An Honest Appeal to Honest Objectivists
Todd Pinarchick
I was originally going to post a Usenet message, in which I was going
to appeal to Objectivists to explain to me certain of their tenets.
However, after reading some of my e-mail and seeing some of ther com-
ments made by certain Objectivists in their responses to some postings,
I really despair of finding ANY who can hold a conversation, or can
explain their positions, without lapsing into ad hominem attacks,
sloganeering, and petty name-calling. Any first-year student of logic
and argumentation could tell you that none of those techniques consti-
tutes an argument. I know that I've been a bit snot-nosed and used
cheap shots in past postings--I acknowledge my weakness for that sort
of thing, and apologize if it has pissed anyone off. However, I WILL
not apologize if someone doesn't like my opinions, and I do NOT con-
sider it to be acceptable to counter an argument by being downright
rude.
Nonetheless, I AM still interested in discussing with any Objectivist
their opinions on a number of points I will write later on in this
posting. As for those who instead choose to insult, to tell dissenters
that they "should get a life," question their intelligence, spew
slogans and Randinista dogma, call people "irrational," etc. (and you
know who you are), don't waste my time and yours--I will not respond,
whether you've cleaned the rabid dribble off your chins or not, and be
secure
in the knowledge that you do your cause a disservice and only further
hostility to it.
To other, more rational Objectivists, let me say that I will be upfront.
I am not particularly hospitable to Objectivism (for the usual reasons--
lefty political views, a fondness for Kantian/Humean philosophy, the
fact that I don't find Ayn Rand to have been a particularly good
writer). But I am curious to have you explain to me certain Objecti-
vist positions--be forewarned that I may not agree with them, and
you won't convert me (or me you); but I would like to know how you
have come to these beliefs, and I will engage in polite, rational
discourse.
Well, here goes:
1) I know that Ayn Rand called her style of writing "romantic realism,"
and stated that she believed that Victor Hugo and Edmond Rostand were
two others who lived up to the principles she defined for this type of
writing. How did she distinguish her "romanticism" from the more
commonplace understanding of Romanticism, which is a rather loose term
for late 18th century and early 19th century writing? What would she
say about such Romantic writers as Chateaubriand, Rousseau, Heinrich
Heine, William Blake, the German "Sturm und Drang" lot, Samuel Taylor
Coleridge, etc.--I mean, would she claim any kinship to them? And how
does she square her rationalist beliefs with the emotional, irrational-
ist qualities of Romantic literature or art? And how did any of this
lead her to her positions of naturalism, avant-garde literature,
existentialism, etc.? And did she claim any debts of gratitude to
classic Russian literature (folks like Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol,
Chekhov)?
2) From reading the alt.philosophy.objectivist newsgroup, and what
philosophical works of Rand's that I have read, I know that she has a
particular animus against Immanuel Kant, which I honestly find a bit
puzzling. Maybe it's because I catch the conversations mid-stream,
but oftentimes it seems like a series of ad-hominem attacks ("Kant was
an evil man," "that's a Kantian idea," etc.), and seem particularly
vitriolic. What exactly IS it that Objectivists find so objectionable
to Kant and his ideas (such as his conception of idealism, and the
Transcendental Imperative)?
3) What does Objectivism has to say about traditional British empiri-
cism (such as formulated by John Locke and David Hume)? How would an
Objectivist answer a postmodernist philosopher (such as Derrida,
Foucault, Jean Baudrillard)?
4) I know that Rand stated, that she thought that the arts were a
vital endeavor, which is why she formulated her notions of romantic
realism. You can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe she wrote
that romantic realism was the most appropriate aesthetic style to
adopt. The merits and demerits of this style aside, isn't this a
rather authoritarian artistic stance to take (especially for someone
who professed to believe in people coming to their conclusions through
their OWN efforts--I mean, shouldn't the vehicle of HOW they think
for themselves [their aesthetics] be up to them as well?)
5) I've said, here and in other postings, that I find Rand's fiction
inferior because of what I perceive to be: a) wooden dialogue; b)
a reliance on polemic over characterization; c) reliance on "typage"
and creating strawmen in her characterization; d) predictable and
clumsy plotting; e) her tendency to intrude upon the narrative and
tell the reader what to think. What do you think about my comments?
6) What do you think about Objectivism being perceived as cult-like?
There it is. As I said, I hope for honest, open dialogue with anyone
who cares to engage in it (and is willing to listen to someone who
will probably disagree with them). Cheers!
Todd Pinarchick
Todd Pinarchick
"transcendental imperative." My apologies.
Todd
Gwen A Orel
write long abusive letters to Todd, but suddenly their time is to
precious when it comes to long difficult answers.
Why is that?
Gwen
John Power (j...@hep.anl.gov) wrote:
: Todd Pinarchick <tsar...@eden.rutgers.edu> wrote:
: > To Any and All:
: I doubt if anyone will take up your offer (certainly not me) but it’s
: not for the reasons you might think. The questions you are asking would
: require long and difficult answers from a knowledgeable Objectivist. I
: don’t see why an Objectivist would sacrifice his precious time for
: someone who has been fairly hostile (your own admission) so far. You
: claim that you want to engage in polite conversation but that is not
: enough. I would also want to be convinced that you really want to learn
: about Objectivism since that would be my only motivation for responding
: to you.
: > Nonetheless, I AM still interested in discussing with any Objectivist
: > their opinions on a number of points I will write later on in this
: > posting. As for those who instead choose to insult, to tell dissenters
: > that they "should get a life," question their intelligence, spew
: > slogans and Randinista dogma,
: You probably didn’t mean it this way but just using the phrase “Randinista
: dogma” is very insulting to me. Not only do I find it insulting, but it
: sounds the same to me as someone accusing me of using the “dogma of reason.”
: > But I am curious to have you explain to me certain Objecti-
: > vist positions--be forewarned that I may not agree with them, and
: > you won't convert me (or me you);
: The only reason I would ever begin a conversation with someone is if
: I believed them to be open to reason. For you to declare that I won’t
: convert you without even listening to my argument is a guarantee that
: no Objectivist would argue with you.
: > but I would like to know how you have come to these beliefs, and
: > I will engage in polite, rational discourse.
: Maybe... but from the tone of your post it sounds like you are not open
: to the possibility that Objectivism has something to offer you. It seems
: to me that you are only interested in trying to show Objectivist where
: they are “wrong” at any cost. I’m not saying that you shouldn’t point out
: where you think Objectivism is wrong, but I’d only discuss things with
: someone who’s interested in where Objectivism is right as well. I have
: found that when a person is heavily predisposed to find any argument
: wrong (closed minded) there is no point in discussing the subject with
: him.
: Do you agree? Is my assesment of you correct? Are you really interested
: in learning what Objectivsm has to offer you?
: I think it would require great effort on the part of someone who has thought
: the same way for a long time to *HONESTLY* approach a new field.
: > 2) From reading the alt.philosophy.objectivist newsgroup,
: Just one comment. This is possibly the most difficult place to learn about
: Objectivism from. Rand’s original sources and the OSG listserver are much
: better places to try learning from.
: Good Premises,
: John Power
--
"Live as one already dead." --Japanese saying
I live in fear of not being misunderstood.-- Oscar wilde
Steve Reed
<tsar...@eden.rutgers.edu> writes:
>I really despair of finding ANY who can hold a conversation, or can
>explain their positions, without lapsing into ad hominem attacks,
>sloganeering, and petty name-calling.
You, too? I've found damn few, myself, and not for want of looking, and *I've*
been an Objectivist for twenty years. In any case, the Panmunjom-ish truce
village among Objectivist factions and libertarians, alt.phil.obj, isn't the
optimal place for finding such people. Most in a.p.o end up screaming at
each other, albeit under more genteel guises.
>[Requests for philosophic dialogue omitted, as I am not up to speed
>on the more recent modern philosophers]
>I've said, here and in other postings, that I find Rand's fiction
>inferior because of what I perceive to be: a) wooden dialogue; b)
>a reliance on polemic over characterization; c) reliance on "typage"
>and creating strawmen in her characterization; d) predictable and
>clumsy plotting; e) her tendency to intrude upon the narrative and
>tell the reader what to think.
All of your perceptions are far more valid about "Atlas Shrugged" than about
"The Fountainhead." If you haven't read "TF," I urge you to do so, for her
style is attached to far more recognizable human character types, especially
in her nemeses, than in "AS." This includes Dominique, a fascinating amalgam
of repression and idealism. Some even show that they can be redeemed by their
residual virtues, such as the blowhard Guy Francon.
Many episodes in "TF" (such as "the boy on the bicycle" beginning Part IV) are
not at all predictable from the plot, and they serve to illuminate the value
conflicts and difficulties encountered by the characters ... while never
forgetting the positions of those characters in the plot. Her skewering of a
host of "idealistic" and "sensitive artist" types is full of understated wit,
as well. Rand didn't erect straw men in "TF," she tore the straw out of their
chests and burned it. Toohey's self-revelation puts all the venom of the
manipulative idealist in one package, and he destroys himself -- the heroic
characters don't have to do it. As Roark says to Toohey at a crucial juncture,
"But I don't think of you."
In "AS," many (but not all) of the epiphanies of philosophy spoken by central
characters halt the progression of the plot. Sometimes, the plot is forgotten
entirely. I've never found any genuine plot impetus within Galt's radio
speech, despite Rand's obvious efforts to create one amidst his words. To me
it's a masterwork of tight integration of philosophy, whether one agrees with
it (I do) or not. But in any objective esthetic sense, it ends up suspending
the plot for 68 pages in a fashion not unlike that of Thomas Mann, whom Rand
despised for the same action.
In "TF," where Rand's own voice does partly intrude, it's only on a handful
of early occasions, to establish her architectural-history context. It's also
expressed in a Hugoesque perspective, stylistically far easier to take than
detached, lengthy philosophical speeches. Allusions are made in ways that
relate to actual human history, not one of a painfully constructed "People's
States" situation of the "AS" future.
In "AS," Rand was trying to show her ideal human being (centrally, John
Galt, though Francisco and Rearden are also takes on this) as embodying a
newly defined moral code. She also was *assembling* that code amidst the plot
elements, and making the events provoke her characters to talk about it. These
are dissimilar functions that can be combined only if the framework is that of
the plot, as it was in "TF." Roark's courtroom speech is the culmination of
the book's events, not an exercise detached from all surrounding reality ...
as Galt's radio-barrier waves literally do, to sweep all other voices from the
airwaves.
For an Objectivist to say such things about Rand's culminating life work in
"AS" probably sounds heretical. In fact, the philosophic integration in "AS"
is formidable, and addresses many issues of how to *implement* ethical egoism
in ways that are original and needed to be expressed. But I suspect that in
the 13 years it took to finish "AS," Rand pushed forward the philosophical
construction at the expense of the plotting. I suspect some of this came from
her disillusionment with her one-time friends Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder
Lane, and on how they seemed to come up short, to her, in providing a
theoretical background for egoism and liberty.
"Atlas Shrugged" is not short on fictional virtues. Francisco d'Anconia is a
flamboyant and joyous creation that is both unique in Rand's work, and a
pleasure to unravel. Fred Kinnan is a superb cynical take on labor leaders.
The "Wet Nurse" is a character that takes on utterly unexpected changes. The
plot twists in the final rescue of Galt are almost brittle in their irony.
But the far better integrated work of art (and use of a philosophic outlook)
is to be found in "The Fountainhead," and I commend it to your attention, or
to a second and more careful look.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
John Power
> I wonder why it is that so many Objectivists have plenty of time to
> write long abusive letters to Todd, but suddenly their time is to
> precious when it comes to long difficult answers.
>
> Why is that?
My letter was not abusive, rather I was explaining *why* I wouldn’t
answer Todd. I really don’t think Todd is open to the possibility
that Objectivism may have something to offer him. OTOH, I do think
he is intelligent and capable of realizing that he isn’t really
interested in learning about Objectivism. So you see, I think he
will listen to me on this point, but I don’t think he’ll honestly
listen to Objectivism.
I'd love to hear why you think I should waste my time?
-----John Power
Lance Neustaeter
ideal place to search, however. Join Jimbo Wales' MDOP and/or
Paul Vixie's Objectivism mailing lists for more enlightening
convo.
Lance
Gwen A Orel
with time to write abusive letters to Todd. Since you spoke
for Objectivists, I was referring to them (meaning the ones who
have already jumped in).
Gwen
John Power (j...@hep.anl.gov) wrote:
: -----John Power
cwa...@aquila.ece.utexas.edu
la...@portal.ca (Lance Neustaeter)
>Honest questions deserver honest answers. A.P.O. is not the
>ideal place to search, however.
agreed
>Join Jimbo Wales' MDOP and/or
>Paul Vixie's Objectivism mailing lists for more enlightening
>convo.
Rather yet, don't join Paul Vixie's or Mr. Wales' MDOP. While
there might be an occasional bit of enlightenment, the contents
of the lists are of the same quality as a.p.o, only more polite.
Better yet, if Todd really hates Objectivism that much, perhaps
a.p.o or MDOP or Vixie's list is the right place for him.
Chris Walker
barrym
: Nonetheless, I AM still interested in discussing with any Objectivist
: their opinions on a number of points I will write later on in this
: posting. As for those who instead choose to insult, to tell dissenters
: that they "should get a life," question their intelligence, spew
: slogans and Randinista dogma, call people "irrational," etc. (and you
: know who you are), don't waste my time and yours--I will not respond,
: whether you've cleaned the rabid dribble off your chins or not, and be
I don't think name calling is an appropriate way to discuss. But if I
did want someone to be aroused to call me names, I think referring to the
rabid dribble on their chins would be a very good technique.
Barry
Edward William Matthews
On Fri, 27 Oct 1995, Lance Neustaeter wrote:
> Honest questions deserver honest answers. A.P.O. is not the
> ideal place to search, however. Join Jimbo Wales' MDOP and/or
> Paul Vixie's Objectivism mailing lists for more enlightening
> convo.
Both of these groups consist largely of arbitrary assertions launched
against Ayn Rand, under the guise of speculative criticism and
intellectual discussion. I learned _nothing_ about Objectivism from
these people, and mention this as a caveat.
The best source is Ayn Rand's writings. If you've read nothing by her,
pick up a copy of _The Fountainhead_ or _Atlas Shrugged_. Take your time
reading them and enjoy them. Then go to her non-fiction to get more details.
Objectivism, as a whole, is such a departure from contemporary culture
that I don't think the essentials can be adequately stated in a brief
enough form to appear on the internet _and_ provide enough of a bridge
through the inclusion of a context to be comprehensible to someone who is
not familiar with Ayn Rand. Without exaggeration, it takes years to
learn enough of it to see how it fits together. Picking up a few details
might entice you to search further, but it really doesn't constitute
understanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Matthews | University of Oregon - Physics Major
e...@gladstone.uoregon.edu | Mathematics and Philosophy Minor
The most selfish of all things is the independent mind that recognizes no
authority higher than its own and no value higher than its judgement of
truth. - Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged"
Lance Neustaeter
>
> la...@portal.ca (Lance Neustaeter)
>
> >Honest questions deserver honest answers. A.P.O. is not the
> >ideal place to search, however.
>
>
> >Join Jimbo Wales' MDOP and/or
> >Paul Vixie's Objectivism mailing lists for more enlightening
> >convo.
