Alchemist and Freidma, I read.
Recent reading
Not even going to go down the Ayn Rand path. Too many jokes, and I do not need the mod warning.
However, I have enjoyed updating my knowledge base concerning a subject I haven't really given much thought to since the 1980s:
Kudos, @Edge and @eco's bones for by far the most erudite and literary exchange I've seen on these boards in – what? – 15 years? I'd follow an exchange between you two on this subject (and other literary matters) if you were to set it up on Tumblr or whatever.
I don't know, I find it hard not to classify Lolita or Pale Fire as masterpieces. The Defense is probably not on that level, but I find it to be quite powerful, as well (really enjoy the movie with John Turturro, as well).
As far as Rand goes, while I don't particularly care for her work (and have only read The Fountainhead), there are some worthwhile ideas that can be sifted out. Now, the rational egoism she defends is, I would argue, a deeply flawed characterization of human nature. Her worship of greed is abhorrent. At the same time, a work like The Fountainhead has value as a kind of morality play. Its characters are archetypal: the uncompromising individual (Roark); the conformist who takes the path of least resistance (Keating); the pessimist who thinks the world is too broken to save (Dominique); the opportunist who purports to stand for "the people" but is only interested in accruing power for themselves (Toohey). That they are one-dimensional simply means we should recognize the limits of these archetypes. The majority of people who advocate for equality are not Ellsworth Toohey, but there are Tooheys out there in the world. They use nice-sounding words that they picked up in grad school to mask their authoritarianism and simple desire to dominate others (and this veneer makes them, in some ways, more dangerous than the simple demagogue who openly flaunts their wish to impose their will on the population). So while Rand's broader "philosophy" is incoherent and wrong, there's still value in some of her work, IMO. I keep her on the shelf next to Marx because I know it would annoy them both.
And now back to reading Hegel for my dissertation.
I lump in Rand with the Henry James. At this point in my life, I get that I will not be a James reader. I have read much of Rand and again, at this point in life, I agree that whining Russian aristocracy theory.
I don't know, I find it hard not to classify Lolita or Pale Fire as masterpieces. The Defense is probably not on that level, but I find it to be quite powerful, as well (really enjoy the movie with John Turturro, as well).
As far as Rand goes, while I don't particularly care for her work (and have only read The Fountainhead), there are some worthwhile ideas that can be sifted out. Now, the rational egoism she defends is, I would argue, a deeply flawed characterization of human nature. Her worship of greed is abhorrent. At the same time, a work like The Fountainhead has value as a kind of morality play. Its characters are archetypal: the uncompromising individual (Roark); the conformist who takes the path of least resistance (Keating); the pessimist who thinks the world is too broken to save (Dominique); the opportunist who purports to stand for "the people" but is only interested in accruing power for themselves (Toohey). That they are one-dimensional simply means we should recognize the limits of these archetypes. The majority of people who advocate for equality are not Ellsworth Toohey, but there are Tooheys out there in the world. They use nice-sounding words that they picked up in grad school to mask their authoritarianism and simple desire to dominate others (and this veneer makes them, in some ways, more dangerous than the simple demagogue who openly flaunts their wish to impose their will on the population). So while Rand's broader "philosophy" is incoherent and wrong, there's still value in some of her work, IMO. I keep her on the shelf next to Marx because I know it would annoy them both.
And now back to reading Hegel for my dissertation.
