Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Is, uh, going to be, um, TAs, senior scholar, professor Jason Hill, concluding his discussion about allegory propaganda. And didacticism in the novels of vine Rand. Um, I'd like to ask everyone to please share the room and please raise your hand if you want join the conversation. Uh, Jason, thanks again for doing this topic. And yes, let's start with a recap of what we talked about last week.
Speaker 1 00:00:27 Right? So last week we, I really sort of focus, uh, definition on romanticism as really Rand characterizes it in the romantic manifesto as a 19th century movement, but it really is going by the proper definition from the various works. Uh, myriad works on romanticism, uh, a 19th, an 18th century, uh, literary movement that started. And so last week we, I talked about the, the basic fundamental characteristics of romanticism as it emerged in the 18th century. Um, among some of its, its its major players like, um, Wordsworth, um, uh, Byron, um, Shelly, um, um, John Murray, um, there, um, uh, um, various, I don't have all of my notes before me, but various romantics who, uh, were exemplars of the theme. And we went over various five characteristics of romanticism. That is an interest in the common man and childhood right. Was very interesting. It's one of the key features of romanticism and interest in the common mad in childhood strong senses, the prioritization of emotions and feelings over reason, um, and awe of nature and in the sublime, which is for the romantics rooted inside of nature, a celebration of the individual and the importance of imagination.
Speaker 1 00:02:12 So it was an 18th century movement in arts and literature that emphasizes emphasized nature imagination, uh, quite often irrational irrationalism irrationality, um, very much so subjective subjectivism and emotions and the romantics. I said, uh, emphasized healing power of the imagination, believing that it could, um, enable people to transcend their troubles and their circumstances and that their creative talents could illuminate and transform the world into a coherent vision to, to regenerate mankind spiritually. Um, I talked about one form of romanticism, which is called an exemp, which is Latin, for example. And I talked about the fountain head being an example of probably that kind of romanticism that is Anem is a story used to illustrate an ethical point. Um, and, um, so basically just to highlight again, um, some other features of romanticism that I've talked about last week, um, that it is, uh, it's no, it's, it's among other things, a movement that also, um, placed the predominance of imagine and formal rules classicism over the sense of fact or the actual that is real realism.
Speaker 1 00:03:56 Um, so, um, it's a form of literature, art, you can say aesthetics that surprisingly or not. So surprisingly when you read the romantics valorizes, the intuitive over the logical right, intuitive, imaginative perceptions that tend to speak on noble truth and that are fact logic or the here and no. So having done a lot of research and gone through all my papers that I wrote as an undergraduate majoring in literature, and also more importantly, the courses on, uh, the Roman on the romantic novel that I've taught in, um, my comparative literature classes at DePaul. Um, my understanding was that Rand's works are not features of romanticism there's something else that Rand was creating a new theory of art and what she was calling romanticism seemed to have had no sort of historical continuity between the concepts that she developed and the panoply of 18th century and 19th century conceptions of romanticism that we find in the literature.
Speaker 1 00:05:21 So sort of what I'd like to do today is to go through, um, and look at what Rand actually has to say about romanticism. And we'll see that there's a stark contrast between the attributes, the fundamental characteristics, which she attributes to romanticism and how starkly different they are from the 18th century. I think she's absolutely wrong. Romanticism did not begin in the 19th century. The literature that I talked about last week was all about 18th century romanticism. Um, but I, I want to defend, let me just say from the outset that Rand's theory of art, I find to be enormously brilliant and insightful. I just don't think it's romanticism, right? I just say that from the out outset. So excuse me, Rand says that art is a product of a, of a man's subconscious integrations, um, on page 93 of the romantic manifest of a sense of life, to a large extent, to a larger extent than of his conscious philosophical convictions.
Speaker 1 00:06:30 Since artists, she says like any other men seldom translate their sense of life into conscious terms. All right. And then she further goes on to say that when people read romanticism, what they find on page 94 is a plot structure. And the plot structure is ly implicit premise of volition and therefore of moral values. The same reason, the same reaction for the same subconscious reason is evoked by such elements as heroes or happy endings or the triumph of virtue or individual arts beauty. Right? So I want to say that a plot structure is not unique to romanticism that we find it even in naturalistic art, um, and that volition as a premise in art, uh, is not, uh, necessarily something that leads to the suggestion of moral values in art that VO volition as such is an indicator of how human beings, uh, choose to act or it's, it's a descriptive, it's a descriptor.
Speaker 1 00:07:48 It says nothing about the type of values that people will, will choose to, will choose to elect or the manner in which they will choose to elect those values. So I think if we look at the propagandistic art of Soviet realism or Russian realism or Nazi Germany, we, we can see that there are people who are acting of their own volition. This is disputable, but I think that there are cases where one could say that people are acting of their own volition in art, but did they choose moral values consonant with man's nature as a rational being, I would say no, that those, um, ultimately collectivistic values that they chose, um, um, were eventually destructive, uh, of man's nature and inimical to, to, to man's nature as a, as a human being. So a plot structure, uh, in a story, I think a is neither the creation or the exclusive province of romanticism.
