Phil's First Steinbeck

[Philip Coates]

Carol,

If you remember the book well enough, can you say what it was about "Appointment in Samarra" that was good or great for you?

[Philip Coates]

> would we want waugh when whining, when witty, when worldly, when wooden, when wordy, or when wonderfully wise? [Phil]

> Would want Waugh when weary of worthy wordsmiths & wish wonderful whim-worship wallow. [Daunce]

Dammit, I hate it when someone tops me...

[Selene]

> would we want waugh when whining, when witty, when worldly, when wooden, when wordy, or when wonderfully wise? [Phil]

> Would want Waugh when weary of worthy wordsmiths & wish wonderful whim-worship wallow. [Daunce]

Dammit, I hate it when someone tops me...

Stop trying to "top" from the bottom then...see D/s semantics for explanation.

[Philip Coates]

> Stop trying to "top" from the bottom then...see D/s semantics for explanation.

?? I don't understand. (You realize I was joking, right?)

[caroljane]

> Stop trying to "top" from the bottom then...see D/s semantics for explanation.

?? I don't understand. (You realize I was joking, right?)

Adam was joking too I think. I don't understand it either but I suspect it is not a Respectable joke.

Note to Adam, I still owe you the Scottish sheep one.

[caroljane]

Carol,

If you remember the book well enough, can you say what it was about "Appointment in Samarra" that was good or great for you?

I remember the book pretty well though it has been 15 or 20 years since I last read it. I first read it at around the same time as I read the Great Gatsby and Tender is the Night by Fitzgerald, and I thought Samarra was better.

It is spare and focused. It's tragic in the real sense, a character study and an indelible slice of life in a certain place and time (1920s 0r 30s Pennsylvania, country-club smalltown upper middle class). Two scenes remain vividly in my mind - both are towards the end so I won't do spoilers. One is of the hero Julian alone with his beloved jazz records and his beloved-hated booze. The other is a scene with his parents and his (Julian's) wife. His wife has a one-sentence speech which has stayed with me word for word.The father-son theme is muted but memorable.

I agree with JR that the title is a masterpiece, and in its way I think the book is too.It's also short!

Hope this helps.

[Selene]

> Stop trying to "top" from the bottom then...see D/s semantics for explanation.

?? I don't understand. (You realize I was joking, right?)

Adam was joking too I think. I don't understand it either but I suspect it is not a Respectable joke.

Note to Adam, I still owe you the Scottish sheep one.

Carol:

First, I will not engage in foreign bestiality. American sheep are good enough for a red-blooded American. Hell, they put O'biwan, the bigot panderer, in office did they not? And he certainly fullly unlawfully carnally knowledged the American citizenry for the last two years!

Second, although I was kidding, there was an element of truth in my "topping from the bottom" comment.

In D/s semantic, it is frowned on for the submissive [male or female] to use their submissiveness to dominate a weak "top" or Dom. In essence, the submissive, or bottom, is secretly, and dishonestly, manipulating the dynamic of the power exchange in order to control the dominant. Very un-chic in the community.

Phil's overt statement was a pale example of that type of behaviour. Similar to his civility charade is an example. If I had to make a call, I would bet that Phil is a secret submissive at heart.

Finally, my compliments on your hockey poem. Very well done. You really write well and I would bet you have some serious poetry that you should post on the OL forum devoted to original work.

I would even offer to build you a poetry closet to come out of.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> Hope this helps. [Carol]

It does help. You are persuasively forcing me to add it to my tower of biblio. (I *hate* it when people coerce me...no jokes please, Adam.)

[caroljane]

> Stop trying to "top" from the bottom then...see D/s semantics for explanation.

?? I don't understand. (You realize I was joking, right?)

Adam was joking too I think. I don't understand it either but I suspect it is not a Respectable joke.

Note to Adam, I still owe you the Scottish sheep one.

Carol:

First, I will not engage in foreign bestiality. American sheep are good enough for a red-blooded American. Hell, they put O'biwan, the bigot panderer, in office did they not? And he certainly fullly unlawfully carnally knowledged the American citizenry for the last two years!

Second, although I was kidding, there was an element of truth in my "topping from the bottom" comment.

In D/s semantic, it is frowned on for the submissive [male or female] to use their submissiveness to dominate a weak "top" or Dom. In essence, the submissive, or bottom, is secretly, and dishonestly, manipulating the dynamic of the power exchange in order to control the dominant. Very un-chic in the community.

Phil's overt statement was a pale example of that type of behaviour. Similar to his civility charade is an example. If I had to make a call, I would bet that Phil is a secret submissive at heart.

Finally, my compliments on your hockey poem. Very well done. You really write well and I would bet you have some serious poetry that you should post on the OL forum devoted to original work.

I would even offer to build you a poetry closet to come out of.

Adam

You sure know a lot of weird things. I am not quite sure I get it but I think you just called me a weak top, well at my age what do you expect. My sons would be scandalized to think I was discussing s-e-x with strange men, I am glad they are bored with my news from my online philosophical book club.

Thanks for your kind words about my Ode,I have nothing serious to offer just now but I am glad that some enjoyment can come out of the endlessly breaking heart that is Leafs Nation. To borrow from the great Bob Hope, it's playoff time again, or as we say in Toronto, "Passover."

[Philip Coates]

Rather than try to just assert abstractly why John Steinbeck's novel "The Grapes of Wrath" is powerful, worth reading, effectively laid out, vividly descriptive, with strong characters and good dialogue, I can offer examples if there's response or engagement:

Start of Chapter 12 [describing the route taken by those fleeing the drought, the Dust Bowl, and the loss of their farms in the Depression] ==>

"HIGHWAY 66 IS THE main migrant road. 66--the long concrete path across the country, waving gently up and down on the map, from the Mississippi to Bakersfield--over the red lands and the gray lands, twisting up into the mountains, crossing the Divide and down into the bright and terrible desert, and across the desert to the mountains again, and into the rich California valleys.

"66 is the path of a people in flight, refugees from dust and shrinking land, from the thunder of tractors and shrinking ownership, from the desert's slow northward invasion, from the twisting winds that howl up out of Texas, from the floods that bring no richness to the land and steal what little richness is there. From all of these the people are in flight, and they come into 66 from the tributary side roads, from the wagon tracks and the rutted country roads. 66 is the mother road, the road of flight."

Edited April 8, 2011 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

It's high time someone posts this stuff:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yer4L1Uhayc

[Selene]

ND:

Thank you.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

I've long noted the callousness of many Objectivists.

Too many are indifferent to the plight of people in this novel forced off their farms through no fault of their own. They didn't give a shit during the original struggle for voting rights for blacks and against segregation by the civil rights movement. I don't recall any articles on that in The Objectivist, although the article on 'Racism' was a microscopic step in that direction. If Objectivists had been among the Freedom Riders, the marchers, the demonstrators in the early sixties, you would see a sea of black faces in the (disgustingly) lily white Objectivist conferences today.

As a general rule, empathy and compassion are -virtues-. Maybe not major ones, but definitely part of a healthy, whole, and well-rounded personality.

Speaking out for the oppressed in general should have been a major part of the Objectivism movement, and still can. Not just defending businessmen, but much broader. (How women are raped, enslaved, forced to wear veils, kept at home, kept barefoot, pregnant, and as beasts of burden in many of the Islamic countries and other backward places is a major issue today. Where are the TAS op eds?!! Where are the ARI op eds?!!)

If you're going to fight for rights and freedom and fair treatment, you have to do it *all the way*, in every area, even in distant - and sometimes non-western - places:

"I'll be all aroun' in the dark. I'll be ever'where---wherever you look. Wherever they's a fight so hungry people can eat, I'll be there. Wherever they's a cop beatin' up a guy, I'll be there...An' when our folks eat the stuff they raise an' live in the houses they build- why, I'll be there."

I'd update Tom Joad's examples a little, but the implacable spirit of outrage at injustice and a resolution to do something about it should remain. (See the book "Three Cups of Tea" for an example in just one area.)

Edited April 9, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

I think the "I'll be there" video is the material forced by the studio onto the director.

