With that in mind, Robert Bidinotto‘s novel Hunter: A Thriller hit the spot. I found the writing crisp, the characters interesting, and the interplay of plot and theme to be tight and compelling. I was far more moved than I expected to be, particularly by the love relationship between Dylan Hunter and Annie Woods. They wrestled with real challenges, and seeing how they resolved them reminded me why I like romantic realism so much: it inspires you to want to live your own life as fully and heroically as possible.

Bidinotto’s mastery of his craft is evident. As a sometimes-writer myself, I got the feeling a few times that he must have really enjoyed the writing process, because in certain passages I got the distinct sense of a sharp mind at work and at play. I think he must’ve loved writing this book.

Ayn Rand wrote, “Don’t work for my happiness, my brothers — show me yours — show me that it is possible — show me your achievement — and the knowledge will give me courage for mine.” I read the novel intermittently over the course of about three days, and on the last morning, as I finished the final chapter, my feeling toward the author was: Thank you for showing us your achievement.

It has given me courage for mine.

Tonight I find myself clarifying several of the key ideas that Ayn Rand developed that were expressed in the movie. Here are the four key ideas I see in ASM:

1. Innovation and the joy of creation
2. The importance of industrial production
3. Egoism and reason vs. altruism, faith, and force
4. The distinction between the productive class and the political class

Each of these points emerges from time to time as the theme of Atlas Shrugged comes forward: That theme is “What happens to society when the ‘men of the mind,’ the men of honest ability in any field, go on strike?” By the way, the movie does a 10-star job of getting across the theme and the related key ideas within its artistic format limits.

And later:

Without a doubt, ASM is a sterling movie of ideas, and the four I mention above—however vaguely grasped by a general public misled by decades of government schools and the advent of “TV Planet”—will play their way into the public consciousness. Perhaps slowly at first. Americans are not accustomed to movies illuminating big ideas in conceptual terms. Moreover, this is a movie that stands up for the good guys—which are all of us who insist on critical thought and on our rights to live as we choose for our own sakes. The average fellow has never heard a movie character state categorically that he intends to seek his own joy and abundance in life, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. It’s nice to see these good guys win, even when still relatively few people understand how good these good guys are.

When I walked out of the theater, there was a newfound spring in my step and confidence in my voice and bearing. On the most profound level, it made me feel as if I were “right,” and have been all along. Certainly others who have fond familiarity with the Randian oeuvre felt the same. And I speculate that those who are innocent of the book ideas, who may never have even heard of Ayn Rand, will experience a similar—yet not so intense—boost in authentic self-esteem. The movie, the ideas so well expressed by believable artists and artistry, makes me feel young again. That we’re going to turn our country around and throw out the evildoers. A natural high like no other: also, that the “great masses” will ultimately throw off their chains along with their externally contrived ignorance and rise to the occasion. Can’t wait for ASM 2 and 3.

From Reason TV’s summary:

Joshua Zader’s intellectual relationship with Ayn Rand began as it does for so many, during his college years. He then blazed a trail uniquely his own among Rand admirers by creating The Atlasphere—an online networking and dating site for the fans of Rand’s novels with particular emphasis on The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Zader found inspiration in Rand’s portrayals of independence and integrity, saying: “Rand’s ethical vision was really one where we want to create a win-win world for everybody, and that there shouldn’t be conflicts of interest among rational people if you’re using an ethical system where everybody is treated as an end in himself.” Zader has seen the real life impact of Rand’s ideas through his work on The Atlasphere, which currently boasts over 19,000 members.

Zader discusses the some finer points of Rand’s thought and novels, her supporters, her detractors, and her continuing impact. As a student of Buddhism, Zader explores how her ideas relate to what may seem like a conflicting view of the world. Zader: “Sometimes I see Buddhism as a set of practices in search of a philosophy, in an analogous way that Objectivism could be seen as a philosophy in search of a set of practices.” Joshua Zader blogs at Mudita Journal.

Approximately 10 minutes. Joshua Zader was interviewed by Ryan Seals, filmed by Alex Manning and edited by Hawk Jensen.

I felt Ryan Seals did a good job of coming up with interview questions. I remain grateful for his creativity in suggesting topics to explore.

I will be very interested to hear how other Objectivists respond to my comments about Objectivism and Buddhism, which are bound to be controversial, at least in some circles.

What do you think?

UPDATE: I now have a transcription of most of the interview, for those who would like a text version.

You are associated with the Brandens, and novelist Erika Holzer, who do not represent Objectivism and have morally betrayed it’s creator. Out of respect for Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism, I withdraw my membership and support from your institution.

In the six years since I launched the Atlasphere, I’ve received only a handful of e-mails such as this one. It is usually from a young Objectivist, very sincere and committed to the ideas Ayn Rand taught — and still overly deferential to those who teach Objectivism as some sort of secular religion.

Today I sent the following in response:

No problem, I have turned off the rebilling on your subscription and removed your account.

I have a question for you to consider, if you are willing: If you had known someone for many years, and that person had consistently treated you, and everyone else with whom you saw them come into contact, with unfailing decency and respect — would you reject them if you heard a rumor they had “betrayed” Ayn Rand (whatever that means)?

I find myself in this situation from time to time, and my integrity requires me to (1) trust the evidence of my own senses much more than I trust decades-old rumors and (2) allow people to make mistakes from time to time, without judging them to be rotten to their core.

To whatever extent I give credence to the rumors you and I have both heard, I also must consider some fairly well-corroborated rumors that Ayn Rand herself could, at times, be pretty rotten to people in her life.

In general, I think the Objectivist movement would be better off if its adherents stopped denouncing and undermining one another so much. Naturally, many in the movement disagree, but it does not change my sense that they are wasting valuable time and energy, and causing harm to the overall movement.

There’s no particular need to answer. I respect that you must come to your own conclusions, and hearing mine may make little difference. This is, however, my perspective on the matter, and now seemed an appropriate time to explain it. I hope one day it will make more sense than it might make today.

Inside Higher Ed Editor Scott Jaschik kindly sent a link to his new story “Buying a Spot on the Syllabus,” which is indeed very interesting. He begins:

Some professors at Marshall University believe that the institution has crossed an ethical line by accepting a gift that requires that a specific book — Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged — be taught in a course.

While the criticisms have come from professors who are not fans of Rand’s philosophy, they stress that their objection has nothing to do with this particular book, and that they would have no problem with a professor making the choice to include it on a syllabus. Their concern, they said, is a university accepting a gift that requires any book to be taught — when book selection should be a faculty prerogative.

“Atlas Shrugged can be taught. It’s the required part that is problematic,” said Jamie Warner, director of undergraduate studies in political science. Under this precedent, she said, “you could see neo-Nazis giving money and saying that you have to teach Mein Kampf.“

Boy, she didn’t waste any time raising the specter of Hitler, did she? Cause, you know, it would never occur to universities themselves to distinguish between gifts from neo-Nazis and gifts from advocates of the free society. That would be a difficult decision for them, no?

Wonder if she even knows it was public — rather than privately-funded — education that constituted a major cornerstone of Hitler’s strategy for brainwashing young minds. (…And I’m just getting started with the liberal fascism analogies. Imagine if we really studied the dynamics at work, here.)

In any case, see the full article for more about this controversy, which we’ve actually seen here before.

In any case, Kudos to Jaschik for including this perspective in his article:

Calvin A. Kent is a vice president for business and economic research and distinguished professor of business at Marshall, and he will be teaching the course with Atlas Shrugged in the fall. Kent argued that the gift provides a great opportunity for the university, and that there are no academic freedom issues. Kent noted that there is no requirement that Marshall students take the course, and that he will include material beyond Rand.

“The expectation is that this book will be used. I don’t think that is an unreasonable expectation,” he said.

Kent said that he is a fan, having first read Atlas Shrugged in college, where he found it “pretty profound,” and said that he still views the book that way.

