Bio-logical warfare: writing about yourself, and a note on technology.

7 11 2010

Yesterday I had to write a bio for myself to go with my story “Preacher at the end of the world” due out in January from

My advisor Jeff with the Nobel Prize for physics... yes, a real one.

Absent Willow Review. Before I did so I contacted my dear friend Jeff Menne for advice. His feeling were that most short bios by authors fail when they try to get witty or cute. I think we agreed that its okay to list honors, memberships and sales, but to stay lean. A bio is really just a short introduction and a way to connect the reader to other stuff you do (this blog for instance). If you try to do anything other than that you come off as a bit silly. The story will do most of your talking. The reader will establish their own relationship with you. It helps to have friends you trust with questions like what to include in your bio. I am very fortunate to have a resource like Jeff at my beck and call. For one thing, Jeff is the type of person that would know the etymological roots of a phrase like “beck and call,” and secondly he is the persons that convinced me to go into writing science fiction.  As I’ve said before, I once fancied myself a poet. I took all the courses I could in poetry but as the course numbers grew into upper divisions I began to realize that my poetry, despite some occasional lyrical power, was maintaining a very pronounced ‘averageness.’ At that point I was in senior level writing classes that did not specify form. I had read a comment from an essay by “Lord of the Flies” author William Golding that he had once fancied himself a poet and thankfully had seen the error of his ways. I started writing short fiction and was immediately congratulated by my perennial writing teacher, the poet and chain smoker Jeffery Skinner. Even in a more comfortable form I was still struggling with subject. Years of poetry had created an intensity of phrase and economy that made for good reading, but in the long of it my stories seemed to flounder. I remember one happy and lonesome success that was about a woman that hits a homeless man with her car and then begins to think she could predict the future in the patterns of traffic. I was returning to the urban fortress that Jeff Menne and I shared just off the Ohio River one day and I ran into him leaving. We chatted for a moment and I expressed a lack of inspiration and that I was choking on the “write what you know” adage.  I said that I wish I could write science fiction. He said the three most important words in my writing career- “Why can’t you?”  over a decade and hundreds of space ships, self aware AI, dimensional rifts and elder gods later and I think the answer is decidedly, “I can.”                 Now I want to talk about my other favorite person. By favorite I mean ‘least favorite,’ and by person I mean…


I recently read “atlas shrugged,” (I can’t say reread because the first time I read it I kept falling asleep so I read it in two page chunks for a year and a half). I put myself through this torture because a few months ago a friend of mine cued me in on the fact that he was a fan o’ Rand. He boiled it down to, “I think that governmental control stops innovation.” I must admit that I couldn’t argue with him. How could I? A statement like that has no counterpoint because it sets no parameters. What is control? What is innovation? What is government!? It is the type of easy belief block that brooks no argument because in order to proceed you would need to spend six hours defining terms. We weren’t in some liberal arts college auditorium, we were in a bar, and I dismissed him as a “dabbler” in the realm of economic philosophy. Yet I felt that I needed to at least think about these things a bit more, to refresh them in my mind. I remember once telling a libertarian friend that Ayn Rand was “trailer park” Nietzsche, and backing it up, but I don’t remember how or why. So during my recent sabbatical I refreshed myself. I am assuming that you have some familiarity with the novel so I will not create a synopsis. You can find one HERE if you need it.  Here are a few brief thoughts.

In the novel the notion is put forth that all inclination to innovate, to create art and technology, decays when it is seized for social use by government (that being a sort of American/Soviet hybrid in the book along the lines of a modern Scandinavian liberal market economy as it might be seen through the eyes of Rand Paul) I call bullshit. First, Ayn is assuming a definition of “art” and “technology” which puts them in the same category, i.e. as commodity. It is the only way she can understand value. We need go only so far as our bookshelf to read what Aristotle thought art ‘should’ be to know that just because a book’s sales are quantifiable, the creation of art is perfectly subjective and open to debate. Hell, the debate itself is part of the creation and appreciation of ‘art.’ Technology is the real “art” for Ayn. The “static engine” is a plot device, but also the epitome of the highest morality. Spoiler- all the big industrialist geniuses are disappearing because they are going on strike to show the leftist morons that run the country that “we aren’t going to take this abuse any more.” Little bitches. This is desert island philosophy writ large.  By positing that only the drive to profit initiates creativity and innovation and that when that drive is handicapped creativity is dulled, Ayn takes out so many vital factors that it renders the idea a dead fish. First, violence is absent as a condition. Force is real and you cannot make large ideas stand without considering the outcome of force. That “atlas shrugged” was written after two world wars makes such an omission seem like the worst sort of armchair philosophizing. Rand’s supposed American “Golden Era” of the late nineteenth century takes no account of the private armies the the “creative elite” marshaled to stymie competition during those years of Robber Barons and strike busting. Force is only held in check by force and that countering force must be held by a government if there is not to be endless and endemic corporate warfare (just look at the fourth crusade to see what corporate owned militia can do). Secondly, Ayn seems to think that innovation is inherently a good thing. I need look no further than the invention of tetra ethyl lead and its brain devastating effects or the Anglo-Chinese opium trade to say that sometimes innovation is its own form of violence, despite profitability. Innovation also comes from places that have nothing to do with the “industrial elite.” GPS is an outgrowth of purely national interests, in this case spying on the Soviets. Every time you move through a checkout line and have items scanned you can thank a huge social bureaucracy called NASA. The type of society that a purely profit driven culture would create is one that cannot have the vision and happy accidents of a society that benefits from inspired leadership or even totalitarian rule.

