Has it truly been over fifty years that we last met? How the time has flown...
but maybe not.
Under space-time theory, we're told the past, future and present are a singularity-it stretches the limits of one's mind.
Somehow it lacks objectivity.
I view it more appropriately as abstract theory, metaphysically speaking.
Correct? Or do you view space-time theory differently? And what about others wrestling with the theory? But I didn't come to discuss philosophy with you.
Rather, I came to understand a mystery.
The mystery? How Atlas Shrugged became and continues to be a commercial success despite its awkward writing style (based on today's standards), nevertheless the acrid criticism laid on its polemics ever since its introduction.
I wonder if others find the style awkward.
Because my memory of the book from my first visit with you has faded over the years, I'm reading the new Centennial edition.
Back then, I was enmeshed in career moves, post-graduate work and family responsibilities, so the impact of your message slid from under my eyelids into the abyss of abandoned intellectual exercises.
Now, in the current sociopolitical climate, the novel has resurfaced as a subject of controversy, encouraging a fresh visit and an appreciative study of the delivery of its message.
Much has changed regarding writing styles over the past fifty years.
The liberal use of tropes to describe scenes, individuals and thoughts has been criticized by today's scholars as sophomoric, parading ones command of language.
A constant stream of metaphors, similes and other figures of speech detract from the flow of the story line and burden contemporary readers.
Strunk and White point out this weakness in their classic work, The Elements of Style.
Tropes are sprinkled among your paragraphs like sequins on an evening gown.
Further, tropes constitute subjective, rather than objective, insight, which I view in opposition to your philosophy of objectivism.
My premise is that one's fundamental beliefs ought to pervade all of one's endeavors.
The use of adverbs to open dialogue is no longer considered quality writing; e.
g.
, She said, diplomatically, "I disagree with your argument.
" The use of adverbs in this manner is subjective rather than objective.
It presumes the character being addressed knows the speaker's motivation, otherwise the adverb serves no purpose in the interaction between the two characters.
Instead, the dialogue itself should convey the sentiment the writer wishes to establish between the characters; e.
g.
, She said, "You have a point, but I see the issue differently.
" Again, Strunk and White advise limited use of adverbs when nouns and verbs can better deliver the action.
Unfortunately, Atlas Shrugged makes extensive use of adverbs to open dialogue and stuffs the work with weighty burdens readers must carry from line to line on their journey to its denouement.
Lengthy polemical passages are also discouraged in contemporary writing for being burdensome on the reader.
This is particularly true when using redundancy-line after line after line-to establish an argument, such as the John Galt radio broadcast in Chapter VII.
In this regard, Atlas Shrugged would have benefited from extensive use of Occam's razor.
When passages drag relentlessly, with no break, they slow down the pace of the action and can be regarded as contradictions to your concern for productivity.
Filtering is another principle considered in quality writing today in order to avoid redundancy when describing action from a character's point of view in a passage; e.
g.
, She saw the door open, versus, The door opened.
There is no need to include, 'She saw', because the reader is aware the character sees the door open.
This weakness occurs periodically throughout the novel.
Again, it slows down the pace of the story, removes the reader from the action and adds nothing.
Hence, another negative for productivity and reader involvement.
Unlike Gore Vidal's novels, few today are written strictly from the protagonist's point of view.
However, most limit points of view to no more than two or three characters and usually limit one POV to a scene.
A multitude of POV's within a single scene, nevertheless in a single passage, is strongly discouraged.
This is perhaps the most serious structural weakness in Atlas Shrugged.
It creates confusion for the reader and, once again, disrupts the flow of the action.
The reader has difficulty entering into the story and identifying with the protagonist.
The underlying premise is that reader involvement is necessary if the writer's goal is persuasion, which it surely is in Atlas.
Correct? Why has Atlas Shrugged succeeded despite these limitations? Of course, this assumes the structural principles outlined above are integral components of quality writing.
I assume most accomplished writers today would agree with this assessment, but I welcome their opinion on the subject.
Perhaps the success of Atlas has to do with the appeal of the sociopolitical stance embedded in the story line-the defense of laissez-faire capitalism.
Perhaps the romantic adventures of a powerful business woman contributed to its appeal...
or the individualism of your male heroes...
or your notorious reputation.
Would that we could have a dialectical discussion of current writing principles verses the underlying appeal that drove, and yet drives, the Atlas Shrugged success story.
Perhaps when, under space-time theory, we might go forward to the past.