Ayn Rand - the female Gordon Gecko of 'Greed is good' fame ....
is now considered a joke. No serious reader should waste time on her and her philosophy. And she carried her philosphy to the breaking point by having an affair with one of her associates with the knowledge of her husband and her associate's wife. What a horrible woman. If you like her, you should get some professional help.
I read and accepted her work as a novel and nothing more. I know nothing of her philosophy, although I was indeed aware she was a philosopher. However, I will eventually read "Atlas Shrugged" and rate it like I would any other work.Originally Posted by dfloyd
Last edited by Pollopicu; 09-19-2009 at 06:33 PM.
"So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales!There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE!"
— Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit: A Play in One Act)
Yes, I probably should get some profressional help, but I am not going to, because I have too much fun being demented.
Deep into that darkness peering, long I stood there, wondering, fearing, doubting, dreaming dreams no mortal ever dared to dream before. ~ Edgar Allan Poe
Normally I'd agree with you, but one thing that does stand out about Rand is how extremely driven she was in pushing her agenda, displaying industrial efficiency as an almost religious ritual. AS is nearly exactly the same as The Fountainhead, except for the fact that it is insufferable, too long and too preachy, with the main conflict being whether supergirl railroad executive joins the other holy capitalists as they withdraw from the western hemisphere.
I agree with Chait about her inability to truly create characters instead of mere mouthpieces, but this all being conceded, Fountainhead is better structured as a novel, and slightly more interesting in how it uses the brutualism of 20th century architecture as a stand-in for her beliefs about the purity of good industry.
Rand might have called herself an atheist, but she was a personality cult on steroids.
How very interesting... I can see how the hypocrisy would bother you. I'm the same way. I myself don't let people off the hook so easily. Still... I want to read Atlas Shrugged because I'm eager to compare it to Anthem. I truly enjoyed it.
I have to admit though..what you posted, slightly disturbed me about her integrity and strength as a person.
I myself have stood so strongly behind my own beliefs to the point of alienating myself from most people of the outside world. (not internet) I'm ok with that.
On the other hand. Love is a strong emotion to control, if in fact she was in love with her ***. I don't know the history and story behind that drama.
Now you have me curious about her. I have to read up on Rand. If you have anything you'd like to share, I'd love to read it.
"So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales!There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE!"
— Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit: A Play in One Act)
You are right to put the politics to one side (while reading!)The politics & philosophy of many great artists is not admirable. Dante putting his political opponents through the eternal tortures of hell doesn't seem very PC! But all serious critics agree with Howard Bloom that Rand is a terrible writer. Have you read any generally admired writers - like Tolstoy, Dickens, Twain? Does Rand really compare to them? If so, why do you think the critics are wrong and you are right?
Rand is a writer of note and has scaled a mountain of success with her pen alone and she started with the scraps, and having no literary background and support has pinnacled the point at which few had scaled. I get never tired of admiring this great writer, a timeless icon.
“Those who seek to satisfy the mind of man by hampering it with ceremonies and music and affecting charity and devotion have lost their original nature””
“If water derives lucidity from stillness, how much more the faculties of the mind! The mind of the sage, being in repose, becomes the mirror of the universe, the speculum of all creation.
I wouldn't compare Rand to classic writers, such as the ones you posted above. To me Rand is still somewhat contemporary, so I have a hard time putting her on that pedestal yet, or ever. That is the job of a future generation. As I mentioned earlier, I only read "Anthem", and loved it. I'm not qualified to compare her work to that of Dickens, Tolstoy, Twain, etc. For now I'm just going to try to enjoy, and hope I like her other novels as much, or more than I liked Anthem.
Last edited by Pollopicu; 09-19-2009 at 09:27 AM.
"So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales!There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE!"
— Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit: A Play in One Act)
I mentioned classic writers because there is little dispute between critics about their greatness. But even amongst contemporary critics you can find some consensus, e.g., that Rand can't write
For instance in "Top Ten" edited by Zane over a hundred of today's top writers choose their top ten novels. These include many contemporary novels. Out of over 500 picked nothing by Rand is chosen. What did you love about Anthem? Are you reading admired contemporary authors, like Roth or Marquez? If so how is Rand better?
If you are living on a diet of bread and mouldy cheese you might love a bit of sour pickle.
Well first of all, until I read Anthem, I had never read a dystopian novel. I don't think I have since, so I don't know what to measure it up against. I can't compare Rand to Dumas, Flaubert, or Bronte..
I loved it because it was refreshingly different from the classic literature I'm use to reading. I might feel different once I read other dystopian novels on my wish-list. Like "The Trial" by Kafka, Maybe "1984" by Orwell, and "the Lottery" by Jackson.
I have not yet read Roth or Marquez. Would you please recommend which of their works I should read.
"So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales!There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE!"
— Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit: A Play in One Act)
These are good ones to try. Also "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, and H.G. Wells's science fiction stories.
I may not have stated it when I listed the link, but I thought you might appreciate the new titles by Burns and Heller. Chait basically skips discussing the books to argue against Rand's zealotry. When I was young it attracted me but life experience now demands I hold it suspect--though I understand how her conviction created her following.
I would take what Harold Bloom has to say with a grain of salt. Even the best of critics have their own tastes and agenda. I agree with his opinion on JK Rowling, but he criticized the poetry slam which is totally out of his depth because it's a cultural thing. People from different cultures have their own way of expressing, transforming and translating art and poetry. It's also a way to get the community involved and educated about art, at all. Especially in communities and schools where art isn't even in the curriculum.But all serious critics agree with Howard Bloom that Rand is a terrible writer. Have you read any generally admired writers - like Tolstoy, Dickens, Twain? Does Rand really compare to them? If so, why do you think the critics are wrong and you are right?
I wish intelligent and respectful men like him focused their energies on real issues I think is the death of our society as a whole.
Last edited by Pollopicu; 09-19-2009 at 07:18 PM.
"So this is hell. I'd never have believed it. You remember all we were told about the torture-chambers, the fire and brimstone, the "burning marl." Old wives' tales!There's no need for red-hot pokers. HELL IS--OTHER PEOPLE!"
— Jean-Paul Sartre (No Exit: A Play in One Act)
Ech, even though I'm feeling too lugubrious to join in on the conversation, I have for a while found Rand's philosophy and followers to be dogmatic and quite ignorant of the whole of Western philosphy. They completely disregard anything after Aristotle with meaningless ad homenims and refuse to understand current continetal philosophy.
I have found that many Randians/Objectivists consistently disregard Kant, Hegel, Heidigger, etc. and call them completely random things like irrational, socialists, postmodernists (Kant lived three-hundred years before the advent of postmodernism!) and so on and on and on and on.
Rand's novels are okay, I've read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, and found them to be both slightly better-than average romanticist stories, but her ideas are more or less a religion or cult than a philosophy.
*edit*
Even though I completely disagree with Objectivist philosohy, I am not opposed to Rand because of her opinions, it's just her methods and follower's seemingly will to ignorance.
Last edited by DanielBenoit; 10-01-2009 at 02:20 PM.
The Moments of Dominion
That happen on the Soul
And leave it with a Discontent
Too exquisite — to tell —
-Emily Dickinson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckGIvr6WVw4
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks