R.I.P. Gore Vidal

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Sad news for the literary world today, as Gore Vidal passed away last night, losing his fight against pneumonia. He was 86.

I don't know much about him beyond his penchant for *****ing about near everything under the sun and not giving a **** what people thought or what the consequences were. Politics, religion, the dead; nothing was off-limits. I remember a certain quote from the sitcom Frasier, when Frasier is trying to decide whether to go on a celebrity cruise. When his assistant, Roz, tells him Gore Vidal has been on several, Frasier replies, "Gore Vidal? He hates everything!"

I haven't read any of his books, unfortunately. Any suggestions?

[tonywalt]

Damn, sorry to see him go. Although I did not always agree with him, he was one of the sharpest minds of his generation - last of a breed. His wit was so quick, even to the end.

“Washington, D.C.,” “Burr” (1973), “1876” (1976), “Lincoln” (1984) are my favourites. He had a gift for historical fiction.

[neilgee]

Mostly was aware of Vidal and Truman Capote's great rival (unfortunately had to study Capote's In Cold Blood as an A level text many years ago so read a Capote biog) but he was a much better writer than Capote as far as I'm concerned. Kali ,I think, was the name of the only book of his I read but perhaps I'm wrong as I can't verify it on the net, anyway it concerned a virus that killed off all humans and was the tale of the last 4 people on earth who survived. It was pretty damn good.

[dfloyd]

If you haven't read him, you might start with Burr. He had a sharp wit, but he usually came in second place when he tried to match wits with William F. Buckley.

[stlukesguild]

Damn! Great writer. Mutatis you MUST read Myra Breckenridge, if not Julian, Burr, Lincoln, Empire, Hollywood, and any number of his non-fiction works. I think you'd appreciate his take on the Bush Administration.

Vidal was certainly one of our greater wits:

Andy Warhol is the only genius I've ever known with an I.Q. of 60.

A narcissist is someone better looking than you are.

Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so.

Half of the American people have never read a newspaper. Half never voted for President. One hopes it is the same half.

I never miss a chance to have sex or appear on television.

It is not enough to succeed. Others must fail.

The four most beautiful words in our common language: I told you so.

The genius of our ruling class is that it has kept a majority of the people from ever questioning the inequity of a system where most people drudge along, paying heavy taxes for which they get nothing in return.

There is no human problem which could not be solved if people would simply do as I advise.

Today's public figures can no longer write their own speeches or books, and there is some evidence that they can't read them either.

How marvelous books are, crossing worlds and centuries, defeating ignorance and, finally, cruel time itself.

You can't really succeed with a novel anyway; they're too big. It's like city planning. You can't plan a perfect city because there's too much going on that you can't take into account. You can, however, write a perfect sentence now and then.

The American press exists for one purpose only, and that is to convince Americans that they are living in the greatest and most envied country in the history of the world. The Press tells the American people how awful every other country is and how wonderful the United States is and how evil communism is and how happy they should be to have freedom to buy seven different sorts of detergent.

I suspect that one of the reasons we create fiction is to make sex exciting.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Those are some great quotes, stlukes. I think I'll share them on FB.

[Kafka's Crow]

Those are some great quotes, stlukes. I think I'll share them on FB.

Some more here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19075751

[Charles Darnay]

Burr and/or Lincoln have been on my list for a while now. I may have to bump them up...or not. I have only read some of his essays and love his style and poignancy (even if I don't agree with everything)

I passed by a bookshop today and the decided (to honour him) put Burr in the window display. Unfortunately it was stuck in between Hunger Games and 50 Shades of Gray....can't decide if Vidal would have laughed or shaken his fist at the display: probably the latter.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Burr and/or Lincoln have been on my list for a while now. I may have to bump them up...or not. I have only read some of his essays and love his style and poignancy (even if I don't agree with everything)

I passed by a bookshop today and the decided (to honour him) put Burr in the window display. Unfortunately it was stuck in between Hunger Games and 50 Shades of Gray....can't decide if Vidal would have laughed or shaken his fist at the display: probably the latter.

Well, The Hunger Games is definitely a notch above 50 Shades of Grey, the latter of which I recently read a few passages from and was quite blown away at the horrid mess of the writing. I've read online erotica that reads like Melville by comparison.

[JuniperWoolf]

Andy Warhol is the only genius I've ever known with an I.Q. of 60.

Haha, that's great. My friend Rosie is an artist who completely hates Warhol, I'll be sharing this with her.

[OrphanPip]

Burr and/or Lincoln have been on my list for a while now. I may have to bump them up...or not. I have only read some of his essays and love his style and poignancy (even if I don't agree with everything)

I passed by a bookshop today and the decided (to honour him) put Burr in the window display. Unfortunately it was stuck in between Hunger Games and 50 Shades of Gray....can't decide if Vidal would have laughed or shaken his fist at the display: probably the latter.

Idk, Vidal seemed to appreciate camp and kitsch and would more likely have been amused, he did the Ali G show after all, he didn't take himself totally seriously. Part of his viscous wit was always a public act, he kind of epitomized the caricature of an upper class waspish *****y queen.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

He also had an affair with Clark Gable. That's just epic.

[hellsapoppin]

Few right wingers were eager to debate him on TV as he usually kicked their butts as easily as you can stomp on a roach. Funny dude, very articulate, superbly informed, and had lots of class.

Will be sorely missed.

[Number7]

I always felt that I never liked him, he just come across as embittered.

[stlukesguild]

And what have you read by him?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Well, to be fair, he did come across as embittered. He was the very archetype of a crotchety old man in his old age, just really smart. It's definitely possible to love and author's works and not be too crazy about the author. Example: Cormac McCarthy. Awesome writer, but kind of a dick.

[Number7]

And what have you read by him?

I haven't, he doesn't appeal to me, I've watched him on tv and read about him in the news and I get the impression that he was a man who being openly gay in Conservative America felt very angry and marginalised. He seemed to imply that it was the whole of Western civilization that was failing to appreciate homosexuality rather than simply the societal prejudice at the time.

[OrphanPip]

I haven't, he doesn't appeal to me, I've watched him on tv and read about him in the news and I get the impression that he was a man who being openly gay in Conservative America felt very angry and marginalised. He seemed to imply that it was the whole of Western civilization that was failing to appreciate homosexuality rather than simply the societal prejudice at the time.

I think that unlikely, Vidal hardly ever wrote about sexuality. Apart from Myra Beckenrige and The City and the Pillar most of his writing (particularly later in life) centred around the role of the statesman and what he saw as the decline of America's Jeffersonian ideals.

[Number7]

I think that unlikely, Vidal hardly ever wrote about sexuality. Apart from Myra Beckenrige and The City and the Pillar most of his writing (particularly later in life) centred around the role of the statesman and what he saw as the decline of America's Jeffersonian ideals.

Yes I gathered that, the whole 'Roman Empire' thing usually follows the same trajectory.

[stlukesguild]

I haven't, he doesn't appeal to me...

How does that make such a decision... especially about a critically acclaimed writer... without reading what he has written?

I've watched him on tv and read about him in the news and I get the impression that he was a man who being openly gay in Conservative America felt very angry and marginalised.

Being openly gay strikes him off the list of writers you might seriously consider reading? Along with Oscar Wilde, Peter Ackroyd, W.H. Auden, Federico García Lorca, Allen Ginsberg, Juan Goytisolo, Wilfred Owen, Jean Genet, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Luis Cernuda, Constantine Cavafy, Marcel Proust, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Walt Whitman, Maurice Sendak... not to add bi-sexual writers such as William Shakespeare, Paul Verlaine, Herman Melville, Sappho, etc...?

Gore was certainly angry about many things... primary among these was the manner in which he viewed many modern and contemporary political leaders, especially on the extreme right, of abandoning much that he admired about the United States.

He seemed to imply that it was the whole of Western civilization that was failing to appreciate homosexuality rather than simply the societal prejudice at the time.

