Ayn Rand

[Argyroneta]

I admire Ayn Rand and enjoyed reading Atlas Shrugged and other bits and pieces. People will obviously decry the approval of selfishness but I think she justifies selfishness rather well. Rand's view in regard to the concepts of selfishness/selflessness go against a fundamental philosophy that is the cornerstone of Christianity (and probably most other religions). I would suggest carefully that this conflict is over before it has begun for many.

In regard to artistic merit, I don't think there is any reasonable doubt to suggest that her works are of great value. Within the boundaries that she has set, her arguments hold firm and that for a philosphically charged novel is paramount! Alot of this thread seems to revolve around her political opinions and world view. These are irrelvent to the art she has created! My opinion of what makes a good piece of art is my own and Ayn Rand's work are enjoyable to read irrespective of her world view. To anyone who has not finished (or started) Atlas Shrugged... do not give it up, it is very exciting!

[hastalavictoria]

I love Rand. Her characters are unrealistic but they represent something and in that way she is a completely unique author. I highly recommend THe Anthem... its super short and an amazing read. I love reading her stuff, especially since she is the complete opposite of me...

[JADJARHD]

Hastalavictoria's signature has a most appropriate quote for an Ayn Rand discussion. He sounds like he is talking about Peter Keating right there.

[hastalavictoria]

Hastalavictoria's signature has a most appropriate quote for an Ayn Rand discussion. He sounds like he is talking about Peter Keating right there.

yes, yes it does! poor Peter Keating...

[jon1jt]

Anyone who has reached the middle of Atlas Shrugged must have noticed that Rand is repeating herself. By the time you finish it, the 'key' statements of Rand's 'philosophy' will each have been repeated 10 times or more, employing exactly the same language, as if Rand is plagarizing herself.

Rand's philosophy is weak because 1) it's old - it's social darwinism painted a nice modern industrial gray, and 2) it is thin - thus the repetition. For the majority of us, who do not have the skill to invent new industrial processes and are unlikely to become captains of industry, Rand's philosophy is empty and dismissive. One does not need a philosophy to be a cog in the machine that runs the world. One needs to fulfill one's function, to be a tool for the use of those better equipped to decide what kind of life is the right one.

It has always seemed to me that the attraction of Rand's novels lay in the way she described sexual dominance and submission, making the subject acceptable for the reading public of the late 40s and 50s. I imagine it was largely this that made her an icon at the time; interestingly, it was the last thing her public would openly identify as attractive. They preferred to talk about a barely existent "philosophy". Again, in this regard she repeats herself endlessly - the heroine spends the whole story alternately crushing weaklings underfoot and melting in adoration of strong men.

It probably did Rand no harm that her books are flattering to economically successful white men.

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 15 years old, and enjoyed it, the same way I enjoyed When Worlds Collide at the same time, as a period science fiction piece. That age is just about right for a reader of the book. "Philosophy" aside, the novel is weak because it's about 550 pages too long and has almost no story. When Worlds Collide has actually stood the test of time better.

i wonder if my understanding of books when i was 15 is the same as it is now that i'm a big boy.

the book has no story?? 550 pages too long?

'flattering to economically successful white men." yeah, it's time for me to go now.

[earthboar]

Hey,

I'm in the middle of reading Atlas Shrugged. All I hear about Ayn Rand is that she is overrated and her philosophy is weak and so on. So far she seems like a decent fiction author. I might be missing something, so wheres the catch?

Where do you stand? Most importantly why?

I just picked up paperbacks of Atlas Shrugged and a 50th Anniversary edition of The Fountainhead.

The Fountainhead is full of marketing junk, Ayn Rand philosophy, commentary, Ayn Rand reading lists, join the Ayn Rand philosophy club, etc. A real turn off.

Like you, I find that she was a decent fiction writer. But, that's all. Not great, but the novel is so far decent. In her prologue and epilogue, Ayn Rand wrote about needing to formalize a philosophy in order to complete her book. I totally disagree, that's so disingenuous. Her philosophy seems little more than hedonism. Like anyone else, her world-view is a product of her upbringing. In Rand's case, she escaped the Russian Revolution and Soviet Communism. She approved of the U.S. model of capitalism--OK. Rand then grew up in the 30s, in an art deco period, when architectural influences were ubiquitous. Again, OK, so her thinking was shaped by the era. New and innovative she is not, however.

I don't get the impression at all that she needed to create a new philosophical system (which is bogus, she did no such thing) to write her fine novel of industrial age ethics, which is as relevant today in corporate cubicles as ever.

Everybody has a philosophy. It is so degrading, so "L. Ron Hubbard" when the artist tries to push their philosophy in commercial venues. Why couldn't she have been content to write fiction, and keep the sophistry insertions out of the pages of her novel? It's bad enough I find her romanticizing of her selfish heroes repugnant. They are good characters, but without great characterization.

That's the main issue I have with this novel so far, that it's not the novel that troubles me but that Rand's agents indulged her spoiled but mediocre ego, encouraging her to believe she was a brilliant savant of social reform.

Another thing I am discovering is how predictable the plot is. So far I have predicted everyone's next move with 100% accuracy.

- Peter doesn't find Catherine at home. Where is she? At her Uncle Ellsworth Toohey's union rally, of course! Who didn't see that coming?
- There's a character named David who marries his fiance Elaine. We see him sliding, missing work. By now we have a clear picture of what motivates Peter, so it's a no-brainer that his self-serving ambition means facilitating David's removal, ditto what happens to his firm's lead designer.

Every step of the story is so formulaic, so transparent. There is no mystery, at least not yet. Still, I turn the page. The book is an easy read!

A SparkNotes character synopsis describes Roarke this way: "Rand holds him up as everything that man can and should be. Consequently, Roark does not develop over the course of the novel—the ideal man does not need to change." That doesn't make for a very interesting lead man. Even Moses had temper tantrums and shook his fist at God now and again.

[JBI]

This thread is somewhat silly in parts. How can you not grade her as a writer by viewing her philosophy. The writer is trying to push something, whether it be a story, and idea, or an image to the reader. In her case, her literature (we are talking about her fiction here) is used to peddle her philosophy.

Personally, I would say her writing is as bad as her philosophy, thereby making her a bad writer, though I can see how if you resent one of these things, she is a bad writer.

P.S. she was such a miserable woman.

[earthboar]

This thread is somewhat silly in parts. How can you not grade her as a writer by viewing her philosophy. The writer is trying to push something, whether it be a story, and idea, or an image to the reader. In her case, her literature (we are talking about her fiction here) is used to peddle her philosophy.

Personally, I would say her writing is as bad as her philosophy, thereby making her a bad writer, though I can see how if you resent one of these things, she is a bad writer.

Ignoring Rand's philosophy makes The Fountainhead an enjoyable read. Go figure.

[rich14285]

Thanks for your comments on Rand. You reminded me of the many times that I felt that I should read and enjoy the fountainhead and or atlas shrugged but alas, it was boring.

Thanks again,

[cows]

Well, I didn't think this would get so many responses. I havent been on this forum in a while and its still got some recent posts. Very long story short, Rand is a repetitious writer who squeezes her philosophy through every crack in the plot. I still have to say her saving grace is the character development. Nothing spectacular though.

Thanks for all the replies.

Ryan

[earthboar]

Rand is a repetitious writer who squeezes her philosophy through every crack in the plot. I still have to say her saving grace is the character development. Nothing spectacular though.

Thanks for all the replies.

Ryan

Howard Roarke is utterly boring. Character development? There is none. As for Peter Keating, we've figured him out in the first 60 pages, when he's back-stabbing his way upward to become Francon's right-hand man. Here is a sample sequence of dialogue, from pages 130-131, where he is talking to his old friend Peter Keating (or, should I say, Keating is talking to an apathetic Roarke?) after Roarke opens his own office:

Roarke's lines:
"Who told you Peter?"
"No, you don't have to."
"Quite"
"Probably"
"Looks that way, doesn't it?"
"I didn't"
"No"
"No, you wouldn't"
"Thank you Peter"
"Are you?"
"I haven't thought of it."

