Re: The REAL pop 100 -Reply -Reply

Daniel Mahanty (MAHANTYD@ojp.usdoj.gov)
Fri, 24 Jul 1998 15:20:45 -0400 

dm (Daniel Mahanty) wrote: (actually, no I did NOT write:)

> > Splendid company, indeed.  Personal fascism and fantasy fiction.

> >Catcher in the Rye is about fascism?

> I think he meant Ayn Rand was a fascist and the Hobbit is fantasy
fiction.

>>For God's sake, give me some credit.  I knew that "personal fascism"
referred to Atlas Shrugged.  (I knew I should have added the smiley face
after my question, but it violates my principles to use those...)  I was
just objecting to the use of the word fascist to describe Ayn Rand.<<

 I know. I didn't write the previous sentence. 
I wrote this one:
> To comment on _Atlas Shrugged_ and _Catcher; I'm not sure which is
> which, but I've heard rumors that one is an extraordinarily insightful
and
> well prepared novel, and the other is the precariously oversimplistic, if
> not well written, porn credo for "libertarians" and econ majors of the
> public choice school. 

>>Rand's works are more political documents than novels, but they are
far
from fascist.  <<

I dunno...

>>The idea is probably making Rand turn in her grave.  Yes,
they are the darlings of many an econ major,<<

Sorry, I was in no way trying to be vituperative or to abate Rands more
political intentions, only to perhaps comment on the occasional habit of a
few of the self proclaimed omnitient to accept her work as a sort of
ovum for life's philosophy (I am an econ major, and believe me, it has
become anything but an alien concept ) which is their right, obviously,
and more power to them.
I suppose my largest problem philosophically, (of course her work should
be read and should be continued to be read) is that often times the notion
of libertarianism and "the virtues of selfishness" promulgate a very
logical excuse for behavior in which one might not neccessarily indulge
by virtue of the fact that it is " human nature" , when in fact, often times,
the idea of being human encourages release from the obstacles of
"nature". In other words, in my opinion, disguising a sort of regression
with easy philosophy. This is not to say that many of her ideas are not
credible, but there are some, perhaps disagreeable (to me) perceptions.
 
>but I don't condemn them
quite as harshly as you do.  I wouldn't know where to place her books
on
a "Best Novels of the 20th Century" list, but who wants to deal with
those stupid things in the first place?  <

Agreed. I think we all know where these sorts of lists belong.

>I'd instinctively place Salinger higher than Rand anyway, but since I
obviously don't know the difference between Nine Stories and, say, The
Fountainhead, my judgment probably can't be trusted... :) (gag)<

I hope that wasn't a "gag" at me - but, I'll take it cum grano salis anyway.
By the way, if that is THE Berkeley in your address, I envy you to no limit.
Dan