>
> there might be an occasional bit of enlightenment, the contents
> of the lists are of the same quality as a.p.o, only more polite.
So, you're on both lists, then?
Lance
Tony Donadio
: ...were quite willing to test
: the validity of their hypotheses in open battle. Once Todd and I,
: however, showed willingness to pick up the glove, you guys started
: sulking and pretending to be very, very busy indeed.
: This seems transparent: you cannot hold your own, you can only talk to
: those who already agree with you, preferrably, as Gwen and others have
: pointed out, in groups fashioned by your shared convictions.
: If you have any pride....
The kindest thing I can say about this post is that it is a lie.
The easiest thing in the world is to *ASSERT* (as the above post does)
that one's opponents cannot answer one's arguments, or to pretend that
they are unwilling to do so. Perhaps the poster should actually try
one with intellectual content next time.
--
Tony * Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish
Donadio * to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for
* value. - Francisco D'Anconia, in ATLAS SHRUGGED, by Ayn Rand
Tony Donadio
: Tony Donadio (tdon...@panix.com) wrote:
: : Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: : The kindest thing I can say about this post is that it is a lie.
: Okay, so you don't have any pride, and your objectivity (as opposed to
: objectivism, two, as we can see, widely divergent attitudes) is sadly
: lacking. You are the person who _explicitly_ told Todd that you wouldn't
: talk to him, ostentatiously because he was "rude" (mommy, mommy, Todd has
: been _mean_ to me!).
As I said: the kindest thing I can say about this is that it is a lie. I
ended that posting with a statement that I would be willing to respond to
_politely_ stated questions (ie, ones that are not prefaced with a slap
in the face). This poster seems bent on trying to ignore the fact that I
made that statement; ask yourself why.
My refusal to respond to those questions was made for the specific reason
I stated: because I do not think it is right to sanction an abusive
request for a favor by granting it. (And please bear in mind that taking
the time to answer a multi-page set of questions IS granting a favor.)
If this poster wants to try to pretend otherwise, that is her affair.
If the other readers of the thread are interested, I will clarify my
motives briefly. I have posted actively to apo for about two years, and in
that time I have learned that there is a certain kind of hostile
personality that it is simply a mistake to enter discussion with in the
first place. This is the kind of person who is not really interested in
the answers to their questions or in honest debate, but who gets a kick
out of being able to make others -- particularly, those people whose ideas
they resent -- pay attention to them by responding to their attacks.
Polite discussion does not seem to satisfy them, presumably because in
such a case they would deserve the attention they were getting. What kind
of sanction they are really looking for I leave to the reader to consider,
but I've tried to make it a a policy not to give it to them.
As I said: anyone interested in posing polite questions should consider
doing so. (Email me as well if you can -- that way I can know to look in
on the thread again.) I have no problem responing to remarks that
_deserve_ the dignity of a response.
: Again? Check out the first post in this thread. Check out the Ayn Rand
: thread itself; check out the discussion of art history; consider the
: argument that Rand fans believe both in capitalism and in the superiority
: of traditional Western art that was, almost entirely, conceived under
: feudalism. But I'm not spoonfeeding you any more.
I have. I have had little to say about the art thread (it is not my
specialty), but if a serious moral or intellectual challenge to the
validity of capitalism has been offered, I certainly did not see it.
Thomas Clarke
>Objectivism, as a whole, is such a departure from contemporary culture
>that I don't think the essentials can be adequately stated in a brief
>enough form to appear on the internet _and_ provide enough of a bridge
>through the inclusion of a context to be comprehensible to someone who is
>not familiar with Ayn Rand. Without exaggeration, it takes years to
>learn enough of it to see how it fits together. Picking up a few details
>might entice you to search further, but it really doesn't constitute
>understanding.
So entice us!
Those are pretty big novels for people whose novel reading time
is limited.
Tom Clarke
Per-Olof Samuelsson
friendly with someone who starts the "friendship" out with spitting
in your face?