I could go on, but I think I’ve beaten this horse enough and I feel a little better. Next time some jackass tries to spew Ayn Rand in my face I am ready to counter with real criticism. I think Ayn Rand gives smart people that don’t feel appreciated by society a way to blame others for their failure, which is ironic as Ayn Rand never forgave failure.

Just a note, the novel “Starship Troopers,” by Bobby Heinlein is the symmetrical opposite of “atlas shrugged.” Read it and see.

The Science of Fiction

Andrew Clark Porter



3 responses

19 03 2011

I don’t see how art is not a commodity. And I’m very sure that Ayn Rand didn’t think the market was a flawless reflection of “the good.”

You also straw-man her with the idea that only the drive to profit initiates creativity and innovation. The people in the valley continued being creative in the same way that they were prior to leaving.

Further, Ragnar is exactly her distillation of the manner in which force can be used and he represents the secondary factors. There’s also violence on behalf of the main characters throughout the book, and all of it is motivated by her ideas.

Also, she would agree with the following statement: “Force is only held in check by force and that countering force must be held by a government if there is not to be endless and endemic corporate warfare (just look at the fourth crusade to see what corporate owned militia can do).”

Lastly, Ayn Rand dedicated an entire character to showing that all technological progress is not good.

(Your reading habits smell of dead fish. Please don’t read books you know you won’t like and then review them. What is the point?)

20 03 2011

Well, that’s just your opinion man!

No really, I appreciate the well thought out and very to the point criticism- except for the flames coming off the last line, you make good points. As judge, jury and executioner of this blog I want to make the following points:

1. I am no expert and this ain’t the New York Times Book Review.
2. If you’ve read more than two posts on this blog you’ll realize that I love getting my points challenged, my ideas squashed and my “truths” turned upside down. Though this blog is mostly about sharing my experiences publishing science fiction short stories and perhaps proper grammar, it is also something of a diary of my humiliations in such a socially suspect endeavor. I love being told I’m wrong- especially when I am (quite often!), and from your list of points I can say that you really sound like you know your Rand and I need a post just to try and answer your points- and failing a viable answer, admit my reading was neither close nor nuanced, because this guy Karl showed me the light.
3. The two or three hundred people that read this thing are likely not getting their opinions of Ayn Rand (or anything else) from me. You might notice the total lack of revenue generating advertising in the margins, or the suspicious absence of banners and flashy links. This little project is something I do out of love and anybody that wants to take the time to read one of my posts has made me feel like the love I put into this old site is all worth it. I love the people that call me out as much as the people that tell me how much they enjoy the site. So, Karl, even though your last comment hurt my feelings and added just a touch more darkness to the world, I love you.

22 03 2011

I think rand s expieriences as an east block girl gave her a first hand Witness of the collapse of an effective economc structure. I remember when I was a boy this man that worked for my Dad as an excavator Who happened to be chechloslovakian. I forget his Name but he recounted to me his personal story . His family ran a shoe factory in chechloslovakia (sorry I,m a bad speller grammer and punctuation guy but I make a good pizza) Anyway this guys family was into shoes in a big way the checs are known to be the best leather shoe makers in the world to this day. The Soviets rolled in with theyre machinery of state and nationalized the factory Evicted the family from theyre home so some commissar could bask in the oppulance provided by an evil capitalist. they allowed grandma to stay in the house as a maid that was nice. they offered the members of the family who ran the factory managerial positions and state structured pay scale they refused, consequently they lived as political outcasts and couldnt find work and had to live of the good graces of theyre relitives. Meanwhile after two years had passed as you probably already guessed production at the factory was reduced to laughable levels and and the comissar whos job it was to maintain production came a beggin they had to make a bargain with the former owners they had to form an agreement of exchange negotiated by theyre own private interests the comissar his political interest and the owner his financial. the deal the old man struck was that he would get his house back and he would run the factory his way and beable to hire and fire as he wished. when he returned from his political exile to his factory he was shocked the thousands of dollars worth of new machinery they had had delivered just prior to the state take over was still sitting in crates in the field outside of the factory rusting away no one had taken the initiative to figure out why to do what to do and how to do with them the things they were made to do. Years later after reading atlas shrugged I thought to myself well thats mighty astute of you Ayn. Oh and by the way they werent very tolerable of dissent in the old chechland the guy I talked to had to leave the country evidently they didnt like it when people threw molitav coctails at theyre tanks. In the end one of the big questions in this debate between the power of the state and the sovereignty of the individual comes down to the use of force is it really just for someone to hold over youre head imprisonment or worse If you refuse to surrender up the fruit of your lifes labor to the whim of the state its no wonder the more socialist a country becomes the more apethetic it becomes the strain of maintaining ones own personal value structure while your powerless to follow youre dreams kills the soul . I didnt write this to be a convincing argument but rather an expession of my heart on the subject no flaming pejoritives here. Freedom is a very groovy thing baby

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: