Atlas Shrugged

[bleeding heart]

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.

Well said.

[Bonam]

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.

Rand, too, was speaking to the individual.

So what little I know of these two writers, if Rand stole his ideas, she stole something she didn't understand.

It's interesting that in the midst of an apparently thoughtful paragraph, you instinctively use loaded words to disparage Rand, perhaps without even noticing that you are doing so. Using and building upon the ideas of a prior philosopher, or even misusing those ideas, is not "stealing".

[Canuckistani]

Rand, too, was speaking to the individual.

Not my reading of her - she was making a prescription for society. John Gault doesn't seem like a very Neitzchian figure to me.

It's interesting that in the midst of an apparently thoughtful paragraph, you instinctively use loaded words to disparage Rand, perhaps without even noticing that you are doing so. Using and building upon the ideas of a prior philosopher, or even misusing those ideas, is not "stealing".

Didn't even notice, thought that was the term used by others here. But fine, she built on sand, since I don't think she understood Neitzche at all. (I really make no apology for disparaging her). Of course my comment only goes so far, since I don't pretend to know Neitzche very well. But, from what I've come across, he's in a whole different universe than Rand.

Again, Nietzche seems to have been on a spiritual quest. That is inherently a selfish or self centered act, even if your quest involves serving others. Tantra seems to have many elements in common with what Neitzche seems to have been up to, and it's a very dangerous practice. But I see no connection between that and what John Gault seems to be all about.

Edited August 30, 2012 by Canuckistani

[ReeferMadness]

Rand, too, was speaking to the individual.

Rand did so much speak to the individual so much as she deified the individual. Or at least certain individuals. Her interchangeable heroes are so much smarter, wiser and better than the rest of the world, it's like watching the Americans and the Germans in Hogan's Heroes. The real world doesn't work like that so she had to invent an extremist fictional world to support her extremist views.

Rand has very little to say and she says it poorly. She's not the problem. The problem is the collection of zealots and opportunists who seized on her work. How far will they get with it? Will the world revert to 19th century capitalism before people wake up and see the results?

[Guest Manny]

Neitzche paid a huge price for this quest - he didn't make it, but went crazy instead. The abyss got him.

Neitzsche had syphillus for most of his adult life and this is what eventually took him down. There is some evidence his later writings were disturbed by the disease. He may already have been crazy by the time he wrote "Ecce Homo".

In my youth I read most of his works. Now I look back at them as the unfortunate ravings of a bitter individual who suffered most of is life due to himself and others. And in that regard he is much like the rest of us.

ie. often wrong...

Edited August 30, 2012 by Manny

[carepov]

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.

I listened to the audio book in the car and loved it!

Some of her ideas are a little extreme for me but she did make some good points.

What I really don't understand are the Rand followers (many Republicans) that advocate for the legislation of morality.

[ReeferMadness]

I listened to the audio book in the car and loved it!

How long did that take? The John Galt diatribe alone must have consumed a couple of hours at least.

Some of her ideas are a little extreme for me but she did make some good points.

Such as what good points?

[carepov]

How long did that take? The John Galt diatribe alone must have consumed a couple of hours at least.

Such as what good points?

About one month of commuting to and from work. I was actually enjoying waking up in the morning to continue the story.

1. I certainly agree with the idea of individual freedom to choose one's lifestyle as long as you are not harming anyone.

2. I liked the hard work, persistence and the guts of the steel maker (Reardon?) and other characters and how they distained "high society"

3. She advocated more of a meritocracy than what we have now

4. She pointed out the falseness of some of society's elites and the dangers of oligopolies

No it was not very realistic but neither was 1984. Yes it was long and I would not dream of trying to read it but as an audio book it was great.

Any artist or intellectual, no matter what their point of view, as popular and influential as Rand gets my respect.

[bleeding heart]

About one month of commuting to and from work. I was actually enjoying waking up in the morning to continue the story.

1. I certainly agree with the idea of individual freedom to choose one's lifestyle as long as you are not harming anyone.

That's not a Randian insight, and predates her by a heck of a long time.

Heck, if the bar's that low, you must love me, too!

2. I liked the hard work, persistence and the guts of the steel maker (Reardon?) and other characters and how they distained "high society"

I find it pretty contradictory. It reminds me of conservative elites complaining about liberal elites.

4. She pointed out the falseness of some of society's elites and the dangers of oligopolies

Again, I'm not buying it. By definition, she preferred the most powerful people on Earth.

No it was not very realistic but neither was 1984.

These two novels don't belong in the same sentence.

Any artist or intellectual, no matter what their point of view, as popular and influential as Rand gets my respect.

