If Music Could Talk

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Flex wrote:

Wolter wrote:But that person you're talking to is hella wrong about Mystery, Inc. It's the only Scooby-Doo cartoon that's watchable without either nostalgia-glasses or being too young to care about quality.

That would be Josh Marsfelder. He's written about Scooby Doo in relation to his Star Trek work at Vaka Rangi.

First post here: http://vakarangi.blogspot.com/2013/09/s ... e-and.html
Second post here: http://vakarangi.blogspot.com/2013/11/s ... e-are.html

He linked to it. It's an interesting read, on first skim, but to be honest it sounds like Roderick Long trying to pretend Ayn Rand has value.

Isn't Rand's value demonstrated by how so many people find resonance in her insanity? Which is to say, the readers do create value.

Flex wrote:

Wolter wrote:I think the value is 100% the concept, with a truly godawful execution at every turn.

Well, sparked by Josh I've been rewatching some of it recently and I think there are some interesting mechanics in how the show works. It's formulaic as shit, but to the point of being programmatic similar to Doctor Who's UNIT Family days. It's an interesting way of making television. The problem, for me, is that I can watch 5 or 6 episodes of something like that and then I want to move onto a different show.

The Scooby Doo Movies (the television series of that name, not the actual movies) are legit great, though. Totally redonk and surprisingly satisfying.

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Flex wrote:

Wolter wrote:But that person you're talking to is hella wrong about Mystery, Inc. It's the only Scooby-Doo cartoon that's watchable without either nostalgia-glasses or being too young to care about quality.

That would be Josh Marsfelder. He's written about Scooby Doo in relation to his Star Trek work at Vaka Rangi.

First post here: http://vakarangi.blogspot.com/2013/09/s ... e-and.html
Second post here: http://vakarangi.blogspot.com/2013/11/s ... e-are.html

He linked to it. It's an interesting read, on first skim, but to be honest it sounds like Roderick Long trying to pretend Ayn Rand has value.

Isn't Rand's value demonstrated by how so many people find resonance in her insanity? Which is to say, the readers do create value.

Again, I credit the readers who find any decent value in her stuff more than her actual writing and ideas. It's a Dumbo's Feather for a lot of people who humanize her and don't value selfishness.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Flex wrote: That would be Josh Marsfelder. He's written about Scooby Doo in relation to his Star Trek work at Vaka Rangi.

First post here: http://vakarangi.blogspot.com/2013/09/s ... e-and.html
Second post here: http://vakarangi.blogspot.com/2013/11/s ... e-are.html

He linked to it. It's an interesting read, on first skim, but to be honest it sounds like Roderick Long trying to pretend Ayn Rand has value.

Isn't Rand's value demonstrated by how so many people find resonance in her insanity? Which is to say, the readers do create value.

Again, I credit the readers who find any decent value in her stuff more than her actual writing and ideas. It's a Dumbo's Feather for a lot of people who humanize her and don't value selfishness.

I know what you're getting at, but I don't see the neat division between Rand's text and the readers' interpretation. It's necessarily intertwined, even if there isn't obvious continuity between the two. Because her acolytes, or people who selectively pick from her work, have come to influence public policy and conventional wisdom in the past thirty years, she has to be regarded as a significant contributor to recent American intellectual history.

Silent Majority wrote:Conclusive evidence that people on twitter deserve to simply have celebrities promote stuff at them and give out their terrible opinions on things: No one liked my Shaggy from Scooby Doo as President tweets, which were gold.

Flex wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:Conclusive evidence that people on twitter deserve to simply have celebrities promote stuff at them and give out their terrible opinions on things: No one liked my Shaggy from Scooby Doo as President tweets, which were gold.

None of the internet heathens on the twitters liked my insightful liveblogging of the state of the union address, either.

Flex wrote:

Silent Majority wrote:Conclusive evidence that people on twitter deserve to simply have celebrities promote stuff at them and give out their terrible opinions on things: No one liked my Shaggy from Scooby Doo as President tweets, which were gold.

None of the internet heathens on the twitters liked my insightful liveblogging of the state of the union address, either.

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote: He linked to it. It's an interesting read, on first skim, but to be honest it sounds like Roderick Long trying to pretend Ayn Rand has value.

Isn't Rand's value demonstrated by how so many people find resonance in her insanity? Which is to say, the readers do create value.

Again, I credit the readers who find any decent value in her stuff more than her actual writing and ideas. It's a Dumbo's Feather for a lot of people who humanize her and don't value selfishness.

I know what you're getting at, but I don't see the neat division between Rand's text and the readers' interpretation. It's necessarily intertwined, even if there isn't obvious continuity between the two. Because her acolytes, or people who selectively pick from her work, have come to influence public policy and conventional wisdom in the past thirty years, she has to be regarded as a significant contributor to recent American intellectual history.

I said value, not influence. I actually agree with the point you're making 100%. I'm saying that he tries to justify her as a positive influence, whereas I think all of his good ideas are his better nature revising Rand's intent.

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote: Isn't Rand's value demonstrated by how so many people find resonance in her insanity? Which is to say, the readers do create value.

Again, I credit the readers who find any decent value in her stuff more than her actual writing and ideas. It's a Dumbo's Feather for a lot of people who humanize her and don't value selfishness.

I know what you're getting at, but I don't see the neat division between Rand's text and the readers' interpretation. It's necessarily intertwined, even if there isn't obvious continuity between the two. Because her acolytes, or people who selectively pick from her work, have come to influence public policy and conventional wisdom in the past thirty years, she has to be regarded as a significant contributor to recent American intellectual history.

I said value, not influence. I actually agree with the point you're making 100%. I'm saying that he tries to justify her as a positive influence, whereas I think all of his good ideas are his better nature revising Rand's intent.

I guess we're just differing on word usage here. Positive and negative to describe value inserts too much subjectivity when talking about ideas.

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote:

Dr. Medulla wrote:

Wolter wrote: Again, I credit the readers who find any decent value in her stuff more than her actual writing and ideas. It's a Dumbo's Feather for a lot of people who humanize her and don't value selfishness.

I know what you're getting at, but I don't see the neat division between Rand's text and the readers' interpretation. It's necessarily intertwined, even if there isn't obvious continuity between the two. Because her acolytes, or people who selectively pick from her work, have come to influence public policy and conventional wisdom in the past thirty years, she has to be regarded as a significant contributor to recent American intellectual history.

I said value, not influence. I actually agree with the point you're making 100%. I'm saying that he tries to justify her as a positive influence, whereas I think all of his good ideas are his better nature revising Rand's intent.

I guess we're just differing on word usage here. Positive and negative to describe value inserts too much subjectivity when talking about ideas.

I'm fine with subjectively saying Ayn Rand's works have no redeeming social value without an interpreter modifying them to make them less amoral. It's just my opinion, but it's a truth to me.

Dr. Medulla wrote: