If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

If your "answer" to my challenge of Atlas Shrugged is well suited for lit classes, it justifies my disdain for lit classes and related "arguments" aside from all my own personal bonefides.

It isn't well-suited for lit classes. We're not in a lit class, we're on a metal forum. I'm not going to write you a paper, which would require an explanation of how texts often exhibit hybrid characteristics; how literary forms aren't unitary and monolithic but multiple and interactive; how fictive writing theoretically can't be united with an author's intending sensibilities, and texts that merely repeat their author's opinions aren't novelistic (historically speaking, the English novel was born out of a weird union of multiple genres in the eighteenth century--there's something a professor could qualitatively quiz students on!); and how Atlas Shrugged is a clunky hybrid of novelistic writing and philosophical treatise.

That's the (still insufficient) short version: so again, insofar as Atlas Shrugged is a proclamation of its author's philosophy, it's not a novel; and insofar as it's a novel, it's not a proclamation of its author's philosophy. That doesn't mean we can't perceive both elements at work in the text.

It's funny, because as I was writing that novels aren't trying to send readers a message, I thought to myself "someone's going to say 'What about Atlas Shrugged?'" On a purely personal (and subjective) level, I would vindictively say that Atlas Shrugged isn't an artful novel, but that's not being fair to the form. Even the clunkiest novel can still exhibit the kinds of multiplicities I mentioned earlier. More appropriately, we have to examine the different modes and styles of writing that Atlas Shrugged draws upon.

You've said in the past that you don't really enjoy reading fiction for pleasure all that much, and I have a feeling it's because you don't find much value in reading things that pitch a bunch of conflicting viewpoints without ever settling for one. Maybe I'm wrong. But literary interpretation isn't about discovering the "true" meaning of a text; so if that is how you prefer to see novels, then I understand why you don't enjoy them.

EDIT: ok, I'll write you a short paper.

 

[Dak]

It isn't well-suited for lit classes. We're not in a lit class, we're on a metal forum. I'm not going to write you a paper, which would require an explanation of how texts often exhibit hybrid characteristics; how literary forms aren't unitary and monolithic but multiple and interactive; how fictive writing theoretically can't be united with an author's intending sensibilities, and texts that merely repeat their author's opinions aren't novelistic (historically speaking, the English novel was born out of a weird union of multiple genres in the eighteenth century--there's something a professor could qualitatively quiz students on!); and how Atlas Shrugged is a clunky hybrid of novelistic writing and philosophical treatise.

That's the (still insufficient) short version: so again, insofar as Atlas Shrugged is a proclamation of its author's philosophy, it's not a novel; and insofar as it's a novel, it's not a proclamation of its author's philosophy. That doesn't mean we can't perceive both elements at work in the text.

I wound up reading this in Jordan Peterson's voice . I don't make the distinction between "novel" and other types of fiction (excluding things like children's picture books or comic books (redundant tbh)). I'm sure people who study fiction have as many subclassifications for it similar to how metal has for different types of metal, with distinctions which will be mostly opaque to people outside the subject.

It's funny, because as I was writing that novels aren't trying to send readers a message, I thought to myself "someone's going to say 'What about Atlas Shrugged?'" On a purely personal (and subjective) level, I would vindictively say that Atlas Shrugged isn't an artful novel, but that's not being fair to the form. Even the clunkiest novel can still exhibit the kinds of multiplicities I mentioned earlier. More appropriately, we have to examine the different modes and styles of writing that Atlas Shrugged draws upon.

You've said in the past that you don't really enjoy reading fiction for pleasure all that much, and I have a feeling it's because you don't find much value in reading things that pitch a bunch of conflicting viewpoints without ever settling for one. Maybe I'm wrong. But literary interpretation isn't about discovering the "true" meaning of a text; so if that is how you prefer to see novels, then I understand why you don't enjoy them.

EDIT: ok, I'll write you a short paper.

I thought about using other examples that I have actually read but Atlas Shrugged was just too on the nose to ignore.

Stories, going back to the oral tradition, were constructed to pass down knowledge in a form most likely to lead to continued memory and propagation (or persuasion, like Atlas Shrugged). Do many stories now deviate from that? Yes. That deviation is where I see a loss of value. A much lesser value to be found is in narratives which reaffirm some personally held value. The former "story to pass down knowledge etc" is more efficiently achieved, for adults with access to the written word, with non-stories - nonfiction. That leaves only the fiction of values affirmation, which is generally of lesser enjoyment than many other things I could do with my time.

I don't even perceive in fiction this "pitching" conflicting viewpoints. It's just some person's personal The Sims game in narrative form. I already interact with this in some way in non-narrative form via interactions with clients/patients. Actual lives are far more interesting than imagined lives.

Edit: When I was a child/adolescent, I read mountains of fiction. I was also relatively socially isolated, but reading fiction provided me imaginary social engagement.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wound up reading this in Jordan Peterson's voice . I don't make the distinction between "novel" and other types of fiction (excluding things like children's picture books or comic books (redundant tbh)). I'm sure people who study fiction have as many subclassifications for it similar to how metal has for different types of metal, with distinctions which will be mostly opaque to people outside the subject.

"Fiction" meaning any writing that's imagined or made up, I'm assuming? You're not the only one. This drives me and my colleagues in the field crazy. I'll be teaching Samuel Beckett's Endgame, and some student will inevitably say, "My favorite part of the novel is..." I have to say "It's not a novel! It's a play! Just because it's a collection of pages bound to a spine doesn't mean it's a novel!" That's usually a pretty straightforward thing for students to get, but among scholars it leads to a set of (I think) fascinating questions about the differences between genre, form, and medium. Too often, these terms get bandied about as though they stand in for one another, but that usually leads to more confusion.

But yeah, students conflate genres all the time. Vergil's Aeneid is a novel, Shakespeare's Hamlet is a novel, Wordsworth's Prelude is a novel... I've even had students refer to Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography as a novel. Now, where it gets really interesting is novels that mimic the autobiographical mode... but again, that's not really something I get into with undergrads.

Stories, going back to the oral tradition, were constructed to pass down knowledge in a form most likely to lead to continued memory and propagation (or persuasion, like Atlas Shrugged). Do many stories now deviate from that? Yes. That deviation is where I see a loss of value.

Simply put, I understand--and this is where we disagree.

Slightly more complicated, the transition from orality to literacy is one of the most fascinating developments in the history of language, and it gave rise to the increased complexity of language. James Gleick writes about this in his book The Information. In short, oral storytelling did rely heavily on mnemonic techniques, as you say: rhythm, meter, lyricism, etc. Things are easier to remember when we phrase them in sing-songy ways. This is why poetry precedes philosophy. Only with the emergence of written language could people begin extensively reflecting on ideas--because now they could put language down, consider what it meant, critique it, etc.

The simplistic reading of this is that purely oral language is conducive to poetry and creativity, while written language is conducive to philosophy. But spoken language began as experimentation, albeit for specific social purposes. Experimentation in written language is also for a specific historical purpose (but again, it depends whether you place value on that purpose).

Edit: When I was a child/adolescent, I read mountains of fiction. I was also relatively socially isolated, but reading fiction provided me imaginary social engagement.

This made me think of a quote from Catherine Gallagher's "The Rise of Fictionality":

The implicit contrast between the reader, with her independent embodied selfhood that pretends to need no alibi of reference in order to achieve significance, and the character, with her notable lack of quiddity, who is therefore forever tethered to the abstraction of type, can even be played upon to produce a vicarious desire, as the imagined desire of the character, for the immanence the reader possesses. The fictional character’s incompleteness can, in other words, not only create a sense of the reader’s material ‘reality’ as ontologically plentiful by helping us reenvision our embodied immanence through the condition of its possible absence, but also allows us to experience an uncanny desire to be that which we already are.

 

[Dak]

I've even had students refer to Benjamin Franklin's Autobiography as a novel.

No surprise here. 50% of college students, shouldn't be.

Simply put, I understand--and this is where we disagree.

