Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 We'll go ahead and get started while, uh, sharing the room. Um, I, uh, wanna welcome everyone today. Uh, professor hill will be here for part one of a special two part discussion of certain themes in Iran's novels. Um, and, uh, the topic specifically is about allegory propaganda and didacticism and the novels of iron Rand. Uh, I'd ask everyone to please share the room and, and raise your hand if you want to join the conversation. Uh, Jason, thanks so much for doing this topic today. I'm intrigued by the title. I I'm just gonna let you, uh, go to it and I look forward to hearing these examples.
Speaker 1 00:00:43 Okay, great. Thanks Scott. Um, so, um, over the years, as I've taught Rand's novels in courses, uh, there's a course I've taught called the philosophical novel or philosophy of literature, and there's a, I taught her in the comparative literature department. I've heard the refrain from students that it's a brilliant novel. It's a it's brilliant philosophy, but it's a terrible novel. And this has come from students who are very, very sympathetic to Rand's philosophy. Some of them are philosophy majors. Some of them are literature majors, econ majors, and I'm, I'm gonna sort of parse out the students who are hostile to Rand's philosophy. And, uh, and these are students I must say with, you know, very refined, uh, literary sensibilities and when I've, so when I've taught her work in the comparative literature department also, um, uh, this, the, the criticisms are more direct. Um, they not only think that the philosophy is amazing, uh, but, but the novel's horrible and the, when I've taught the fountain head and weer living, they said compared to the fountain head and we, the living, uh, weer living is a fabulous literary novel.
Speaker 1 00:02:04 The fountain head is a great novel Atlas. Shrug is a, is a crappy novel. And so, you know, <affirmative>, and so, you know, I've asked them why, and I've, I've been thinking about this, myself, having read all her novels, of course. Um, and they say the novelist is, is over the didactic. It's propagandistic, uh, it's too allegorical in its scope. And, um, and it's just a mirror vehicle for, um, various iterations of a repetitive philosoph system. Um, and they've said also because I do teach, um, I teach two types of literature in the compared litera department besides teaching philosophy. I teach a work on the Victoria novel and I also teach a wor works in romantic, the romantic novel. And they mostly humanly say that ATLA shrug does not a work in romanticism, um, given the 18th century, um, writers of the form. So over the years, recognizing that these views are not entirely UN uncharitable.
Speaker 1 00:03:18 I mean, there are people who are just hateful of rant and I just sort of, sort of, I don't ignore them, but I'm not, I'm not using their criticisms as part of this, this talk that their views are not entirely uncharitable. And, um, you know, having a degree in literature myself and, and having read her novels very charitably and enjoyed them tremendously, um, and subjecting them to the same kind of literary meaning tests as I would. Any other novel forces me to appraise a novel by certain literary meaning tests that I think the students are to some degree doing. So I want to make the case that the novels, especially ATLA shrug in this, in this particular talk cannot be read as a conventional novel. And I also want to make the case that it is not primarily a work in romanticism, um, or romantic realism, uh, given the understanding that we have of romanticism, um, coming out of the tradition.
Speaker 1 00:04:20 So when we look at romanticism, um, as we see it, um, from various writers, um, like Wordsworth, like, um, um, whole <affirmative>, um, Cole Ridge, like, uh, I'm just gonna read through some of the basic points of romanticism Cole Ridge and the second generation, uh, romantics like Wordsworth. Uh, when we, when we look at the work of people like Novas, and we look at the work of William Blake, uh, there are basically five characteristics of romanticism and interest in the common man, intellectual, a strong sense, strong senses, emotions and feelings. Uh, and, and one thing that you find coming out in all the romantics is an awe of nature, a celebration of the individual, the importance of imagination, the primacy of feelings over emotion, the primacy of feelings over reason, um, and an emphasis on nature. Um, the romantics emphasize healing, the healing power of the imagination, and believe that it could enable people to transcend their troubles and their circumstances in their creative talents.
Speaker 1 00:05:36 They believe that their creative talents could illuminate and transform the world into a coherent vision to regenerate mankind, uh, spiritually, uh, other tenants of the romantic movement. Uh, they, the romantics really saw, um, a romanticism really as a sort of interesting schematic explanation, which brings about or establishes again, the predominance of imagination of a reason and formal rules classicism over the sense of fact, or the actual realism of formula, which, um, calls hazard that statement of 1816, that the beauty of a Greek temple can reside achieve in its actual form and its actual connotations while the romantic beauty of a Gothic building or ruin arose from the associate ideas, uh, which the imagination was stimulated to conjure up. So the romantics really are concerned that were, were concerned with we're, we're concerned with a certain romantic mood in the psychological desire to escape from unpleasant realities.
Speaker 1 00:06:42 Um, so, um, just more briefly also it's a, they saw art as a formulation of, of intuitive imagination or imaginative perceptions that tend to speak a noble truth and that affect logic or the here and no, uh, and it sees in nature actually a revelation of truth, the living garment of God, and often pantheistic, uh, a sens portion of the D T itself. Okay. So when Rand says that her work is a form of romanticism, um, I don't see it sort of capturing any of the, the classical statements of romanticism that I read I've studied in, uh, handbook, litera literature by William Harmon or coming out any of the right out of any of the writing things. So the romantics, um, when she says romantic art is a recreation of reality, according to an artist value judgment, and that her work is romantic because it presents reality, um, or life as it ought to be. Um, I'm gonna make Jennifer moderator, I'm sorry. Um, let me hold on here.