Per-Olof S.
Jennifer Umiastowski
and wants some honest answers without being slammed. So what do you
do? Slam him. That's great, Tony, you just proved his point for him.
He should thank you.
Hey Todd, I'm Jen. I'm honest and like to think of myself as
somewhat of an objectivist. Ask me anything you need to know. I like
discussing this stuff because it helps me to become more informed.
Tony Donadio
(tdon...@panix.com) wrote:
> Todd Pinarchick (tsar...@eden.rutgers.edu) wrote:
> : To Any and All:
> : I was originally going to post a Usenet message, in which I was going
> : to appeal to Objectivists to explain to me certain of their tenets.
> : However, after reading some of my e-mail and seeing some of ther com-
> : ments made by certain Objectivists in their responses to some postings,
> : I really despair of finding ANY who can hold a conversation, or can
> : explain their positions, without lapsing into ad hominem attacks,
> : sloganeering, and petty name-calling.
> ...
> : Nonetheless, I AM still interested in discussing with any Objectivist
> : their opinions on a number of points I will write later on in this
> : posting.
> Too late.
> I wonder why the poster thinks anyone here would care to respond and
> discuss anything with him, after *prefacing* his remarks with a set of
> insults. If and when he decides that HE can initiate a discussion
> without being rude, he may find some of us willing to respond in kind.
Tony Donadio
: Holy cow, the guy is looking for someone honest, because he's honest,
: and wants some honest answers without being slammed. So what do you
: do? Slam him. That's great, Tony, you just proved his point for him.
: He should thank you.
That is BS. When someone prefaces asking a favor by slapping you in the
face, what do you do? Let him get away with pretending that the reason
he's not getting the favor is because you're too mean, and not because he
is being the rude jerk he accuses you of? The poster is playing right
into his ploy, and giving him the "sanction of the victim." If he was
really looking for honest answers, he would have prefaced his remarks
politely and honestly -- instead of abusively, as he did.
I also think it is noteworthy that my invitation to respond to _politely_
stated questions was ignored by the poster, as though I had never made it.
Steve Smolinski
: Please, please, please do not take Tony as an example of Objecitivism.
Please, please, please don't take Tony as an example of
Objecitivism. But he is a rather upstanding example of Objectivism.
^^^
--Steve
John Alway
I'll second that.
Tony is one of the few people on apo who has a decent grasp of
the philosophy. This is a great value.
...John
Steven Malcolm Anderson
>
>roh...@opus.freenet.vancouver.bc.ca (Michael Rohaly) wrote:
>>Lance Neustaeter (la...@portal.ca) wrote:
>>
>>: Please, please, please do not take Tony as an example of
Objecitivism.
>>
>>: Lance
>>
>>Okay. How about Brad?
>
>
>Why don't you study the tenets of Objectivism in enough detail to make
your
>own informed opinion on who is acting in accordance with its precepts
And Brad Aisa _is_ acting in accordance with the precepts of
Objectivism (as clearly outlined and practiced by Ayn Rand and Leonard
Peikoff), e.g., rationality, justice, refusal to sanction
irrationalists, esp. self-proclaimed irrationalists.
, and
>who not? If you don't understand the ideas, how can you possibly have
a
>standard of value for gauging someone else's second-hand
pronouncements
>about them?
>
>--
>Brad Aisa, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
>ba...@hookup.net web archive: http://www.hookup.net/~baisa/
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>"The highest responsibility of philosophers is to serve as the
>guardians and integrators of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand
>
--
sm...@ix.netcom.com
"The concept of 'greatness' entails being noble,
wanting to be by oneself,
being capable of being different, standing alone..." -Friedrich Nietzsche
"Identity is shaped through confict and opposition." -Camille Paglia
John Enright
Rand's literary views. My answer is addressed to anyone with an interest
in these questions.
