Atlas Shrugged and so did I...

[Handprints]

In honour of the novel's 50th anniversary of publication and because it had been more than 20 years since I read it, I had another hack at it. If anyone has been tempted to do the same by this thread, here's a brief review.

The prose: it's not very good, although that's something Rand is willing to admit both within and without the main text. According to her, the artist's main goal is to be understood, which seems to me to be a limited aim among the many open to the novelist. The book's afterword tells of her struggle to find publishers: I can't help wondering if that's because a good editor would have recommended cutting the book by 400-500 pages, thereby deleting much of the repetition (her train rides through the prairies achieve the remarkable feat of becoming duller, through repetition, than an actual train ride through the prairies) and giving the parts that are meant to have impact some air. Her stylistic debts to a number of Russian revolutionary artistic movements are large - constructivism, muscular boy-meets-tractor realism - but her use of them usually appears tacked-on and artificial, as though her outline contained the instruction: "insert intellectual grace note here."

The plotting doesn't aspire to much beyond the Nancy Drew level and doesn't need to: Rand's only interest is the inevitable and she doesn't want surprises distracting anyone's attention.

I remember being told when I read Atlas for the first time in the 1980s that I had to make allowances for the fact that she was "of her period" and that the language and characters had dated, somewhat. It happened again when I mentioned to one or two of her fans here that I was re-reading the book. So I had a look for other authors who published something significant within a year of Atlas' debut: I found Singer, Nabokov, Kerouac, Ellison, Bellow, Updike and O'Hara, then I decided to stop looking. In my view, it's not correct to amend the description of Rand's writing as "stilted, graceless, stiff, repetitious and thin" with the phrase "compared to what we read today." She was, comparatively, all those things in her time and would have been for decades beforehand. I have come to wonder if she disdained all those things that make reading a pleasure as potential barriers to the reader's understanding.

The characters: Don't look for depth or subtlety: if he's firm-jawed, resolute and committed in the first paragraph, that's all he will ever be. One of the characteristics of lead characters in genre fiction is that they never change, never grow, and never alter themselves or their behaviour as a result of their relationships with the world or the people around them. Chuck Norris is always Chuck Norris. This is what makes them invaluable tools for social satirists: put these one-dimensional wonders into a world gone mad and you can point out the comedy or the dangers of the "conventional" reflex. Gulliver, Crusoe, Father Brown... Take your pick.

Rand supplies a trinity of such firm-jawed stock heroes (one of them's a woman, but never mind.) My initial hopes that they would be used to illustrate the variety of possible responses to the world gone mad, that their differing relationships would push them in different ways, that they might choose different means of fighting the injustices they perceive in common, came to naught. Rand's dirigisme (something I'm always surprised to see in an emigree from Communism) means every heroic type must not only come to see the same guiding light but sign up for an identical plan of action. So much for individuality and the competition of ideas, I suppose...

Not to bait the fans, but: I read an article a few months ago about dating relationships where both people have Asperger's. "We get dressed up to go out for romantic dinners and have passionate discussions about new Java applications and Star Trek novels," was the line that stuck with me. In my mind, there's a case to be made that Atlas is the first novel to feature three Asperger's leads.

To bait the fans: if you're not already a Randian and are going to give Atlas a try, whenever you see the name "Ragnar Danneskjold," think "Tinkerbell." The parallels, both in the author's usage of him as a plot device and the character, are frankly uncanny.

Where she does score well, and some credit is due, is in the caricatures of the bent politicians and union leaders. They're not in the Studs Terkel league for painful accuracy but they're head and shoulders above any of the heroes for subtlety and differentiation.

The philosophy: the bit that gets debated at length by the world is the novel's genuinely original contribution. I was as unmoved by the notions that profit is the only meaningful measure of value, that taxation is theft and that charity is an evil as I was on first reading 20 years ago. The watered-down versions, that adding value to the world is good and deserving of honest reward, that there is no right to a free lunch, that economic success is most easily achieved when individual liberty is high, appear to draw the same contempt from Rand as hard-core communism.

