This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Nornagest: I'm very impressed at how even-handed this page turned out to be. Most of the time, when someone mentions Ayn Rand, they're proclaiming her to be either pure evil or the best thing since sliced Jesus. This gets the points across without descending into hyperbole at any point. Congratulations.
gibberingtroper: I agree it could have been worse, but you can hear this article's author's opinion very clearly. Could be more objective but I'm afraid to touch it lest the backlash make things worse.
Concordat: As a person who detests the philosophy of objectivism, I too am surprised at how even handed it is. I know that if I had written I would have been considerably more critical. I suppose the best test of its even handedness would be for a die-hard Ayn Rand fan to read this and feel the exact opposite of me. That is, even handed but too critical.
Studiode Kadent: I'm floating the idea of removing the example of "Rorschach from Watchmen." Whilst Rorschach was meant to be a moral absolutist, he is not an Objectivist. His political opinions are clearly nationalist-conservative rather than classical liberal/libertarian, he obviously has severe sexual hangups (and implicit social conservatism) when Objectivism is a rather pro-sex philosophy, and finally his absolutely acontextual moral principles are more like Kantian morality than Randian morality. Rand accepted in "The Ethics of Emergencies" that principles could only apply in a specific context and in situations of overriding emergency, her usual moral principles would not necessarily apply. Her morality was focussed on life, i.e. the life most people lead, not 'lifeboat scenarios' where we have a priest, a pregnant woman and a rapist in a lifeboat and someone has to be eaten.
Studiode Kadent: I'm floating another idea, i.e. to 'de-snarkify' the article. Given that Rand clearly counts as Serious Business, the Rule Of Cautious Editing Judgement would imply that we should use neutral language to describe her work in this article. I don't want the page to be a shrine to Rand (I'm an Objectivist but I don't think she was flawless), but nor do I want this page to become an attempt to poison people's opinions of her, or to propagandize for her. People should read the books and make their own evaluations. If I see no objections to this proposal within a few days, I'll go ahead with the edit.
The Gunheart: As someone who also detests Objectivism, I just would like to suggest that the subject be given an actual Useful Notes page.
Studiode Kadent: The problem with this is that said Useful Notes page would probably end up as just a hatefest or shrine. I'm an expert on Objectivism and incorporated Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology into my Masters thesis, so when I see utter distortions of her ideas being used to bash her, I get annoyed. I have no problem with civilized disagreement ("I do not agree with Rand because of X"), but when a page degenerates into "She was a bitch! She must die! Her philosophy is pure EVIL and anyone that believes it must be shot! Don't read her books! Don't spread the poison!" I believe I am justified in being very disappointed.
Also, why do you feel there must be somewhere on the main TV Tropes Wiki that allows one to bash Rand? It's clearly stated in the pages on her works that Your Mileage May Vary and the intellectual content is controversial. Is this not sufficient?
The Gunheart: I guess I worded that poorly. I detest Obejectivisim, but that doesn't mean I don't support an intelligently written article on the subject. To put it in perspective, I'm also Christian but find the page on Atheism interesting to read. If you are an expert on the subject, perhaps you should write said Useful Notes page?
Studiode Kadent: I understand. In that situation I applaud you for your willingness to have an impartial page written up. I will certainly consider it and if I decide to do it, I'll link to it on the article.
Man Without A Body: I guess it's a good thing this page is so even-handed. I guess we can always bash her in discussion pages. I, for one, think she was an immature, selfish hack.
Studiode Kadent: Man Without A Body, you are more than welcome to your opinion, in spite of the fact I disagree with it. If your disagreement with Rand ever progresses beyond mere bashing and you suddenly desire to engage with her ideas in a less spite-filled and more substantiative manner, feel most welcome to submit a question or criticism to the discussion page of Useful Notes Objectivism.