: 1) I know that Ayn Rand called her style of writing "romantic realism,"
True. But she did not regard quite _all_ of her writing as falling into
this category. For instance, in the first sentence of her introduction
to her well known stage play, she wrote:
"If I were to classify _Night of January 16th_ in conventional literary
terms, I would say that it represents, not Romantic Realism, but Romantic
Symbolism."
: and stated that she believed that Victor Hugo and Edmond Rostand were
: two others who lived up to the principles she defined for this type of
: writing.
She regarded Hugo and Rostand as two of the greatest Romantic writers,
but I don't remember her specifically characterizing them as Realist.
In conventional terms, Hugo displays strong realist tendencies in Les
Miserables, but none of Rostand's plays, off hand, strike me as being
particularly realist in their style.
: How did she distinguish her "romanticism" from the more
: commonplace understanding of Romanticism, which is a rather loose term
: for late 18th century and early 19th century writing?
I believe she thought she was grappling with the same basic _movement_
that the commonplace understanding seeks to encompass. She thought her
definition was an improvement.
"the early attempts to define the nature of Romanticism declared it to be
an esthetic school based on _the primacy of emotions_ [...] One can
observe the misapprehended element of truth that gave rise to that early
classification. [...] This emotional element was the most easily
perceivable characteristic of the new movement and it was taken as its
defining characteristic, without deeper inquiry." ("What Is Romanticism"
- all my subsequent quotations are also from this essay, which is
included in her book _The Romantic Manifesto_.)
: What would she
: say about such Romantic writers as Chateaubriand, Rousseau, Heinrich
: Heine, William Blake, the German "Sturm und Drang" lot, Samuel Taylor
: Coleridge, etc.--I mean, would she claim any kinship to them?
I doubt she would have claimed _kinship_... unless you include Schiller in
the "Sturm und Drang" lot. She included Schiller, along with Hugo,
Rostand and Dostoyevsky, in the "top rank" of Romanticists.
But if the question is whether all the above listed people, in their
literary productions, exhibited aspects of Romanticism as a movement, then
my guess is that her answer would be yes, with the possible exception of
Rousseau.
As a major qualification, and lead in to the next question, I have to
mention that she wanted nothing to do with the philosophical movement
known as Romanticism in Germany - "such as Schelling and Schopenhauer".
"The movement in philosophy had no significant relation to Romanticism in
esthetics, and the two movements must not be confused."
This is a very controversial opinion, of course. She had no shortage of
those.
: And how
: does she square her rationalist beliefs with the emotional, irrational-
: ist qualities of Romantic literature or art?
She would not have agreed that Romantic art was inherently irrationalist,
and she certainly made no attempt to square her beliefs with any sort of
irrationalism.
On the other hand, she agreed there was a sense in which Romantic art was
"emotional" (see above), but this did not require any particular sort of
"squaring" for her, since she was an ardent proponent of the compatibility
of reason and emotion.
: And how did any of this
: lead her to her positions of naturalism, avant-garde literature,
: existentialism, etc.?
It led to her distaste for them. She disliked naturalism because she
found it grey and boring. She disliked the avant-garde and existentialism
because they were irrationalist. (As movements. She may have liked some
works that fell in these categories.) Literarily, she criticized both for
their oppositon to plot structure.
: And did she claim any debts of gratitude to
: classic Russian literature (folks like Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Gogol,
: Chekhov)?
She admired Dostoyevsky, listing him as one of the greatest Romanticists,
and I believe he probably had some influence on her. It strikes me that
her portrayal of the psychology of evil may owe something to him.
Dostoyevsky, of course, has strong Realist tendencies.
She doesn't seem to have cared much for Tolstoy and she positively
detested _Anna Karenina_. I think I remember reading or hearing that she
resented being force-fed Chekhov as a youngster, and found some value in
his work only years later. I can't recall ever hearing what her opinion
might have been of Gogol.
By the way, she seems to have thought very highly of Ibsen.
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Enright from address: jenr...@home.interaccess.com
-------------------------------------------------------------