What about the intellectuals driving Nazism and Stalinism? (I don't mean their influences; I don't mean Nietzche or Marx; I"m talking about the intellectuals within these actual movements and regimes themselves.)

After all, Ayn Rand openly admired an infamous child killer...something about the "masculine will" and "freedom from conscience."

That's not admirable. That's degeneracy.

[carepov]

That's not a Randian insight, and predates her by a heck of a long time.

Heck, if the bar's that low, you must love me, too!

I find it pretty contradictory. It reminds me of conservative elites complaining about liberal elites.

Again, I'm not buying it. By definition, she preferred the most powerful people on Earth.

These two novels don't belong in the same sentence.

Of course the idea of individual freedom was not her insight. I thought that the way she expressed this idea was good and I enjoyed the story.

I know nothing of Rand's personal life - other than that it was a big mess. Perhaps she was elitist but her protagonists were not. Reardon despised high-society, including his wife, worked very hard, including manual labour. Dagny as well.

What about the intellectuals driving Nazism and Stalinism? (I don't mean their influences; I don't mean Nietzche or Marx; I"m talking about the intellectuals within these actual movements and regimes themselves.)

After all, Ayn Rand openly admired an infamous child killer...something about the "masculine will" and "freedom from conscience."

That's not admirable. That's degeneracy.

Good points, hmmm... I would need to rethink what I wrote, perhaps not all "famous and influential" artists and intellectuals deserve my respect.

I will say that I respect and admire Rand's work as a novelist.

[bleeding heart]

I will say that I respect and admire Rand's work as a novelist.

Well, at the end of the day, to each his own, right?

I like the movie Rambo, for example. Not everyone agrees that it's any good.

Edited August 31, 2012 by bleeding heart

[carepov]

Well, at the end of the day, to each his own, right?

I like the movie Rambo, for example. Not everyone agrees that it's any good.

Yes, indeed - and the opposite is true as well - most people agree that Bulgakov's and Dostoyevsky's novels are good, and that's fine, but you'll never see their works back on my reading list - I'd rather watch Rambo again.

[bleeding heart]

Yes, indeed - and the opposite is true as well - most people agree that Bulgakov's and Dostoyevsky's novels are good, and that's fine, but you'll never see their works back on my reading list - I'd rather watch Rambo again.

[Antiochus]

Its a pretty bad book and a poor thesis for a political philosophy. Its heroes are closer to demi-gods than humans, so imbued with a perfect ethical belief system implying that only people who believe in government interventionism will try and take advantage of the situation given to them; as if it took an big government to allow corruption, patronage and unhealthy monopolies...

[jbg]

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.

Another recent conservative "work of art", Denis Prager's "Still the Best Hope" was not much better. I wonder how I got through it.

[WWWTT]

How long did that take? The John Galt diatribe alone must have consumed a couple of hours at least.

There is an error in your location.

If the planets Venus and Mars are opposed in their orbits around the Sun,then the Sun would be deemed to be "between Venus and Mars"

Was that your intent?

You are located on the Sun?

WWWTT

[bleeding heart]

Here is a lengthy, very funny review of the book by Michael Caigoy (he reads it "so you don't have to.")

This is the first part, and the other seven or eight parts are available by link in the original.

Edit to add: I, personally, have read (some of) Atlas Shrugged (even most of the book's admirers haven't tackled the whole thing, in my opinion...much like the (admittedly smarter and more sophisticated) admirerers of Joyce's Ulysses).

I point this out only to ward off the predictable "if you haven't read it, how can you comment on it?" remarks.

Well, I haven't fried my genitals on a hot stove either, and no amount of remonstration will change my tack on that matter.

But yes, I have tackled a big part of Rand's "novel," so need for any sanctimony about experiencing it for myself. After all, haven't I suffered enough?

(Oh...and because I predict a charge of literary snobbery or something...I like all manner of stuff, including the inconsistent but talented Stephen King.)

Anyhoo:

Ayn’s heroine, Dagny, is all the things the author’s not: pretty, talented, coveted — though the two do have stupid, made-up names in common (isn’t that right, Alisa Rosenbaum?). Her apocalyptic male heroes all lust after Dagny, and the inevitable consummation of their awkward relationships dully thud with the passion of a Philip Morris acquisition. Or maybe a hostile takeover, considering the persistent rapiness of these physical transactions.

She describes her characters in great (i.e. tedious) detail. The bad guys: altruists, looters, and people guilty of not owning factories, appear paused in the act of melting. They’re walking eczema flare ups with permanent smell lines. Her protagonists fit Ayn’s special (as in “special”) aesthetic; all pointy and jagged, stinking of petroleum, and glowing with the moral superiority, and raw sex appeal innate to commodity moguls and transportation CEOs. In spite of the rigid, geometric precision attributed to their alleged faces, I naturally imagine Dagny as an auger bit in a filthy wool pantsuit; Hank Rearden as an upholstered Hugo Boss three piece job encompassing a sturdy brass hat rack.

Even as children and adolescents, they talked like Tony Robins seminar-goers; obsessed with chairing corporations to the preclusion of human contact, and presumably personal hygiene. If my theoretical children went on like that, they’d be getting Zyprexa for Christmas.

A prominent figure in the early years of Dagny and Jim Taggart’s lives is Francisco d’Anconia, or should I say, Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d’Anconia. Sheesh. He’d be right at home in “Animaniacs,” with Dot’s Princess Angelina Contessa Louisa Francesca Banana Fana Bo Besca The Third.

Francisco is good at everything: boating, tennis, marbles, inexplicably acquiring factories, and rape. Everything but imitating a human being. I propose building a drinking game around his interactions with Dagny. Every time there’s a mocking glance, you take a shot. You’d be dead from alcohol poisoning by the end, if not for the fact that this is the longest, slowest, most mind-numbing brick of preposterous fiction ever written. You’ll probably be waiting at Jiffy Lube the following Sunday when the second Cuervo is due. You’ll be at your granddaughter’s wedding by the third. If you’re reading faster than that, chances are your thoughts had involuntarily meandered through sorting your laundry, when “Law and Order” comes on, your German Shepherd’s runny stools, your eighth grade sweetheart, the bowline hitch, and Katy Perry’s stupid nose. That’s a biological defense mechanism against stultifying horse shit.

http://buffalobeast.com/caigoy-shrugs/

Edited September 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Bonam]

I've reviews like that, both from people trying to be funny as well as serious reviewers. The language and nastiness of the reviews should be noted. There are plenty of poorly written books, and serious reviewers almost never sink to such lows and insults as they did with Atlas Shrugged. It makes one wonder whether the reviews are as bad as they are really because of the "literary" issues with the books, or because the authors violently disagree with Rand's philosophy/politics.

[bleeding heart]

I've reviews like that, both from people trying to be funny as well as serious reviewers. The language and nastiness of the reviews should be noted. There are plenty of poorly written books, and serious reviewers almost never sink to such lows and insults as they did with Atlas Shrugged. It makes one wonder whether the reviews are as bad as they are really because of the "literary" issues with the books, or because the authors violently disagree with Rand's philosophy/politics.

The answer is much more simple: the review is nasty and caustic because the entire site is a leftwing satirical site, politically incorrect, and whose primary mandate is comedy.

As for your final remark, I'd say it's both; primarily a political attack, but also a literary one.

Edited September 9, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Bonam]

The answer is much more simple: the review is nasty and caustic because the entire site is a leftwing satirical site, politically incorrect, and whose primary mandate is comedy.

Reread the first line of my post.

[bleeding heart]

Reread the first line of my post.

Yes, but you opined that "the language and nastiness of the review should be noted."

Which is puzzling; there's no way not to notice a caustic attack from a satirical, political standpoint.

I mean, it's not as if it's not meant to be read that way.

I guess I don't quite see your point.

[Wild Bill]

I've reviews like that, both from people trying to be funny as well as serious reviewers. The language and nastiness of the reviews should be noted. There are plenty of poorly written books, and serious reviewers almost never sink to such lows and insults as they did with Atlas Shrugged. It makes one wonder whether the reviews are as bad as they are really because of the "literary" issues with the books, or because the authors violently disagree with Rand's philosophy/politics.

Well Bonam, duh!

I read Rand's books years ago and I have always noticed how virtually all her critics are leftwing and outright vicious! She really punches their buttons and they recognize that if people are exposed to Rand's rationality they themselves are vulnerable.

After all, when Rand referred to the "looters and moochers" who do we think she was talking about?

Meanwhile, for such a "badly written book" it is significant how well it has sold since it debuted in the late 50's. Here's a cite from Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

"Atlas Shrugged debuted on The New York Times Bestseller List at #13 three days after its publication. It peaked at #3 on December 8, 1957, and was on the list for 22 consecutive weeks.[9]"

"The sales of Atlas Shrugged have since then sharply increased, according to The Economist magazine and The New York Times. The Economist reported that the fifty-two-year-old novel ranked #33 among Amazon.com's top-selling books on January 13, 2009 and that its thirty day sales average showed the novel selling three times faster than during the same period of the previous year. With an attached sales chart, The Economist reported that sales "spikes" of the book seemed to coincide with the release of economic data. Subsequently, on April 2, 2009, Atlas Shrugged ranked #1 in the "Fiction and Literature" category at Amazon and #15 in overall sales.[65][66][67] Total sales of the novel in 2009 exceeded 500,000 copies.[68] The book sold 445,000 copies in 2011, the second-strongest sales year in the novel's history. At the time of publication the novel was on the New York Times best-seller list and was selling at roughly a third the volume of 2011.[69]"

No wonder the Left hates it!

