Who is John Galt?

[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.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Many of Heinlein's characters are famously like this: a little too close to the author for him to have achieved "parallax" in writing them. That doesn't necessarily mean bad writing or even a bad reading experience, but at that point it does basically become a matter of whether the author is someone you'd like to have a beer with (Heinlein up until he was about 40, yes; after, not so much).

There are also always going to be writer:reader combinations that click or don't. For instance, I love Rex Stout so much I just can't tell whether what's going on in his books is good writing -- all I know is they're wonderful. At the opposite end, I would go well out of my way just for the pleasure of punching Margaret Atwood in the face, as a person, so I can't evaluate her writing (except that at the very beginning of The Robber Bride, before I realized the full shock horror of her unsuitability to breath oxygen, I thought she might be on to something. But that could also be blind squirrel syndrome.)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Pretty much what we were talking about.

From the article at the first link, this line sums up exactly how I've always felt about totalist systems like Objectivism:

It's not uncommon for people to seek out belief systems, whether political or spiritual, that make them feel good about how they already live their lives.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: Who is John Galt?

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." As a little kid I interpreted this to mean: Love yourself. Nowadays, Rand's bit is best summed up by the rapper Drake, who sang: "Imma do me."

Even our founders thought man had the God given right to "pursue happiness". I 've interpreted Rand's 'productive acheivement' to mean that you should take care of yourself so you don't become a burden to others. I think divorcing your wife and abandoning your kids runs counter to that.

Good news is that NGC is showing Atlas Shrugged in Lansing, MI. (and many more than first listed)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Who is John Galt?

The Objectivists I've known who were over 30 were pretty much all like the dad in the story. Thinking about it, they were all divorced, bitter white male engineers, too. They really were. About a half dozen of them. Weird.

Small sample size but... ew.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Pretty much what we were talking about.

From the article at the first link, this line sums up exactly how I've always felt about totalist systems like Objectivism:

Sullivan's best line evar?

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Who is John Galt?

The Objectivists I've known who were over 30 were pretty much all like the dad in the story. Thinking about it, they were all divorced, bitter white male engineers, too. They really were. About a half dozen of them. Weird.

Selfishness isn't exactly a trait that correlates well with long-lasting stable relationships.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Pretty much what we were talking about.

From the article at the first link, this line sums up exactly how I've always felt about totalist systems like Objectivism:

But, wouldn't a truly pure Objectivist realize that this is insufficient?

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Where it seems to fall apart is when people don't account for the fact that acting on behalf of others will most certainly contribute to their own happiness and moral purpose -- at least on a personal level. When it's interpreted only to apply to oneself it's incomplete. If that doesn't register with someone, it should be no surprise they are rigid, stubborn and divorced. Or a terrorist.

 

[Patman]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Repeat after me "One does not need to agree with Ayn Rand's view of life to agree to the general tenor of the critique"... there done.

Rand... having not read her but only heard things said of her, seems to have a problem in that she sees people as machines and not as social creatures. That does not excuse the sins of liberalism created by their own good intentions. That people should be called upon to seek out their most personal-favoring ends is madness unto itself... on the other hand, one should not be looking to wield the power of armed force to extract things from the citizenry (which is what occurs with gov't enforced corruption of the market place).

Generally though... Rand's critique is valid... people are going to want rewards for the ability to produce and will not produce if they feel that their actions are not rewarded... psych class lines this out beautifully. If you construct a society where the social contract with the producing class is broken... as you will see going forward... then the society will be weakened... this is what corrupt societies do... it takes away from the technically able and gives to the socially powered and the armed. It depresses the ability of individuals and collections of individuals to flourish due to free actions of their own accord. This is the promise made to the young generation in America... if we, through our own corruption (righteous or otherwise), do not fulfill the contract then we should realize the consequences therein.... but of course we don't want to do that... but a honest person would need to do so.

Rand may be batty... but that doesn't mean the things that we see and the lessons lined out doesn't matter. The ad hominem doesn't reject the critique of liberalism, corruption, liberal-fascism, and its various shades.

 

[XYZ]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Repeat after me "One does not need to agree with Ayn Rand's view of life to agree to the general tenor of the critique"... there done.

Rand... having not read her but only heard things said of her, seems to have a problem in that she sees people as machines and not as social creatures. That does not excuse the sins of liberalism created by their own good intentions. That people should be called upon to seek out their most personal-favoring ends is madness unto itself... on the other hand, one should not be looking to wield the power of armed force to extract things from the citizenry (which is what occurs with gov't enforced corruption of the market place).

Generally though... Rand's critique is valid... people are going to want rewards for the ability to produce and will not produce if they feel that their actions are not rewarded... psych class lines this out beautifully. If you construct a society where the social contract with the producing class is broken... as you will see going forward... then the society will be weakened... this is what corrupt societies do... it takes away from the technically able and gives to the socially powered and the armed. It depresses the ability of individuals and collections of individuals to flourish due to free actions of their own accord. This is the promise made to the young generation in America... if we, through our own corruption (righteous or otherwise), do not fulfill the contract then we should realize the consequences therein.... but of course we don't want to do that... but a honest person would need to do so.

Rand may be batty... but that doesn't mean the things that we see and the lessons lined out doesn't matter. The ad hominem doesn't reject the critique of liberalism, corruption, liberal-fascism, and its various shades.

All this without reading anything she wrote?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Interesting take on Ayn Rand.

 

[Patman]

Re: Who is John Galt?

All this without reading anything she wrote?

you see what people say.... if everybody else has done a good job of crystallizing her ideas and drawbacks then its just a matter of figuring where it goes. Ideas are ideas. If I can discuss the "fair tax" without having read its manifesto (despite being asked to do so several times by its supporters who can't explain their own ideas) then its no problem to do the same with other things.

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Who is John Galt?

I read a comment responding to a review of the film last night that made me laugh, and it went something like this:
"You may like Ayn Rand, but it's a pretty good bet she would have hated you."

 

[XYZ]

Re: Who is John Galt?

you see what people say.... if everybody else has done a good job of crystallizing her ideas and drawbacks then its just a matter of figuring where it goes. Ideas are ideas. If I can discuss the "fair tax" without having read its manifesto (despite being asked to do so several times by its supporters who can't explain their own ideas) then its no problem to do the same with other things.

Possibly, but an on the other hand example: If I judged USCHO posters solely based on what other posters say about them...I'd be walking in a wilderness of mirrors

 

[Bakunin]

Re: Who is John Galt?

Possibly, but an on the other hand example: If I judged USCHO posters solely based on what other posters say about them...I'd be walking in a wilderness of mirrors

Pffft. Just look at their rep. I hear that Rimbaud is a real a-hole.

 

[Wol4ine]

Re: Who is John Galt?

I saw the movie last night. I think the only movie I saw after reading the book that did not disappoint me was "The Hunt for Red October". It was 1 hr and 45 min. and covered about a third of the book. They should have made it 2.5 hours. I wish they would hve develpoed the characters better. But for those of us that read the book, that's no biggie. Very fast paced. Followed the book pretty close. There were a few deviations, mostly minor details. I'm looking forward to Parts II + III.

The showing that I went to (7:15 pm friday) was full. Nobody under the age of 30. Even with all the poor reviews, it received a standing (some people were still sitting) ovation at the end. I guess there is no accounting for poor taste.