There's an insistence throughout the book that only one course of action, only one societal model, only one score of value is possible. Worse, there's a parallel insistence that disagreement is evidence of irrationality. I'm not particularly susceptible to catastrophism of this kind, I suppose: I finished the book feeling a kind of sympathy (Rand would call it pity) for its followers. I guess if they're desperate for some sort of logically-consistent theory of human affairs, Rand's is as good as any.

Hope that's of interest,
H

 

[rgraham666]

Rand, in my opinion, should have left her sexual makeup in the bedroom. Or dungeon in her case. What I read was that a person isn't complete unless they have someone more powerful to submit to.

There's a strong hint of Thomas Carlyle's "I say find me the true Könning, King or Able Man and he has a divine right over me." in her work.

From what I've heard of her private life, her submissiveness was a major facet of her character.

And as I've noted before, she never got over her upbringing in the Soviet Union. She still follows Marxism, but she inverted it, the same way a Satanist inverts Christianity. What's bad is good and vice versa.

Most telling is her worshippers, those who believe she wrote Complete and Absolute Truth, are always hard hearted people. That says it all in my opinion.

 

[Pure]

note to hp

nice review!.

very well thought out.

years back i used "the fountainhead" as one novel in a course i was teaching. some students came admiring it. they all had a hard time with the second reading!

can you picture your *next* time through Atlas Shrugged!

as rg says, there is a simple message and the characters are mere vehicles (*mouthpieces* for correct and incorrect views). in that sense it's not unlike "Pilgrims Progress." Be it "jesus saves" or "the profit motive, unchecked, saves", the message is of a type-- and no doubt appealing. just as 'what would jesus christ do" is a convenient yardstick, at least at first blush.

the conclusions about government, charity, etc. follow from her devotion to profit and self interest.. at about the same time,i checked her out, i was enamoured of barry goldwater. again, very simple in message. barry got to me more.

barry at least was a consistent and honorable guy. rand was always a tortured figure and embattled. her heir and lover went his own way after years of adultery, and tried to salvage the valid part of her teaching: the psychology of self esteem.

unfortunately for her, you could not say, " I'm a follower in most respects, for I accept 80% of what you say." she is reported to have said to such people, 'do not say you follow objectivism; start your own movement and call it something else.'

'embattled,' because she could not get a political movement going. she did not admire Reagan, god of most conservatives. she saw correctly that he increased the size and role of government. on foreign policy she likewise was a bit uneven, but, iirc correctly opposed the viet nam war, or at least the draft that made it possilbe. her followers now cannot decide if they are left or right, e.g. over iraq. there is no basis for foreign policy in objectivism.

her strange views of women and submission have been noted. less noted is that her 'capitalism' is an airy abstraction that never existed, or if it did, it was for a couple decades in mid nineteenth century england.
the idealized "trader", giving value for value, is NOT actually a feature of developed capitalism, just as "free market" does not apply to most of its later phases. the abstract "solutions" of the market do not exist (as desirable), and her defenders tend to offer only the tritest of objections to "mixed" or alternative scenarios which dominate reality (joint state and private enterprises; regulated but privately owned companies, etc.); "command econony" . deviating from the 'natural' free market phenomenon.

in the end one may say, 'a passionate spokesperson for individualism'. however the above points detract: no *individual* could be her follower!
in practice her 'solutions' rarely supported individuals, except maybe the great entrepreneurs and 'robber barons,' the A. Carnegies, etc. she DID support ''choice" for women, that being an exception to my general observation.

in this respect she is less consistent than the xian evangelical movement, for at least they are clear: we all belong to Christ; He is the only teacher. "We are individuals, who subscribe 100% to Rand's teachings and do not tolerate deviations; you may join us if you affirm these points," is a bit problematic.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I approached 'Atlas Shrugged' with great excitement, back in my teens; at last i was going to read the Most Important Book Of The Century! (it said so, on the cover.)

But I got through the first four chapters, and then kinda skimmed after that. I was already too well-read to be enchanted by her prose, and too self-aware to be suckered in by her preachments. And we were well into the seventies, and in regards to Capitalism-- well, let's just say that reality was belching in her face.

And her submission scenes were't sexy enough for me.

 

[Handprints]

nice review!.

very well thought out.

Thanks! Very kind.

One of the things that struck me when I was looking for Rand's contemporaries was that Pynchon's "V" came out only three years later. If we're right in supposing that Rand wanted to write something that forced subsequent authors to re-think why they were writing, how characters could be thought of, and what the novel was capable of doing and expressing; she wrote the wrong book and didn't have long to wait to see the right one. I wonder if she spent any time wondering why "V" shook up the American literary novel in a way "Atlas" didn't, or if, like her characters, she gave it a moment's consideration, decided they were all wrong, "and never thought of it again."

Regards,
H

 

[cantdog]

Great review. Thanks a lot.

 

[amicus]

Curious, curious, curious, I say, again and again.

I suggest that context might play a part here, hindsight and retrospect notwithstanding.

For one thing, the Soviet Union. International Communism, Socialism, seemed to be the winner following World War Two. All the leftists, looking for a teat to succor from, happily explained that this was the wave of the future to which all would eventually bow down to.

For another, Existentialism, aka, Sartre, Kierkegard and a few other nitwits and Nihilists exploited the evil nature of man as a hopeless quest for insanity and preached withdrawal and self contemplation.

In the Literary world before Hemingway blew his brains out with a 12 guage, the authors mentioned, including Steinbeck, Maugm, and a dozen others I have forgotten, seemed to capitalize on the 'flawed hero' version of history and life in general. Romance and ulp, true love, were fairy tale issues and not relevant in real life and besides that, God was dead or dying moment to moment.

Art, Surrealistic, like life itself, reflected ugliness and hopelessness concerning the human conditon.

Philosophy, which was in my opinion, Ms. Rands greatest contribution, was in the death throes of Logical Positivism and Marxism, both very confusing and depressing concepts.

So, in context, considering era, the time, the period and the past history of events, enter, center stage, a totally opposite exposition on all fronts.

I cannot think of another author or Philosopher, during the past half century, that even holds a candle to the brilliance of Ayn Rand, can you?

She was rather an amazing person and writer and certainly subject to criticism from all points on the compass.

Thas a good thing.

Amicus...

 

[Handprints]

I cannot think of another author or Philosopher, during the past half century, that even holds a candle to the brilliance of Ayn Rand, can you?

Popper, Heidegger, Godel, Ortega y Gasset, Russell, Merleau-Ponty, Lacan, Jaspers, Dreyfus and Derrida have all, in my view, made more interesting, insightful and useful contributions to how I think than anything I ever read in Rand. I'd make a longer list but my books are in storage and my memory's lousy.

None managed to reduce me to tears of laughter at their appallingly poor editing/writing. A classic example from p877 of my Signet edition of Atlas:

"Was it...?" she stopped.
"Hard? Yes. But only for the first few days."

Best,
H

 

[amicus]

Popper, Heidegger, Godel, Ortega y Gasset, Russell, Merleau-Ponty, Lacan, Jaspers, Dreyfus and Derrida have all, in my view, made more interesting, insightful and useful contributions to how I think than anything I ever read in Rand. I'd make a longer list but my books are in storage and my memory's lousy.

None managed to reduce me to tears of laughter at their appallingly poor editing/writing. A classic example from p877 of my Signet edition of Atlas:

"Was it...?" she stopped.
"Hard? Yes. But only for the first few days."

