RoR: Forum

Great Dave. And of course, all of the above should be prefaced with the fact that I love those movies, and worshipped them growing up. I even wanted to be a Jedi! Now I've gone one step further. I want to be a SOLOist! :)

--Joe

Post 21

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 7:44pm

Everyone down on the floor, put your hands behind your head, gimme the doughnuts and let's talk about art!

:)

Joe, I went delving mostly out of curiosity. I already had my opinion ~mostly~ locked in concerning the matter. Anger with a topic or event spurs consideration of it (hopefully)...consideration leads to value-formation, which turns into self-expression; for example, expression of Rand's anger at humanity's degeneration taking the form of "Atlas Shrugged".

Noting this, I began to think of other ways anger at certain aspects of life has taken form--such as rock music (modern, heavy and "classic" rock). If anger was a valid emotion or aspect of life to present on the artist's particular canvas, why fault these "rockers" for expressing it in music? Angst-ridden? Yes, but so was a lot of Rand's work--albeit in a much more profound and mature manner.

Ah, but you're right. This is more appropriate a question for Mr. Newberry. Art seems his rightful purview, and this has turned out to be an esthetic matter.

Okay, everyone back on your feet. There's nothing to see here!

J

Post 22

Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 10:28am

Excellent article and very insightful commentary on it.

About the "eastern" influences on Yoda's philosophy, even the Dalai Lama has said that anger can be positive if it moves you to act constructively. The group Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) was formed out of a mother's rage from the drunk driving accident that paralysed her young baby. So, I think Yoda's logic chain is more likely a product of storywriting than eastern mysticism.

Hatred is the real problem. Hatred is caused by repressed anger when we are unwilling or unable to make constructive use of our anger.

Thus the problems with anger are two-fold: repression and destructive use of anger. I would assume that "Anger Management" would teach people how to channel their anger into something positive. However, since this is tough and difficult to do, repression is seen as a better strategy than destructive rage. Wouldn't the Middle East be much nicer if more people just repressed their emotions?

About the irritating person who is "practically begging for a beating", at what point does this become an initiation of force on his part? Is yelling and verbal threats an initiation of force? What if he yells so loudly it physically hurts your ears?

Post 23

Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 3:43pm

Jeremy,

Let me ask you a few questions. I take it you've read both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. After reading either of these, did you leave with the feeling that the world sucks and is beyond redemption? Did you get the feeling that they were just one giant rant after another on the evils of the world?

I ask this because, although anger certainly played a part in the novels, I really don't see them as "angst-ridden", even of a mature type. I think probably you agree?

Post 24

Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 5:11pm

Okay, answers to your Q's, first:
No. No. Not quite.

No, The Fountainhead wasn't angst-ridden. Agreement all around on that one. That's why I didn't mention it.

Atlas Shrugged was an entirely separate type of novel. I believe Rand had different intentions with it. AS was along the lines of a political book--and were the politics within it anything but angst-inciting?

I didn't get the impression from Atlas Shrugged that Rand was implying "that the world sucks and is beyond redemption"; only that certain aspects of the world suck and humanity had better start redeeming itself. Does that qualify as angst?

When I use the term angst it's not to mean tormented or fearful, or lost in a deep dark hole of hopelessness. I'm using angst to describe what any rational person might feel in the early to middle 20th century. Being surrounded by bad people and bad ideas isn't a cheery thing. Did you get the sense that AS was supposed to cheer people up? (apart from Galt's speech and other satisfying moments, of course)

Rand had a severely pissed-off tone in all of her philosophical and political polemics--which I love. And I certainly don't think I'm splitting the Objectivist atom when I say she was displeased with just about everything in modern culture.

Angst meaning turmoil, mental anguish and suffering of the soul? No, of course not. But I can clearly see how my use of the word could be misunderstood--I didn't clarify what the hell I meant. My fault, my fix. I should have used the term "tremendously f*$king steamed."

Sincerely discontinuing the non-contextual use of the word "angst",

J

Post 25

Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 8:52pm

Jeremy,

My point was that Rand wasn't writing a novel about how shitty the world was, and I don't think it came off that way. At the end of the book, I didn't think "god damn that culture!". You're not left with a sense of despair, but of hope. And not an irrational hope, but a hope based on the conviction that we have it in our power to shape the world.

Anger was one of the elements in the novel, but it certainly wasn't dominant. And I say that because I think at the end of the novel, you're not left feeling like the world is a horrible place with hope of salvation.

Contrast that with angst-ridden music. There's nothing that redeems it in the end. You're left with an embodiment of fury. If Rand's novels were anything like that, they wouldn't inspire anything but loathing.

Also, I don't think Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged to be primarily political. In fact, I think it was primarily ethical, but covering all of philosophy. The theme was the producer's energy being used against him because of an inverted ethics. The politics just showed the eventual outcome.

Post 26

Monday, October 27, 2003 - 1:07am

Okay, Joe. I can accept that. I wasn't left disgusted and bitter after reading AS. (in fact, I was totally blown away, with a new outlook on EVERYTHING, since it was the first Rand material I'd ever picked up...)

But I was rather angry. For the first time I realized just how poorly the men who create values in this world are treated by it. The hope Rand inspired through her protagonists does separate it from the vast majority of "angst-rock"--in fact I shudder even placing the two in the same sentence and comparing them; so I probably shouldn't have to begin with. Not because AS was lacking angst at the world, but because the majority of "angst-rock" lacks the hope and inspiration that countered the angst!

