3 ms·

We still do not know what information Rand had when she wrote what. The whole point is something made an impression on her and then she explored that emotional

by Tycho 16y ago

We still do not know what information Rand had when she wrote what. The whole point is something made an impression on her and then she explored that emotional response to come up with ideas for a story. If you want to judge her on her emotional response, you at least need to be sure what she was responding to: for instance, I might have an emotional response to Saddam Hussein grandstanding in the crimes against humanity trial if I saw that on television, one quite different if the tv spot had simply featured images of his chemical attacks or torture victims. "Even if that was all that fascinated her about Hickman (doubtful), it's quite interesting what conclusions she drew from his words: not that that kind of attitude could lead egomaniacs like Hickman to senseless murder but rather that they are ideals to be emulated and praised." It's less interesting when you consider that other parts of her philosophy include a total rejection of violence. "Are you kidding me? The section she wrote it in is titled "The Hickman Case", and it's clear she is talking about that case in particular from beginning to end. The entire section reinforces what she said in that quote. She said it and meant it about the Hickman case. There's no doubt about that." Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote... but I strongly disagree. Here's the whole paragraph: The first thing that impresses me about the case ^ so she starts off addressing a specific event is the ferocious rage of the whole society against one man. ^ and then picks out a more general phenomenon present in this case No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the "virtuous" indignation and mass-hatred of the "majority." One always feels the stuffy, bloodthirsty emotion of a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans. It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society. ^ And then describes the general phenomenon as she has observed from other instances. Then she goes back to talking about Hickman. Prescott omitted the middle sentence of the last section above to make it sound worse, which I think is very dishonest

gnosis 16y ago
"It's less interesting when you consider that other parts of her philosophy include a total rejection of violence." That's kind of ironic, if not outright hypocritical considering that outrage against violence is exactly what she's railing against in this journal entry. She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there. "And then describes the general phenomenon as she has observed from other instances." First, it's not clear whether the last sentence you quote (the one you agree is dispicable were Rand referring to the Hickman case) is directly referring to the Hickman case or to the subject of the previous sentence, the "mob in any great public feeling". She doesn't mention the Hickman case by name in that sentence, nor does she explicitly mention she's talking about subject of the previous sentence. But even were we to grant that she wasn't talking about the Hickman case directly, but was only talking about "a mob", she'd still be talking about the Hickman case indirectly; since it's obvious the mob she mentions is a general phenomena of which she saw the Hickman case as a particular example of. So either way, she's talking about the Hickman case. Directly or indirectly. In fact, the rest of the journal entry makes it crystal clear what Rand says in that sentence is indeed what she feels towards the spectators and prosecutors of the Hickman: "It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society." Read the rest of the "Hickman Case" section from her journal and you'll see that very sentiment expressed by Rand towards the spectators and prosectors of the Hickman case. You can virtually see the scorn and contempt dripping from Rand's lips, not at some abstract and general example of "a mob", but precisely at those people who were outraged by what Hickman had done.
- Tycho 16y ago
  She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there. This is getting a bit silly, I mean, why would she? It's her private diary which she's using to plan works of fiction. She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence. Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally. Thirdly, she does indeed have many (other) negative things to say about the mob in this specific instance, but they are reasonable criticisms. For instance the enthusiasm of the newstand boys crying 'they're going to hang him!' It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground. Basically she saw this case, saw the public reaction, and detected something in that reaction which wasn't motivated merely by the crime itself, but the criminal's open defiance of the social order. It inspired her to write a story about someone who also cared nothing for the social order, who wanted his own success above all alse, but was not a phoney or a hypocrit in any way, or a danger to others, and committed a crime for which he was widely hated: not because of the crime itself, but because he refused to acknowledge its wrongfulness. The initial story was never written but you can see the same pattern in The Fountainhead when Roark blows up the housing complex then goes on trial. Rand was not interested in Hickman, but in a parallel to the Hickman story that shared some of the same elements. There were, of course, many, many other murders which Rand wasn't interested in whatsoever.
  - gnosis 16y ago
    "She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence." Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? "Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally." Even if we take her statement to apply more generally towards "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" is it really any more excusable? She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder. "It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground." And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime?

by Tycho 16y ago

gnosis 16y ago

"It's less interesting when you consider that other parts of her philosophy include a total rejection of violence." That's kind of ironic, if not outright hypocritical considering that outrage against violence is exactly what she's railing against in this journal entry. She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there. "And then describes the general phenomenon as she has observed from other instances." First, it's not clear whether the last sentence you quote (the one you agree is dispicable were Rand referring to the Hickman case) is directly referring to the Hickman case or to the subject of the previous sentence, the "mob in any great public feeling". She doesn't mention the Hickman case by name in that sentence, nor does she explicitly mention she's talking about subject of the previous sentence. But even were we to grant that she wasn't talking about the Hickman case directly, but was only talking about "a mob", she'd still be talking about the Hickman case indirectly; since it's obvious the mob she mentions is a general phenomena of which she saw the Hickman case as a particular example of. So either way, she's talking about the Hickman case. Directly or indirectly. In fact, the rest of the journal entry makes it crystal clear what Rand says in that sentence is indeed what she feels towards the spectators and prosecutors of the Hickman: "It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society." Read the rest of the "Hickman Case" section from her journal and you'll see that very sentiment expressed by Rand towards the spectators and prosectors of the Hickman case. You can virtually see the scorn and contempt dripping from Rand's lips, not at some abstract and general example of "a mob", but precisely at those people who were outraged by what Hickman had done.

Tycho 16y ago
She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there. This is getting a bit silly, I mean, why would she? It's her private diary which she's using to plan works of fiction. She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence. Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally. Thirdly, she does indeed have many (other) negative things to say about the mob in this specific instance, but they are reasonable criticisms. For instance the enthusiasm of the newstand boys crying 'they're going to hang him!' It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground. Basically she saw this case, saw the public reaction, and detected something in that reaction which wasn't motivated merely by the crime itself, but the criminal's open defiance of the social order. It inspired her to write a story about someone who also cared nothing for the social order, who wanted his own success above all alse, but was not a phoney or a hypocrit in any way, or a danger to others, and committed a crime for which he was widely hated: not because of the crime itself, but because he refused to acknowledge its wrongfulness. The initial story was never written but you can see the same pattern in The Fountainhead when Roark blows up the housing complex then goes on trial. Rand was not interested in Hickman, but in a parallel to the Hickman story that shared some of the same elements. There were, of course, many, many other murders which Rand wasn't interested in whatsoever.
- gnosis 16y ago
  "She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence." Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? "Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally." Even if we take her statement to apply more generally towards "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" is it really any more excusable? She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder. "It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground." And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime?