Hmmm...well, the classic Tolkein foil would be CS Lewis although he would make an interesting comparison to Vonnegut as well...perhaps I should have drawn up an espn-style field of 64 from the outset, lol...

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Why couldn't we have a Sweet 16 (or 20 or 24) of literature?  I don't know enough about such a tournament style, nor do I have the grasp of literature that you folks have...but it could be fun.

Is there some way to hold off on a poll for say a week (or other desired period of time) so that we could argue and discuss, and then on the last day we could vote?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

...Urkel and/or zyx haven't weighed in yet...

"And/or"? What does that mean?

I take it to mean you are the two likeliest in his mind to defend Rand. Based on your subQ comments, though, that wouldn't necessarily be my take. The most classically libertarian posters on this site would be gerry and wetkarma in my mind.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

    Chill out. I referenced you because your comment in the queue implied some kind of reply was in the works, if you had the time. I reference Urkel because he also commented in the queue, and would be the most likely to counter the prevailing "Rand blows" trend of the discussion so far. Given the low volume of comments here, though, it seemed hazardous to assume that both of you were locks to actually post something-- hence the "or". Simple as that.
    Or are you just offended by the particular expression? After reading Eats, Shoots, And Leaves, I'd say it was possible :)

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

Chill out

What, are you kidding? No one's more relaxed than me, brother.

...the prevailing "Rand blows" trend of the discussion so far. Given the low volume of comments...

Here's the thing: The writeup is simply wrong where it says, "[Vonnegut's and Rand's] philosophies are nearly polar opposites."

It's too easy to criticize Rand's prose while praising Vonnegut's. I don't think you can find anyone who would honestly say that Rand was in the same literary league with Vonnegut, let alone as good as or better than he was. Vonnegut's writing seemed effortless - a deceptive simplicity often hid its truly complex nature, at least on a first reading. Rand, on the other hand, was a Russian emigre who learned English as an adult and who first made her living as a playwright. Considering those handicaps, her prose is respectable, if oftentimes inelegant.

If it's a question of literary merit, I think it is evident that Vonnegut would make it onto almost any shortlist of the greatest American writers of the 20th century. Rand would not, despite the wide influence of her philosophy.

How, then, do their philosophies differ?

Comparing their philosophies is rather more difficult, not least because Rand was a trained, professional philosopher while Vonnegut was an anthropologist turned author. Still, we know that Rand was an objectivist (obviously) and that Vonnegut was, broadly, a humanist. One of those philosophies has been characterized as being,

based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities--particularly rationality...[and] entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests

The other,

...a philosophy "for living on earth," grounded in reality and aimed at achieving knowledge about the natural world and harmonious, mutually beneficial interactions between human beings

I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to look them up and see which is which.

This is not to suggest that there aren't significant differences between objectivism and humanism, not the least of which is that the former was (before Rand's death, anyway) discrete and well-defined, while the latter is a broad category of similar philosophies, mostly atheist , but some of which are religious in nature. But the two are not "polar opposites."

What are the practical differences between the two philosophies?

Anyone who has studied philosophy realizes that an epistemology need not be "practical" in the common meaning of the term - it need only be systematic and complete in a logical sense. Rand surely tried to show an objective basis for her epistemology, discussing the nature of the human mind and senses, building from percepts to concepts to axioms and insisting that those axioms have a defined scope based on measurement and reason.

Rand is, of course, best known as a shameless advocate for capitalism, and it should go without saying that she is hated by socialists and communists. But it is also for that reason that she is so reviled among liberals. Liberals, of course, all have an anti-capitalist bias, though that bias exists as a broad spectrum ranging from mild distrust to deep, reflexive antipathy.

It's always instructive to ask a liberal who has expressed a dislike for Ayn Rand why, exactly, they feel that way. They cannot give a rational answer, of course, and often will bring up some variation of, "she thinks selfishness is a virtue!!!" To which the appropriate response is, "That's super. Now, have you read her book on selfishness? If so, can you explain what part of her argument that you disagree with?" The answer to either or those questions is invariably an evasive "no" and the truth, I think, is usually based in a loathing of capitalism.

