2 ms·

"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 hypo

by 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?
  - Tycho 16y ago
    Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it. 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. She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response. Here the public response to Hickman wasn't hypocritical (except for his wife-murdering cellmate), but there were other things she didn't like about it. Let's note that most murders actually don't provoke a mass outrage - people are just quietly glad when the murderer is caught/sentenced. Mind you, Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable. And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime? Again you are forgetting this is a private diary for planning fiction, not an newspaper editorial on a public affair. 'Worthy' has got nothing to do with it. Murders happen all the time. Many books are written about them already. It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it. This was a murder case with a difference, and Rand wanted to explore that difference. The question is not 'what is just and fair in this story,' but 'what is interesting in this story?'

by gnosis 16y ago

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?
- Tycho 16y ago
  Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder? The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it. 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. She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response. Here the public response to Hickman wasn't hypocritical (except for his wife-murdering cellmate), but there were other things she didn't like about it. Let's note that most murders actually don't provoke a mass outrage - people are just quietly glad when the murderer is caught/sentenced. Mind you, Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable. And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime? Again you are forgetting this is a private diary for planning fiction, not an newspaper editorial on a public affair. 'Worthy' has got nothing to do with it. Murders happen all the time. Many books are written about them already. It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it. This was a murder case with a difference, and Rand wanted to explore that difference. The question is not 'what is just and fair in this story,' but 'what is interesting in this story?'