--Brant

Edited April 9, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[9thdoctor]

I've long noted the callousness of many Objectivists.

Too many are indifferent to the plight of people in this novel forced off their farms through no fault of their own. They didn't give a shit during the original struggle for voting rights for blacks and against segregation by the civil rights movement. I don't recall any articles on that in The Objectivist, although the article on 'Racism' was a microscopic step in that direction. If Objectivists had been among the Freedom Riders, the marchers, the demonstrators in the early sixties, you would see a sea of black faces in the (disgustingly) lily white Objectivist conferences today.

WTF? One of Rand's best pieces was just a "microscopic step"? Wow, you're really off the rails today...just step away from the keyboard, ok Phil? Get some sunshine, exercise...

[Selene]

I've long noted the callousness of many Objectivists.

Too many are indifferent to the plight of people in this novel forced off their farms through no fault of their own. They didn't give a shit during the original struggle for voting rights for blacks and against segregation by the civil rights movement. I don't recall any articles on that in The Objectivist, although the article on 'Racism' was a microscopic step in that direction. If Objectivists had been among the Freedom Riders, the marchers, the demonstrators in the early sixties, you would see a sea of black faces in the (disgustingly) lily white Objectivist conferences today.

Phil:

I am going to say this once.

Myself and about fifteen [15] other "Objectivists" from Queens were Freedom Riders, we were also at the 1968 "Police Riot" in Chicago, two of us were in Tennessee in a shoot out with the Klan that was trying to drive our black Objectivist brother from his farm because he was black.

So, basically, civilly and with all due respect shut the fuck up about what you have no fucking clue about.

Adam

Post script: My apology to Michael and Kat for this outburst.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Selene

[Philip Coates]

> One of Rand's best pieces was just a "microscopic step" [ND]

Because it didn't address all those concrete situations that were happening. That doesn't diminish its major importance.

And other essays would have been needed to thoroughly explore the injustice to the blacks in the South, not to mention the other issues I mentioned, the issues regarding women, etc. You need a whole host of -detailed- essays, whether by Rand of by others. Just as there are many, many places where Rand talks about the injustices to businessmen.

A repeated theme, not just one short essay.

Even more important, did you notice that many of the issues I talked about have nothing to do with racism? Can't you try to find the positives for once in a post I make, instead of just trying to find the single two-word phrase you disagree with?

Do you agree with NOTHING I posted?

Edited April 9, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Adam, I am going to say this once: Fifteen people out of an Objectivist movement of tens of thousands is pretty much the same as saying the Objectivist movement basically ignored those issues.

Plus, did you miss the points I made about not -writing enough- about the issue? Not saying "Objectivism is on the side of that movement for justice"?

,,,,,

So, with all due respect: shut the fuck up until you are able to understand enough English to read what I actually wrote, you incredible fucking moron!

Edited April 9, 2011 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

It's just my luck that Phil raised an interesting point not long after my resolution....

I've long noted the callousness of many Objectivists.

Too many are indifferent to the plight of people in this novel forced off their farms through no fault of their own. They didn't give a shit during the original struggle for voting rights for blacks and against segregation by the civil rights movement. I don't recall any articles on that in The Objectivist, although the article on 'Racism' was a microscopic step in that direction. If Objectivists had been among the Freedom Riders, the marchers, the demonstrators in the early sixties, you would see a sea of black faces in the (disgustingly) lily white Objectivist conferences today.

in October, 1969, the UA Students of Objectivism participated in a demonstration that was part of the nation-wide Moratorium to End the War in Vietnam. I helped to organize the massive march, which went from the UA campus to the Selective Service office in downtown Tucson, where we picketed and gave talks. (I gave a short rant against the draft.) I was one of the people interviewed by the local news stations, and more than a few people were surprised to hear a Randian speak out in that context. To my knowledge, we were the only Objectivist group to participate in the Moratorium.

After I co-founded The Voluntaryists in 1982, Wendy and participated in a number of nonviolent demonstrations in Southern California. The most successful was against a church that had finagled with local politicians to use eminent domain to take over some adjacent land in order to expand their facilities.

