Hi there
Good comments on 20 Master Plots
When you register you can see page 2 and 3 of the topic.
objectivistliving.com/forums … wtopic=174
Mic
Additional:
web.mit.edu/mbarker/www/exercises/plot.html
Excellent post. And quite timely with NaNoWriMo just around the corner 
Thanks!
edited.
The first I ever heard of Ayn Rand and Objectivism was in a book called “Why People Believe Weird Things” by Michael Shermer, which described Objectivism as having developed into a nonreligious cult in their worship of Ayn Rand (paraphrasing).
Having read through all 3 pages of that topic, I can see how he would get that impression.
I have no particular objection to objectivism or to most of the comments made by the poster, but there seemed a very heavy bias towards:
a) Comparing every theme/plot to Ayn Rand books;
b) How to write exactly like Rand;
c) Why you won’t be able to write exactly like Rand (because she is too brilliant);
d) How to write with objectivist views, but making sure you don’t lecture (underlying tone: otherwise, people won’t believe your propoganda).
For several of the plots (typically the more fantasy-oriented ones), there were comments such as “This plot will be of no interest to objectivists” (again, a paraphrase, from memory/my impression). Why? Do objectivists have no interests in things outside of objectivism? Does objectivism state what kind of fiction you should like?
I’m an agnostic/atheist, doesn’t mean that books with myths/gods/fantasy/religious themes necessarily deter me (some do, but I am open to a good one).
I know it is an objectivist forum, and as such you would expect the discussion to be gabout Objectivism, but I found the entire thing a little irksome and almost creepy, like the only important point was repeating Ayn Rand’s message in a way that makes your target most likely to absorb it.
In that sense they seem to act like religious groups seeking to “spread the word”, and almost cult-like in the way they shut off interests in anything outside that message.
I know very little of the history of Objectivism and their beliefs, I haven’t read any of the Atlas books regularly mentioned, and am not intending this to bait any objectivists into an argument (I know so little about them I would surely lose).
This was simply my reaction to the entire tone of the thread (well, that and that ideas such as 20 Master Plots just don’t work for me), and I was curious if I was alone in this. Did I get the wrong impression?
Matt
Hi matt,
I think Michael is just sharing the gestalt experience he had when he read 20 Master Plots and How to Build Them by Ronald B. Tobias (Writer’s Digest Books).
He is using what is called ‘framing’ to explain the work of one author from the perspective of another.
It is the old 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle paradigm - it is easier to work the pieces if you have the box top. He is looking at Ayn Rand by framing her work as it might be explained by applying Tobias’ model. He is saying when he found Tobias he found a box top with an Ayn Rand picture on it showing where most of the pieces went.
We all proselytise when we express even the simplest of personal views. For example I like having the box lid and you don’t. It just means that we are framing our writing craft in different but equally legitimate and valid ways.
‘Objectivism’ is a well known school of philosophy developed by Ayn Rand that encompasses positions on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, and aesthetics.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand
Michael is on sound theoretical ground in his approach.
Hope this helps a bit.
Anyone played the Xbox 360 game, Bioshock? You get to go around shooting zombies in an underwater art deco world. An art deco world created by an “Andrew Ryan” (which sounds nothing like Ayn Rand, of course) and which is entirely based upon the principles of Objectivism. It is perhaps the first FPS (first-person shooter) to pose as a critique of a philosophical movement. Of course, in the end, it just comes down to shooting things, but I liked the idea.
I seem always to be lowering the tone these days… Oh well.
Best,
Keith
That’s a sound philosophical movement! Just Shoot It.
Lets start at the beginning.
Why is it OK to shoot zombies ?
Don’t zombies have non-love
Lets start at the beginning.
Why is it OK to shoot zombies ?
Don’t zombies have non-lives and non-feelings too ?
I am worried at the direction this forum is going if the gruesome
annihilation of the living dead is accepted by all.