That may be the impression that you got from watching him on television, but I can't say that such was at all the impression I got from reading any of his books.

[Number7]

I haven't, he doesn't appeal to me...

How does that make such a decision... especially about a critically acclaimed writer... without reading what he has written?

I've watched him on tv and read about him in the news and I get the impression that he was a man who being openly gay in Conservative America felt very angry and marginalised.

Being openly gay strikes him off the list of writers you might seriously consider reading? Along with Oscar Wilde, Peter Ackroyd, W.H. Auden, Federico García Lorca, Allen Ginsberg, Juan Goytisolo, Wilfred Owen, Jean Genet, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Luis Cernuda, Constantine Cavafy, Marcel Proust, Hugo von Hofmannsthal, Walt Whitman, Maurice Sendak... not to add bi-sexual writers such as William Shakespeare, Paul Verlaine, Herman Melville, Sappho, etc...?

Gore was certainly angry about many things... primary among these was the manner in which he viewed many modern and contemporary political leaders, especially on the extreme right, of abandoning much that he admired about the United States.

He seemed to imply that it was the whole of Western civilization that was failing to appreciate homosexuality rather than simply the societal prejudice at the time.

That may be the impression that you got from watching him on television, but I can't say that such was at all the impression I got from reading any of his books.

I'm sure most people have preferences that form decisions about what appeals to them and what doesn't, to make the leap that you're making that I should read Gore Vidal before deciding his style and subject matter doesn't appeal to me is absurd. It would logically follow from such a proposition that you would have to read everything to have a view on what appeals in the first instance, maybe I'm missing out but that's up to me isn't it? I also find US politics boring, there's more to life.

As for the comment about his homosexuality, I wasn't discriminating. I'm gay, I was making the point as I saw it from his interviews and things he's said that he made outlandish statements about the subject like many gay men often do, but especially at a time when the subject was little understood in America.

[stlukesguild]

I'm sure most people have preferences that form decisions about what appeals to them and what doesn't, to make the leap that you're making that I should read Gore Vidal before deciding his style and subject matter doesn't appeal to me is absurd. It would logically follow from such a proposition that you would have to read everything to have a view on what appeals in the first instance, maybe I'm missing out but that's up to me isn't it? I also find US politics boring, there's more to life.

Obviously a choice as to what to read is indeed up to the individual. Nor would I suggest that a writer isn't for you unless you have read him/her (a sort of Catch-22, eh?). What I would suggest is that you probably should read a writer first before making any critical comments on his/her work, and that the writer's personality as revealed through TV appearances is not necessarily an accurate view of all they have to offer. I would suggest that there is much more to Vidal than US politics. Julian, one of his finest novels, is actually set in the Roman Empire.

[Number7]

I'm sure most people have preferences that form decisions about what appeals to them and what doesn't, to make the leap that you're making that I should read Gore Vidal before deciding his style and subject matter doesn't appeal to me is absurd. It would logically follow from such a proposition that you would have to read everything to have a view on what appeals in the first instance, maybe I'm missing out but that's up to me isn't it? I also find US politics boring, there's more to life.

Obviously a choice as to what to read is indeed up to the individual. Nor would I suggest that a writer isn't for you unless you have read him/her (a sort of Catch-22, eh?). What I would suggest is that you probably should read a writer first before making any critical comments on his/her work, and that the writer's personality as revealed through TV appearances is not necessarily an accurate view of all they have to offer. I would suggest that there is much more to Vidal than US politics. Julian, one of his finest novels, is actually set in the Roman Empire.

I wasn't making critical comments, I was expressing my opinion, and I said that he was thorny, which he was. The snooty attempt to patronise me simply doesn't wash by the way.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

How could you know what his style is if you've never read him? Also, he's written outside kf the realm of U.S. Poliics. He explored other countries, and I'm pretty sure a lot of his novels move beyond the strictly political.

Anyways, it's never a good idea to think that just because you don't like a person's character you won't like their writing, because it's quite often that what they write won't be analogous to their personality. I've seen so many times how a comedic writer may be dull in real life, or vice versa. To sum up, you can't decide if you'll like someone's art based on that person.

[stlukesguild]

I wasn't making critical comments, I was expressing my opinion, and I said that he was thorny, which he was. The snooty attempt to patronise me simply doesn't wash by the way.

No one is trying to patronize you. I have little need to impress you or gain your approval. If, on the other hand, you would prefer that I insult you, I am quite adept at that, I can assure you.

By the way... it is somewhat sad that an attempt to recognize the passing of a talented writer has been reduced to a debate as to his relative worth. I must say there have been similar threads devoted to recognizing the passing of other writers... some of whom I didn't care for in the least, yet I tried to avoid making negative comments on such threads. Rather like insulting the dead during the eulogy.

[JuniperWoolf]

Well I'll be, I had no idea Herman Melville was bisexual.


It's definitely possible to love and author's works and not be too crazy about the author. Example: Cormac McCarthy. Awesome writer, but kind of a dick.

Atwood too. I've heard some interviews with her on the radio, what an ice queen.

[Number7]

I wasn't making critical comments, I was expressing my opinion, and I said that he was thorny, which he was. The snooty attempt to patronise me simply doesn't wash by the way.

No one is trying to patronize you. I have little need to impress you or gain your approval. If, on the other hand, you would prefer that I insult you, I am quite adept at that, I can assure you.

By the way... it is somewhat sad that an attempt to recognize the passing of a talented writer has been reduced to a debate as to his relative worth. I must say there have been similar threads devoted to recognizing the passing of other writers... some of whom I didn't care for in the least, yet I tried to avoid making negative comments on such threads. Rather like insulting the dead during the eulogy.

I'm not making any sort of speculative judgement on Vidal's art. I simply said he was a prickly character, as a commentator on US politics, culture and society he may have said many poignant things but some of his views arose from being marginalized in a very Conservative society.

[tonywalt]

Idk, Vidal seemed to appreciate camp and kitsch and would more likely have been amused, he did the Ali G show after all, he didn't take himself totally seriously. Part of his viscous wit was always a public act, he kind of epitomized the caricature of an upper class waspish *****y queen.

True, he became a bit more outlandish (and even a bit too negative on Society) towards the end. Still Sharp as hell though. I suppose, on a very selfish note, it was good to hear the last gasp of the more Northeast (NY to Boston Brahmin) Mid Atlantic accent. And the ironic wit that goes so naturally with that accent.

I am unsure who could fill his shoes today. No one.

[stlukesguild]

Well I'll be, I had no idea Herman Melville was bisexual.

He was married and had 4 kids... but a number of aspects of his writing... including suggestions of the homoerotic... have led a good many modern critics to assume that Melville had homosexual leanings... or even homosexual experiences... perhaps during his younger years as a sailor.

[Seasider]

Today's Guardian had a Gore Vidal quote that I had never read and has not been mentioned in this thread. Vidal was being described as a master of irony, not it was said Americans strongest suit.
Example chosen was his response to Truman Capote's death:

Good career move.
Yes it's ironical and cruel too.

[Number7]

Well I'll be, I had no idea Herman Melville was bisexual.

He was married and had 4 kids... but a number of aspects of his writing... including suggestions of the homoerotic... have led a good many modern critics to assume that Melville had homosexual leanings... or even homosexual experiences... perhaps during his younger years as a sailor.

That's why he wrote 'Moby Dick'.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

A professor I had, a total Moby Dick nut, researched the etymology of the word "dick," and couldn't find any evidence that it was slang for penis until the 1900s. She may be wrong, but I think it's a coincidence that seems too perfect in a book with so many homosexual allusions.


Well I'll be, I had no idea Herman Melville was bisexual.

He was married and had 4 kids... but a number of aspects of his writing... including suggestions of the homoerotic... have led a good many modern critics to assume that Melville had homosexual leanings... or even homosexual experiences... perhaps during his younger years as a sailor.