On the land sat a small apartment building owned by an elderly woman who cared for her badly disabled son. She had lived there for decades, and the modest income from a handful of tenants is how she managed to provide her son with the care he needed.

Along with Sam Konkin and some of his "anarcho-village" crew, and some LP members, we held demonstrations every Sunday morning, marching outside the church with appropriate signs. We started shortly before services began and remained until church members filed out. We found that many church members were unaware of what had been going on, and they were willing to talk to us.

Our demonstrations got a lot of media attention. The old lady pushing her son around in a wheelchair pleading for the church not to steal their land and destroy their home was a natural. Her interviews were very effective. The church, which apparently got a lot of pressure from its members, capitulated in around a month.

One of our more controversial demonstrations was a protest we held in Hollywood at the site where some LAPD goons had roughed up some hookers. We held signs calling for the legalization of prostitution. I was interviewed by a couple of LA news outlets, and in one case the interviewer was very hostile. We also got considerable flak from the "respectable" wing of the libertarian movement. I was repeatedly told that libertarians look bad when they ally themselves with hookers, drug users, and other disreputable "scum."

I replied that if my critics could find a respectable class of citizens that was routinely brutalized, humiliated, and robbed by the LAPD, without so much as a hint of protest from the mainstream media, we would be happy to protest on their behalf as well.

Wendy and I also gave a number of seminars on the theory and practice of nonviolent tactics, using the excellent three-volume work by Gene Sharp, The Politics of Nonviolent Action, as a text. The major purpose of forming The Voluntaryists was to interest O'ists and libertarians in tactics other than electoral politics. These tactics included, but were not confined to, nonviolent demonstrations.

Gene Sharp once paid me a visit at Lysander's Books in Hollywood. (This was a bookstore on Larchmont Blvd. that Wendy and I owned). I had never met Sharp or corresponded with him, and I was a bit surprised that he knew anything about The Voluntaryists and our activities. Sharp was very cordial, and we chatted for a couple hours. He said he was glad to see libertarians become interested once again in the theory and tactics of nonviolent action. Sharp, a leading historian in this field, understood what many libertarians do not -- namely that early libertarians were pioneers in the tactics of civil disobedience.

Sharp also agreed with me that so much emphasis on electoral politics, via the LP, had overshadowed possible alternative tactics. I was a leading critic of the LP since its inception. Many LPers objected when I was asked to speak at an early LP convention in California. The purpose of my talk was to explain why electoral politics is an ineffective and counter-productive strategy for libertarians. Many deemed such a topic unacceptable, so a petition was circulated demanding that my invitation be rescinded. (John Hospers was one of the signers, as I recall.)

When the petition had no effect, a protest button was distributed at the convention. It read, "WHY." I regarded it as something of an honor to have my ideas regarded as so subversive that many wanted to ban them from a gathering of libertarians, so I prominently displayed one of the buttons on a living room wall of my Hollywood apartment for years. But the absence of a question mark after "WHY" always puzzled me. Did the declarative "WHY" convey a deeper meaning than an interrogatory "WHY?" Or had the button maker run out of space? Or was I dealing with an illiterate?

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Because it didn't address all those concrete situations that were happening. That doesn't diminish its major importance.

Concrete situations? It dealt with Jim Crow vs. Gov’t imposed integration. It presented the principles involved. What percentage of articles in the original, 1960’s publications needed to be about race issues, in your book? Which articles would you swap out for a thorough exegesis of the Objectivist position on lynching? Y’know, Rand only wrote an “introduction” to epistemology, maybe she didn’t think the subject was important enough to write more about.

Even more important, did you notice that many of the issues I talked about have nothing to do with racism? Can't you try to find the positives for once in a post I make, instead of just trying to find the single two-word phrase you disagree with?

Do you agree with NOTHING I posted?

The only other subject you touched on was the plight of women in Islamic theocracies. When Objectivists talk about those countries it’s usually in terms of nuking them. I’d rather they talked about that less.

Adam, I am going to say this once: Fifteen people out of an Objectivist movement of tens of thousands is pretty much the same as saying the Objectivist movement basically ignored those issues.

