Samizdata

I am certainly not an Objectivist, though it would be fair to say I have been influenced by Ayn Rand’s works. For me, the conjectural objective epistemology of Karl Popper makes more sense, but I am also of the view that Rand is not without her merits.

Thus when I saw Tech pundit Andrew Orlowski writing in an article in The Register that Ayn Rand was a crypto-fascist, that was not something I could leave unchallenged. I must confess I have never been a great fan of Andrew Orlowski, as he also writes for New Statesman, a publication that the excellent Will Quick of DailyPundit described exquisitely as “a haven of fluorescent idiocy”.

I e-mailed Orlowski as follows:

Sir,

I would have assumed that, given your well known statist beliefs, you would have known what the word ‘fascist’ actually means. It would seem not. But let me guess… you take the Chomsky line on language and my attempt to impose coherent meaning on a word is just evidence of my desire to oppress you. Yeah, that must be it.

Had you indicated Rand’s ideas were not entirely rational, then certainly you would have made a valid point. Her non-conjectural objective epistemology does have its weaknesses, but fascist? Ludicrous. Fascism is a form of nationalist collectivism, a socialist offshoot, and which part of Rand’s ideology have you identified as collectivist? Or have you identified some form of fascism I was previously unaware of that is not in fact collectivist? Some sort of ‘individualist fascism’? That would certainly be a fascinating concept: mass rallies of one at Nuremburg perhaps?

Fascist economics involve national control (but not necessarily nominal ownership) of the means of production in the service of (ethnic) national objectives… can you point me at the remarks in Rand’s works where she advocates that?

Clearly you do not know what you are talking about and thus I am disinclined to believe anything else you write.

By your own words you are revealed, sir.

Perry de Havilland …-

Andrew Dodge is not well pleased by some people’s views of ‘Lord of the Rings’

I feel I must wade into the sordid debate about Tolkien and Lord of the Rings. I am afraid there are some prevailing factors which will mean that the great man will never get the kudos due to him by fellow writers and the critics. The man has absolute no writer “cred”. He was not an ardent left, a pederast, pedophile, drug addict, raging queer, womaniser, sado-masochist or suicide prone loon. The man was an Oxford don who liked nothing more than smoking his pipe with a glass of something while he and others (C.S. Lewis) read their latest work. The man enjoyed the company of his fellow writers, his own creations and books instead of little boys, hookers or criminals. How can this man have sold so many books? His critics can only muster one insult to the good man’s name: he wrote for children. His books contained no rape, mass murder, transvestites or drug addicts. His books were quite simply a story of a battle between good and evil in a fantasy world. (Of course he is loathed by the snooty writer/critic for spawning the fantasy genre as well. In fact this may be his greatest crime against the written word.)

Of course the poor man gets it from those who should be on his side for the same reason as above. The happy-clappy’s who should like him for his “Christian” themes (and some do), instead loath him for his fantasy books. His books contain magic therefore must be evil. Not only that but they blame Tolkien for the genre, they blame him for Dungeons & Dragons and all other Role Play Games, computer games other than chess, heavy metal music, Columbine (& all other acts of teenage violence) and all other activities enjoyed by the young (mostly males). I am not sure if they have managed to blame Tolkien for sex yet, but that is only a matter of time.

Ironically Harry Potter maybe saving Tolkien from the happy-clappy wrath. I did a quick search on Google and found several sites praising the Lord of the Rings for its Christian elements. These sites were attacking Harry Potter as actually evil and satanic, and letting Tolkien off. The articles posted were recent, since the Harry Potter movie was released and at the time of LOTR.

Below I have included the letter I wrote to the Telegraph in response to an act of butchery in their opinion page. The author managed to include the arguments against Tolkien from both the left and the right.
_____________________

Sir,

I was appalled at the overwhelmingly inaccurate portrayal of Tolkien aficionados in the article (9th Dec Telegraph Opinion page). The piece was written with all the intelligence and accuracy of a tabloid article. It was boorish and nasty, coming across as a knuckle-dragging rugby player’s description of anyone who is at all bookish. In addition to maligning those of us who read and admire Tolkien the article goes on to insult AD&D and other role play game players, computer game players and heavy metal/hard rock music fans. As part of these insults there is a not so subtle jab at the young male Tolkien fan’s sexual preferences then bemoaning the lack of promiscuity, illegal drug use and anti-social behaviour in their lives.

If the article had stuck to the valid point it was making about the author’s designs for his book, it would have been much more effective.

Surely of all the possible outlets, the Telegraph is that last place you would expect to find this kind of sensationalist stereotype-filled diatribe.

Andrew Ian Dodge
Westminster