Speaker 0 00:07:57 She actually, uh, stepped away for a moment. It's alright. I just made you one, but I'm one as well.
Speaker 1 00:08:02 Oh, okay. Um, um, I, I, I'm not seeing any of the, the basic tenets of romanticism in her work. And so I'm gonna, I'm gonna argue that we, I, I, I, let me just tell, you know, show my bias here. I think Atlas shrug is a great work of art, but I think that ultimately the end of my talk, I'm gonna say that we have to call this novel something else. Um, so I wanna make the case that the novel, um, uh, the novel that, that novels, that it can't be read as a convention novel. It is not purely work in romanticism or romantic realism. It is one of the most didactic novels, I think in the history of novel writing, it is highly allegorical. And I'm gonna talk about what consults use in allegory and it perhaps in the end, when one answers a question who is John gold, um, it ends up being a sort of intellectual Roman clef in the sense that it's, it's, uh, it's Zin Rand.
Speaker 1 00:09:12 Um, and when we look at the intent interchangeability of the characters, um, Rourke sounds like den, who sounds like Dancona, who sounds like gold, who sounds like Dagney, who sounds like Hugh Axton, who sounds like, um, Steve Mallory, who sounds like Dagney, there's a way in which all the characters are interchangeable and intellectually fungible. And in this sense, uh, it, it seems to be Rand's voice that is permeating all the characters intellectually. So there's a sort of uni university of intellectual identity that permeates all the characters, which makes them interchangeable. And in this sense, I wanna say that ATLA shrug could be argued as a novel that is not a romantic clef in terms of events, but in terms of what it really means, which is a novel that has extra literary interest of portraying a real person, more or less thinly disguised as a fictional character.
Speaker 1 00:10:24 Uh, that's a sort of controversial claim to make, but, but I, I do wanna make it. Um, so these figures may be literal standings for R her stand-ins for a Rand herself. And I think when you look at, um, the John gall speech, I mean, you look at the, the comment, um, I'll get to that later. The comment trained catastrophe that happens where people are killed off, and you look at the commentary that ran, ran makes about all these people from the sociology professor to the, the man in room at car two, who was a journalist and, uh, the man in room, car, number four, teen, who was a pro professor philosophy, the wording and the characterization of these people are rans, which makes, uh, the novels to me come across as a, as a Roman and cliff. So I think these are their literal standings for Rand, and indeed given the absence of any significant character development, I think in Rourke and, and GA, and then KA, um, there is some characterization in Raden.
Speaker 1 00:11:30 Um, these figures are just almost like full blown from the head of, um, zoos. They're like Athenian figures. Um, they are intellectual. They have a UN universality of again, of identity intellectually that seemed to be part of, uh, Rand's own identity intellectually. So one does not present a new theory of philosophy, including a new morality with normative prescriptives that are teaching people. I think teaching people how to be moral without deploying a great deal of didacticism. Now, I think contrary to ran assertion that her job was not to teach or to create, not to teach people anything, but to create the ideal or to create the ideal man when persons whom persons could contemplate as an end in himself in an aesthetic manner. I, I think it's psychologically untenable that most people in the empirical world would find deliverers of long, 10 page speeches, or four page speeches, um, on philosophical matters of aesthetics as epistemology economics, um, worthy of aesthetic contemplation, they're worthy of philosophical meditation and, and one learns a great deal about economics and the meaning of sex and the meaning of, um, altruism and so on and so forth.
Speaker 1 00:13:08 But in reading Atlas shred, for example, I have always had a pen in hand and a notebook taking notes from the speeches and the observations I think made by. I ran through the mirrored characters deployed to articulate aspects of her philosophy. So pure brains in case in flesh, delivering brilliant monologues on epistemology on ethics on psychol on psychology, moral psychology can be well ex intellectually exciting, but I don't find anything aesthetically pleasing as such about John gall, who literally no pun intended is a talking head, a brilliant talking head, but a person who exists fundamentally from the neck up. In other words, the characters are highly overly inte intellectualized, which is proper since they are allegorical figures, um, espousing, uh, a particular philosophy. No, no. What is an allegory? Um, well, an allegory is, uh, an extended, a form of extended metaphor in which objects are persons or actions in a narrative, either in pros or verse are equated with actions at lie outside the narrative itself.
Speaker 1 00:14:20 So it represents one thing in the guise of another, an abstraction in that of a concrete image. So the characters are usually personifications of abstract qualities and the action, the setting representative of the relationships of those abstractions. So allegory attempts to evoke a dual interest, one in the events, characters and setting presented, and the other in the ideas they're intended to convey or the significance they bear and the characters, the events in setting may be historical fictitious or fabulous. The test is that these materials be so employed that they represent meanings independent of the actions in the surface story.