Speaker 1 00:08:52 We find it in medieval plays. We find it in Shakespeare's, um, medieval dramas, I should say we find it in Greek tragedies, although in her lecture on the aesthetic vacuum of our age, Rand has an extensive, uh, disagreement with plot being existent in, uh, the Greek tragedies, which would be a conversation front of the time. I, I find myself disagreeing with her there, but, uh, a plot structure also, solicitor does not commit me to value oriented sense of life at all. Any, any novel can have a serial killer as its protagonist and the novel commits itself to a brilliant plot structure, but it is soused with a malevolent sense of life, right? The protagonist and the let's call him the DENIN of his world, do not at all pursue a value oriented sense of life. Uh, so to then say it's proof it's romantic, it's not romanticism.
Speaker 1 00:09:55 What sort of, I think begged the question. Now, if we go back to this idea that Rand holes as a, an attribute of romanticism, that art is a product of man's subconscious, um, interrogations, or in, or integrations of his sense of life to a larger extent than those of his conscious philosophical convictions. I mean, I would probably say that, and I'm gonna call this exhibit a that in response to that, we may say that neither ATLA shrugged nor the fountain had are those types of novels, right? That is where that they're subconscious, um, displays of a sense of life rather than the conscious philosophical convictions of the protagonist, because the speeches, the talks are not subconsciously held values, but consciously worked out explicitly worked out philosoph principles that for example, in the fountain head show and prove the incontrovertible value of individualism, the evil of collectivism and the averages of altruism on the human soul and ATLA shrug even more.
Speaker 1 00:11:16 So, which is a novel that is, I think, uh, can canonization of capitalism is a political, moral epistological ethical novel, even as a theory of sex. It's the most didactic novel in the history of novels, because it is arguably probably the first novel, um, to use it is the first time in which a novel was so explicitly used to convey as a vehicle, a new philosophical system. Um, and it offers human beings probably first and the first, first and foremost, a method of cognition. So the teachable moments, and there are many, um, in office sort of stamped within premature or insignia in the form of a statement. I am going to teach you something, whether it's, I'm going to teach you the meaning of money, the meaning of sex, the meaning of art, the nature of government, the application of law in a free society, the proper application of law, even how bad epistemology and faulty metaphysics lead, not just to train recs, but to sexual impotence.
Speaker 1 00:12:30 So I think if we just put in parentheses for a moment, ran insistence that art is not didactic. Hers was, as I said, last week, few people get aesthetic pleasure from in the ordinary meaning sense of, of aesthetic pleasure from listening to endless, although brilliant discourse on human psychology, economics, epistemology, metaphysics, et cetera. Um, any more than one would from watching a brilliant professor, um, with wisdom and Techna and knowledge, uh, poly one with a poly mind, give a lecture on any subject matter, um, as displayed in ATLA sh rug. So I don't think that one contemplates such a figure as an end in himself anymore. One would Dagney Rourke Hugh acts on gold or rear or two, he reverse, right. We, we sort of learn something from them. I don't know that one gets aesthetic pleasure from contemplating, um, the conversation between, um, um, let's say of Rourke and, um, and, um, what am I drawing a blank here?
Speaker 1 00:13:51 Um, Roy, why not? <laugh> thank you. Why not? On the, on the, that, those lovely conversations on the yacht. So a book that is a canonization of capitalism, where the philosophy core philosophy, in some sense, supersedes the actual storyline may contain elements of romanticism, as I said last week, but it is not emblematic or Def a definition example of romanticism. And I went through those five features of romanticism. So Rand seems to break entirely with the 18th century notion, um, and her definition, which she admits is, um, is new as little historical or literary continuing to between the definition she offers and those advanced by the 18th, 19th, and 20th century theorists of romanticism. So she seems to be creating a sort of a Neo logistic, although proper one, because she does give a really, really thorough of what she means.
Speaker 1 00:14:54 And I'll get to this later by what she means by an ideal man could never have been produced under romanticism because of altruism. Um, in her new formulation of romanticism, she says the definition of, of romanticism given here is mine. It is not a generally known or accepted one. And she says, there's generally no accepted definition of romanticism nor any key element in art nor of art itself. I, I just, I think this is just, this is, um, both empirically false and philosophical and tenable. And unfortunately, one of the tens of I say this quite respectfully of, of course, as somebody who is a, uh, a great admirer and appreciate, appreciate of her work, but one of the tens of ran to make very sweeping generalizations as she often did in philosophy, which overlooks the traditions and genres within 18th and 19th century notions and conceptions of romanticism that we looked at last week.