The threat to academic freedom, Kent suggested, isn’t from accepting a gift but from discouraging it. “I would not go around telling the history department or the English department that they have no business using a particular novel or a particular historian,” he said. “For someone to tell us that we should or should not include something smacks of censorship.” Asked about the argument that some professors would reject a gift requiring any book to be taught, Kent said he’s skeptical.

“I think that’s the way they are trying to spin it,” he said. “There are a lot of people out there who don’t agree with her philosophy. I happen to agree with most of it, but not all of it. The thing that has really got people upset is that they don’t like the book.”

The bottom line? Universities are free to reject gifts from neo-Nazis, just as they’re free to reject gifts from wealthy entrepreneurs who want to see more students exposed to the pro-reason, pro-freedom principles in Atlas Shrugged.

By making spurious comparisons between such donors, however, liberal professors are revealing just how much they need to read — or re-read — Atlas Shrugged and understand its lessons about the role of consensual relationships in a free society.

These gifts from BB&T force no professor to teach Atlas Shrugged and force no student to take a course on Atlas Shrugged. The gifts simply provide educational options for each that did not exist before.

The bottom line: Offering someone money to do something is, in no way, fascistic. Taking money from the public treasury to fund politically-correct government school curricula, on the other hand….

Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot.

My brief essay “The Struggle for Poetry’s Soul” just went up on the popular Atlasphere web site. In the essay, I try to suggest why it is important to restore the traditional craft and enduring values of poetry, being lost today in the blizzard of “free verse,” deliberate difficulty, and rejection of popular values such as rhyme and storytelling in so much of contemporary poetry.

With whatever talent I may have, I am trying to explore the diversity, power, and beauty of the traditional discipline and forms of poetry in Touched By Its Rays.

As I suggest in my initial poem in that book, “A Prelude,” perhaps some young person of real talent, and with a whole life ahead of him or her, will read my poems and envision what a great poet might accomplish in days ahead. That is one meaning of Touched By Its Rays.

Of course, a great many contemporary poets, and nearly all critics and teachers of poetry, would be deeply offended by my remarks.

(For more background about the Atlas Shrugged movie, I can’t recommend highly enough Robert Bidinotto’s new article “Major Updates on the Atlas Shrugged Movie” at the Atlasphere.)

Since Perelman’s going to be the proverbial “god” of the new Atlas Shrugged movie, I figured it would be worth witnessing his previous cinematic work first-hand.

This is a dark movie, no question about it. I can easily imagine some Ayn Rand fans liking the movie, and others actively disliking it.

The writing, acting, and directing are excellent — but it would be hard, and an act of questionable integrity, to squeeze a feel-good movie out of such a tragic novel.

So instead you’re left with a gorgeously filmed and produced adaptation of a sad and disturbing story.

Personally I would recommend the movie highly — but only to someone with a fair tolerance for psychologically dark films.

If you do rent the DVD, I highly recommend watching it again, a second time, with the “commentary” feature turned on.

I’m not normally a big fan of watching the commentary for a movie — but, in this case, it was very well done and I found my appreciation for the movie deepening even more.

The commentary is by Perelman, Kingsley, and the author of the original book — who was positively beaming about Perelman’s adaptation, for whatever that’s worth.

…And it’s probably worth a lot, because it speaks to Perelman’s ability to remain true to a novelist’s vision, while still making a credible and compelling screen adaptation of his work.

I hope to write a fuller review of this movie for the Atlasphere one week soon.

I am particularly fond of this essay.

Kathy e-mailed it to me in July 1999, shortly after we had met in Vermont and struck up an active e-mail correspondence.

Mid-way through reading the essay next morning, multi-tasking on the way to work, I remember getting a chill down my spine and thinking, “Any woman that would send me this essay is worth taking very seriously.”

I promptly broke things off with a woman I’d been dating casually, and told Kathy that I was no longer seeing anyone.

Below is a photo I took of Kathy a few days ago. She’s been letting her bangs grow out and returning to her natural hair color, which I like even better than the blonde highlights.

Love is friendship set on fire.