Archive for December, 2010

Newer Entries »

Catholic Girls are Sexier than Objectivist Girls

Posted December 3, 2010 By John C Wright

I was having a discussion with an Objectivist about adultery, divorce, and masturbation (which he, to my amusement, malaproped as a ‘Sin of Odin’). The discussion shipwrecked because the assumption that self-control was impossible, and undesirable if it were possible, in sexual matters but in no other matters of life, is one I could not countenance. I could not live up to the cool standards of a philosopher and discuss the matter soberly, because the subject matter was too disgusting and too personal. Blame me for a failure of patience.

Part of my impatience was provoked because he and I were discussing Objectivism, a philosophy that claims to be logical, and which is logical, granting its naturalistic premises, in all areas but this one.

Objectivism proceeds by little mental leaps over blind-spots where Ayn Rand simply “blanks out” the concept or the fact she does not want to face, or she papers over the blank spot with fierce and high-flown rhetoric. For her, true love is an expression of one’s highest values and deepest virtues: the heroic man is attracted to queenly and accomplished women, and the wretched man is attracted to whorish and loathsome women. Accomplishment and loathsomeness is measured by the woman’s loyalty to heroic (that is, Objectivist) values. All this is an interesting, if simplistic, theory of the psychological roots of love, but it is used in her writings, both fiction and nonfiction, and in her life, to justify adultery and divorce.

Coming from a  philosophy grounded firmly on the principle that reason and the vision of man as an heroic being must command all aspects of life (except, by sudden exception, this one) I found this sleazy excuse for utter wretchedness too ugly and too ungainly to dignify with further discussion.

From the axiom that man is an heroic being, Rand reaches the conclusion that man (in this one area) can act like the lowest sex-addicted traitor and philanderer, liar and craven oathbreaker?

From the axiom that man is a rational animal who must order his life via reason, Rand reaches the conclusion that man (in this one area) can follow his lowest animal instinct, break the bonds of civil concord and domestic love, and merely act howsoever one’s overactive sexual organs direct?

Oh, for shame. For shame.

Read the remainder of this entry »

96 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Apologetics, Reasonings

Quote of the Day: The New Absolute

Posted December 3, 2010 By John C Wright

This is a quote from a talk by philosopher and theologian Peter Kreeft, from his talk, Christ’s Concept of Happiness Versus the World’s which can be found here.

Sex is, quite simply, our society’s new god; our new Absolute. Anything is done, tolerated, sacrificed, justified, sanctified, glorified for this god.

A third of our mothers murder their unborn babies in sacrifice to this god. Of course abortion is about sex. The only reason for abortion is to have sex without babies. Abortion is backup contraception.

Or, look at the acceptance of divorce. Families, the one absolutely necessary building block of all societies are destroyed for this god. Half of American citizens commit suicide for this god; for Divorce is suicide of the ‘one flesh’ that love has created.

No one justifies lying, cheating, betraying, promise-breaking, devastating and harming strangers; but we justify, we expect, we tolerating doing this to the one person we promised most seriously to be faithful to forever. We justify divorce.

No one justifies child abuse, except for sex. Divorce is child abuse for the sake of sex.

Even all the churches justify divorce, except one: the one that does not claim the authority to correct Christ–and she is accused of being authoritarian.

12 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Wisdom

Good News!

Posted December 2, 2010 By John C Wright

One of the rare pleasures of being a published author, a pleasure that plumbers and physicians and highwaymen cannot share, is the thrill of seeing the cover art for your next book.

Well, friends, that just happened to me this very hour. The art department at Tor books just showed me what the cover for my next book, COUNT TO A TRILLION will look like. Naturally they are going to put the title and name on the cover, as well as, in a prominent location, the price. This is merely the initial art.

While it is true that some authors grouse and gripe about mistakes in the cover art, it is my policy never to complain. The editor sent me cover art in strictest secrecy, merely to ask if there are any inaccuracies, for example, in the hair color or cup size of my heroine, Space Princess Voluptua, or whether the polearm held by the Vampire-Bride of the Samurai Nosferatu of Kyoto is a naginata or a glaive–guisarme (the difference of course is that glaive-guisarmes have a hook on the dorsal blade, whereas naginata are smooth: readers notice this crucial details.)

Let us examine the cover art together, shall we?

Read the remainder of this entry »

24 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery

Onewordworld

Posted December 2, 2010 By John C Wright

In discussing bad (and good) titles for science fiction and fantasy tales, the question came up as to whether one-word titles can make up in brevity and ‘punch’ for their lack of informativeness or poetry or whatever it is that long titles have that short titles lack: TIME CONSIDERED AS A HELIX OF SEMIPRECIOUS STONES or REPENT HARLEQUIN! SAID THE TICKTOCKMAN versus DUNE or FOUNDATION or CHTHON.