Speaker 1 00:15:55 So I think one is free to sort of formulate a very new theory of art, which I think she did in what is romanticism, but what one cannot with total disregard for its analytic and conceptual Aedence simply substitute them, um, with a new definition of one's own and call it romanticism. So I think a, a scholarly and respectful definition would reconstruct the vague manner in which one might think romanticism was built and defined and sort of build on it. But here, Rand, I think implies that before her definition in the manifesto, romanticism was a non concept or an anti concept or a nonsensical concept or an incomplete concept would be the most charitable interpretation. And I think such disregard for the historical minutia, which when codified gave 18th and 19th century romanticism, some definitional status is a little bit, um, hubris sticker a little bit, just a little bit.
Speaker 1 00:17:01 So the definition of romanticism most emphatically did not start with her delineation in the 1960s when she first published it in her volume, four of the January to December, 1965 edition of the objective is newsletter. And I think Rand tries to EV Eva, the didacticism that must inhale in her version of romanticism by insisting that the most distinctive characteristic of romanticism is a product of subconscious premises, right? This is the case of almost all fiction writing, including the novels of even someone like Steven King, which she, she talks about the horror genre and the romantic manifesto, but what kind of subconscious premises, right? They have to be the kind that she says on 1 0 2 that they project a benevolent childlike sense of life. One that glorifies man there's no, there's nothing in the history of romanticism that says the romantic protagonist, um, must present a childlike, benevolent sense of life.
Speaker 1 00:18:06 That glorifies man that's ran, uh, amazing sense of life being translated here into a definition of romanticism, which is actually quite alien to 18th century romanticism, I think. Um, alright, so, so subconscious premises, I think are necessary conditions, but they're not sufficient conditions for romanticism. And once we enter the realm of a presentation of virtues, um, embodied virtues, we enter a world of cognition of a particular application of reason to the problems of reality of abstracting from the myriad traits, man possesses, um, and the one, a romantic writer considers metaphysical important, right? So for her romanticism essential characteristics is the projection of values of moral values. The flaw that runs through the history of romanticism literature, she thinks is its failure to present a convincing image of a virtuous man. She thinks is not possible because altruism has made this possible. No, this might be true.
Speaker 1 00:19:24 And I think this is probably, this is the case that a convincing image of a virtuous man has not been made possible. And I probably would dare to say before Rand's work, because she explicitly showed how altruism interfered with man's self-esteem and his ability to perform efficaciously throughout life. But I don't think this is a problem of romanticism simplicity. Okay. Wrapping up. Um, I want to say that prior to the 19th century, um, she says literature presented man, as a helpless being whose life in action were determined by forces beyond his control either by F and the gods. And I think that this is just another kind of sweeping generalization that has to be respectfully contested that when we look at someone like I just finished reading Antigony last week, just for sure the sheer pleasure of it, cuz it's one of my favorite plays, um, that Antia of course, for me personally, um, emerges as one of the great heroines in world literature, um, on par with, I would even say Kira, um, um, whose fit was no more bound by the gods or any forces beyond her control any more than Kira.
Speaker 1 00:20:49 Speaking of Antigony any more than Kira's fate was bound by the collectivist estate. She had an, an indomitable spirit that is Antigony of, she was a volitional creature who acted according to her convictions and, um, the theme of the plays all about pride and moral integrity. And I think by rands own standards, um, we could see anti as a sort of 4runner to, um, to romanticism. So I believe that the discussion and the missile of romanticism prior to its alluded best expression that is ATLA shroud comes across sometimes as a straw man to reduce 19th century manism to an ill form concept in order to establish Rand's work as a sort of new and proper iteration of the concept. So I believe in the spirit of, of, of scholarly and open objectiveism much needs to be rethought about Rand's, um, a historical reworking of romanticism, a reworked endeavor that places rans over as the singular example, example exemplar of the genre itself. So I'll just say that Atlas shocked and the fountain had both have characteristics of romanticism, the primacy of the individual, um, the primacy of imagination, but properly speaking the way that Rand has defined romanticism, um, conceptually, which seems to have very little connection with its historical antied in the 18th century, uh, one would be hard pressed to place, um, identify the novels as, um, constitutive, uh, examples of romanticism. Now I'll just end there.
Speaker 0 00:22:43 Okay. Well, uh, great. We wanna encourage everyone to share the room and raise your hand if you wanna be part of this, uh, our TAs founder, David Kelly is here. I will defer to you for the first question.
Speaker 2 00:23:00 Uh, thanks. <laugh> thanks, Scott. Um, I'm, I'm sort of the honorary first, uh, first questioner, uh, on these clubhouse calls and sometimes, you know, uh, the topic is up my, uh, right up my alley, uh, this case, no, I'm not a specialist in aesthetic, so I've just been mainly listening, but I do just two quick points. One is, um, we recently published, um, a book by Walter Donway collection of his essays called romanticism reborn. And, um, he has some essays in there that, um, you know, might be, um, you know, are called some of the same ground is what Jason's saying and raised some of the same questions. Uh, so I'll just mention that as, uh, something that people interested in comic may wanna read. The other thing, uh, more substantive is, um, Jason ran, did, um, comment extensively, uh, or significantly anyway on, uh, two 19th century novelists in particular dust Iki and Hugo Hugo was her hero in a way, uh, among others. You mentioned, uh, the Polish writer. I, I can't pronounce his name, but you know, the, uh, who, who wrote, uh, uh, yes, thank you. Um, but I wanted to ask you did
Speaker 2 00:24:37 That was an attempt on her part to connect her, her theory of art with, uh, actual examples of what she considered to be romantic novel. So the, my question would, would simply be, do you, do you think of you go in dust Iki to just take those two as romantic novelists and if so, um, you know, they were both 19th century and, um, any, any comments would be welcome on that. Thanks.
Speaker 1 00:25:09 Right. So I think, I think, I think what ran did was some the kind of, um, uh, quarterback, um, I think what she did was sort of look retrospectively at the works of just Aoki and Hugo, and she saw elements in their works, um, that she appreciated affinities that she shared. And that were also in some sense, not from a literary standpoint, um, an athema or counter to what the 18th century, how the 18th central romantics had described romanticism. That is the sort of the primacy of individual and, um, the primacy of imagination. And she talks about Hugo's in and dust is inexhaustible imagination. So, but I think it's sort of like an issue of cherry picking here because, um, it's taking two particular romantics, uh, one of whom, um, she liked because of his sense of life, which was Hugo. Um, she did not like Dusty's sense of life, but she liked is enormous capacity to present evil in such a way that, um, his psychological presentation of evil and yet, and, and, and concomitant, his condemnation of evil was unprecedented unparalleled in the history of novel writing.
Speaker 1 00:26:55 She thought, um, he was never able to project a moral hero or a good man in the way that Hugh attempted to, but his condemnation of evil, um, was so admirable that she placed him within the romantic genre. Um, I'm still a little bit, um, weary of, um, identifying the projection of, um, hero, heroic values or man, as a hero, as a constitutive feature of romanticism. I think it it's there in the 18th century conceptions when we look at, for like the BI hero, for example, but he's a quite tragic figure, fors reasons. Um, so the heroic figure never totally triumphs over the relevant forces against him. Um, so I think, should I answer your question? I, I, I wouldn't put them outside the realm of romanticism, but I just think it's very interesting that ran sort of selectively cherry pick two figures, um, who both stylistically and in terms one, in terms of sense of life, one in terms of, I mean, she mirrored dust Aoki in her condemnation of evil in terms of the villains of Atlas shrugged and in, and in the found head of course, Elsworth, TUI, um, to be reflective or indicative of what romanticism stood for, but ran was not being a scholar.
Speaker 1 00:28:42 She was not being an academic in the romantic manifesto. I think she was trying to sort of present a new theory of art. And so, uh, her job is, was not to present a scholarly investigation of 18th and 19th central romanticism, and then built on it. Um, this is one of the quarrels I've I've I've had with, I've heard AC academics, aestheticians have with ran, who've read that work and I've spoken to them about it. And they've said, well, you know, she ought to have really investigated the history of romanticism. What about people like Novas? You know, what about, you know, the other romantic, the romantic poets, they're, they're emblematic of the, of the genre, but that's not what she was doing. So, um, yeah, I think she, cherry picked two figures who, um, and then some contemporary figures like Mickey spilling, um, that I'm still trying to figure out how, what makes a, a crime writer, a romantic figure, because nothing, again, going back into the historical genre that says that, you know, um, a heroic, um, crime fight of navigating between the pristine registers of good and evil is a symbol of romanticism.
Speaker 1 00:29:59 There's nothing in my understanding of 18th central romanticism that says that, um, we more find this in beast epics or, um, medieval, medieval, medieval drama, medieval plays, which is, which are just mannequin and, um, uh, conceptions of binary, conceptions of life, good and evil, and one fighting on behalf of, of the other. But, uh, I don't see that as a considerative. I really don't see that as a considerative feature of romanticism. I don't see anything in the literature that suggests that, um, the way that she presents Mickey spill, that MPE that he's, uh, he's an emblematic figure of how the 18th and 19th century romantics, uh, configured romanticism.
Speaker 0 00:30:57 Yeah. I'm not sure of the timeline of when she started using romantic realism. Maybe that's part of why she qualified it later, or,
Speaker 1 00:31:06 Well, it wasn't in the sixties.
Speaker 0 00:31:08 Right. But I mean, in relation to when the romantic manifesto came out,
Speaker 1 00:31:13 The romantic manifesto came out in the seventies, but she started, she started writing about it in her newsletter. And the objective is newsletter in the mid 1960s. I mean, I have, I was dub, I have both volumes of, I have the volume of the newsletter of the volume of the objectives. And I was looking at when she first panned anything on, on aesthetics. And it was in, uh, I think volume four of the 19, January, 1965 volume. And then she, and then of course she turned as usual. She turned a lot of the articles that she wrote in the newsletter and the objectives into that subsequent became, you know, even introduction to objectives, to epistemology and what is capitalism and the romantic manifestor, but it was the mid sixties that she started writing, um, about this notion of romantic realism.
Speaker 0 00:32:02 Well, that I'm trying to differentiate romanticism from romantic realism and giving her maybe more license for why she was describing it in a way that isn't the historical definition.
Speaker 1 00:32:18 Right. Um, well, I think that the only thing that could be fixed with realism would, would be to appeal to her metaphysics, right. Something on the order of, um, it's not some sort of, um, it's certainly not naturalism, but it's not some sort of idealistic transcendental tale that priorit prioritizes, um, the primacy of consciousness over reality that whatever her fiction is about, it has to be based and be grown. It in reality as the right to perceives these metaphysical precepts in man in nature that he or she selectively recreates into a stylized work of art. So that's the only thing that I can think that could be derived from realism is that it has to be predicated on, um, existence units of perception that, that, that are to be gained, not from some sort of con you know, or Cartesian, uh, creation of reality that consciousness manufactures, but that we discover in reality through the perception, um, uh, through the use of our senses and that any idea of romanticism as being predicated on the primacy of consciousness over existence was to be complete or refuted. So maybe she was just simply protecting herself from any mistake or notion that one might associate romanticism with the premise of consciousness, uh, over existence. That is, you know, the creation that, that, that, that the mind creates reality, as opposed to the mind discovering something objective in reality, I don't know, David, what do you think that that's my sense
Speaker 0 00:34:24 That he may have stepped away for a moment or not be right there. Uh, okay. Yeah, but in the meantime, we'll go to John. Thank you for joining us today. John, are you able to unmute,
Speaker 4 00:34:42 I'm gonna have to check out and come back.
Speaker 0 00:34:45 Uh you're here. We can hear you.
Speaker 4 00:34:47 Oh, fine. All right. Thank you. Um, thank you again, Jason. Really excellent. Um, I was wondering two things. One, what do we know about her assignments as a script writer script? Rewriter her work in Hollywood and who she associated with in terms of the aesthetics and where her ideas might have come from there. And then secondly, um, I missed how you would characterize her aesthetics. What, what do you call her two great novels? What, what, what category do you put them in?
Speaker 1 00:35:28 Well, thank you, John. You know, that's what I was struggling with last week when I said that, um, they're when we look at, when we, and I, I could not have given authority scholarly reconstruction of romanticism last week, but when we looked at some of the, the fundamental characteristics of romanticism and, and, and there were five of them that we looked at, you know, especially this, this valorization and this, um, of, of, of childhood and, um, and of the primacy of intuition and, and, and, uh, feelings over over reason. Um, um, which clearly is not, are not, um, values prized by Rand at all, or glorified in her work. I was trying to find, um, you know, a, a moniker that would best describe her work. And I, I think it, I mean, I guess I'm satisfied with the idea that she wrote highly, um, didactic, philosophical, thrillers are, are highly didactic, philosophical novels.
Speaker 1 00:36:47 Uh, the didacticism is there, um, didacticism is not a feature of romanticism, not withstanding Victor who goes, um, I just skip, I think, rans, right? I just skip over those long, let, uh, um, essays on history. Uh, but those aren't didactic, those are more informative. There's nothing that I don't find there's anything didactic in Victor Hugo's work. Um, but didacticism is not a feature of romanticism. So I would, I, I, I feel comfortable describing Rand as a philosophical fiction writer, right. Cuz that's really, really what she is. She's in both her major novels, she's presenting a philosoph system in fictionalized form. So I think of her as I'm unprecedented in that, in that way, there, there have been writers who have attempted Jean Paul SART comes to mind. And I, I do appreciate SAR as a philosopher, not as a, and I like his players, but not his novels.
Speaker 1 00:37:48 Um, I think he's felt miserable to try to fictionalize his philosophy in ways that Rand has succeeded. So I, I mean, there have been writers who have tried to do it. So I, I would, I would just, I feel, I feel more comfortable casting her less as a romantic novelist and more as a philosophical, um, a philosophical, a philosophical novelist. Um, that's how I, when I teach the novel, when I teach a course called, when I teach two text types of different courses, literature, one is the Victoria novel and one is the Vic and one is the philosophical novel. And I always include her Atlas shrugged, uh, in the, in the fountain head in the philosophical novel course that I teach, because that's what it is. She's a philosophical novelist. I mean, that's the best term I can think of using she's a philosophical, that's not even doing justice to her work, but that's what she is. She's a philosophical. No, I think she's a philosophical novelist.
Speaker 2 00:38:53 Good. Uh, Jessie, can I jump, this is David. Could I just jump in for a second in that course on the philosophical novel, what other, uh, works do you read that you would consider to be philosophical novels?
Speaker 1 00:39:04 Well, I do parts of, I cannot do all of Vita Hugo, um, because there are philosophical themes that are, um, there, but I do a lot of the existential works. I do a lot of Kimu, um, the plague, the stranger. Um, although I don't particularly like the novel. I think if you're going to teach a philoso <laugh> course on the philosophical novel, you have to teach nausea. Uh, which makes me nauseous actually actually makes me nauseous, but, uh, so I teach nausea. Um, I teach all of K's plays, uh, the four, the five let's see the misunderstanding Caligula. Um, he, he, all the plays that he wrote, I teach, I, I, I just include the plays as part of the novels. Um, strangely I, I, I think, um, <affirmative>, I teach some of, I, I include hard times, um, because I do think it's a philosophical novel, I'll be in a very, very, um, disguised way.
Speaker 1 00:40:14 And, um, and I also, and I also teach the heart of darkness in that, in that course. Um, uh, because I think it's a, I think it's a quasi philosophical discourse on, um, on, on, on several. Let me just say several things I won't get in, cuz that's gonna lead to a whole different conversation, but I do think it's a sort of, it's a, I find it to be a very philosophical novel, um, on the nature of identity, on the nature of, um, the self, um, on many, many things it's, it's like I find it quite philosophical. One
Speaker 4 00:40:51 I would want to see in that course would be huckleberry Finn.
Speaker 1 00:40:58 Yeah. I've never taught, I've never talked. I've never taught that novel. No, no.
Speaker 5 00:41:05 Jason wondering, um, if you've spent any time on Iran's early fiction, uh, I find it some of the most interesting and enjoyable to read, uh, not necessarily from a, it's not didactic, um, you know, except perhaps, uh, red pond to an extent, but, um, but it's just these fun stories, short stories, um, some fun actually, uh, the husband I bought quite quite tragic, but, uh, but it just a little bit more of, of a window into her as a developing novelist and a developing literary artist as opposed to a developing philosopher.
Speaker 1 00:41:59 Well, that's, that's interesting because I actually do teach red. I forgot to mention, I teach red paw as a short story. Um, but I, I, I like the early iron Rand and I read it, uh, just for my own pleasure. I mean, I read, I like, I think Madonna had actually, can you believe this of all persons, Madonna had option has, has bought good copy <laugh> um, so yeah, I think Madonna option good copy years ago. Um, and, um, which other one do I like? I like the escort. I think that's a very kind of naughty, naughty play, naughty story. Um, and I like, I like the plays I love, I, I actually had a reading held a reading group years ago on think twice and ideal. Um, so I, I like her short stories a lot because, um, they're just, I mean, I guess I, I haven't read that much of Henry to be honest with you.
Speaker 1 00:43:01 Um, but I guess they're like in the spirit of how she describes, oh, Henry who's her one of her literary heroes. Um, I, I, I do, I do like the short stories. I've never, I don't use them in class because they're, they're not philosophical and they're more, you know, sense of live stories, but I, but I do include red paw, um, because it's very accessible and it's very short and the students love it. Um, more than they actually more than they actually like aspects of, um, they don't let me assigning John gold speech at all. Um, but they actually like the speech. They actually like the speech at the end. They, they appreciate it. They just, don't like to be forced to read 60 pages of, um, someone talking. Um,
Speaker 5 00:43:51 Well, if they like red pond, then they'll love red pond, the graphic novel and the animated series.
Speaker 1 00:43:58 Yeah, they should, they should. Yeah.
Speaker 0 00:44:04 Very nice. Um, I just wanted to go back to something from, uh, last week's discussion. Um, you and David were talking about in Atlas shrugged. It was, uh, almost what could be seen as, uh, bit malicious by Rand with, uh, you know, the, um, the people that were responsible and their moral degree of responsibility in each car of the train. And I, I wanted to just offer another interpretation that she's trying to show people that becoming tools of a, a corrupt establishment, you know, can't protect you from the facts of reality, like putting a cold train through through tunnels.
Speaker 1 00:44:50 Um, yeah, but there's a glee, there's a sense of glee with which they're off. They're just, they're shanked, uh, to use a colloquial term, which I rarely use, but they're, they're just killed off with this kind of, um, there's a, uh, there's a, the sense that there's moral culpability between them and, um, the individuals who are responsible for the actual damage that's being done. And again, I always go back Scott to this very, very, very important. And I, you know, it's, it's, it's double lined in my journal where Rand says, you know, one can really one should rarely if ever judge people by what they say or even what, by what they say, one judges, a person by what he or she does because people often say things, um, and later change their mind on what they say. And I thought I was very, very benevolent and I thought was very, very, um, insightful of her.