[bleeding heart]

Well Bonam, duh!

I read Rand's books years ago and I have always noticed how virtually all her critics are leftwing and outright vicious! She really punches their buttons and they recognize that if people are exposed to Rand's rationality they themselves are vulnerable.

"Rationality"?

Does that include her fawning admiration for notorious child killer William Hickman?

According to the "rational" Ms. Rand, Hickman was

the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.

This last line is an explicit endorsement of sociopathy...even if you decouple it from its subject. (Which only makes her remarks that much worse.)

Hickman's credo was apparently, "what is good for me is right." Rand's assessment of this is "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she wrote.

So, yeah....good stuff. A "real man," gushes the little murderer-groupie.

She's the precedent, it seems, for thsoe women who write love letters to serial killers in prison.

After all, when Rand referred to the "looters and moochers" who do we think she was talking about?

The majority of humanity, Wild Bill. Certainly yourself, unless you are a closeted wealthy and powerful "superman."

Meanwhile, for such a "badly written book" it is significant how well it has sold since it debuted in the late 50's.

Yes, it's done remarkably well, which says nothing about the quality of the writing. VC Andrews has sold a jillion books...and continues to after her death, even though they're now all ghost-written. Danielle Steel has sold eight hundred million books.

More power to her...but her writing sucks pretty hard.

No wonder the Left hates it!

People with a taste for good books and a distaste for sociopathy don't think much of her.

Edited September 16, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Wild Bill]

Does that include her fawning admiration for notorious child killer William Hickman?

According to the "rational" Ms. Rand, Hickman was

This last line is an explicit endorsement of sociopathy...even if you decouple it from its subject. (Which only makes her remarks that much worse.)

Hickman's credo was apparently, "what is good for me is right." Rand's assessment of this is "the best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she wrote.

So, yeah....good stuff. A "real man," gushes the little murderer-groupie.

She's the precedent, it seems, for thsoe women who write love letters to serial killers in prison.

Yes, it's done remarkably well, which says nothing about the quality of the writing. VC Andrews has sold a jillion books...and continues to after her death, even though they're now all ghost-written. Danielle Steel has sold eight hundred million books.

More power to her...but her writing sucks pretty hard.

People with a taste for good books and a distaste for sociopathy don't think much of her.

You are so blind, BH! Don't you see the irony in what you have written? You don't attack her ideas or her philosophy. You attack HER!

Ad hominem! You seem to be implying that if Rand has flaws as a human being then her entire philosophy is flawed. Well news flash, BH! To be human is flawed but we can still be right! The ultimate extension of your premise is that no one can be right about anything unless they themselves are perfect!

This is exactly what so many have accused liberals of doing for years - slamming conservatives as people as if that has bugger all to do with an idea being right or wrong. It also seems to illustrate how the Left picks its heroes! If they like someone like Layton they deify him and he can do no wrong.

This is extremely shallow thinking but sadly, incredibly widespread. It has always seemed to me to be a deliberate choice to avoid having to consider any ideas contrary to what you already believe. One just has to jam their fingers in their ears and yell "Bad Person!".

Works for the evangelical right! That is also why I have always considered many lefties to be heart people and not head people, running on faith more than reason. The similarities of modern liberalism and religion is uncanny!

[bleeding heart]

You are so blind, BH! Don't you see the irony in what you have written? You don't attack her ideas or her philosophy. You attack HER!

No, I attacked her philosophy as well. Go back and read it.

And I could attack it at length, if you liked.

Except you don't like, do you?

Further, I posted a very lengthy review of Atlas Shrugged by someone else...and you went after "the left" for its criticism of her ideas.

Further, I suggested that her "Great man" theory, with its unrelenting egoism and perfect lack of worry about what "society thinks" is directly related to explicit comments she made about her hero...the child murderer.

As well as edging into sociopathy even without the child-killer reference.

Did you miss all that?

Ad hominem! You seem to be implying that if Rand has flaws as a human being then her entire philosophy is flawed.

No, her ideas are flawed all on their own...and you know I believe this, so why the pretence otherwise?

Further, we shouldn't dignify it by calling it a "philosophy."

This is extremely shallow thinking but sadly, incredibly widespread. It has always seemed to me to be a deliberate choice to avoid having to consider any ideas contrary to what you already believe.

This is absurd. By definition, if I were to applaud Rand and say how great she is...this exact same criticism would apply.

Which means it applies to you.