You're quite sure Adam's anecdote is the only one? Should he somehow accumulate data on all these tens of thousands of people, what they did back in the 60's when they were already spending a substantial percentage of their spare time taking courses on Objectivism? You're the one who made an assertion about what people did or didn't do, Adam spoke to what he actually did. You're the one talking crap.

So, with all due respect: shut the fuck up until you are able to understand enough English to read what I actually wrote, you incredible fucking moron!

Just step away from the computer, Phil. It's not your day, you need to go find a puppy or a kitten to play with.

[George H. Smith]

> One of Rand's best pieces was just a "microscopic step" [ND]

Because it didn't address all those concrete situations that were happening. That doesn't diminish its major importance.

And other essays would have been needed to thoroughly explore the injustice to the blacks in the South, not to mention the other issues I mentioned, the issues regarding women, etc. You need a whole host of -detailed- essays, whether by Rand of by others. Just as there are many, many places where Rand talks about the injustices to businessmen.

I think a major reason for the neglect you mention was Rand's unqualified contempt for the counterculture of the 1960s. Members of the counterculture were deeply involved in the civil rights movement and in protests against racism generally, and Rand did not want to sanction a movement that she regarded as evil and irrational, even when it was working for a just cause.

Many O'ists still retain this attitude towards the 1960s counterculture. In his important book, In Praise of Decadence, Jeff Riggenbach corrects many of the myths and misconceptions about the 1960's counterculture, but few O'ist types seem to have read it. This excerpt from Scott Ryan's Amazon review explains JR's approach:

Jeff Riggenbach's thesis in this book is a pretty straightforward one: that libertarianism is the real legacy of the 1960s, and that periods of "decadence" (really, disrespect for traditional authorities) are the most creative and inventive in history.

He makes it stick, too. Oh, there are parts I'd have handled differently, and I wish he'd ridden a couple of _my_ favorite hobby horses (the influence of science fiction being one subject to which I wish he'd devoted more space). But I learned to live long ago with my disappointment that not everything will fit into one book.

And what _is_ in the book is pretty uniformly excellent. Riggenbach begins, for example, by locating libertarianism/anarchism in U.S. history, correctly naming e.g. Emerson, Thoreau, and some of their contemporaries as examples of this tradition. And he has a fine chapter on Ayn Rand that goes far toward explaining why hippies liked her so much better than she liked them....

Mass protests against an injustice will invariably involve protesters and groups with different political beliefs. In my experience, most O'ist types will not participate in such protests because they believe that by doing so they somehow sanction the views of other protesters. This objection never made much sense to me, but so be it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Adam, I am going to say this once: Fifteen people out of an Objectivist movement of tens of thousands is pretty much the same as saying the Objectivist movement basically ignored those issues.

Plus, did you miss the points I made about not -writing enough- about the issue? Not saying "Objectivism is on the side of that movement for justice"?

Adam mentioned 15 people he was personally involved with. There is no way to tell how many O'ist types in total participated in similar activities throughout the U.S.

Many O'ist-influenced small circulation zines and newsletters sprang up during the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is impossible to say how much was being written about civil rights and related issues without surveying those. I suspect the number may be greater than you think.

I joined the UA Young Republicans during my first year in college, and I was soon editing and writing for our little zine, The Free Westerner. The first article I published in The Free Westerner (which I think was the first article I ever published) was titled "Joe Average Republican." This was a broadside against Republicans who claimed to value individual freedom but who refused to support just causes that were associated with "hippies" and the political left generally. We published a number of articles by O'ist types that dealt with the issues you mentioned.

Nevertheless, I agree with your observation insofar as it relates to Ayn Rand and her immediate circle. It probably applies as well to the orthodox O'ist groups. But there were many admirers of Ayn Rand during those years who did not travel in orthodox circles and who did not identify themselves as "Objectivists."

Hell, I knew some fans of Rand who were very active in SDS and who viewed themselves as members in good standing of the counterculture. They admired Rand for her stress on intellectual independence and her belief that the individual, not some government or institution, is the final moral judge, so long as force is not used. They saw themselves as practicing what Rand preached.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

Prior to 1970, the Randians, Objectivists, Panthers, SDSers, Anarcho capitalists, etc. had certain unifying principles of anti-authoritarianism, anti draft, anti war, and open opposition to the ever centralizing power of the state.