Best,
H

~~~

I don't recall Lacan or Derrida, but had a passing acquaintance with the rest and others as memory also lapses...

There is something dark and mysterious in many European intellectuals, I think; not sure I can place a finger on it precisely.

American 'shallowness' usually take the brunt of elite criticism of arts and letters here in the colonies.

For a long time I did not question that, well not seriously, as we are a relatively new nation and Europe has such a long and dreary history.

But, I realized that many 'continental' writers seem to be immersed in the lore and mythical past from which they arose and seem to cherish, beyong rational reason, a dark side of human nature.

I could sense and feel it as I walked the streets of the major cities in Europe; I could almost savor the air of dungeons and dragons and Popes and Kings and witches brew and devils and demons that live deep within the souls regardless of the transistor toys they carry in their purses.

It is a dark heritage I am no longer in awe of.

Ayn Rand reflected a new generation that discarded the evils of the past, cherished the achievements and accomplishments but left the detritus of of broken dreams to the molding intellects of the past.

All well and good, say I as the crumbling cathedrals of the middle ages bear witness to a time of change and innovation.

Stylistically, I do not think I view Ms. Rand as a Literary genius, nor do I quibble with editorial faux pas', English was not her mother tongue and nuance for many, is a chore when the idea is the primary intent.

And that her ideas got across, loud and clear, cannot be argued, even by you, Handprints...smiles...

Amicus...

 

[keeblercrumb]

In honour of the novel's 50th anniversary of publication and because it had been more than 20 years since I read it, I had another hack at it. If anyone has been tempted to do the same by this thread, here's a brief review.....

....Hope that's of interest,
H

Thoughtful, insightful and objective view of what is, for some, an almost bibilical tale on par with the tablets of Moses.

I trust you will not now befall the fate of Salman Rushdie, another heretic.

-KC

 

[Liar]

Philosophy, which was in my opinion, Ms. Rands greatest contribution

See, that's the thing.

Altas Shrugges is an important philosophical and ideological document. Whether you agree with it ro not, that is hard to argue against. The fact that it has many devout, almost fanatical followers speaks for itself. The most imortant one? Debatable, and impossible to measure anyway.

But I tried to read it as a novel. And as a novel, it's just not very good. Contrived prose, fractured dramaturgy and utopian charaterization made it impossible to digest. I guess that if you read it and go "hell yeah" at every hint at moral prescription it is laden with, it makes it easier to get through.

I read another novel recently, Ursula K LeGuin's Shevek, and had the same experience. Granted, LeGuin can write a great story and I've enjoyed many of her novels in the past, but this one was definitely sub-par for her. And the heavy layers of political moralizing bogged it down novel-wise to the extent that Good Storytelling was compromized away.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

AMICUS et al

I like Ayn Rand. I like the first 600 pages of ATLAS SHRUGGED and grow weary beyond that line. The book could use some compression.

People obsess about labels and sound-bites, and ignore human behavior. As a conservative soul working in a very liberal industry, what I observe is how 'liberals' use and exploit children to make a buck. Everything we do is "for the children," but the kiddies are the last in line when the goodies get distributed.

In todays paper is an article about the local children's coalition, the agency that manages the distribution of government money to social service providers, foster homes, etc. in my county. Apparently these noble souls have been using state money to speculate in real estate. They also pay their professional staff starvation wages. All of this is in the paper.

Conservatives dont hate children. What conservatives hate is charlatans who exploit the misery of others for quick cash. Theyre poverty pimps. But liberals salivate, like Pavlov's dogs, when anyone utters "Children."

 

[Pure]

further notes,

as amicus says, one has to look at the context; fountainhead appeared in the 40s and atlas, in the 50s.

the US was a fine home for someone who wanted to denounce communism and "collectivism." had she not been so prickly and dogmatic, she might have started a political movement.

as to her achievements.

as a writer of novels. nada.

as a spokesperson for capitalism. not much. von mises and hayek had already taken up cudgels for 'free market' and made arguement, in the 30s, based on their studies of economics. Hayek's Road to Serfdom is 1944.

so we get to philosophy, her attempt to supply the underpinnings for a capitalist worldview.

she thought of herself as rejecting most philosophers except for aristotle.

she thought it revolutionary, and her contribution, to claim that man can know objective reality. but it is a well known position. and not exactly aristotles.

as to values, the 'egoism', etc. it is vaguely like aristotle, but not genuinely based on him, despite her followers attempts to add aristotelian trimmings, 'virtue theory' etc.

she 'argued' it through her novels. the Roark figure, etc. but she could never generalize it. it becomes a 'great man' theory, vaguely like its progenitor, Nietzsche's philosophy.


her final effort, e.g. "rational egoism," must be judged a failure, since it did not overcome the problem of egoism that haunted her: exploitation of others. she ended by claiming-- like Kant, whom she hated-- that exploiting, defrauding, or robbing others was CONTRARY TO REASON.

this would insure the 'virtue' of her egoist, and ensure that he is NOT a cynical exploiter.

she neither solved, nor shed much light on any philosophical puzzles.

that established, we're back to her role as spokesperson for 'pure capitalism', her ideal, which sometimes she recognized, never has yet existed. she inspires like all the best utopians do, e.g. fourier, saint simon. etc.

----
shit, this posting is taking on the structure of an amicus point-form rant.

 

[rgraham666]

I wonder where people got the idea that reason and goodness are automatically connected.

The Holocaust was carried out in a perfectly rational manner; carefully planned, precisely executed, making use of all the tools that reason has given us from bureaucracy to poison gas.

The movement of North America's industrial capability, which hollowed out its economy, was done in a thoroughly rational manner.

Reason is just one facet of humanity. Without a lot of others to balance it out; memory, ethics, common sense, imagination, intuition; it's worse than useless.

 

[Stella_Omega]

AMICUS et al

I like Ayn Rand. I like the first 600 pages of ATLAS SHRUGGED and grow weary beyond that line. The book could use some compression.

People obsess about labels and sound-bites, and ignore human behavior. As a conservative soul working in a very liberal industry, what I observe is how 'liberals' use and exploit children to make a buck. Everything we do is "for the children," but the kiddies are the last in line when the goodies get distributed.

In todays paper is an article about the local children's coalition, the agency that manages the distribution of government money to social service providers, foster homes, etc. in my county. Apparently these noble souls have been using state money to speculate in real estate. They also pay their professional staff starvation wages. All of this is in the paper.

Conservatives dont hate children. What conservatives hate is charlatans who exploit the misery of others for quick cash. Theyre poverty pimps. But liberals salivate, like Pavlov's dogs, when anyone utters "Children."

What do liberals-and-conservatives have to do with Ayn Rand's writerly qualities?

I think Ami's post is a perfect example of Randism; in the face of the detailed critique and list of comparisons that Handprints offered, Ami makes a bet that no one can find an author or philosopher that can hold a candle to Ayn Rand.

 

[gauchecritic]

What do liberals-and-conservatives have to do with Ayn Rand's writerly qualities?

Apart from which, I've never seen any definition of liberal (capital L or otherwise) that includes 'works for an apparently liberal organisation'.

Would anyone call Tony Blair a socialist?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Apart from which, I've never seen any definition of liberal (capital L or otherwise) that includes 'works for an apparently liberal organisation'.

Would anyone call Tony Blair a socialist?

Shame on me for letting myself get sidetracked.

Really, my main intention was to point out Ami's blindness to any opposing viewpoint regarding his beloved Ayn.

In fact, he claims she's being criticised-- when in fact, she's been discounted in most areas, in this discussion at least. Rated as indifferent.

 

[amicus]

I thought someone mentioned a movie about Atlas Shrugged on this thread, but it escapes me.

"...Atlas Shrugged is a film in active development by Baldwin Entertainment Group and Lions Gate Entertainment. Based on Ayn Rand’s 1957 novel, a two-part draft screenplay written by James V. Hart was developed into a 127-page screenplay by writer-director Randall Wallace.[1]

Angelina Jolie has been confirmed to play the role of Dagny Taggart, and Brad Pitt is rumored to be cast as either John Galt or Hank Rearden. Both are fans of Rand's works.[2] Lions Gate Entertainment has picked up worldwide distribution rights. The film is expected to be released in 2008.[2]

As of September 29, 2007, IMDb.com lists the film as being "Back in development". [3]

Lionsgate has hired director Vadim Perelman to direct the film.[4]

Interesting if it comes to pass...and won't the usual suspects be hopping mad at the increased interest in Rand and her Philosophy if the film is a success?

Chuckles...

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

This is the Roxanne Appleby post of 10/14 linked on this thread by Handprints:

Happy 50th, Atlas Shrugged

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rand and the Right

By BRIAN DOHERTY

Because of her opposition to New Deal government controls, novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand started off thinking of herself as a conservative. By the time her blockbuster novel, "Atlas Shrugged," was published 50 years ago this week, she'd changed her mind. She decided she was a radical -- a "radical for capitalism," that is.

Conservatives, she'd come to believe, were insufficiently principled in their defense of a free society and once the novel was out, the official conservative movement turned its back on her.

While "Atlas Shrugged" was a ferocious defense of certain values shared by many conservatives, then and now -- limited government, economic liberty and the primacy of individual rights over perceived collective needs -- National Review's editor and conservative movement leader William Buckley found the novel's intransigence and Godlessness, alarming. He assigned communist-turned-conservative Whittaker Chambers to review it.

