Atlas Shrugged

[ReeferMadness]

After Paul Ryan was named Republican VP candidate, I picked up a copy of Atlas Shrugged (from the public library, just to make Ayn roll in her grave ). All I can say is Oh. My. Gawd.

How could anyone publish such a poorly written, repetitive, implausible piece of crap? Didn't they have editors back then?? I don't understand how people can get through it, much less have it alter their world views. The characters are cardboard-cutout caricatures. The heroes are all tall, thin and have 'taut mouths' where as the villains are variously described as jellied, beefy, loose-mouthed and a whole lot of derogatory terms. None of of the protagonists seem to have children (and the book was released at the height of the baby boom), which is kind of odd, considering they are about to rebuild society.

The book seems to consist mostly of heroes giving each other endless, repetitive lectures on morality and personal responsibility and how society is victimizing the poor, wealthy industrialists. After a while, you just want to say "OK, Ayn, we get it!!" The John Galt monologue goes on for a mind-numbing 56 pages!! I dare them to put that in one of the movies. How many people would line up and pay 12 bucks to watch a 3 hour lecture??

What plot exists is highly implausible and the pointless plot twists seemed to be nothing more than a framework to allow the characters to spout Rand's simpleton views - in exasperating detail.

[Bonam]

After Paul Ryan was named Republican VP candidate, I picked up a copy of Atlas Shrugged (from the public library, just to make Ayn roll in her grave ).

Clearly you had your mind made up against it prior to even picking up the book. Why bother?

Anyway, the book is mostly a litany against the morality of self-sacrifice and against the ideal of collectivism. As such, it is very topical in a society where much of the political discourse is based around the debate of how much collectivism is the "right amount".

I don't understand how people can get through it, much less have it alter their world views.

I think you are right that the book probably doesn't change many people's world views. It seems written more to reaffirm already held views rather than to persuade people to those views. Those who are already inclined to see the greatest morality as being in individualism and rational self-interest rather than altruism are likely to agree with at least parts of the book, and others are likely to despise the book, as you did.

The characters are cardboard-cutout caricatures. The heroes are all tall, thin and have 'taut mouths' where as the villains are variously described as jellied, beefy, loose-mouthed and a whole lot of derogatory terms.

An attribution of attractive physical attributes to protagonists and negative ones to antagonists is common in many forms of literature, especially whenever an author seeks to portray a moral conflict as black and white, as Rand does. Similar literary devices include having sunny weather at times of happiness in the plot and stormy/rainy/grey weather during times of sadness or conflict in the plot. It may seem simplistic, perhaps, but Atlas Shrugged was meant to be blunt and direct.

[ReeferMadness]

Clearly you had your mind made up against it prior to even picking up the book. Why bother?

Nonsense. I rarely buy books anymore - it's a resource and environmental waste to have the paper lying around.

In fact, I think she had some interesting things to say about personal responsibility and honesty. Too bad it was hard to pick out amongst the 1000 pages of dross. If she had cut about 900 pages and knew how to write, it might have been a decent book. Clearly, she had no respect for her readers.

Anyway, the book is mostly a litany against the morality of self-sacrifice and against the ideal of collectivism. As such, it is very topical in a society where much of the political discourse is based around the debate of how much collectivism is the "right amount".

Well, it could be but the book is written on the undefended premise that the right amount of collectivism is zero.

I think you are right that the book probably doesn't change many people's world views. It seems written more to reaffirm already held views rather than to persuade people to those views. Those who are already inclined to see the greatest morality as being in individualism and rational self-interest rather than altruism are likely to agree with at least parts of the book, and others are likely to despise the book, as you did.

If she was only preaching to the choir, maybe she could have cut 80% of the book.

An attribution of attractive physical attributes to protagonists and negative ones to antagonists is common in many forms of literature, especially whenever an author seeks to portray a moral conflict as black and white, as Rand does. Similar literary devices include having sunny weather at times of happiness in the plot and stormy/rainy/grey weather during times of sadness or conflict in the plot. It may seem simplistic, perhaps, but Atlas Shrugged was meant to be blunt and direct.

It read like a children's book or a hokey cowboy book. White hats against black hats. How can anyone take that shit seriously?

[Wild Bill]

Good points, from both sides.

Still, it is pertinent that her book has been a national best seller every single year since it was published, to this day!

It is true that she wasn't a very good writer. She also had a great many personal flaws. However, those are a non sequitur to her philosophy. Her books were all just backgrounds on which to hang characters that would illustrate her beliefs.

Those beliefs are powerfully attractive to a great many people. That's obvious, given decades of successful sales levels.

Slamming her for poor writing will not convert readers away from her POV to become leftwingers. If anything, it will confirm her beliefs for them.

It sounds as if rather than debate her beliefs some would choose to discourage people from reading them in the first place. That implies a lack of confidence on the part of her critics.

[Black Dog]

Good points, from both sides.

Still, it is pertinent that her book has been a national best seller every single year since it was published, to this day!

I don't think it's that pertinent. the Big Bang Theory has been one of TV's highest rated shows since it came out and it's bloody awful. Popularity /= quality.

It is true that she wasn't a very good writer. She also had a great many personal flaws. However, those are a non sequitur to her philosophy. Her books were all just backgrounds on which to hang characters that would illustrate her beliefs.

And that's why they're shit.

Those beliefs are powerfully attractive to a great many people. That's obvious, given decades of successful sales levels.

Yes, certain callow d-bags get off on these proto-fascist fantasies of strong willed supermen.

Slamming her for poor writing will not convert readers away from her POV to become leftwingers. If anything, it will confirm her beliefs for them.

Who cares? If someone wants to eat a horse turd and call it bad chocolate, that's their prerogative.

It sounds as if rather than debate her beliefs some would choose to discourage people from reading them in the first place. That implies a lack of confidence on the part of her critics.

Actually I think people should read the books because it's the best way to get a mainline injection of her juvenile philosophy versus reading her defenders who will go to great lengths to put lipstick on that particular swine.

[TimG]

Well, it could be but the book is written on the undefended premise that the right amount of collectivism is zero.

The book was written by a Russian in reaction to the extremes of Communism. If you recoil at the extremes of this book then you should recoil at the extremes of Communism. The book is important because it attacks the premise that communism is some how moral and capitalism is "evil". This is also why book is hated by the left because their world view is premised on the assumption that capitalism is "evil". Edited August 29, 2012 by TimG

[TimG]

Actually I think people should read the books because it's the best way to get a mainline injection of her juvenile philosophy versus reading her defenders who will go to great lengths to put lipstick on that particular swine.

It is no more juvenile than rantings of Karl Marx. Edited August 29, 2012 by TimG

[Black Dog]

It is no more juvenile than rantings of Karl Marx.

You can say a lot of things about Marxism, but "juvenile" doesn't fit the bill. Rand's philosphy is the solipsism of a child.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Black Dog

[TimG]

You can say a lot of things about Marxism, but "juvenile" doesn't fit the bill. Rand's philosphy is the solipsism of a child.

Really? I think that is a matter of opinion. I suspect your own opinions are slanted because your moral framework is more in line with Marx than with Rand and denigrating Rand gives you "permission" to ignore her. Edited August 29, 2012 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Really? I think that is a matter of opinion. I suspect your own opinions are slanted because your moral framework is more in line with Marx than with Rand and denigrating Rand gives you "permission" to ignore her.

No, I recognize both are flawed philosophies based in large part on flawed assumptions about human behaviour. Rand just happens to be a really, really terrible writer and person.

[Bonam]

I don't think it's that pertinent. the Big Bang Theory has been one of TV's highest rated shows since it came out and it's bloody awful. Popularity /= quality.

Obviously a matter of opinion. I think it's pretty freaking funny ;p

And that's why they're shit.

...

Yes, certain callow d-bags get off on these proto-fascist fantasies of strong willed supermen.

...

Who cares? If someone wants to eat a horse turd and call it bad chocolate, that's their prerogative.

Grow up.

Actually I think people should read the books because it's the best way to get a mainline injection of her juvenile philosophy versus reading her defenders who will go to great lengths to put lipstick on that particular swine.

Funny to call other people/writings juvenile when your own main line of criticism seems to have involved nothing but references to shit and turds.

[Canuckistani]

It is no more juvenile than rantings of Karl Marx.

There you go. Or the various religions cults that purport to lay it all out for you. Simple, clear solutions. Too bad they're wrong.

[Black Dog]

Funny to call other people/writings juvenile when your own main line of criticism seems to have involved nothing but references to shit and turds.

Hard to write about fecal matter if you can't use words that describe it.

[TimG]

There you go. Or the various religions cults that purport to lay it all out for you. Simple, clear solutions. Too bad they're wrong.

I can't speak for Rand and it is possible that she believed everything she wrote. I see her writings more of an 'anti-communism' manifesto intended to mock communism as much as an attempt to provide an alternate viewpoint. Edited August 29, 2012 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

I can't speak for Rand and it is possible that she believed everything she wrote. I see her writings more of an 'anti-communism' manifesto intended to mock communism as much as an attempt to provide an alternate viewpoint.

Quite possibly. For the people who follow her, it's another matter. Just like L Ron Hubbard didn't believe the crap he was putting out, but his followers do.

But for people with a more collectivist bent, Rand is a good tonic. We all harbor greed and selfishness inside - it's the big mistake that Marx made that he thought it could be bred out of us. But just because we are greedy and selfish doesn't mean that's all we are or that we have to justify acting that way. We also have the capacity for co-operation and altruism. Devils and Angels. The question is which capacity do we want to nurture and how much? Without self interest, we wouldn't advance very far, but neither would be without co-operation - this has been true ever since we became humans.

Edited August 29, 2012 by Canuckistani

[TimG]

Quite possibly. For the people who follow her, it's another matter.

Are you basing your opinion on actual conversations with Rand fans or are you simply going by what is said by people dedicated to vilifying those with right of center views? I suspect the majority of Rand fans do not hold her extreme views and simply like her as a counterpoint to the endless stream collectivist views that people are bombarded with on a daily basis. Edited August 29, 2012 by TimG

[Canuckistani]

Are you basing your opinion on actual conversations with Rand fans or are you simply going by what is said by people dedicated to vilifying those with right of center views? I suspect the majority of Rand fans do not hold her extreme views and simply like her as a counterpoint to the endless stream collectivist views that people are bombarded with on a daily basis.

Conversations, not so much. Hard to talk to true believers. But I'm going by what they say, and what the politicians who seem inspired by her try to do.

[ReeferMadness]

There you go. Or the various religions cults that purport to lay it all out for you. Simple, clear solutions. Too bad they're wrong.

I've heard that Rand's followers have been called a cult, and that there is some truth to that description.

Rand was an atheist and it's ironic how much Atlas Shrugged reads like a bible story. There are good people and bad people. The good people have a creed handed down to them by a prophet. The prophet says everyone has free will but the only right way to use it is to follow the creed. The prophet runs around and builds his base of disciples. There is a struggle between good and evil. Unless the bad people repent and change their ways, the world will be destroyed. Then the prophet leads the people into the promised land. Technology plays the role of God, smiting the evil and rewarding the righteous. Scary.

[ReeferMadness]

Good points, from both sides.

Still, it is pertinent that her book has been a national best seller every single year since it was published, to this day!

Frightening, isn't it.

It is true that she wasn't a very good writer. She also had a great many personal flaws. However, those are a non sequitur to her philosophy. Her books were all just backgrounds on which to hang characters that would illustrate her beliefs.

Presumably, her philosophy is intended to be applied to the real world and the story is there to support the philosophy. If you're going to use the story to argue that the philosophy works in a real world, the story should make sense in a real world. This one doesn't.

Those beliefs are powerfully attractive to a great many people. That's obvious, given decades of successful sales levels.

The world is complex and confusing. Many people resort to fundamentalist beliefs as a defense mechanism. Her philosophy is economic fundamentalism. Like its cousin, religious fundamentalism, it makes a poor basis for a philosophy but it is attractive to a lot of people.

Slamming her for poor writing will not convert readers away from her POV to become leftwingers. If anything, it will confirm her beliefs for them.

If she can't illustrate her views in a more realistic context, that should be a warning sign to thinking readers that maybe her views don't apply in the real world

BTW, if your label of 'leftwinger' was intended for me, I'll thank you from refraining in the future. I am an individual and don't belong to any political team.

It sounds as if rather than debate her beliefs some would choose to discourage people from reading them in the first place. That implies a lack of confidence on the part of her critics.

That's a pretty weak argument. It sounds like it bothers you that your hero can't write for shit.

[ReeferMadness]

I can't speak for Rand and it is possible that she believed everything she wrote. I see her writings more of an 'anti-communism' manifesto intended to mock communism as much as an attempt to provide an alternate viewpoint.

I suppose that's possible but I've never heard it suggested by anyone else. I understand that she had regular meetings with her club of true believers until the time of her death. Sounds to me like she was the head of a cult. Still, I don't claim to be an expert.

[ReeferMadness]

In the hands of a skilled thinker and writer (Orwell, for instance), Atlas Shrugged could have been insightful. It could have been a thoughtful exploration of what is owed to the group and what is owed to the individual. And whether that is even measurable. Or even relevant.

Instead, Rand starts with the premise that without a relative handful of heroes, we would all be holding committee meetings in caves to decide what time sunrise should be. Or, more likely, that the species Homo Sapiens would be extinct.

Her premise (that everything flows from the individual) and her conclusion (that only individual rights count) are so close to one another that as an act of logic, the book is practically useless. Unless it was intended as propaganda, targeted at weak thinkers and true believers, it's difficult to find a point.

[bleeding heart]

Slamming her for poor writing will not convert readers away from her POV to become leftwingers. If anything, it will confirm her beliefs for them.

It sounds as if rather than debate her beliefs some would choose to discourage people from reading them in the first place. That implies a lack of confidence on the part of her critics.

The book is sold as a "novel." She called it a "novel," and her admirers concede that it is a "novel."

So, the first--and most important--judgement is on its quality...as the entity which it decidedly is.

That's more important than the "philosophy" (to dumb down the term) itself.

See, my politics doesn't matter to my view of the movie Avatar. I don't much like the movie.

At any rate, as someone once said: if you want some Rand-like philosophy that's actually good, insightful, nuanced, and interesting....read Nietzche.

Edited August 30, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

The book is sold as a "novel." She called it a "novel," and her admirers concede that it is a "novel."

So, the first--and most important--judgement is on its quality...as the entity which it decidedly is.

That's more important than the "philosophy" (to dumb down the term) itself.

See, my politics doesn't matter to my view of the movie Avatar. I don't much like the movie.

At any rate, as someone once said: if you want some Rand-like philosophy that's actually good, insightful, nuanced, and interesting....read Nietzche.

From whom Rand pinched most of her ideas.

[bleeding heart]

From whom Rand pinched most of her ideas.

That's my understanding, as well.

For what it's worth, and based on admittedly sparse reading, I personally don't consider Nietzche to be all great shakes either.

But I have little doubt it's superior to Rand, by a longshot.

[Canuckistani]

That's my understanding, as well.

For what it's worth, and based on admittedly sparse reading, I personally don't consider Nietzche to be all great shakes either.

But I have little doubt it's superior to Rand, by a longshot.

I know little of Neitzche, but my impression is that he was writing aimed more at the individual. He wasn't making a prescription for society. Just his "stare long enough into the abyss and the abyss stares back at you" makes his contribution worthwhile. That's not from somebody who thinks they have society or even their own life all figured out. And the Uebermensch was not some Randian greed hog. It was a spiritual quest for going beyond conventional morality to self-liberation. And Neitzche paid a huge price for this quest - he didn't make it, but went crazy instead. The abyss got him. So what little I know of these two writers, if Rand stole his ideas, she stole something she didn't understand.