Ayn Rand

[Analfabeta]

Hello. First let me say that I'm new here (and I'm fairly new at posting messages in general). Please, be kind.

Anyway, I'm thinking about reading a work by Ayn Rand and, from what I've seen, it seems I'd enjoy 'Atlas Shrugged' the most. Would that be a good book to start with, or would anybody recommend starting with something else?

[Analfabeta]

Nevermind.

[nome1486]

Hi! It seems no one who has read Ayn Rand found your post. I've only read about half of The Fountainhead and stopped...it didn't really interest me, to say the least. That's all I've read by Ayn Rand. If you're still considering which book to read, I guess Atlas Shrugged would be as good a place as any to start.

[AbdoRinbo]

Hi! It seems no one who has read Ayn Rand found your post. I've only read about half of The Fountainhead and stopped...it didn't really interest me, to say the least. That's all I've read by Ayn Rand. If you're still considering which book to read, I guess Atlas Shrugged would be as good a place as any to start.

Why on earth would anyone want to read Ayn Rand? Ahck! Capitalism interlaced with crude Masculinism . . . makes me want to freakin' kill myself.

[chrissy]

I've tried reading The New Left but it just bores the hell outta me. And I'll usually struggle through anything.

I've heard alot of good thing about Atlas Shrugged though, so maybe it's worth the effort.

[Molokai]

i've heard some good things about ayn rand, but more troubling are the criticisms i hear repeated over and over by her readers. flat, unrealistic characters slogging through bloated and pretentious prose are frequently heard criticisms of rand. i'm not sure if this is something you want to subject youself to willingly.

you should try kurt vonnegaut's short story "Harrison Bergeron".

http://penguinppc.org/~hollis/personal/bergeron.shtml

[Eloise]

The only one of her books that I've read is We The Living, I enjoyed it, but I didn't immediately want to rush out and read more (unlike some other people I know). I didn't find it too much of an effort, but then I picked it up when I was completely mentally exhausted which might have made it easier. I think it's worth reading at least one of hers, but I can't really compare them to say which one . . .

[jayanti]

I have read nearly all her novels. while foutainhead is perhaps the most popular..... i enjoyed reading most "Anthem". it is her least popular novel but, i believe, its her best

[sambones]

Ayn Rand is interesting, check out her philo called objectivism. Her books are well written, but get a little slow. She's great for quotes.

[Sitaram]

http://www.reason.com/0503/fe.cy.ayn.shtml


Perhaps Rand’s biggest error was the totalism of
her philosophy. Having rightly concluded that the
values of the free market were moral, she went on
to make the sweeping assertion that those values
were the only moral ones, and that all human
relations must be based on the principles of
“trade.” Yet there is nothing unreasonable and
nothing anti-market or anti-individualist to the
belief that individualistic and market-based values
need something to complement them.


The Victorians emphasized the importance of charity
and viewed family and community as “havens in a
heartless world.” This value system had its serious
drawbacks—from preachy sentimentalism to fairly
rigid gender roles, with women virtually excluded
from economic and intellectual endeavors and
relegated to the complementary sphere of love, care
giving, and charity. But at least the Victorians
recognized the need for a balance and variety of
virtues.


Politically, too, Rand’s insistence on
de-emphasizing, or even denigrating, family,
community, and private charity is not a
particularly clever tactic for capitalism’s
defenders. These are the very institutions that can
be expected, in the absence of a massive welfare
state, to meet those human needs that people prove
unable to satisfy through the market. Rand did
claim to be in favor of “benevolence,” in contrast
to altruism; but it would be fruitless to look for
providers of private charitable aid among her “good
guys,” except for those who lend a helping hand to
a friend. When charity is mentioned in Rand’s
fiction, it is nearly always in a negative context.

In The Fountainhead, the chorus of “second-handers”
eager to condemn her heroic, individualist
architect protagonist, Howard Roark, include “the
society woman dressing for a charity bazaar” who
uses charity as an excuse to flaunt her virtue; in
Atlas Shrugged, a club providing shelter to needy
young women is mocked for offering help to unworthy
sufferers such as drinkers, dope users, and unwed
mothers-to-be.


Family fares even worse in Rand’s universe. The
virtual absence of children in her work has been
noted by many critics, starting with Whittaker
Chambers in his infamous roasting of Atlas Shrugged
in National Review. Actually, John Galt’s private
utopia in Atlas features a nameless young woman who
makes it her career to raise rational children; but
this brief passage comes across as little more than
a pro forma nod to motherhood. In her 1964 Playboy
interview Rand flatly declared that it was
“immoral” to place family ties and friendship above
productive work; in her fiction, family life is
depicted as a stifling, soul-killing, mainly
feminine swamp.