Slightly more complicated, the transition from orality to literacy is one of the most fascinating developments in the history of language, and it gave rise to the increased complexity of language. James Gleick writes about this in his book The Information. In short, oral storytelling did rely heavily on mnemonic techniques, as you say: rhythm, meter, lyricism, etc. Things are easier to remember when we phrase them in sing-songy ways. This is why poetry precedes philosophy. Only with the emergence of written language could people begin extensively reflecting on ideas--because now they could put language down, consider what it meant, critique it, etc.

The simplistic reading of this is that purely oral language is conducive to poetry and creativity, while written language is conducive to philosophy. But spoken language began as experimentation, albeit for specific social purposes. Experimentation in written language is also for a specific historical purpose (but again, it depends whether you place value on that purpose).

What does this have to do with fiction though? I obviously accept the value of philosophy.

Catherine Gallagher's "The Rise of Fictionality":

Interesting read. Here's a pertinent quote related to my comment on real persons versus imagined ones:

The differential accessibility or knowability of character is only one feature inviting cathexis with ontological difference. Another, seemingly paradoxical, pair of features is closely related and shared by all novel characters {357} regardless of the mode of narration: they are at once utterly finished and also necessarily incomplete. Philosopher Peter McCormick describes the first of these: ‘fictional characters are surprisingly exhaustible as objects of knowledge since, unlike material objects, they lack the infinity of ever receding perceptual horizons and, unlike self-conscious entities, they lack the inexorable privacy of ever changing varieties of mental states’ (McCormick 1988: 240). McCormick’s description of the ease and utter regularity with which characters are decoded from texts marks his description as philosophical rather than literary-critical, but the general claim remains helpful. Despite representational tactics that give the impression of layers and plenitude, characters are ‘peculiarly delimited’ as textual beings. Persons, even dead persons, can more accurately be said to be inexhaustible. No matter how many times we reread Anna Karenina, there will never be more to learn about, say, the childhoods of the heroine and her brother. The proper name ‘Anna Karenina’ is made up of a finite set of sentences no matter how much more insightful, mature, or knowledgeable our reading becomes, no matter how much more skillfully we analyze that text or how much more ruthlessly we deconstruct it. The text may be hermeneutically inexhaustible and labile; it may be indeterminate and inconstant, but this only means that a variety of ‘Anna’s can be produced from it, none of whom will have a more fully described childhood. We may discover that previously misattributed portions of the text should be newly laid to Anna’s character code, but then she would just be finished differently.

Edit: Also

Again, modernism and postmodernism tend to jettison this rule, asking us to contemplate the character’s constitutional lack. The enigma of Kurtz, never to be resolved, is a case in point: our desire to know what is not stated (what Kurtz really did) can be read as a metaphor for an encounter with hollowness (the modernist emphasis) or as a reminder of textuality (the postmodernist emphasis).

Maybe this intentional "hollowness" is also not enjoyable.

 

[Einherjar86]

What does this have to do with fiction though? I obviously accept the value of philosophy.

What does the transition from orality to literacy have to do with fiction? Or do you mean something else?

Fiction arose as an autopoietic (systems theory term, not literary) response to the affordability and accessibility of print technologies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. First, printing gave birth to an excess of pamphlets and small books on propriety, etiquette, religious observances, travel narratives, slave narratives, autobiographies, memoirs, pedagogical tools, dictionaries, and other texts we'd refer to as nonfiction. The seventeenth century did witness the publication of some clearly fictional romance narratives, but these were few and far between, and often extensions of post-medieval tales. Robinson Crusoe, often pointed to as one of the first English novels (a problematic identification, but useful), was basically a hybrid travel narrative and memoir (and was originally marketed as nonfiction before it was revealed to be fiction). Samuel Richardson's Pamela drew on pedagogical writings about feminine propriety. That these stories were "made up" reflects a shift in social consciousness toward language and print media. It might be posited that the emergence of "the novel" is an expected symptom of the proliferation of print in the 17th-18th centuries. These texts reveal a lot about not only social conventions and mores, but also about the industry of print at the time.

It's also worth pointing out that these writers were among the first to comment on what kind of literature they were producing. Many of them included prefaces to their works that meditated on what kind of "novel form" they were working with. Originally, that's what "novel" really means: a new and unspecified form. It's difficult for us today to imagine a world in which written fiction about common, everyday themes didn't exist. In oral cultures, the poems that were passed down speak of heroes and legends, not ordinary people. The same goes for medieval romances. Only with the novel, and with fictionality, do we finally get narratives about regular people--that is, people who were reading novels.

Interesting read. Here's a pertinent quote related to my comment on real persons versus imagined ones:

Maybe this intentional "hollowness" is also not enjoyable.

Sure, I think that makes sense. I could launch into a long response to that quote, but I actually don't really think it's necessary. I get the point being made.

The only thing I'll say is that Kurtz is also, of course, a horrible person. Even if we're made to wonder about his character, we can still see him as the kind of person we shouldn't desire to be.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

Maybe the prosecutors decided to drop everything because the accusation was bullshit.

yeah,
you're trying to make the argument that the accusations were bullshit (i'm not convinced of that)
but clearly that was not the reason the charges were dropped
if Kavenaugh had been denied the supreme court justice job,
then the prosecutors would have been willing to put an innocent man in prison

 

[Dak]

yeah,
you're trying to make the argument that the accusations were bullshit (i'm not convinced of that)
but clearly that was not the reason the charges were dropped
if Kavenaugh had been denied the supreme court justice job,
then the prosecutors would have been willing to put an innocent man in prison

To prosecute requires evidence strong enough to either A. Convince the charged to cop a plea or B. To convince a jury. Apparently they didn't think they could do either.

 

[Dak]

What does the transition from orality to literacy have to do with fiction? Or do you mean something else?

Fiction arose as an autopoietic (systems theory term, not literary) response to the affordability and accessibility of print technologies in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. First, printing gave birth to an excess of pamphlets and small books on propriety, etiquette, religious observances, travel narratives, slave narratives, autobiographies, memoirs, pedagogical tools, dictionaries, and other texts we'd refer to as nonfiction. The seventeenth century did witness the publication of some clearly fictional romance narratives, but these were few and far between, and often extensions of post-medieval tales. Robinson Crusoe, often pointed to as one of the first English novels (a problematic identification, but useful), was basically a hybrid travel narrative and memoir (and was originally marketed as nonfiction before it was revealed to be fiction). Samuel Richardson's Pamela drew on pedagogical writings about feminine propriety. That these stories were "made up" reflects a shift in social consciousness toward language and print media. It might be posited that the emergence of "the novel" is an expected symptom of the proliferation of print in the 17th-18th centuries. These texts reveal a lot about not only social conventions and mores, but also about the industry of print at the time.

It's also worth pointing out that these writers were among the first to comment on what kind of literature they were producing. Many of them included prefaces to their works that meditated on what kind of "novel form" they were working with. Originally, that's what "novel" really means: a new and unspecified form. It's difficult for us today to imagine a world in which written fiction about common, everyday themes didn't exist. In oral cultures, the poems that were passed down speak of heroes and legends, not ordinary people. The same goes for medieval romances. Only with the novel, and with fictionality, do we finally get narratives about regular people--that is, people who were reading novels.

I don't mean to dismiss this summeraly, but I did basically read all of this in the critique you linked. I'm still not sure how this makes a point related to my other comments.

Sure, I think that makes sense. I could launch into a long response to that quote, but I actually don't really think it's necessary. I get the point being made.

The only thing I'll say is that Kurtz is also, of course, a horrible person. Even if we're made to wonder about his character, we can still see him as the kind of person we shouldn't desire to be.

Well I appreciate that you understand my point wrt my general disinterest at this point in my life for fiction; I was never asking for or expecting agreement. I wouldn't expect you to have interest in the things I'm interested in (and v.v.), career wise.I do appreciate you providing personally a source putting into so many words my perspective.