...We get about two pages of that. Imaginative. Also, it is typical, and not the exception. There's a fine line between genius and idiot savant. From her prologue and self-aggrandizing lectures we get that Rand is trying to make Roarke out to be an ideal man, but it's hard to tell if she hasn't just idealized a retard who happens to draw well. Remember the kid in "Deliverance" who could play one hell of a banjo?

[Ratroo]

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents...

I've read The Fountainhead and Anthem by Ayn Rand and found them both thought-provoking and enjoyable. Yes, her philosophy is obvious, sometimes blatantly, throughout the books, but the books themselves are very good. And although people claim her philosophy is not perfect, who's is? I think many people are so vehemently against her because they cannot enjoy the fiction without feeling offended by her philosophy. Personally, I agree with many points in her philosophy and, therefore, renjoy the novels. That said, I agree that the advertisements included in some of the books to subscribe to the various Ayn Rand groups and mailing lists are very annoying.

[earthboar]

Well, yeah, Ratroo, that is where I "stand on Rand" as well. I actually like her book, and I actually sympathize with some of her philosophy. It is not all bad, but it is not the greatest revelation since art deco, either. As a story writer, she is extremely readable. I don't think her philosophy is all that offensive, even understandable in the context of the period, when we were capitalizing and building on every resource available. I don't think she could get away with that kind of thinking in today's shrinking earth and sensitivity to social constraints. But, that is hardly cause to hate her for it. If she had never presented all that marketing material in her book, I would probably not realize there was this supposedly deep-rooted philosophical bent.

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents...

I've read The Fountainhead and Anthem by Ayn Rand and found them both thought-provoking and enjoyable. Yes, her philosophy is obvious, sometimes blatantly, throughout the books, but the books themselves are very good. And although people claim her philosophy is not perfect, who's is? I think many people are so vehemently against her because they cannot enjoy the fiction without feeling offended by her philosophy. Personally, I agree with many points in her philosophy and, therefore, renjoy the novels. That said, I agree that the advertisements included in some of the books to subscribe to the various Ayn Rand groups and mailing lists are very annoying.

[El Viejo]

I got interested in Rand after reading a WSJ article about two high-achieving brothers, one of whom had ditched the other because he didn't feel he was pulling his weight. This fellow said he had always known he wanted to be a 'trader,' and the WSJ explained that this was a reference to Rand, and made references to 'objectivism,' as justification for the fraternal split.

So I read "Anthem," slogged part way through "The Virtue of Selfishness," but never got around to "Atlas Shrugged."

Readability being in the eye of the beholder, I found "Anthem" to be an engaging story for the most part. Even mediocre writing and the occasional plot hole won't put me off a story if it's interesting enough. In the case of "Anthem" a couple of things made it nearly a toss-up.

For instance, Equality decides that only worthwhile people have a place in the new world he is starting. The only people fit for membership are those like himself: curious seekers who fight and strive against everything that makes up the dark, totalitarian world he is escaping. But he makes two glaring exceptions. He decides he will rescue the man who does nothing more than cry in his bunk every night. He should despise this man, but inexplicably finds him worthy of saving. He will also bring the Golden One, who, apart from her adoration of Equality, seems incapable of anything but trying on clothes and gazing in mirrors.

My disbelief also lost it's buoyancy at the idea that he could, with just a little tinkering, not only power up his Frank Lloyd Wright hilltop home, but also expect to defend it against all comers.

Apart from that, I had a good time reading it. Equality in the dark, damp tunnels, writing, figuring out lightbulbs, exploring paths through the underground, taking his discoveries to the Council, fleeing their influence and discovering still more wonders in the wild.

I think though, that if a story of a techno-warrior fighting the willfully ignorant is what you want, then Twain's "A Connecticut Yankee..." is a better choice. If it's overcoming totalitarian regimes that grabs you, then Levine's "This Perfect Day" might suit you better.

[Igetanotion]

I went to a conference this past weekend where I met Frank McCourt (which was AWESOME) He had said that it was James Joyce's birthday, and my friend went up to him and said "Its also Ayn Rand's birthday!" He looked up at him, then back down and said "Aye... The fountainhead..." completely unimpressed. LoL just thought that would be funny to add