The Standard Criticisms of Atlas Shrugged

[caroljane]

Unlike the "standard literary criticsm" by "literary experts" (Who are those literary experts? I'd be interested in getting some names), JR is of the opinion that Rand was one of the greatest writers of the 20the century.

This is an exerpt from JR's post on the Great Literature thread about 'good writing':

Does s/he Does s/he [JR: "the writer accused of being a 'good writer'"] employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal?

TIA for illustrating with some text examples from AS where Rand is doing this.

If you can't find it in the first run of The John Galt Line you are either purblind or it's not there anywhere. That passage, btw, is the most powerful piece of narrative fiction I've ever read. (The greatest speech in fiction I've read is that of The Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov.")

--Brant

Speeches in fiction are dicey things. For me as a reader, if characters need to make speeches - if the author can't resist making his point declaratively and definitively through a character - then the novel qua novel isn't good enough.

And why is that? Have you read "Karamazov"?

--Brant

Exception proving rule - there are many of course, especially among the great Russians, and greatness makes its own rules anyway. It is the nature of some characters to be oratorical, and necessary for dramatic points that speeches be made. But the speeches in that case should be revelatory, not just recapitulations or expansions of previous points.

[BaalChatzaf]

Exception proving rule - there are many of course, especially among the great Russians, and greatness makes its own rules anyway. It is the nature of some characters to be oratorical, and necessary for dramatic points that speeches be made. But the speeches in that case should be revelatory, not just recapitulations or expansions of previous points.

The exception -proves- the rule, which means it tests the rules. Rules with exceptions are false rules.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[caroljane]

Exception proving rule - there are many of course, especially among the great Russians, and greatness makes its own rules anyway. It is the nature of some characters to be oratorical, and necessary for dramatic points that speeches be made. But the speeches in that case should be revelatory, not just recapitulations or expansions of previous points.

The exception -proves- the rule, which means it tests the rules. Rules with exceptions are false rules.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The rules of science may, but this is literature. All rules have exceptions, including this one.

[Philip Coates]

> All rules have exceptions, including this one.

Daunce, I may not have read all the posts. Did you explain why you think speeches are bad? Is it just in novels or would that be true of Shakespeare's plays? Should Hamlet or Macbeth have been jerked off the stage whenever they started to deliver a soliloquy?

[caroljane]

> All rules have exceptions, including this one.

Daunce, I may not have read all the posts. Did you explain why you think speeches are bad? Is it just in novels or would that be true of Shakespeare's plays? Should Hamlet or Macbeth have been jerked off the stage whenever they started to deliver a soliloquy?

Only in novels - and I don't say they're bad, just that their use is dicey - it depends on the character, the context, the type of novel.Legal thrillers for example would of course need speeches.

[Xray]

Unlike the "standard literary criticsm" by "literary experts" (Who are those literary experts? I'd be interested in getting some names), JR is of the opinion that Rand was one of the greatest writers of the 20the century.

This is an exerpt from JR's post on the Great Literature thread about 'good writing':

Does s/he Does s/he [JR: "the writer accused of being a 'good writer'"] employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal?

TIA for illustrating with some text examples from AS where Rand is doing this.

If you can't find it in the first run of The John Galt Line you are either purblind or it's not there anywhere. That passage, btw, is the most powerful piece of narrative fiction I've ever read.

--Brant

No doubt the first run un of the The John Galt Line is a very compelling part of the novel.

Here's from a brief exchange we had on this several months ago:

The most powerful, dynamic part of the novel is the first run of The John Galt Line. If they don't get that right they got nothing. The novel itself goes downhill from there.

I too am of the opinion that the first run of The John Galt Line is the most powerful, dynamic part of the novel.

Very impressive also how Rand manages to convey in that scene the strong erotic tension between Dagny and Rearden, using elements like the pounding rhythm and drive of the engine to enhance that tension.

I found reading reading AS mostly tedious ("still so many pages to go") but that compelling scene was mastefully crafted imo.

But this is no detailed demonstration of the specific literary techniques applied there.

(The greatest speech in fiction I've read is that of The Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov.")

I suppose you refer to narrative ficton here. The Grand Inquisitor's speech is unforgettable indeed.

Edited April 5, 2011 by Xray