Speaker 1 00:15:02 So, uh, it is important, but by no means it's easy to distinguish between allegory and symbolism, which attempts to suggest other levels of meaning without making a structured ideas, the controlling influence in the work as it is in allegory. So the tree trunk in the beginning of, uh, start of Atlas shrug would be a symbol because the trunk, the hollowness of the trunk goes on to be a symbol that displays the hoists, the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the dystopian world that ran intends to show that's a symbol. John gall is not a symbol. He's a, he's an allegorical figure, uh, in the sense that, uh, he's an example of one form of alleg, which is called an exemp. And basically an exemp is, uh, an example of a story that used to illustrate an ethical point. So he's a character within a story that's used to illustrate an ethical point.
Speaker 1 00:16:02 So one in one sense at Atlas shrugged, while the fountain has, is the idealization of a, of an architect, ATLA shrug, we could say is the canonization of capitalism. And that's what makes it, uh, an exemp, which is a part of a, of an, of an allegorical story. Um, okay. So I think RO can only work if he's treated also in some sense as an allegorical figure, less so than John gold, but no one can be like Rourke nor can, might be psychological, healthy to attempt to be like him or one runs the risk of becoming isolated a little bit antisocial. Um, but the fountain head in Atlas are exemplars Exem from forms of are Exem and forms of alleg allegories that illustrate an ethical point in the fountain head and, um, an ethical point in Atlas shrug and the epistemological point and a canonization of, of capitalism.
Speaker 1 00:17:12 So there is very little, um, variation, for example, in the linguistic stylization of the characters, there's a sort of ubiquitous way of talk that gives a philosophical coherence and system systematicity to the novel. But if we take it as a traditional novel, it that's going to marry it literally, right, but we can't take it as a traditional novel Atlas cannot be seen as a traditional novel, the philosophy supersedes everything. I think the story, our handmade to the new system ran was working out. I, I think in one of the cruelest and inhumane scenes, an Atlas, the, the crash scene of the comment were villains who had not, who held fault in metaphysical epistemological, altruistic views are off they're killed off, can be the one charitable way of interpreting. This would be an appeal to the way in which the inter interconnection of philosophy and production are irrevocably tied, right?
Speaker 1 00:18:20 Um, so a faulty epistemology and faulty metaphysics lead to create crashes, but the story does not end there. There's an element of, there's almost an El element of psychopathy where ran, introduces her own indictment and those made to die are guilty, right? The, the random passengers have sinned sufficiently to substitute for the known looters. Thus, the man in, you know, I'll just read one example in bedroom car number one was a professor of sociology who taught that individual ability was of no consequence. That individual effort is futile and individual conscience is a useless luxury luxury. And this goes on in 16 intense instances, um, by car taking up 1000 words. So ran has an array of, um, of illustrations, um, of trend of, of, of train of, of people who die, um, and detonations that, um, end up killing a lot of people who die for their beliefs.
Speaker 1 00:19:38 So I think rans intrusion into the novel at this point seems hyperbolic and moralistic and superfluous, and emerges as a proof of Atlas as a sort of romantic CLE that is ran, is making her voice be heard. And when you read that section, it becomes very clear that the, the voice of the novelist, um, is also the voice of Mallory Raden RO Dagney and, and GA. And so, and I think this is probably UNES inescapable given the kind of novel she was writing. So Atlas can only serve first as a philosophical didactic system with interjected secondary story elements and the philosophy overpowers and domes a story. The characters are, are literally ran podcasts, airing iron Rand's objectiveism, and the stories are encasements. So seeing in this, in this manner, Atlas is fundamentally philosophically in case in a formulated highly stylized fictionalized form. And there's, there's nothing startling about RO Rourke's blowing up of Cortland or the plot structure of the, of the device of, of, of the fountain head, or even of the fantastic fantastical plot structure of Atlas SHR.
Speaker 1 00:21:11 The story cross story is not a pace Turner. It's the unfolding of philosophical ideas, the psychological insights and analysis of human motivations that are the page Turners, I think. And I think the luminous and brilliant, um, texture of Rand's writing itself, it's lucidity it's capacity to reveal a psychological psychology behind Villa and the Genesis or the genius in human certainty. So Rand was, um, um, was developing a new philosophical system, uh, and like her predecessor nature, uh, was functioning like a moral psychologist, uh, that is her work investigates, how human beings function relentlessly unavoidably in moral context. And these moral contexts themselves, um, as presented in her novels are not multitudinous or complex they're stark binary altruism versus self-interest individualism versus collectivism, mysticism versus reason. All right. Um, it's kind of summing up. I, I wanna say as such only I didactic and repetitive and highly curated responses could solve these paradigmatic problems and questions, um, and essential and fundamental problems.
Speaker 1 00:22:41 So Iran wrote, as she says, not the way people actually spoke, but the way they ought to speak. And this manner of speaking was ubiquitously presented in the oral transmissions in an identical syntactical semantic and stylistic manner in all of her characters. So behind a talk talk, talk, Rand was implicitly teaching her readers a lesson. She was giving them in the speeches of all her characters, a method of cognition. And we learn about irre reducible primaries. We learn about abstractions from abstractions. We learn about concept formation. We learn about logical corollaries, almost every time a character, uh, opened his or her mouth, especially the heroes each in effect was saying, think, think as if your life depended on it, uh, and not the basis or stuff or agenda of a traditional novel. So if the fountain head is most functional as a work in moral psychology, Atlas shrugged in its canonization of capitalism is most functional. I think, as a work in epistemology. And now against the backdrop of these considerations, Rand was writing, not romantic realism. I think given now that I've said entailed romanticism, but attempting a new type of novel, a name for which I don't think yet exists, but which when coined will place it there as a genius of a novel as ever has been written. Thanks.
Speaker 0 00:24:16 Good stuff. Thank you. Uh, I, um, just wanted to, uh, elaborate on the, uh, tree trunk story. It was at the beginning of Atlas shrugged and from my memory, they, um, you know, it was a tree that, that was like a symbol of hope for the kids and strength and stability. And then one day it got hit by lightning and they realized that, uh, and it died, it just fell over and they realized it was all hollow and dead inside for years anyway, and just being held up by its own rot. Um, and so, yeah, I, I can see that as an allegory, I have, uh, you know, lots of stuff to bring up. We encourage people to share the room, uh, to raise your hand if you want to get in on the conversation. Uh, obviously I wanna defer to David, uh, Jack, I, if you wanna bring in, I, I SU suspect you're in a place where you can't even unmute at freedom Fest like me. I just, I went back to my room for this. So, um, anyway, um, David, if you, uh, have a question or I can just get right into things,
Speaker 3 00:25:22 Um, I'd like to hold off for a bit. Um, you know, Jason had, uh, gave us so much, uh, that, um, questions, uh, are starting to crowd my mind, but they're ill formed yet. So I'm gonna wait until I have a little more clarity.
Speaker 0 00:25:40 That's fair. Uh, John, did you have a question for Jason?
Speaker 2 00:25:49 Yes, not really. Scott say I was, I am so impressed. Jason. I am. So I was an English major and I have always had a very, um, equivocal attitude and mindset when asked what I thought of Rand as a novelist and my God, I am humbled. That was just a beautiful, so logical so well done it. And it, it, it answered many questions that I had that I hadn't worked hard enough to formulate. Um, so just thank you. I'm gonna go back and listen to this again and again and again, because it, that, that's all I got to say. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1 00:26:40 Oh, thank you, John. I appreciate that.
Speaker 0 00:26:43 And this is just part one. Um, <laugh> I, um, I just wanna go over some of the stuff, um, that you talked about, because I mean, a lot of it seems like your issue is more the characters that were Rand's voice, um, much more an Atlas shrug, maybe everyone in the Gulf, uh, in the Gulch. Um, and then you, you brought up Roarke and Mallory, but I mean, one of the things of the fountain head is that, you know, there are the four different sections for the four different characters, Roarke, Keating, um, wine and, and, uh, toy. And so, you know, I mean, there, there at least there were more, uh, type different types of characters, not all that were just speaking for her. And so I guess, I mean, would you say that there is more of that in Atlas shrug than, than the fountain had, and that that's maybe just where her style developed to?
Speaker 1 00:27:43 Well, I, I think she got a lot more didactic in the fountain head, obviously because she had her mind expanded her, her notion of concept formation expanded and, and, and the, in the widest sense of the term objectiveism really began to take form and Atlas shrugged. Um, but I thi I still think that there are, um, allegorical forms in the, in, in the phones in head where, um, she wasn't, and this, this is, I mean, it's not a criticism because I understand what she was doing as a novelist, which is probably why she couldn't write a lot more novels. She still wasn't able to give a sense of indistinguishability to all the characters. I mean, Mallory still sounds like Dominic who ends up something like Dagney anyway. And, and, and ROS sounds a lot like, um, um, like Dagney, I like Dominic and what
Speaker 0 00:28:45 Dominic was a little different. She destroyed statues,
Speaker 1 00:28:50 No, in their actions, but in their, in their, the Sy, the synt tactical, the, the structure of their conversations, the word choice, uh, there is a, there is a ubiquity, a ubiquitous way in which they all sound alike, that Rand was not able to, that sounded very much the way Rand wrote her non-fiction and the way Rand herself talked and wrote that, I think she was not able to, um, give them separate distinguished voices. I mean, there's a, there's a you, I mean, wouldn't, you agree that there's a way in which when, when RO is explaining the nature of second handers and, and in his courtroom speech and, and, and Mallor is talking about art and so on that they all they're, they all sound like deputize standin for each other. I mean, they all certainly share the same sense of life, but, but there's a manner of talk, which, which gives them a uni vocality of identity intellectually that, um, that, that is there.
Speaker 1 00:29:58 And I mean, I, I, I enjoy it, but I see it also as sort of ran unable to, um, really give each person, uh, for want of a better word, a collocate different way of speaking. They all speak in intellectual speak in the same, in the same kind of manner, um, even to here, um, sounds inversely like the inverse of RO of course, but his manner of talk is choice of words. Um, that's so that's what I mean. I mean, so they, they do have different quirks and they do have different identities as individuals, but when they open their mouth to speak, there is a way in which they sound alike. They don't have distinct intellectual voices. That's what I meant.
Speaker 0 00:30:58 I, I can understand that. I, I just, uh, you know, there's at least Steven Mallory was the guy that, uh, tried to shoot toy at one point, I think, and they, their, their relationship develops, he's kind of realizing this stuff and yes, he does get to that same place.
Speaker 1 00:31:16 Yeah. Um, yeah,
Speaker 0 00:31:17 But, um, I, I wanna touch also on the, um, the train victims, I think there's been a continuing theme in objectiveism of, of saying that professors can be either the most morally good or more evil than, you know, Stalin or dictators, depending on what worldview the professor hold.
Speaker 1 00:31:41 Well here, I find that that section to be quite Iran stated explicitly that people should not be judged for even what they say, but, but for what they do. And here she's off them, she's, she's killed them off for their ideas, for what the beliefs they're whole that they'll, you know, and given the fact that people are not infallible given the fact that people can hold such beliefs. Um, there are two children that are innocent. Children are actually killed, killed off because their mother hold erroneous beliefs and, you know, she's packed off the toddlers to death. And, um, she put her two children to sleep in the birth above her carefully, tucking them in, protecting them from the drafts and jolts a mother whose husband had the government job enforcing directives. Um, um, it seems strange that we would hold such individuals to the same standard of evil as we would hold.
Speaker 1 00:32:50 You know, um, one of the actuals who are issuing directives, who are torturing GA, who are enacting policies that are destroying, that is their committing actual acts and, and, and, and forcing actions, um, that on a threshold, uh, of decency, someone who holds those beliefs, we're not entirely sure that they've actually acted on them and committed actions that are harming someone given against the backdrop of ran zone statement that, you know, we, we should not necessarily judge people based on their beliefs or what they actually even say, but on, on the, on their actions that she gleefully, um, offs them kills them off. Um, it, it, it, to me, the, it would've been sufficient to show that faulty epistemology, faulty metaphysics, actually a dually to train wrecks, sexual impotence, all those things. Um, but it seems a bit hyperbolic to now introduce, um, the people on the train. It's almost a way of, of justifying, um, the, the death of those people by saying in some sense that, um, they're just as guilty, um, or the, the passengers have since sufficiently to substitute for the, for the known looters. And, um, yeah. So I don't know what you think, what people think about that, but I, that's my least favorite part of ATLA shrug actually. Um, yeah, I, I think that's
Speaker 3 00:34:35 Fair. Uh, can I jump in? Sure. I don't know how to raise my hand if I'm on the speaker's list. So, um, forgive me if I'm interrupting, but, uh, I just, I wanted to say, I, I agree completely with, uh, what Jason's saying about that crane scene, the record of the Taggar, uh, train in the tunnel and the, you know, going through the passengers, the, the plot necessity of that wreck is that it brings Dagney back. She can't maintain her personal strike. Um, and, and so she's gotta come back. That's, that's the plot relevance of that, but you don't, it doesn't require this, um, uh, you know, this, uh, the, you know, the in, in, in effect, the blame that's being put on the, uh, and the justification for the deaths of these people as if they deserved it. But I wanna push a little bit more, uh, Jason on, um, on the fountain head.
Speaker 3 00:35:38 Um, I I've always had a certain preference for that, um, over, um, Atlas, although I think Atlas is fabulous and vastly superior around many counts, but the fountain head just has more individuality about it. And that's, I think what you're challenging, um, Dominique and, um, wine end are interesting characters because they have good things mixed with bad things in there, and they struggle, um, and work themselves struggles to understand, you know, the principal behind the Dean. Um, he makes mistakes and, um, he ups Peter Keating with his projects, which he, you know, probably should not have done. Um, he just couldn't stand to see a building poorly done, but these people learned to and developed as characters through the story, especially Dominique and wine and, and, uh, Dominic turned out okay, wine and didn't, but their struggles and, you know, reflected through their different, uh, relationships work.
Speaker 3 00:36:51 Uh, I always found just more psychologically interesting, like these are there there's interactions here that are where people are learning, they're reacting and, um, more individualized. So I, I, I don't know if I can, can, um, just equate the fountain head and as a single voice, maybe the people do speak alike. Synt tactically, um, in a sense, but I think the characterizations are, there's much more variety in the fountain head. And for that reason, to me more interest, um, literally, um, than in the, than in, uh, Atlas. So anyway, I just wanted that. I'm just pushing back, um, a little bit on, on that point of yours and following up on point, Scott made earlier,
Speaker 1 00:37:48 David, I agree with you. I think that the phones head is, um, from a litera standpoint, it's a, it's a superior, well, if we're gonna judge it, um, as a traditional novel, um, I think the fountain head is vastly superior on the, as judging it as a traditional novel, um, to Atlas drug for many reasons. Um, I think which is attempting an Atlas drug was much something much more different, much more revolutionary and radical than the fountain head. And I, I do think for the reason that you said, um, that there is some kind of Dominic is not someone who's born full blown from the head of athe out of Zeus's head. Um, we do see her struggle. We do see her Rand said she was, she was herself in a bad mood, but we do see her go from a dark sort of cynical, uh, pessimistic, um, paralyzed by doom, not by doom, but paralyzed by kind of the corruptness of the world and the sense that good cannot thrive in a world that's, that's rotten to the core, um, to someone who was inspired by Rourke and liberated from the idea that evil will triumph.
Speaker 1 00:39:02 And that's, that's one of the most liberating and inspiring parts of the fountain head is actually to see Dominic be, uh, liberated from her own self in cure in, in, in, um, her, her own self, self enslavement to a world that she believes in which no good can thrive. Um, and it's also a part of the fountain head that I think in spite of Rand's notion of self that, you know, celebrating the self-contained ego, we see that, um, there's a little, there's a, there's a little bit of a pushback to that idea that is RO does seem to have a self-contained ego. I don't know where he gets it from, but the other characters seem not so much. So to have complete self-contained egos that is Dominique does seem to need to witness Rourke's triumph and to see that the super strength of this man who can withstand all the rottenness and the impotence of the world and the Trium above it to liberate herself from that she herself can't do it.
Speaker 1 00:40:18 She couldn't do it on her own. She was kind of caught up in, uh, mired in revulsion and contempt. And so ran, you know, did say that a, a spirit can run dry that she herself required her husband Frank's, um, constant encouragement during the dark periods of writing the fountain head to make her go on. And so that's one of the beautiful things about the fountain head. Is that the idea of a self-contained Eagle? Um, well maybe in the strict sense that Rand meant it, that we don't really need other people to validate or know our, our values. We share them. We don't need people to, to, we need to other people to, to share our, our values. We don't get values from other people, but certainly that's one of the rewarding things about the fall head is to see how dos Dominic's almost dependency on Rourke in a sense, um, makes her blossom and thrive.
Speaker 1 00:41:15 Um, so I do, yeah. I agree with you. I think there's more indivi in there's more character development in the fountain head and especially the Winans realization, um, that having sold his soul. Um, there's nothing more to live for that is tying the premises and tying, um, the connections of his life together. Seeing that he can't escape from reality. He can't escape from the, the false philosophy and the premises that he's lived his life by, um, that there is growth, although it ends tragically and then killing himself. Um, yeah, so that's, that's a lot to think about.
Speaker 3 00:42:04 Thanks. Thanks, Jason. And I just wanna mention, um, Steven Cox wrote a wonderful essay on the fountain head. Um, this is back in 93, but I think it's on our website somewhere. Um, that is interesting. And, but, um, one of his, um, central points is that there's, there's a theme of individualism in the book. Um, that's like he describes it as like the DNA in every cell of a body. It just it's everywhere in all, its different, despite the difference in all to keep the, this allegory going, um, uh, despite all the differences that DNA creates in, in the body to create all the different kinds of tissues and organs and so forth, it's still the same DNA and, uh, it's a wonderful metaphor. So anyway, thanks. Um, I'll uh, let, uh, turn this over back to Scott and anyone else who has questions.
Speaker 0 00:43:11 Yeah. Again, uh, we wanna encourage people to share the room and uh, raise your hand if you want to get involved in the conversation. Um, Jason, I don't know if you still have that, uh, those tenets of romanticism handy. Um, I, you know, as you were reading them, I, I mean, I thought that I could argue that she agrees with most of those, even maybe the nature part to some degree
Speaker 1 00:43:36 You think? So. I mean, Randall was really well,
Speaker 0 00:43:40 I, I could see both interpretations, honestly.
Speaker 1 00:43:44 I don't think she was in awe of nature.
Speaker 0 00:43:46 Well, well, she was in awe of its power if man didn't conquer it the way it would just, you know, even those, uh, scenes. I mean, she, she preferred to see a skyscraper as a sign of civilization, but I mean, I think of like the description of Cortland homes at the beginning and the boy on the bicycle,
Speaker 1 00:44:08 But that's not nature. That's that's man who has sort of, I mean, Howard Rourke has a sentence where he says, when he sees a, a, a set of trees or something, he just wants to cut them down and replace them with, I think rather a kind of contempt or kind of not contempt, a kind of uneasiness with nature, whereas a romantic poets are sort of, they wi another thing about romanticism is, is the, of the sublime vis-a-vis nature, uh, hard to think that a random character would feel the sense of sublime with nature. I mean, yeah. And
Speaker 0 00:44:41 I'll you feel? Yeah, I'll grant the nature was probably the weakest one, but, uh, do you, what were the, uh, can you remind me of one or two of the others?
Speaker 1 00:44:53 Um, the elevation of strong senses of feelings and emotions over reason, uh, interest in the common man individual, especially, and especially children, the elevation of children, um, the importance of imagine importance of imagination. Um,
Speaker 0 00:45:13 I mean that, I think some, you know, because obviously imagination matters to creativity. Yeah. Um, yeah, maybe she didn't, uh, you know, do as much with kids. I'm just, I'm, I'm trying to think of, uh, you know, and I mean, I guess it is partially because she used that qualifier of, uh, romantic realism. Um, my, uh, I'm not sure if you're getting a call right now or, uh,
Speaker 1 00:45:45 No, I just, I just, I just hung it up.