Paul
Not living dead but in sympathy with their motives
BIOSHOCK is very firmly based on Randian principles, and the designers have been quite upfront about it. It’s not just a sly aside, it’s a fundamental part of the game story
Antony - that was actually my point. The whole reason I bought Bioshock in the first place is that I read it was designed in part as a critique of Objectivism, which I had been reading about after thinking about buying Atlas, Shrugged. (I didn’t buy Atlas, Shrugged in the end because it seemed awfully long for something grounded in a philosophy I find more than a little spurious - though I liked the atheist bit - just as I have never got around to reading anything by L. Ron Hubbard…)
Future computer games I look forward to playing:
HutSmoke: in which the lead character, Markus Delirious, has a “stoicism” meter which increases as he goes through the game and allows him to conquer more and more of the game world whilst at the same time spewing incredibly wise aphorisms that seem somewhat at odds with the game’s violence.
eRecurrence: in which there is only level, at the end of which a mad demon with a big moustache appears to the main character, Ivan O., stroking a horse and laughing manically about how you’re going to have to play the level again in exactly the same way.
And so on…
All the best,
Keith
Um…because they’re trying to messily devour you?
Fair enough, I can understand that. The approach just seemed a little extreme to me.
Interesting that you see the 20 Master Plots as the box lid for a jigsaw puzzle… I see it more as a square hole for a round peg.
It just feels to restrictive to me to start with an outline such as that (even though I probably end up with a result that fits the pattern regardless).
I do intend to try following one of the plots at least once though, to see where I get.
Matt
The Wiki article, a fair summary of Objectivism’s origins and claims, also notes that it is unusually rigid and authoritarian. That may be why most reputable histories of philosophy don’t include it. It’s more of an ideology than a philosophy, though not quite a religion, like Scientology. Personally, I’ve always thought Rand-speak too selfish and greedy, and I’m no enemy of capitalism.
Ah, my apologies. Your remark about “lowering the tone” made me think you were unsure, just because BS is a lowly videogame…
As a side comment.
randmcnally.com/
Rand McNally is a good example of Directivism. They can show you how to get from one point to another in usually less than 20 steps.
The term “Map or Maps” also has gained a lot of popularity in many Video Game Titles. A term Rand McNally has popularized commercially.
Of course with online directions becoming the norm (ex. mapquest, googlemap, etc.) many a person practicing Directivism has fallen prey more frequently to the anomoly of “bad directions”.
“Bad directions” used to be mainly apparent in seedy gas stations and 24 hour fast food joints where the highest IQ on the premises was in the mid 60’s but now has creeped forth into “online directions” thus leading a side branch of directivism to devices we now refer to as GPS.
GPS devices such as Tom Tom, Megallan, and many others, it seems that those that practice Directivism has now made the new leap from “Online Directions” to personal GPS devices because of the high amount of the “Bad Directions” anomoly.
So it went from mouth to mouth directions, to a quickly sketched map, to a very detailed map, to an onloine map with text directions, to laptop based GPS to finally personal GPS devices. All in the search of not coming across the anomoly of bad directions.
So if you are writing a work of fiction would you include a printed map in the begining or end of your book or leave the “directions” up to the imagination of the reader?
/discuss
If they’re trying to kill me or people I care about, then I’m going to put them down. If they want to continue their unlife, then they should steer clear of me and mine. 
I’ve got a copy. I’m not sure that the plot is a criticism of Objectivism per se, but more an exploration of what happens when flawed people try to create a flawless society and fail miserably. If anything, the game’s central question is: just how seriously do you take your ideals? Andrew Ryan abandoned his in order to retain control of Rapture. Frank Fontaine never had any.
By the way, thanks for developing Scrivener. I’ve been using it to reorganize my Starbreaker project.
Keith said
You might find this philosophically engaging and perhaps challenging.
The original FORA source:
fora.tv/fora/showthread.php?t=2351
The AOL version:
video.aol.com/video-detail/sam-h … 1151873220