Is that enough to conclude he was bisexual though? I mean, he could've been, but I don't really see his writing to be too huge amount of support, especially when looking at the comedic tone of pretty much every homosexual allusion in MD. Melville, more than anything, was trying to push boundaries with MD, both with structure and subject matter. Clear allusions to homosexuality and jabs at Christianity (both of which got his book banned by churches who bothered to read it) show this. He definitely could've been bisexual, but a book, especially one that toys with the reader as much as MD, I don't think is the most trustworthy indicator. Of course, aside from some of his shorter works, I've only read MD. If homosexuality is a theme shown throughout all his works, maybe there's more to it. Still, and I know you'll agree to this more than none stlukes, art isn't necessarily autobiographical (hell, I learned that from you more than anyone).

(I know this has nothing to do with Gore Vidal, but I'll take a literary discussion on this forum anywhere one takes place, now.)

[stlukesguild]

Is that enough to conclude he was bisexual though? I mean, he could've been, but I don't really see his writing to be too huge amount of support, especially when looking at the comedic tone of pretty much every homosexual allusion in MD.

Personally I couldn't care less if Melville was straight, gay, bi-... or f***-ing sheep. I'm not really big on reading into the Freudian obsessions with the artist's personal life... the cult of personality.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Yeah, same here. It would be kind of weird if he ****ed sheep, though.

[stlukesguild]

Made for a great Woody Allen skit, however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B94lP-fZyLk

[OrphanPip]

My favourite part is when Gene Wilder's character brings the sheep to a hotel.

[Pierre Menard]

Gene Wilder's eye movements form 0:55-1:15 get me every single time I watch that scene. :lol:

[stlukesguild]

My favourite part is when Gene Wilder's character brings the sheep to a hotel.

And gets caught in bed with it dressed in stockings and garters. :smilielol5:

Unfortunately I couldn't find that part on YouTube... except on a very dark video with AC/DC's Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap overdubbed.

[Alan_M]

I met Gore Vidal when I was a summer intern at the Virginia Theater in NYC about 12 years ago. He was a very nice friendly person and not the cranky, pompous character perceived by other people. Mr. Vidal wanted to see his billboard down by the Covenant House building on the west side and my boss asked me to accompany them. Despite the high regard his novels and essays are held in, I will most remember Mr. Vidal as this nice affable man who spent 15 minutes chatting with me (a lowly intern). Below is a photo I took that day. May his soul rest in peace.

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=1253&pictureid=9758

[Summer M]

It's interesting that Number7 is taking flak for criticizing Vidal without having read him, whereas Mutatis-Mutandis doesn't take the same flak for praising Vidal without having read him.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I don't believe I've praised him nor criticized him, at least in terms of his writing.

[Summer M]

You started a thread eulogizing a man whose work you've never read. What did you like about him? His personality, evidently. Other people disliked that personality, but they're taking heat for it; you don't.

But, my previous comment was not aimed at you, since I find nothing wrong with your comments here. It was aimed at those whose standards seem to be selective.

[stlukesguild]

You started a thread eulogizing a man whose work you've never read. What did you like about him? His personality, evidently. Other people disliked that personality, but they're taking heat for it; you don't.

But, my previous comment was not aimed at you, since I find nothing wrong with your comments here. It was aimed at those whose standards seem to be selective.

It seems to me that MM merely drew attention to the passing of Gore Vidal. I assume that anyone might be capable of pointing out that a well-known literary figure has died without having read their work. He even mentions in his OP that he had never read Vidal. Looking at all of his posts, not once does he make any critical commentary for or against Vidal as a writer. He does, on the other hand, state in general terms that it is probably not a good idea to judge a writer by his or her personality, and then mentions Cormac McCarthy as an example. That seems somewhat different from stating that "I never liked him" or "his work doesn't interest me" in spite of having never read anything by him. That... and perhaps the lack of decorum in making such comments about a writer in a thread started as a sort of eulogy or recognition of his passing, is what was being criticized. MM will tell you that he has been the target of critical disagreement by myself and any number of other regulars here on more than one occasion.