All of the "Objectivists" that I met in those circles were, by definition, on board for fighting for the oppressed. Therefore, I never got to see any "Objectivists" who were not on the same side I was. So there were hundreds of Objectivists over that decade that were involved on my side of those issues which gives me, I guess, a skewered point of view.

My theory was to link with any groups that were on the side of the issue that I was on, e.g. ending the draft. I understood that SDS and my cadres had

significant disagreements on other issues, but that did not deter us from working with them, or them with us on common issues.

Your example of the lady and her son against the eminent domain church abuse of power is a perfect example. We had numerous fights in the tri-state area just like that one.

When they foolishly gave me power in a major city agency, I decentralized power to the local community and then to each citizen or business. We saved whole blocks and communities from those kinds of Robert Moses destructions.

I also believe that my open attitude which was not judgemental went a long way in terms of networking with groups and individuals.

You seem to have the same concepts in terms of Tip O'Neil's mantra that all politics IS local.

Adam

[Philip Coates]

> Nevertheless, I agree with your observation insofar as it relates to Ayn Rand and her immediate circle. It probably applies as well to the orthodox O'ist groups. [GHS, #47]

I met thousands of Oists when I started clubs and in NYC and on the West Coast. Never saw much interest in the plight of the oppressed if they were 'humble, simple people' or minorities or women. I think if Rand had written in detail on these subjects there would have been much more. And I did have in mind the more formal Oist movement directly influencd by her, attending the courses, etc.

And still today the fact that the formal centers of the movement, TAS and ARI, basically aren't writing op eds on the kinds of issues I'm talking about.

> But there were many admirers of Ayn Rand during those years who did not travel in orthodox circles and who did not identify themselves as "Objectivists." Hell, I knew some fans of Rand who were very active in SDS and who viewed themselves as members in good standing of the counterculture.

Yes. It doesn't surprise me that as the distance from what once might loosely call "right wing Objectivists" increases, there would be more interest in what I'm now tempted to call the grapes of wrath-type issues or "little people"-type issues.

Many Objectivists are outraged when injustice is done to a great mind, a Galileo, a major creator or producer. But what if he's someone who is just struggling to keep his head above water, if he's a 'little' person, like women in the third world, like the peons in Latin America and Asia who are not given deeds to their property but are kept as tenants on million acre estates - as discussed in "The Other Path" by Hernando De Soto? First the land was the king's then, it was handed to the big nobles, even though they didn't acquire it by wealth production working the land but by being courtiers and enormous land grants.

Just one more form of oppression/rights violation of the ordinary mass of people in many countries.

I also think your [George's] point about Rand's antipathy to the counterculture played a role in what she chose as examples of oppression, victimization, injustice.

Edited April 10, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

> Many Objectivists are outraged when injustice is done to a great mind, a Galileo, a major creator or producer. [Phil, previous post]

And what if he's (i) doing something they don't approve of, like drugs or prostitution? Or (ii) not someone who they consider admirable or a solid citizen, as if he's a former criminal who did something stupid one time when he was a teenager and now has "a record" and can't get hired, gets leaned on by the police constantly, has his pay stolen from him by employers because he can't afford to report them, etc.? [Paging Victor Hugo...]

The biggest example of combining these two is those who have a record for the first (victimless crimes with no rights violation -- like drugs) and then are immediately in the category of the second. Their lives are ruined forever. I don't have the numbers, but if anyone knows, how many such people are in the 'system'....in jail, on probation, with a record who never harmed anyone except themselves?

Is it a hundred thousand? A million? How many Oists give a shit? Can anyone point me to a single op ed or conference speech done by ARI plus another op ed or conference speech done by TAS centered on such subjects (I'm not counting economics stuff -- such as how harmful it is to drain the energy, lose the productive contributions of the people involved, but instead on the fundamental issues of justice, morality, and supporting these parties.)

(I think the libertarians George mentioned are probably a lot better on this spectrum of issues.)

Edited April 10, 2011 by Philip Coates