I don't believe I've praised him nor criticized him, at least in terms of his writing.
Printable View
I don't believe I've praised him nor criticized him, at least in terms of his writing.
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.
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.
Neither has Number7, as far as I can tell.Quote:
Looking at all of his [MM's] posts, not once does he make any critical commentary for or against Vidal as a writer.
I agree. Now where was that healthy attitude a few weeks ago in the Ayn Rand thread? 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.Quote:
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.
{EDIT}
Let us recall how this thread evolved. Number7 said:
There's no mention of Vidal's work here, only of his personality. You replied withQuote:
I always felt that I never liked him, he just come across as embittered.
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.Quote:
And what have you read by him?
Anyway, it's not a big deal either way.
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."Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer M
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer M
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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?Quote:
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
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.
I have enormous talents in bed, too. I'm a great sleeper.
"Sleeping Beauty" by Grimm obviously a positive influence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutatis-Mutandis
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.
You saw that meme too?
There's an Ayn Rand meme?
Soooooo many. Google "Ayn Rand meme." They're pretty funny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
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.
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.
Ah. No, it was on a reddit TIL yesterday and reminded me of this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre Menard
You rarely get one without the other.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summer M