Do conservatives dislike Vonnegut? I'm not sure that it is clear that there are many who actually do dislike him, and the ones who do either are aware that, 1) he was extremely critical of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, or, 2) many liberals like his writing so much. The better question is why do liberals identify with Vonnegut's work? Some of them see works such as Player Piano as being based on leftist ideology, although a careful reading shows that not to be the case. Others no doubt have read his scathing criticisms of prominent Republicans and think, "yeah, man, me too." Still others probably are simply fans of is writing and are projecting by thinking that someone so cool must be like them.

So what, in short, are the differences between Rand's and Vonngeut's philosophies?

Rand specifically decried attempts to explicate her philosophy though platitudes. (In spite of her oft-repeated sort of anti-koan "A is A.") Still, when pressed for a simple guiding statement of her ethics, she said,

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments

As I mentioned above, Vonnegut was, by education, an anthropologist, not a philosopher, and, like Rand, he avoided giving too much detail when asked for pronouncements on his own ethics. But it was a question he was asked quite a lot, and he mostly gave shorter versions of a brief speech by Elliot Rosewater, the main character in his novel God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater. The speech was Rosewater's contribution to a baptism. I think if humanism had a catechism, this would be the prayer offered at all Humanist baptisms:

Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- "God damn it, you've got to be kind."

"the ones who do either are aware that, 1) he was extremely critical of Nixon, Reagan, and Bush, or, 2) many liberals like his writing so much"

For the record, I do not dislike Vonnegut for his political views, I dislike him (in part) because of his habit of writing sentimental mush like:

Hello, babies. Welcome to Earth. It's hot in the summer and cold in the winter. It's round and wet and crowded. At the outside, babies, you've got about a hundred years here. There's only one rule that I know of, babies -- "God damn it, you've got to be kind."

I dislike him (in part) because of his habit of writing sentimental mush...

For what it's worth, God Bless You, Mr. Rosewater was about hypocrisy as much as it was about anything else. Elliot Rosewater was someone who took the concept Christian altruism at face value and lived his life accordingly. Largely due to that reason he was declared to be legally insane.

And how is "accept no commandments" not the polar opposite of immediately giving a baby a commandment upon entering the world? ;)

Rand's philosophies have always struck me as someone trying to grasp the world but not actually succeeding. At her core, it always appear to me that she was striving most vehemently for independence. Through her work she seemed to be insisting that we are all independent and we get were we go only through our own power. The quote:

If I were to speak your kind of language, I would say that man's only moral commandment is: Thou shalt think. But a 'moral commandment' is a contradiction in terms. The moral is the chosen, not the forced; the understood, not the obeyed. The moral is the rational, and reason accepts no commandments

...is demonstrative of the true height of the idiocy of her thinking. She wants to deny the way things really are in order to prop up an ideal. She peppers in catchy truisms that masquerade as a thought process. At the end of the day, that's what most makes the "marxist of the right" label true. Right wingers are enamored of the way things are or were and the irony is that her the concepts she claims to be "well grounded" are too pie in the sky for a tried and true conservative.

In the same way, Vonnegut is very nearly the fascist of the left. He sees the beautiful possibilities of the world but realizes how impossible they are to achieve given the every day struggles of life. He's not afraid to give commandments for things he believes deeply because knows they are just lines in the sand. He comprehended both the interconnectedness of all things that Rand's self-reliance denies and the...lost my train of thought and gotta run out to watch the baseball game. Pick it up later maybe but I think you get the jist.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

And how is "accept no commandments" not the polar opposite of immediately giving a baby a commandment upon entering the world?

If those two statements were the sum total of objectivism and humanism, then you might have a point. But they're not, and you don't.

As I mentioned above, the basis of both philosophies is very similar. The "polar opposite" would be a philosophy based on mysticism and arbitrary authority, such as you see in most religions.

Rand's philosophies have always struck me as someone trying to grasp the world but not actually succeeding

In what way? I think there was far more post hoc rationalizing in Rand's epistemology than she would every be able or willing to admit, but that doesn't mean she drew wrong conclusions. She had personally experienced the evils of collectivism while growing up, and was therefore able clearly to see the true good of capitalism in a deeper way than most who grew up with capitalism never could. It's no coincidence that her philosophy affirmed capitalism by showing it to be the only economic system compatible with freedom.

Vonnegut is very nearly the fascist of the left...I think you get the jist

Actually I have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, as you point out, Rand was very achievement oriented--whereas Vonnegut was more humble in the face of the ever changing nature of existence. Rand wanted to carve "id" into the side of a rock so that future generations could be made aware of the greatness she had achieved in her own mind and been so brilliant as to communicate to them in a lasting way. To me this reflects a feeling of constantly being judged, possibly an outgrowth of an overly collectivist upbringing. Rand is constant Judging and Judgment in a very biblical sense. There is a distinct sense from her and her followers that everyone else who has not accepted their ways is inferior--the true mark of an immature religion. The harder Rand sought freedom through that "self-reliant" spirit, the more tightly she cuffed herself with the burden of self-judgment, thus:

Rand's philosophies have always struck me as someone trying to grasp the world but not actually succeeding

Vonnegut existed as free of such Judgment as anyone I've come across. His bit about baptizing the baby is corny as fuck but it's highly allegorical as well. He wants to reach into the core basis of our existence in the same way that rand did by etching something into stone. Whereas she prizes the achievement of an etching in stone, he prizes the achievement of our etchings upon one another and that the best we can do is to be good to each other while we're here. Where Rand exalted ego, Vonnegut was ultimate humility. While they both prized freedom, Rand ran the complete opposite direction in trying to find it.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

"would be the most likely to counter the prevailing "Rand blows" trend of the discussion "

How dare you, sir. That's an outrageous slander on my literary taste, which is exceptional.

For the record, the only Rand book I've ever attempted to read was Atlas Shrugged, because a girl in college gave who was a fan gave it to me (nota bene: girls who like Rand like to fuck).  

You know who also likes Rand? Showbusiness people. I've been trying, but unfortunately have failed, to locate a survey I once read of Hollwood actors/directors/studio executives where they were asked to list their 5 favorite books. Most of the books listed were obviously lies intended to make the responders look smart. But some books listed were certainly true, in large part because no sane person would lie about having read them: positive thinking/self-help/secret of sucess books, Dianetics. Also consistently named were Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. Given the left-wing activism typical of Hollywood types, this may seem odd at first, but while they reject the libertarian politics, there is an obvious affinity for the justifications of selfishness and the preening egomania of Rand and her characters.

I suppose it would be nice if I discussed Vonnegut, but I don't have the time. I consider him a minor writer that's been overated in certain quarters, and I have no inclination to revisit any of the books by him that I've read.

I believe I've seen that survey, too, actually. There is a false "self-made" concept that Rand speaks to and her writing makes it easy to pick and choose.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

I may be remembering it wrong, but I think it also asked 'What's your favorite painter', and the two most popular choices were Leonardo Da Vinci and Leroy Neiman.

   I was thinking less of your literary taste- which I don't remember much of from your posts here or at Plastic- and more of your contrarian streak. And good ideas can be good even if the prose is wretched, no matter what the poets say-- in fact, I'd point to Freud as a great stylist with very questionable content, with dire consequences for much of the 20th century. But I guess you're more of a cultural conservative than I tend to think, and Rand certainly is not in that corner, as my "Marxism of the Right" link shows pretty well.
    What self help books made that list, can you recall? If they were things like Wayne Dyer or Sark, that's one thing, but from what I've seen at the store, folks of all stripes read the classics like Napoleon Hill, Dale Carnegie, and (to a lesser extent) Norman Vincent Peale, and their inclusion might well be an attempt to portray the "common touch", something that might have put Rand on these lists as well. PR is everywhere in Hollywood, after all.

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

If I remember right it was whatever was on the bestseller list at the time, the sort of businessy kind of 7 Habits of Highly Effective Hollywood Sociopaths kind of thing, probably handed to them by their agents.

Philosophy.  Bah.  In literature give me a good story teller with a philosophic substance and a picture of the world I can sink my teeth into.

Mark Twain.  There's one for you.  Who would win out there?  Rand or Twain?  Twain or Vonnegut?  Vonnegut lacked wit.  

Oh, I would take Twain any day of the week, up and down for sure. I suppose my comment was more along the lines of...neither Rand nor Steinbeck entertains me so at least Rand would give me something to contemplate, if only to examine why she so enthralls some. Twain vs. Whitman now that would be a duel of whits.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.