Unfortunately, I know nothing of Kurtz, and aren't even curious tbh. If it's anything like most "acclaimed novels" of the 20th or 21st century, everything is either "hollow" with respect to critical acclaim, or are boorish when popular.

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't mean to dismiss this summeraly, but I did basically read all of this in the critique you linked. I'm still not sure how this makes a point related to my other comments.

Maybe I don't understand your question when you asked what my comments had to do with fiction. Simply put, you don't get fiction (generically speaking) until you get literacy. The oral poetry of Homer et al isn't considered fiction by literary standards; fiction and fictionality are tied to the rise of the novel and print media.

Also, what critique did I link?

 

[Dak]

Maybe I don't understand your question when you asked what my comments had to do with fiction. Simply put, you don't get fiction (generically speaking) until you get literacy. The oral poetry of Homer et al isn't considered fiction by literary standards; fiction and fictionality are tied to the rise of the novel and print media.

You were talking about the link between poetry and philosophy first and then jumped to fiction.

Also, what critique did I link?

Critique might not be the right word by your perspective but: Catherine Gallagher's "The Rise of Fictionality":

 

[Dak]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/uncomfortable-truth-baltimore-democrats-blame

you can’t solve a problem you don’t acknowledge exists. The many candidates aspiring to be the Democratic party’s presidential nominee have said little about west Baltimore’s sky-high murder rate or deep poverty nor proposed policy interventions to ameliorate it. It’s no surprise the city has turned into a political piñata for the president, given the Democratic party’s failings in governing it and lack of imagination in addressing its problems

With all the stats in the article to boot: Holy shit, actual journalism in the Guardian, and by someone at UC Berkeley even.

 

[Einherjar86]

You were talking about the link between poetry and philosophy first and then jumped to fiction.

Ah, got it.

Philosophy appears when you have literacy, but not necessarily print technology. When writing first appeared, it was only performed by a select (and educated) few. Fiction only appears when literacy becomes common and widespread. It's basically the next step, I was trying to say--a response to the actual media of print, rather than just the act of writing.

Critique might not be the right word by your perspective but: Catherine Gallagher's "The Rise of Fictionality":

Oh right, sorry. For some reason I was thinking of a hyperlink as opposed to a quote. The entire piece is fascinating though, and can be found online (which perhaps you did).

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

To prosecute requires evidence strong enough to either A. Convince the charged to cop a plea or B. To convince a jury. Apparently they didn't think they could do either.

juries are idiots
my whole fucking point was that the prosecutors didn't give a shit about whether or not he was guilty
the charges got dropped because he became supreme court justice
and the charges would not have gotten dropped if he hadn't gotten the job

convincing a jury to convict an innocent person happens every five fucking minutes in the USA

 

[Dak]

https://twitter.com/dcexaminer/status/1157332469487742977?s=20

Damn that looks bad.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/01/uncomfortable-truth-baltimore-democrats-blame

With all the stats in the article to boot: Holy shit, actual journalism in the Guardian, and by someone at UC Berkeley even.

National liberal activists have been diligent in shining a light on Baltimore’s well-known police brutality and misconduct – the city’s own gun control taskforce was disbanded due to corruption – but activists seem less concerned about ordinary homicide, which takes a far greater number of lives.

B-b-but that's a whataboutism, if there's a problem you're never ever allowed to talk about other problems because that's unlogical n shiet. We can totally have a national conversation about both issues separately, though we'd prefer not to.

 

[CiG]

Kirsten Gillibrand thinks she can win by explaining to Trump voters their white privilege.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

so she's trying to convince the specific people that voted for Trump the first time that voting for him a second time would be bad
i kinda get that
but wouldn't it be easier to get the specific people that are never in a million years going to vote for the republican canditate to jump up and vote

 

[CiG]

so she's trying to convince the specific people that voted for Trump the first time that voting for him a second time would be bad
i kinda get that

Doubtful, you suffer from severe TDS.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

there's already people that voted for Trump that will vote against him next election
the people who have Trump Derangement Syndrome includes people who actually voted for him

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Thank you, comrade.