After squinting at this sweeping, thousand page-plus epic, portraying America's collapse thanks to a rising tide of unlimited government, economic restrictions and the subordination of individual rights to perceived collective needs, Chambers pronounced his judgment. With a sighing, refined hostility, he found it "silly," "preposterous" and hateful. "From almost any page," he declared, in a bizarre and oft-cited passage, "a voice can be heard . . . commanding: 'To a gas chamber -- go!'"

Mr. Buckley and his National Review were trying to build a politically viable postwar right, including a border fence around respectable conservatism. Rand's ferocious and uncompromising opposition, not only to any government action beyond protecting individual rights, but also to religion and tradition for its own sake, put her outside that fence. She was too absolutist, too outrageous, too faithless.

After that Chambers review, Rand saw mainstream conservatism as her avowed enemy. Meanwhile, a distinctly libertarian political and intellectual movement was on the rise, one enormously influenced by Rand. Yet many conservatives still loved her, even if as a sometimes guilty pleasure, especially on college campuses

Her daring, root-and-branch assault on the postwar liberal welfare state consensus made her beloved even among a rising generation of young conservatives, without making them full-bore Objectivists (her name for her philosophy). For just one example, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his new memoir that Rand's "vision of the world made more sense to me than that of my left-wing friends," although he "didn't fully accept its tenets."

And Rand was, despite her exile from the conservative movement, a fan of Barry Goldwater, the modern Right's first serious presidential candidate. She told him "I regard you as the only hope of the anti-collectivist side on today's political scene, and I have defended your position at every opportunity." For his part, Goldwater said that "I have enjoyed very few books in my life as much as . . . 'Atlas Shrugged.'"

Rand and a fair number of her closest followers were notorious for casting into outer darkness anyone who might agree with everything she advocated, but not for their reasons, properly deduced from the facts of reality. This perceived dogmatism helped make her seem a silly character to many, liberal or conservative. And yet, when it came to Goldwater, Rand wrote something wise that conservatives should contemplate, and return the favor: "If he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours."

In other words, when it comes to politics, politics is more important than metaphysics. And Rand had plenty to offer conservatives about politics that is still salient.

Even when reinforcing her exile from respectable conservatism in a 1967 National Review feature story, M. Stanton Evans recognized that "there are a number of subjects on which Miss Rand is right . . . Foremost among these is that class of issues having to do with the secular conditions of freedom." He notes her "excellent grasp of the way capitalism is supposed to work" and her "powerful" critique of "bureaucrats, planners, and social engineers." Also, her "effective" satire of "the intellectual flux and slither in which modern relativism seeks to bury moral issues."

That's a great list of virtues, and exactly what modern conservatism needs, in the political and cultural wars of today. Rand's virtues as a political thinker and polemicist touch on the most important matters of modern politics.

She recognized, not merely that government shouldn't take as much from us as it does, but also that it can't justly and pragmatically do as much as it currently tries to do. As government spending, even under Republican rule, grows faster than ever before; as new plans to further bureaucratize American health care arise; as the benefits of free trade and free movement of capital and labor are under continued assault -- Rand's consistent, passionate and even heroic defense of American freedom is sorely needed.

Rand's insistence that all values be rationally chosen made her "bad," in modern conservative terms, on the family and on religion. But if the GOP can contemplate nominating twice-divorced Rudolph Giuliani (who agrees with Rand on abortion rights), conservatives should realize political movements can no longer demand agreement on matters of faith and family. They need to recognize -- as Rand was, ironically, mocked for failing to recognize -- that metaphysics and religion are extra-political.

Why does she matter to modern politics? It's not like she is around for conservatives to seek her endorsement. But it is worthwhile for political activists to remember that Ayn Rand was utterly uncompromising on how government needed to respect the inalienable right of Americans to live their own lives, and of American business to grow, thrive, innovate and improve our lives without niggling interference.

Her message of political freedom was enthusiastic, and optimistic, and immensely popular. No major American political party has embraced her message in full. But millions of Americans have voted for her with their pocket books, and hundreds of thousands continue to do so every year.

On the 50th anniversary of her greatest novel, her advocacy of the still "unknown ideal" of truly free market capitalism is something that America, and the conservative movement, needs to reconsider.

Mr. Doherty is a senior editor at Reason magazine and author of "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement" (PublicAffairs, 2007).

