so.

I got what you were saying until the very last part of the last sentence. If I understand you correctly (and I think I do until that point) you are arguing that it really just boils down to a matter of personal opinion whether in Catcher in the Rye Salinger was (1) effectively creating a character and manipulating it because he's a good writer, (2) ineffectively attempting to do the same and ultimately failing because he's a poor writer, or (3) merely projecting and, whether a good writer or no, just giving voice to his own self via a proxy. I'm with you so far (if I've got your point right), and I agree then it just becomes a matter of personal taste -- I would also argue it's possible to find Caulfield either compelling or uncompelling in all three cases based on the reader's own temperament and preferences, and further that the reader's reaction can also change over time and re-readings. This recently happened to me, for example, re-reading The Scarlet Letter, in which my appreciation of Hester changed completely just because I was 30 years older re-reading the text and it means not "more nuanced" but simply different things to me now -- you can never step in the same book twice.

But then the last part I didn't understand, which makes me worry I am missing your whole point.

[XYZ]

Re: Who is John Galt?

I got what you were saying until the very last part of the last sentence. If I understand you correctly (and I think I do until that point) you are arguing that it really just boils down to a matter of personal opinion whether in Catcher in the Rye Salinger was (1) effectively creating a character and manipulating it because he's a good writer, (2) ineffectively attempting to do the same and ultimately failing because he's a poor writer, or (3) merely projecting and, whether a good writer or no, just giving voice to his own self via a proxy. I'm with you so far (if I've got your point right), and I agree then it just becomes a matter of personal taste -- I would also argue it's possible to find Caulfield either compelling or uncompelling in all three cases based on the reader's own temperament and preferences, and further that the reader's reaction can also change over time and re-readings. This recently happened to me, for example, re-reading The Scarlet Letter, in which my appreciation of Hester changed completely just because I was 30 years older re-reading the text and it means not "more nuanced" but simply different things to me now -- you can never step in the same book twice.

But then the last part I didn't understand, which makes me worry I am missing your whole point.

Just that I consider Caulfield a good character for the reasons I stated, which is a different matter than whether the fact many consider him so has anything to do with top-flight talent or artistry on Salinger's behalf. The first one stands regardless, imo, while I certainly admit the second is up for debate. Sorry if I got convoluted -- some of that was a spin off of my original point that while I enjoy the book, I'm not with those who rally behind it because they find Caulfield some sort of hero but rather because he can be so infuriating despite the fact one might occassionally think he makes a bit of sense.

[solovsfett]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Just that I consider Caulfield a good character for the reasons I stated, which is a different matter than whether the fact many consider him so has anything to do with top-flight talent or artistry on Salinger's behalf. The first one stands regardless, imo, while I certainly admit the second is up for debate. Sorry if I got convoluted -- some of that was a spin off of my original point that while I enjoy the book, I'm not with those who rally behind it because they find Caulfield some sort of hero but rather because he can be so infuriating despite the fact one might occassionally think he makes a bit of sense.

quick .02
Caulfield and Howard Roark are *similar* characters in a way, this was why I brought J.D. into the equation.

the trouble with assessing Salinger and Rand from a strictly (they're not as good as dostoevsky, alexi, hemingway, morrison) academic view or a view on "what is good writing" (whatever that may be for you) misses in part the point of these books.

Salinger writing about himself; as Caulfield is a teenager heading to college, that's going to be a pill most adults can't swallow, I mean for me, teens **** me off on a regular basis with their whining sniveling brat selves (and narcissism) so it stands Salinger's work will be viewed as childish too adults. but that's part of the genius. he nails that kid, and he also gives us a small window to Salinger the person. that's something many great writers attempt and fail at.

Rand writing about her love of individualism and freedom of thought/expression comes across in the same way at times. while the idea is fine, the vehicle (Roark, and the whole fountainhead novel really) fails because it is written w/such a devotion and love for it's protagonist, and a not so nuanced view of the antagonist (ellsworth toohy) that it occassionaly comes across as childish.

anyway that's my view

I still hold Fountainhead and Catcher In The Rye as top 25 books for me, perhaps top 25 all-time.