Thanks Joe

sidenote: In my little fat paperback of AS, Rand indicates "The Strike" is to primarily be a "social" novel, describing the relationship between second-handers and prime movers. So it was ethical and political, since it was meant to describe the relationship between men--capitalism, the only right politic--and because politics stem from ethics. I think that's what you said, but I'm just clarifying my own understanding of it.

Post 27

Monday, October 27, 2003 - 11:32am

Hi Jeremy,

I figured that you could see the difference. I bring it up because I think it's an important distinction to be made. In Atlas Shrugged, you might get angry about things, but anger isn't the theme. And that's not the feeling your left with.

Your original question was about how anger and art can go together. And I think you can see two very different kind of cases here. In one case it's the central theme. In the other, it's part of the context for a larger theme.

As for Atlas Shrugged, I think Capitalism wasn't the theme, but the result. I think it's really about whether the producers are good, or evil. And that is brought into clarity with the politics, as a sort of logical conclusion. But the politics is necessary when the culture sees the producers as the destroyers. You can see how she took a world similar to ours, and flipped the moral meaning behind everything. Everything revolved around this one issue, and the "mystery" is solved when the reader, via Dagny and Rearden and all of the other producers, finally flip their view of this ethical premise.

Let's put it another way (really off the topic of this article, you hijacker!!). If the thugs in Atlas Shrugged finally realized their mistake, and said "Okay...come back, we'll leave you alone. We promise. You're still evil, and we still despise you, but we know we need you now", what do you think the result would be? Would they rush back and bask in the capitalist utopia?

Post 28

Monday, October 27, 2003 - 12:40pm

A good read, Joe, and lots of good points.

I certainly appreciate the motivating passion of anger, especially in the light of enormous injustice. But I think that Yoda's maxim ain't all that bad especially if it is interpreted in light of Rand's own understanding of fear.

So, for one possible alternative take on this, check out this little online post of mine, "Star Wars' Yoda and Rand on Fear". Here's the relevant passage:

===
Every so often, a few kernels of philosophic truth come blaring forth from the dens of pop culture, and "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace," like other films in the George Lucas series, is no exception. Discussing whether young Anakin Skywalker (who shall become Darth Vader) is an appropriate subject for Jedi training, Yoda senses that the boy is filled with fear and even if he proves to be the "chosen one," there are too many unresolved contradictions and questions within his soul. "Fear," says Yoda, "is the path to the Dark Side. Fear leads to Anger. Anger leads to Hate. Hate leads to Suffering." . . .

Ayn Rand has had a lot to say about "fear"---in fact, I conclude the final chapter of my book, AYN RAND: THE RUSSIAN RADICAL, with a passage from THE FOUNTAINHEAD that has long been my favorite, and that centers on this very issue. It is a passage that other writers (such as Slavoj Zizek) have greatly appreciated. As Roark stands before a jury of his peers, ready to provide a defense of himself, Rand writes:

"He stood by the steps of the witness stand. The audience looked at him. They felt he had no chance. They could drop the nameless resentment, the sense of insecurity which he aroused in most people. And so, for the first time, they could see him as he was: a man totally innocent of fear. The fear of which they thought was not the normal kind, not a response to a tangible danger, but the chronic, unconfessed fear in which they all lived. They remembered the misery of the moments when, in loneliness, a man thinks of the bright words he could have said, but had not found, and hates those who robbed him of his courage. The misery of knowing how strong and able one is in one's own mind, the radiant picture never to be made real. Dreams? Self-delusion? Or a murdered reality, unborn, killed by that corroding emotion without name - fear - need - dependence - hatred? Roark stood before them as each man stands in the innocence of his own mind. But Roark stood like that before a hostile crowd - and they knew suddenly that no hatred was possible to him. For the flash of an instant, they grasped the manner of his consciousness. Each asked himself: do I need anyone's approval? - does it matter? - am I tied? And for that instant, each man was free - free enough to feel benevolence for every other man in the room."

I think Rand and Yoda . . . recognize a great truth: the reciprocally reinforcing relationship between fear, anger, hatred, dependency, malevolence, and suffering. It is only by facing the root of fear and triumphing over it that one can begin to express the best within oneself.
===

Cheers,
Chris

Post 29

Monday, October 27, 2003 - 12:50pm

Chris, you're clearly a whim-worshipping subjectivist. :)

No, even I can appreciate that these negative emotions can work together and eventually lead to suffering. They have their roles in our lives, but they're not the stuff that really matters. Similar to what I was saying to Jeremy, in one case the anger is the central theme, and in another it is more of a supporting role. If you let it become the central theme, then Yoda's words have real meaning.

But you shouldn't fear that your anger (or fear) is evil in itself and will corrupt you. Yoda's message can be interpreted in a positive light, but I think it's too close to the already existing "moral" view that anger is an evil itself, often worse then the cause of the anger. So give it a positive spin in a narrow context all you want, but since it's already the default view, I'm more interested in correcting where it's mistaken.

Post 30

Monday, October 27, 2003 - 1:47pm

But of course.

:)

Your friendly neighborhood whim-worshipping subjectivist bleeding-heart,
Dr. Diabolical Dialectical

Post 31

Monday, January 12, 2004 - 3:27am

What are your thoughts about this:

In the SW movies they also state the following;

"Do not underestimate the power of the dark side"

'Power' can mean and be used for anything, good or bad things right?

Post 32

Wednesday, April 14, 2004 - 8:08am