tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post6490396095923709165..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Rand & Aesthetics 13Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-79387254749793787842011-06-06T17:34:33.223-07:002011-06-06T17:34:33.223-07:00Rand had considerable insight into her own creativ...<i>Rand had considerable insight into her own creative processes, and since she had to see them as the apex of rationality, she couldn't conceive of anything having literary merit unless it was written (a) on subjects she might have written about (b) the way she would have written about them.</i><br /><br />You give her way more credit than any human being deserves, and what you say almost hits the mar. She <i>thought</i> she had insight into her creative processes, but no one really knows how the mind works and psychologists continue to discover new facts about the limits of introspection and the ability of the human mind to link objectively unconnected events.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-58770561699786860542011-06-05T17:13:16.093-07:002011-06-05T17:13:16.093-07:00Rand had considerable insight into her own creativ...Rand had considerable insight into her own creative processes, and since she had to see them as the apex of rationality, she couldn't conceive of anything having literary merit unless it was written (a) on subjects she might have written about (b) the way she would have written about them.<br /><br />Yet the (b) her style was limited in my opinion by, for one thing, its strongly cinematic nature, and for another, her own limitations of language. She was not widely and deeply read, at least in English literature. Despite her entire fluency, her language lacks variety. The pains she took to choosing exactly the right adjective, for example, I've always felt could have been lessened if she were simply familiar with more adjectives - not just from knowing them, but from encountering them many times in different contexts.<br /><br />Or maybe adjectives in themselves, like everything else in her canon, were either rational and worthy, or or not.<br /><br />Caroljanestuarthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05084026545492206558noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49683870173762650162011-06-04T00:55:41.344-07:002011-06-04T00:55:41.344-07:00In light of the fact that Wolf is conveying his/hi...In light of the fact that Wolf is conveying his/his character's emotions on seeing New York, this half of Rand's statement is more interesting to me than the subjective psychoepistomology part: "he expects<br />the reader to accept emotions divorced from facts, and to accept them second-hand."<br />Translation: his art describes emotions he wants the reader to experience, but that's filthy because the reader didn't generate those emotions themselves. Isn't this the point of all art though, even "Miss Rand's"? "Miss rand" wants us to identify with her ideal heroes, to own their values as the correct values. But we didn't invent those either, she did.<br /> <br />P.S.<br /> <br />Since I've mentioned H. P. Lovecraft in connection with this series before, you might be interested to know that Lovecraft was very interested in mood studies. He wasnt interested in people so much as phenomena and conveying the mood of the cosmically outside, as he might have said.<br /><br />Non-hypothetical Blind GuyAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com