~~~

I can understand why someone who appreciates the work of an author might celebrate and remember an anniversay in honor of that person or book, as it were.

What I don't understand is why someone who does not appreciate the book or the body of work by Ayn Rand, would start a thread to 'honor' the occasion.

Namely, Handprints.

Whether one agrees with Ms. Rand or not, that she was and is an influential aspect of American Letters, is fact, not subject to debate.

Ayn Rand was a controversial figure and subject to criticism from all levels and directions, as such celebrities often are.

As you read through the rhetoric on the AH, note the anti viewpoints reflective of a continuing criticism of Rand and everything she wrote or uttered.

I won't put words to it yet again, as I have so many times before, but one might consider the roots of the hatred against her ideas and even her fiction.

Curious.

Amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

I thought someone mentioned a movie about Atlas Shrugged on this thread, but it escapes me.



Interesting if it comes to pass...and won't the usual suspects be hopping mad at the increased interest in Rand and her Philosophy if the film is a success?

Chuckles...

Amicus...

A 128-page screenplay, out of 1200 hardcover pages... Can it be done? Will it satisfy you, I wonder?

Well, there's no telling just yet. But I will see it, just for you, my friend.

eta; oh-- and for Angelina Jolie, let us not forget!

 

[Stella_Omega]

This is the Roxanne Appleby post of 10/14 linked on this thread by Handprints:




~~~

I can understand why someone who appreciates the work of an author might celebrate and remember an anniversay in honor of that person or book, as it were.

What I don't understand is why someone who does not appreciate the book or the body of work by Ayn Rand, would start a thread to 'honor' the occasion.

Namely, Handprints.

Whether one agrees with Ms. Rand or not, that she was and is an influential aspect of American Letters, is fact, not subject to debate.

Ayn Rand was a controversial figure and subject to criticism from all levels and directions, as such celebrities often are.

As you read through the rhetoric on the AH, note the anti viewpoints reflective of a continuing criticism of Rand and everything she wrote or uttered.

I won't put words to it yet again, as I have so many times before, but one might consider the roots of the hatred against her ideas and even her fiction.

Curious.

Amicus...

Dear man-- you can not say that her influence is not subject to debate, because it's being debated, right here!

You might consider the roots of so many people's antipathy towards her selfishness, her hypocrisy, her totalitarianist statements in regards to her own-by-god movement-- and as authors, her poor skills as a novelist. You can read the words. You could, if you wanted to, take what's being said at something more like face value. You don't have to hunt for hidden and nefarious meanings here. No one needs to pretend anything otherwise, it is not illegal to laugh at Ayn Rand.

As always, you prefer to ignore what's in front of your face.

 

[amicus]

What do liberals-and-conservatives have to do with Ayn Rand's writerly qualities?

I think Ami's post is a perfect example of Randism; in the face of the detailed critique and list of comparisons that Handprints offered, Ami makes a bet that no one can find an author or philosopher that can hold a candle to Ayn Rand.

~~~

'Randism', says Stella...yeah, sure, kid.

There are about a quarter million entries when one searches the net concerning Ayn Rand, most are critical attacks from a multitude of directions, some of from supporters of her ongoing Philosophy of Objectivism.

I have been patiently explaining Ayn Rand's philosophy for over forty years on a variety of venues, including radio and television.

It takes a great deal of time to go line by line a refute one of her detractors such as Handprints and I learned long ago that for each one I confront, another rises to take its place.

