He was, unlike a certain modern businessman of similar ambitions, actually quite productive and successful for most of his life, and then lost everything. So I would say that it was true in the end in a completely unironic sense.
I'm pretty sure "smug" is a perfectly valid descriptor for the works of quite a few authors -- mainly those whose smug is fucking contagious and probably leaves, I dunno, spores or something. Ayn Rand comes to mind.
There are valid uses of the term in reference to a strong authorial voice characterised by a particular tone, but more often than not, characterising a work itself as "smug" is extremely presumptuous and has an element of psychological projection going on that I do not care for at all.
I would also say that Rand herself always struck me as more self-righteous than smug, which I think is de rigueur for Russian philosophical novelists in the post-Dostoyevsky vein.
I'm not sure who's making this accusation, and it seems kind of baseless to me. But even if it were true, I think if you get Ray Manzarek to produce and play on your album, you're allowed to be at least a little smug.
Comments
^^ & ^ Again, exactly.
I would also say that Rand herself always struck me as more self-righteous than smug, which I think is de rigueur for Russian philosophical novelists in the post-Dostoyevsky vein.