It’s noteworthy that in The Fountainhead, the
heroes—Roark, newspaper magnate Gail Wynand, and
Roark’s troubled lover, Dominique Francon—have all
grown up motherless, while the arch-villain, critic
Ellsworth Toohey, spent his childhood as his
mother’s pet and the worthless Peter Keating, who
relies on Roark to do his architecture work, has a
grotesque caricature of a “selfless,” smothering,
tyrannical mother. The only Randian heroic couple
to actually reproduce is the hero of Anthem and his
girlfriend, who is pregnant at the end of the
dystopian science fiction novelette; but they have
the excuse of needing to breed a new race of free
men, since the world around them has regressed to
post-apocalyptic primitivism and slavery.


In its pure form, Rand’s philosophy would work very
well indeed if human beings were never helpless and
dependent through no fault of their own. Thus, it’s
hardly surprising that so many people become
infatuated with Objectivism as teenagers and “grow
out of it” later, when concerns of family,
children, and old age—their own and their
families’—make that fantasy seem more and more
impossible.

[Diceman]

http://www.reason.com/0503/fe.cy.ayn.shtml
In its pure form, Rand’s philosophy would work very
well indeed if human beings were never helpless and
dependent through no fault of their own.
Rand's philosophy would work very well, if and only if society was composed of people who were capable of rigidly adhering to it - and not "rotters", as she would term them.

I agree 100% with the concept of intelligent self-interest being the only possible way to live. However, I disagree that this concept leads naturally to the system of laissez-faire capitalism that Rand espouses. The capitalist microcosm she described in Atlas Shrugged ("Galt's Gulch") is a pipe dream for many reasons, not the least of which is that it would only take one "rotter" to bring the system down. Rand blindly ignores the fact that a communal system would work just as well as a capitalist one if it were populated by folk who were as idealistic and high-moralled as those in Galt's Gulch.

[baddad]

Despite the posturing, psuedo bible thumping/'born-again' stature, and claimed deferrence to the moral right, I believe we are now encountering the opportunity to observe whether Rand's philosophical value of 'Pure' capitalism is valid by observing a country (which will go unnamed) currently attempting to promote this same approach to world affairs. Howard Roark, Gail Wynand, and Dominique Francon, Rand's capitalisticly 'moral' menagerie, would probably fit in to this experimental world (not so experimental for those of us living the dream) but as Rand has obviously never encountered a real human being, or has had little experience with the true nature of her own humanity, I have little doubt these three would fare well in today's capitalist expansion, but they would remain isolated, pocketed with a few of their own kind, and living less than the true human experience. Rand wants humans to be robots. They are not, nor can they ever be.

[papayahed]

Didn't she die alone and bitter?

[Razeus]

What's she like?
Been thinking about picking up a couple of her books since they got some newer large paperbacks (I think that's what they are called) for Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

As if my collection isn't growing larger and unread by the day, what do you guys think of her writing/style?

[mono]

I, personally, have never read any work by Ayn Rand, but I have heard both good and not-so-good comments. You may, however, find this past thread helpful:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3911
Happy reading! :)

[metaxy99]

every time you read ayn rand...
god kills a puppy.

[papayahed]

every time you read ayn rand...
god kills a puppy.


:lol: :nod:

I've read Atlas Shrugged. Her Philosophies and mine don't really mix well but it was a pretty good book, although it did tend to yammer on....

[Mistress Babs]

Beautiful, Metaxy99. I'm sorry to say I read a couple of Rand's books in my callous youth, and was underwhelmed. I'm sorry now to hear about the puppies.

[Sitaram]

I was reading more about Ayn Rand just last week. (This is from memory, so sorry for lack of details). She had an inner circle of followers, and she picked one man to be her heir/successor, Nathaniel Branden. Branden was married, and Ayn Rand was married. The only problem was, they were not married to each other! At a certain point in time, Ayn Rand suddenly decided that her heir should also be her lover, and that her husband and the heir's wife should consent to this arrangement, which they did. After a while, her lover dumped Ayn Rand and Rand became extremely angry and vindictive, thus breaking one of her own rules that one should never make one's own happiness dependent upon someone or something else.


I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for another's sake, nor ask anyone to live for mine.

Ayn was something of a romantic.

I am reminded of Sartre and Simone de Bouvier, who were lifelong lovers, but always had other lovers on the side. The two became best friends for a while with Albert Camus. One day Simone told Albert he could take her to bed if he liked. Albert declined the invitation and Jean-Paul was livid with rage at what he perceived as an insult. From then on, Camus became their arch enemy, and they would say uncharitable things about Camus' work.


I remember watching a very old movie on television in the 1960s, about a missionary priest who goes to visit an Eskimo and his wife, Mrs. Eskimo, in the igloo. This is going to sound like a joke but there really was such a movie. Mr. Eskimo decides to be a good host, and brings out a dish of his choicest wriggling worms. The priest makes something of a face and declines. Mr. Eskimo looks slightly puzzled (how could anyone say no to worms), but then, a light bulb goes on over his head and he thinks "perhaps the good Reverend is not hungry." So, next, he offers to let the padre have his wife. Apparently this was actually an ancient practice of hospitality among Eskimos, what with wives and igloos being as hard to find as restrooms in a big city. Well, the priest really looks horrified, and shows it. The Eskimo, being totally unaware of how heinous and revolting mortal sin can be, mistakes the reaction as a commentary on the desirability of Mrs. Eskimo, so Mr. Eskimo kills the missionary. I can’t remember anything more about the movie. It seems to me that Father would have been better off eating the worms and kanoodling the lady. But then, I am sure the church reckoned his a martyr’s death.