Speaker 0 00:45:48 Okay, good. I
Speaker 1 00:45:48 Just, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 0 00:45:50 Yeah. Maybe it has to do with more of a romantic realism where some of those elements are there. Um, I, I, I wasn't even jotting them when you were saying them, but, uh, the, um, you know, yes, there may not be, I I'm trying to think of romantic writers that, that did elevate children like that.
Speaker 1 00:46:11 Well, Blake's the chimney sweeper, you know, where he sort of, um, depicts the horror of, of industrialization and talks about the sores and, and, and the, the, the, the lungs. And I mean, that's, that's a private example. Right.
Speaker 0 00:46:26 But I mean, Dickens wasn't romantic. Uh,
Speaker 1 00:46:31 No, well, no, I wouldn't, I wouldn't necessarily call him a romantic writer, but, um, but also there, you know, there's also a rich literature out there about when we talk about when the demise of reason started and the revolt against reason, and, you know, some people, I wish Steven were here cuz Steven and I could, Steven writes about this, um, in his book on post modernism, I don't know that he would necessarily put, put it with the romantics, but there are people who say, you know, well the Frankfurt school or it starts with, um, I mean, Leonard peacock in the, uh, the Jim hypothesis talks about the beginning of the beginning. You know, it actually starts with, I mean, I think this is ridiculous. It starts with, with Plato that Plato himself, I think that's just, just a stretching too far, but there are people like, um, I don't think I, Isaiah Berlin does this, but there are people who point out that the romantics in their exaltation of feelings and their celebration of some of them of irrationalism, um, were, were, were greater enemies of, um, of reason than, uh, some of, even the enlightenment thinkers, like Kah, who, who was not an enemy of reason, but clearly was someone who thought that reason had vast limitations and that, you know, we could only access as we could never know things in themselves.
Speaker 1 00:48:01 And that the romantics were, were the villains in, in, in the sense that their emphasis on feelings and subjectivity that's another hallmark of romanticism is that this, um, the precursors to existentialism that the premise of feelings and subjectivity, and if not the exaltation of irrationalism certainly the, the, the extent to which irrationalism is not something that is, um, unlike the enlightenment is not something that is to be as chewed, but is to be celebrated. Uh, I mean, these are all features of romanticism, but one thing that you get from reading a ton of stuff on the romantic that, um, there's no sense of modernity among any other romantic writers. So it's a very hard term to have a kind of, um, precise definition because the romantic writers themselves varied so much in their sensibilities. Um, and so the, the chief constitutive or chief fundamental characteristics boiled down to something like, you know, a celebration of nature, uh, feeling the primacy of feelings and subjectivity and emotions.
Speaker 1 00:49:16 Uh, but very few romantics you find are going to celebrate the primacy of reason, um, over something like, like feelings. Um, so I mean, there are elements of RO maxism I think, in, in ran work, but it, it just doesn't, I don't think, I don't see how it maps on. So tightly to, um, I mean, the element of didacticism that you find in at shrug is just not something that you would find, even in, aside from Victor Hugo's long historical S essay that ran herself complained about, and that I can't get through, um, in limits are up. Um, I wouldn't classify Victor Hugo as a didactic novelist. You know, you just don't find that in romantics at all, like this kind of didacticism, um, even hard times, which is a pretty hard-hitting social novel by Dickens. Um, his, so his quote unquote social novels where he's depicting the P of the poor.
Speaker 1 00:50:14 They're not very didactic. I mean, you feel sorry for these poor people, but it doesn't come from like speeches about haranging people that the working class are being screwed over. Um, so, so I, I, I, I, I, I wanna maintain that there's a term, I don't wanna call it egoic realism, but there's a term ran really was a revolutionary. There's no novel, like all shrug, right. And there's, no, I don't think any novel, like that has been written since I, and I don't think there's a reason why, I mean, she got away with it. I don't think a accurate term has been coined to describe Atlas shrug. I think we can see the fountain head as a traditional novel.
Speaker 1 00:51:02 Um, but I don't know that Atlas shrug and I think it's a positive of imagination on the part of readers, why Atlas shrug gets discredited because people can't read it sympathetically and realize that Iran was doing something revolutionary, brand new. Um, I think most of us as readers of traditional novels map on those sensibilities to Atlas shrugged, and don't give, ran a charitable ear. And I, I I'd like to see a term that's coined. I don't know that it's, you know, um, I don't know that it's even necessary, but it's with an awareness that it's not this, it's not that it's not this, um,
Speaker 0 00:51:46 Yeah. Well, you bring up some really good points about how, you know, even within tens of romanticism, it's not hard and fast. And the people at the beginning of the movement are gonna be different than the people at the end of the movement. And obviously if she came much later, that's gonna be even, you know, a bigger gap
Speaker 1 00:52:05 Mm-hmm
Speaker 0 00:52:05 <affirmative>. Um, I think that happens with, um, things like the enlightenment as well, where, uh, you know, we saw Preger you, for example, say that the enlightenment was bad and kind of the beginning of socialism be, and they're pointing out guys like Russo and KT mm-hmm <affirmative>, which, you know, they're not really our enlightenment guys and, and they, you can argue not really, even should be part of the enlightenment, but I think that same thing that, that in romanticism, you know, and, um, happens in, on intellectual movements as well.