I submit that there is an easy way to make any title into a science fictional title, make it evocative, and yet keep the brevity that fits on the spine of the book. I call it, the ‘Rule of World’! Any word can be made as if by magic into a perfectly serviceable science fiction title merely by tacking the word “world” to the end.

Let us attempt the experiment!

Ringworld (Niven)
Deathworld (Harrison)
Discworld (Pratchett)
Wheelworld (Harrison)
Westworld (film)
Waterworld (bad film)
Showboat World (Vance)
Eyes of the Overworld (also by Vance)
Shadow World (role playing game)
Riverworld (Farmer)
Rocheworld (Forward)
Well World (Chalker)
Witch World (Norton)
Computerworld (van Vogt)
Rimmerworld (from RED DWARF)
Warworld (from DC Comics)
Ghostworld (a comic by Clowes or a film by Zwigoff)
Cool World (Bakshi)*

So far, the experiment is a success. Nearly any name can be added to the word world to make an instant science fictional title!

Darkworld
Stormworld
Dreamworld
Otherworld
Autumn World
Naziworld
Techworld
Vengeance of the Nosferatu Samurai Brides of Mars

See how easy it is! What about more ordinary words? Any word will do! You do not need any artistic judgment. Merely tack the word on the end!

Noseworld
Washerwomanworld
Pumbingworld
Dogshowworld
Woadwoldworld — a world where many wolds contain woad.
Woadwoldroadworld — a world where many wolds to which roads run contain woad.

Uh. Okay maybe you still have to use a little judgment as to what to pick for a title.

—————————–

* NOTE: this is one I forgot. Added by Professor Victor Whimsey.

4 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Drollery

Quote for Today

Posted December 1, 2010 By John C Wright

Simone Weil: “Literature and morality. Imaginary evil is romantic and varied; real evil is gloomy, monotonous, barren, boring. Imaginary good is boring; real good is always new, marvelous, intoxicating. Therefore, ‘imaginative literature’ is either boring or immoral (or a mixture of both). It only escapes from this alternative if in some way it passes over to the side of reality through the power of art – and only genius can do that.”

I agree that imaginary goodness is boring. There is nothing I would rather do than spend a quiet night at home with my lovely wife and loud children, petting the cat, slippers on the grate, fire in the fireplace, television tuned to a black and white movie. One cannot make that scene exciting or dramatic, except by throwing the cat into the fireplace.

Drama is about adventure; adventure is about solving problems, preferably terrible problems that force horrific dilemmas which in turn call upon unexpected reserves of stoic heroism, courage in the face of disaster and death; happiness is about rest and satisfaction. May heaven spare me from adventures!

We cannot imagine heaven because we cannot imagine a perfect contentment or lasting ecstasy that would not either burden us with boredom or burn us up. All false pleasures wear away with time, all things that seem perfect in this world turn out to be false: and yet the hunger for perfection cannot be drowned out from the human heart, no matter in what deep and unlit well of cynicism we try.

I also agree that real life evil is boring. Nazis wore snappy uniforms, it is true, but Maoists wear drab pajamas. Most crime is not committed by James Bond arch-villains but by tattooed yobs and druggies beating girlfriends or committing petty larceny on persons weaker and poorer than themselves. Even more boringly, most crime is poor-on-poor, and there is no change in social conditions that will change it; a matter of a blackened eye or a stolen purse rather than a daring crime involving millions, or a murder cunningly concealed. In real life, most detectives are overweight, and most criminals are turned in by their friends or confess under questioning, or as part of a plea bargain.

Is Simon Weil right? Does portraying evil as it truly is, and goodness as it truly is, without losing the audience, take genius?

20 Comments so far. Join the Conversation
Filed in Musings

Wright’s Writing Corner — Great Books

Posted December 1, 2010 By John C Wright

On the topic of what makes a great book great:

http://www.ljagilamplighter.com/2010/12/01/wrights-writing-corner-writing-the-great-book-part-1-what-makes-a-book-great/
Excerpt:

First, we should distinguish between the two uses of the term “great books.” For clarities sake, I shall refer to them as great books and Great Books.

A great book is a book you love. Perhaps, it is a book that changed your life. Perhaps, it is one you want to read again and again. Perhaps, it is one that rocked your world, or uplifted you in a time of darkness. Perhaps, it stirred your heart, ignited your passion, or brought you comfort. It is a book that touched you.

A Great Book is a book that did to a whole lot of people what a great book did to you. It is the same thing on a society level: a book that rocked many people’s world; or that introduced new ideas into society; or that led millions of readers to “burn with the bliss and suffer the sorrow of all mankind.” * It is a book that so many people found great that it outlasted the sandblast of Time, which otherwise clears away all things.

So what makes a book great?

Be the first to comment
Filed in Wisdom
Newer Entries »