[Summer M]

Looking at all of his [MM's] posts, not once does he make any critical commentary for or against Vidal as a writer.

Neither has Number7, as far as I can tell.


He does, on the other hand, state in general terms that it is probably not a good idea to judge a writer by his or her personality, and then mentions Cormac McCarthy as an example.

I agree. Now where was that healthy attitude a few weeks ago in the Ayn Rand thread (http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69892)? This comment is not aimed only at you, stlukesguild; it is a general comment to all those who commented there. It seems that some attitudes have switched between then and now.

{EDIT}

Let us recall how this thread evolved. Number7 said:

I always felt that I never liked him, he just come across as embittered.
There's no mention of Vidal's work here, only of his personality. You replied with

And what have you read by him?
thereby shifting the issue from Vidal's personality to his work. Admittedly, Vidal's work should be the focus, not his personality, but then the OP was by a person who has never read his work, so the door was open for discussion of his personality.
Anyway, it's not a big deal either way.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Different threads are going to bring about different posts.

[Summer M]

Different threads are going to bring about different posts.

Precisely. When the author being discussed is a "positive" (read: leftist) one, the comments lean towards, "at least give him a chance". When the author is a "negative" one, the comments lean towards "don't bother."

[OrphanPip]

Precisely. When the author being discussed is a "positive" (read: leftist) one, the comments lean towards, "at least give him a chance". When the author is a "negative" one, the comments lean towards "don't bother."

If this is a reference to the Ayn Rand thread, that's not the case. It's more of a when an author is widely recognized as good, they should be given a chance. When an author is widely recognized as ****, they can be safely skipped.

There are numerous conservative authors I have no issue recommending (T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Flannery O'Connor, Gene Wolfe, etc.) Ayn Rand just happens to be a useless writer.

[Summer M]

If this is a reference to the Ayn Rand thread, that's not the case. It's more of a when an author is widely recognized as good, they should be given a chance. When an author is widely recognized as ****, they can be safely skipped.

There are numerous conservative authors I have no issue recommending (T.S. Eliot, Ezra Pound, Flannery O'Connor, Gene Wolfe, etc.) Ayn Rand just happens to be a useless writer.

So Rand is "widely recognized as ****"? According to whom? That statement alone exposes your biases.

My point was never that Rand was a good writer but that her books were very influential, a fact that be be verified quantitatively by looking at number of books sold, number of translations made, number of influential people who mention it in their biographies, etc. For that reason alone they should be read. A good critic is one who explains why a book is good or bad, not one who argues that it should not be read.

[OrphanPip]

So Rand is "widely recognized as ****"? According to whom? That statement alone exposes your biases.

My point was never that Rand was a good writer but that her books were very influential, a fact that be be verified quantitatively by looking at number of books sold, number of translations made, number of influential people who mention it in their biographies, etc. For that reason alone they should be read. A good critic is one who explains why a book is good or bad, not one who argues that it should not be read.

That's not the kind of influence I care about. Moreover, as a social commentator or political philosopher her influence is slight in comparison to a number of 20th century writers on the left or right. So, if I was interested in the politics and ideas, there are better written articulations of similar points by more influential thinkers.

As a novelist she is sub-par, and I try to judge novels on the basis of them as novels. If number of translations and readers were a measure of literary worth, Harry Potter would be considered a masterpiece.

Also, saying the critics role is not to tell people whether or not the book should be read is not really true. The critic should tell people whether a book is worth reading, but also why. And I said why in that thread. I find her writing to be the quality of a trite bodice ripper that is filled with endless boring polemics.

[Summer M]

How many powerful, influential, or famous men have been influenced by Harry Potter? How many by Rand? That juxtaposition is invalid.

I'm not sure what "the kind of influence I care about" means. Influence is influence, regardless of whether or not you care about it. I am not particularly fond of Hitler's influence, but I wouldn't deny he was influential.

[Alexander III]

[QUOTE=Summer M;1161949]How many powerful, influential, or famous men have been influenced by Harry Potter? How many by Rand? That juxtaposition is invalid.