Speaker 1 00:52:42 Right. Right, exactly. Yeah. So maybe ran would be like a third, a third phase romantic. Um, I mean, there's a way in which there's a second wave of romantics, like, um, like words worth was considered a sort of second wave romantic maybe ran, could, could be seen as a sort of second, a third wave, um, romantic. I don't know. It's possible. Yeah. Yeah.
Speaker 3 00:53:11 Jason, can I jump in once again, ran herself had a definition of Romanism as based on the idea of man's volition and the pursuit of values and that in, in the artistic form, especially at least in a novel, it would be a, uh, the plot was governed by a clash of values, um, among people pursuing different ones. Uh, did, maybe you're gonna mention this in part two of your, um, presentation, if so we can get to it then, but I just wondered if you would, uh, had any thoughts on that since you hadn't met.
Speaker 1 00:53:52 Right. Right. I was gonna, yeah, I was gonna more talk about how brand was working with a new version of romanticism that, um, seemed, seemed conceptually to be a radical departure from the traditional 18th century, um, notion. And whether there it's a radical departure, but whether there was any conceptual linkage that would make us, would make her version seem to be like a cousin, a distant, even like a distant cousin to the 18th century notion, or if, um, you know, it was just really something that was completely different and had no, no relationship to romanticism at all. Um, I tend to think that if we look at, um, the primacy of the individual, which is a feature of all forms of romanticism, that is the elevation of the individual and sort of ignore the, the, the notions of subjectivity and feelings that there's a way to make sense of, of Rand.
Speaker 1 00:55:05 Um, I'm gonna be as charitable to Rand as possible as a philosopher. I think that's what we do as philosophers. We give us charitable reading, um, and say that, um, there's a way that we would have to reconfigure third wave romanticism, um, as drastically as possible. And that's why she would classify people like Mickey spilling as a, as a romantic writer, um, which some people would just laugh at as being ridiculous. So I'll probably get into that. Yes, I will get into that in the, the second part of the talk, that'll be more dealing with rans, reconfiguration of romanticism while not making it a neologism, right. It's not just going off and redefining concepts and not having any kind of awareness of how the tradition actually emerged, but that the, where the accent falls on her definition has more to do with the individual and, and the, the clash. And you see that in Victor Hugo's novels, right. Where it's the clash between the, the individual and the norms of society and so on and so forth. Um, so yeah, thanks, David. That's something that I'll, I'll deal with in part two. Um,
Speaker 3 00:56:22 Okay, great. I'll look forward to it. Thanks, Jason.
Speaker 1 00:56:25 Mm-hmm <affirmative>
Speaker 0 00:56:28 Yeah, I think, uh, a lot of what you're saying is fair. I, I think just from a practical, uh, perspective, you know, we can say that it's not really a, a proper novel in, in the sense of the classical definition, but in terms of a vehicle that helped her and her ideas get noticed, and maybe the nature of the novel has changed, and that's not, as, you know, it can't be done again like that, but, um, you know, I, I just, I think that ultimately there at the time, at least in that context for how, you know, novels were widely read, it was a good, um, strategy.
Speaker 1 00:57:11 Yeah, I think so. And, um, I, I think had Rand's ideas not been so radical, it would've come across as kit or as campy, or, um, and there are, of course her detractors who are just a bunch of mean spirited son of a bitch, sons of bitches as Rand would call them who, who just wanna dismiss Rand. Right. And just say that, you know, everything is derivative. And I, I, I mean, look, I, David and I have PhDs in philosophy, we've read the history of philosophy. We know that Rand was very original and, and, and had something very unique to say, having read the history of philosophy, um, uh, had she not been as original and unique in much of what she said, then it would've just been like schlock Theto really, um, and ATLA, shrug is not schlock Theto, it's not kit it's it's, it's, it's, there's something. I mean, anybody who reads those speeches, you're just, you're left with an appreciation of the profound insight this woman had in psychology in, in so many spheres of, of thought. Uh, and I think ultimately that's why it, that is why it worked, which is why the kids who are appreciative of her philosophy, I think good philosophy, bad novel, cuz they're working, were working with, uh, uh, um, you know, a conventional notion of, of what a novel is. Um, so yeah,
Speaker 0 00:58:43 Well this is, uh, great. I'm glad you did this. It, uh, I think it is a little controversial, but it is, uh, good to talk about and uh, explore these issues. I'm looking forward to part two. Um, we wanna thank everyone for joining us, uh, especially professor hill and uh, next week we're gonna be back on a clubhouse, uh, Tuesday and Thursday. I believe I'll double check that, but, uh, you, um, we're gonna try to, um, do more on, uh, clubhouse and, uh, you know, if you're in Vegas this week, uh, or this weekend, uh, we're at, at freedom Fest, JAG is out here too. Uh, we'd love you to come up to the booth. We got some sch swag and uh, but, um, just in the meantime again, uh, professor hill, thank you for doing this topic. Thank you to everyone who joined us and we will see you well again, next time.