Thus, for the past decade, rather than offer individual refutations of the assertions of others, who, like Handprints, offers opinions and quotes from others instead of addressing fundamental issues, I have insisted on presenting the basic assumptions of Objectivism and Rationalism, all to the dismay of the 'usual suspects', who usually just fume and deny and hurl insults, such as an accusation of 'Randism' or Randroid, or follower or believer.

The fundamental tenets of rational thought and perception are rather self evident and the concepts of honesty, integrity and indivuality are alse easy to comprehend.

What is not simple is the complex manipulation of the left who insist that the individual must accede to the masses for the betterment of all while ignoring the definition of slavery that inevitably follows.

Amicus...

 

[rgraham666]

At its core, Rand's philosophy, like most 'Great Ideas', is a retreat from individual responsibility.

The 'Great Idea'; capitalism, communism, corporatism, libertarianism; demands a specific action or set of actions. The follower has no choice but to perform it. If people or societies suffer for it, that can't be helped.

What's most amusing is that the followers of 'Great Ideas' always claim to be doing what they do in the cause of freedom while simultaneously insisting that there is no choice except to act the way they do.

I do wish they'd make up their minds.

 

[amicus]

Dear man-- you can not say that her influence is not subject to debate, because it's being debated, right here!

You might consider the roots of so many people's antipathy towards her selfishness, her hypocrisy, her totalitarianist statements in regards to her own-by-god movement-- and as authors, her poor skills as a novelist. You can read the words. You could, if you wanted to, take what's being said at something more like face value. You don't have to hunt for hidden and nefarious meanings here. No one needs to pretend anything otherwise, it is not illegal to laugh at Ayn Rand.

As always, you prefer to ignore what's in front of your face.

~~~

What I was trying to say, Stella, is that the influence of Ayn Rand, good or bad, like it or not, is there. She did have an impact on the literary world, on economics and philosophy and psychology and regardless of what detractors on this forum say, she has never, for a day, been 'discounted' by anyone of import, save the drooling left wingers who chose the 'ignore' button rather than present rational arguments.

You might consider the roots of so many people's antipathy towards her selfishness,

She wrote a book, "The Virtue of Selfishness", as I recall. The title is like many titles I create to head up a new thread, intended to draw the eye. I think it worked for her.

Instead of the buzzword, selfishness, try on for size, 'rational self interest', which, if you had read her works you would understand.

"Her hypocrisy," Perhaps you would deign to explain and justify that accusation?

"Her totalitarian statements..." Since her entire philosophy is in full oposition to totalitarianism on all fronts, you must be referring to her sexual peccadillo's and those who follow her philosophy?

"Poor skills as a novelist..." I can't stand to read James Joyce or Kafka, or any number of obtuse, dark, introverted crying voices in the dark. You and I should either or both be so fortunate to have sold as many of those poorly written novels as she. Bit of sour grapes dearie? And even so, is style not subjective and a matter of personal like and dislike?

I fully understand why many who advocate the collective over the individual detest Rand's glorification of the individual man and his own self interest. But at least have the courtesy to present your justifications for imposing slavery and why they are superior to one advocating human freedom.

In other words, you did not offer a single valid criticism.

Amicus...

 

[sr71plt]

Yep. My first thought when I read this critique was "just wait until amicus sees this."

Rand wasn't the best of writers, but she was iconic in expressing philosophy in the form of writing. She was also part of a generation of writers who used a (then)-living legend as a thinly disguised protagonist in a novel (as was done on William Randolph Hearst in Citizen Kane). The one I remember her using was Frank Lloyd Wright.

If Rand hadn't been so full of herself and balked at the editing of her books, she'd probably have had more adherents--certainly more would have gotten to the ends of the books.

I think time and events have passed Rand's philosophy by, but it indeed was a serious consideration for her time and she was brave to put it out there and clever to do so in the form she did.

Perhaps if amicus hadn't stopped the thought process at reading Rand and had read more broadly, amicus's postings wouldn't be so blinders on. For erotica, in particular, Derrida, is at least more fun (he equates orgasm with a death experience--which a lot of us have tried to make use of in our erotica writings).

The verdict is certainly in on comparison of Rand's lasting power to Derrida's. He's quoted in nearly every book of literary criticism somewhere. She's now considered "quaint."