Speaker 1 00:46:04 And one could say the same thing about beliefs in the sense that you don't kill people off because of the beliefs, all of these people held beliefs. There was nothing to suggest that they had ever translated their beliefs into any kind of ominous action. The sociology professor, the mother of two children, um, you know, the, um, the woman in room at car eight who believed that as a consumer, she had a right to transportation, whether the railroad wished to provide it or not, she's killed off the businessman who acquired this business on, um, from a government loan under the equalization of opportunity, bill, um, a again, there's, there's, there's the degree of culpability. There's nothing to suggest that the belief tied them with some kind of action that translated into the inflection of harm turn onto people. So, you know, I,
Speaker 0 00:47:08 I, and I'm saying that it's not even that she's necessarily saying they deserved it, but are symbolic of the types of, of people that allow this type of, you know, dystopian world to, to come about.
Speaker 1 00:47:24 Yeah, yeah, yeah. I see what you're saying. I see what you're saying. Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 0 00:47:30 That's fair. Um, well, so that, you know, um, I mean, this is one of the benefits of the open approach, but, uh, you know, you can, we can speak our minds and I'm just curious how much of this involves kind of a reassessment of Rand, uh, you know, kind of taking into account what some of these, uh, academics have been saying about how she misused romanticism?
Speaker 1 00:47:59 Well, I don't really take academics seriously on Rand for the simple reason that very few of them read her seriously and read her charitably. Um, this just, this comes from my having taught in the comparative literature department for nine years, along with teaching the philosophy department and having taught a lot of romantic thinkers and, and also reading a lot of theory on romanticism and also having the, my first introduction to iron Rand was not the fountain head or Atlas show. It was really well, it was, but the first book of hers that I actually did read, cuz I did not like the fountain head at first, I grew to like it. The second time I started it was the romantic manifesto. So I have a great appreciation for what ran has accomplished in the romantic manifesto. What she says about that essay on art and cognition is truly, truly a brilliant, a brilliant essay.
Speaker 1 00:48:52 It's probably the most brilliant essay in the book, um, and, uh, art and sense of life. It's just, it's just beautiful. It's just clear. There's a lucidity of thought that's there that is unprecedented in other theories of art that I've seen, but then the scholar in me, you know, wants to say that look, um, you can't just with these in the, you know, sort of sweeping the generalized way dismiss, like ran makes these statements. Like there has been no theory of romanticism before she decided to give her definition, which is just empirically, not the case. Um, and that there are no theories of art. I mean, what about people who were Mary McCarthy wrote amazing diet? I mean, although there were Marxist Diane and Lionel trilling wrote Toms about theories of art and one doesn't have to agree with them, but they have theories of art.
Speaker 1 00:49:52 There were Dorothy Parker wrote on art. There are lots of people when, while Rand was still learning to speak English who wrote tons of stuff on art and romanticism. And, um, and so the scholar of me just UN unpersuaded by academics, wanted to sort of rethink how to have these books be ensconced, whether they're romantic works of literature or the, whether we should call them something else because they call them romanticism. They really have to have some sort of historical continuity with a tradition. Um, you don't call yourself an Aristotelian. Um, if you believe in the theory of the forms, um, you know, or if you don't call yourself a rationalist, um, if you adhere to the theory of, of, of, um, of Burke. So that that's where I'm actually coming from.
Speaker 0 00:50:51 That's fair. That's part of objectivity is even being willing, you know, to call out, uh, Rand where she's not right. It helps us, uh, defend the essentials more. I think, um, there, uh, John, go ahead. If you want to get in here,
Speaker 4 00:51:06 There, there's a hole here. There's a Launa academically I suspect on J you actually do during
Speaker 4 00:51:17 Those men, th that industry was spectacularly successful financially. And in terms of reaching hundreds of millions of people, there's something to that art that she must have learned where she was part of the machine, she was in the middle of it and was invited there by the tops of those companies. I mean, there was I that that's, that's an area where the scholarship needs to be, perhaps it's impossible. And then it was written down and nobody knows what she worked on and what her product was, and it's all lost to that. But, um, that's something I don't think we can leave that out. She had a sense of, of art that was, uh, certainly influence by the commercial success of Hollywood.
Speaker 1 00:52:11 Mm.
Speaker 5 00:52:13 Yeah. I mean, I, I think she was influenced it, influenced by it before she even came to the United States, because as we learn in her biographies, when, uh, she was behind the iron curtain, she would watch propaganda films made by the Soviet regime in which they, uh, would take snippets of various American films. And of course turn the, um, heroes into villains and, and vice versa. Um, but she could even just see in watching the film, watching the actual, um, you know, footage, that there was a world out there where people wore beautiful things, where people drove beautiful cars, uh, where cities were well illuminated and, and, uh, bustling. So, um, so there was that influence. And then of course, uh, when she came to the United States and, um, moved in for several months with, uh, relatives in Chicago, uh, they owned a, a few movie theaters and, and she would go with her notebook and watch all of the movies and grade them all, um, in terms of what, uh, you know, what she thought of their plot and their characterization, uh, and give them all scores. Um, and then of course there was also the, the influence of the, the early black and whites, um, in, in the, the love triangles that you find in, uh, some of those early films and, uh, seeing that continued through through many of, of iron Rand's storylines.
Speaker 1 00:53:58 I think, uh, John, if you wanna get a good, um, it's been years since I've read this book, but it's called iron ran the Russian radical by Chris Matthew Skiba, and he, among other things, he talks about the influence that, um, the influences that Rand must have, um, must have that must have impressed themselves on Rand during the 1920s. Um, he talked about for runners that ATLA shrugged, uh, there was a particular novel or a particular movie silent movie in which, um, um, men of the might actually did go on strike in some sense, not to the scale that ran developed it. Um, but that as a movie goer, and to the extent that she actually might have read any of the pulp fiction of the, of the era is, might have affected her sensibilities. Uh, it's been a long time since I read the book. And, um, actually when I was in graduate school almost 30 years ago, um, but that's, that's an interesting book that talks about not just the aesthetic influences on ran, but also the intellectual inference is going back to Russia
Speaker 4 00:55:08 And going to the emblematic romanticism and the didactic romanticism, if you will, what a contrast between as Jennifer referenced watching the, um, overdubs of American movies in the Soviet union versus the, the real product in Hollywood. I mean, it it's, uh, and, and learning the difference between that hard, I imagine Soviet did didacticism versus, um, uh, if you will, a true romanticism in, in the Hollywood product. And then OB, obviously in Hollywood, there's always been didacticism emblem, certainly in many movies. And, um, uh, that's what she was aspiring to, uh, was to make great movies from her novels. And, uh, um, I'll leave it there,
Speaker 2 00:56:20 John, if I could just jump in for a second and forgive me, Jason. Yeah. Um, but, um, it's, um, Ann Heller's book, I Rand in the world she made is a detailed biography. And, um, I can't, it's been a while, but I, she I'm sure goes into all the Hollywood, uh, background, but one thing, uh, so I recommend that book, Ann Heller, uh, I'm Rand and the world she made, uh, if you haven't seen it. But the other thing is that many people have, have observed that even in, in ATLA shrug, which has obviously more philosophical, uh, presentations than other novels, her other novels, um, there, it's easy to see that she was a screenwriter. There are many, there are many scenes in the movie, um, where you just, it was written as if this is intended to be filmed. Uh, the one example I remember is, uh, when we first meet Dagney Taggart on the train in chapter one part, one chapter one, the description starts with her leg <laugh> and move moves up to her full figure.
Speaker 2 00:57:43 Um, as she's sitting in, in a Taggart has gotten out train, uh, we had a talk once, I think it was by, uh, maybe Mimi Gladstein on that score. And in that respect, uh, I, or related to it, I, I just wanna push back a little bit on Jason, um, about Atlas rug as that tech novel. I agree with what you're saying about, you know, it has philosophical speeches that are intended to inform the audience and inform the reader, not just to, uh, cap a sense of life, but Atlas shrug is an amazingly well constructed, novel. As far I can see that, you know, it is suspenseful. Um, it is a page Turner, the plot. And I, I I've spent a lot of time on this when I was helping with the movie, uh, adaptations. There's so many things that are just clever rep, you know, unexpected twists and turns. Um, so her imagination was well at work, uh, on top of her philosophical points. I, I don't deny what Jason, what you're saying about the philosophical content at the explicit didactic didactic lessons. But, um, I do think it has, um, it's not, I I've read other libertarian oriented novels that are just, just frameworks for, um, making a philosophical point. Atlas is a really interesting story. Um, so I'll leave it there.
Speaker 0 00:59:31 Great. I don't know if you wanna comment quickly, Jason. Uh, we're at the, uh, bottom of the hour. Um, so we have a ton of stuff going on at the Atlas society. Uh, next week, um, Monday, uh, Steven Hicks, uh, will be joining our July book club on explaining postmodernism. We'll be back on clubhouse Tuesday, Thursday, Friday. Um, Richard Salzman will be back on Friday. Uh, even Wednesday, we have scholars asking scholars, uh, with, um, Jason Hill being interviewed, uh, by Richard Salzman. That should be a good one, uh, big week upcoming. Uh, you can find out all about it at Atlas society, um, dot org slash events. Um, thank you to professor hill and everyone who participated today. Hope you'll join us next week for some great content as well. Take care.