I'm not sure what "the kind of influence I care about" means. Influence is influence, regardless of whether or not you care about it. I am not particularly fond of Hitler's influence, but I wouldn't deny he was influential.[/QUOT

How many powerful and influential men have been influenced by scientology? Far more than have been influenced by Rand. Does this give credence or legitimize scientology? Nope; power and influence are often held by men devoid of culture and wisdom, and whose sole talents lie in the accumulation of power and influence. Those talents have nothing to do with wisdom. I personally have enormous talent in bed, that does not mean I am wise. What you are implying is that great talent makes a person wise, which is simply a false notion. Another man may have an enormous talent in the accumulation of wealth, that hardly means he is wise. Socrates had very few talents, and he was put to death by men who had great talents in statesmanship and influence and the accumulation of wealth. Do we declare them wise, and declare him unwise simply because he lacks material talents? Do we call me wise simply because I posses a great talent in a very specific area?

Let us rather look at literature influencing literature. What great author has been influenced by Rand? What great aesthetician has held up Rand and praised her? Silence.

[mal4mac]

His essay on Montaigne is my favourite 20th century essay. He produced many fine essays; collections are easy to find and not to be missed. After recently reading a long collection of his essays, embittered is not an adjective I would use. He was unhappy about the state of America, but he knew how to enjoy life.

[Summer M]

How many powerful and influential men have been influenced by scientology? Far more than have been influenced by Rand. Does this give credence or legitimize scientology? Nope

True, but no one was arguing that Rand's work had any credence or legitimacy. You are attacking a straw man. Would you say that Mein kampf is not an important book because Nazism has no credence or legitimacy?

Did the big-mouth-what's-his-name movie star get to where he is because of Scientology? Did it make him a good actor? False analogy, again.

As for your bedroom talents, I'd have to ask for references for those.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I have enormous talents in bed, too. I'm a great sleeper.

[tonywalt]

I have enormous talents in bed, too. I'm a great sleeper.

"Sleeping Beauty" by Grimm obviously a positive influence.

[JuniperWoolf]

Fun Fact: Ayn Rand spent the last six months of her life on Social Security and Medicare after a lifetime of condemning both programs. Silly lady.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

You saw that meme too?

[JuniperWoolf]

There's an Ayn Rand meme?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Soooooo many. Google "Ayn Rand meme." They're pretty funny.

[Pierre Menard]

Fun Fact: Ayn Rand spent the last six months of her life on Social Security and Medicare after a lifetime of condemning both programs. Silly lady.




I'm no Randian (aside from a brief spurt during my teen years) but I don't like when people go with this 'she was a hypocrite' line. All throughout her life, she did not condemn people legitimately using those programs as a way to claim back 'rightfully earned money' that the government 'took/stole'. It's a silly point used to disparage her by people who know little about what she actually said/believed. If they took the time to actually understand her beliefs, they'd find enough to criticise anyway.

[JuniperWoolf]

I only ever read Anthem. *shrug* Teen-me liked it a lot, I went around with "Liberty 5-3000" written on my wrist for weeks. I actually didn't know people hated her so strongly until online social networking informed me.


Soooooo many. Google "Ayn Rand meme." They're pretty funny.

Ah. No, it was on a reddit TIL yesterday and reminded me of this thread.

[Summer M]

I'm no Randian (aside from a brief spurt during my teen years) but I don't like when people go with this 'she was a hypocrite' line. All throughout her life, she did not condemn people legitimately using those programs as a way to claim back 'rightfully earned money' that the government 'took/stole'. It's a silly point used to disparage her by people who know little about what she actually said/believed. If they took the time to actually understand her beliefs, they'd find enough to criticise anyway.

Exactly! I was just about to write that. Let me just emphasize again that there's a huge difference between criticizing welfare and criticizing those who use it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Exactly! I was just about to write that. Let me just emphasize again that there's a huge difference between criticizing welfare and criticizing those who use it.

You rarely get one without the other.