The moral to these stories is that the offering and decline of sexual favors is far more delicate a matter than meets the eye, and may be hazardous to your health, if you are above the arctic circle, and if you are not, then, at least it wont do your literary career one bit of good.

Ayn Rand had been of a mind to call her book "Atlas Philosophy" when her husband (her REAL husband) said, "Well, you might as well just call it Atlas Shrugged." And she did. Marriage is a noble institution.

Faulkner was going to call his latest novel "Dark Horse", but, one day, his wife commented to him that "the light has an unusual quality in August." Faulkner jumped up, knocked over his Underwood, and said, "That's it! My novel shall be called Light in August!" Now, don't you wish you were married too?

Just think! If only Sartre had married Simone, he might have had better titles than Nausea.

[imthefoolonthehill]

I REALLY REALLY LIKED ATLAS SHRUGGED

But she used it as a discertation on her social views ... rather than just telling a story...

Which upset me tremendously.

The story was pretty good... I had to skip a chapter because she was going on and on about her "character's" beliefs... it was disgusting. I almost threw the book away in disgust... but ended up skimming the chapter for anything that looked vaguely related to the plot...found nothing, so skipped it. So, if you don't mind her trying to force her philosophy down your throat, go for it... its really a superbly crafted novel...most of it.

[papayahed]

I REALLY REALLY LIKED ATLAS SHRUGGED

But she used it as a discertation on her social views ... rather than just telling a story...

Which upset me tremendously.

The story was pretty good... I had to skip a chapter because she was going on and on about her "character's" beliefs... it was disgusting. I almost threw the book away in disgust... but ended up skimming the chapter for anything that looked vaguely related to the plot...found nothing, so skipped it. So, if you don't mind her trying to force her philosophy down your throat, go for it... its really a superbly crafted novel...most of it.

What fool said.

[baddad]

Ayn Rand.......nice writing style, but I think she was somewhat of a dreamer, trying to live by a philosophy that has no place in the real world. Shut yourself off from everything that makes you human, complete objectivity (unattainable, but some philosophers may disagree) as an approach to life is only possible if you are made of concrete............

Her philosophy indicated to me a badly wounded soul, a need to shut out all feelings or emotion. Can anyone do this and still consider themselves alive??

That said, Rand should still be read. While her 'tomes' tend to rival the bible for sheer volume of content, the experience won't kill ya', and most folks on this site couldn't read only part of a book if their lives depended on it!! Readaholics Anonymous members will affirm this.........

[mono]

Ayn Rand.......nice writing style, but I think she was somewhat of a dreamer, trying to live by a philosophy that has no place in the real world. Shut yourself off from everything that makes you human, complete objectivity (unattainable, but some philosophers may disagree) as an approach to life is only possible if you are made of concrete.
This seems entirely why I have a slight fear of reading Ayn Rand's work. I have read passages of Atlas Shrugged and Anthem, and I cannot quite judge a book wholly for only reading little, but our ideas clash quite a fair amount, regarding objectivity and subjectivity. Perhaps I have obsessed and read too much Immanuel Kant, who, I find, a brilliant thinker, and his philosophy on subjectivity, but I will never discrimate another's beliefs. She seemed very wise and wrote beautifully, I only cannot call her literature my cup-of-tea. ;)

[krishna]

I consider the following a very appropriate characterization of Ayn Rand:

http://www.reason.com/0503/fe.cy.ayn.shtml

Let me add some of my opinions too. I read Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, and much of her non-fictional work. I simply loved Fountainhead and it is one of my favorite novels. I really like Atlas Shrugged for its plot, and pure brilliance of story-telling. Nevertheless, I think that her over-emphasis on certain ideas and her attempt to introduce them into every tiny detail of the plot, take substantially away from the romance in Atlas Shrugged - which I think must be an essential ingredient of any work of fiction.

I liked many of her essays too very much. Particularly, I would mention Voice of Reason and Romantic Manifesto. In one of the esssays in the later collection, she says it is possible to say of a work of literature "I consider it a great book, but I do not like it". Essentially, she is is highlighting two distinguishing features - the intrinsic worth of a book and what it actually says. You might not agree with what a book says, but you can admit that it is an intrinsically great book. I guess same can be said of Rand's own work by many people. Most of her essays were very well written and are developed in a very logically coherent way. It is another matter if you do not agree with her premises and thus reject her point of view.

I personally do not agree with her political philosophy of laissez faire capitalism nor her emphasis that such ideaology should guide every aspect of a human being's life. As is mentioned in the above mentioned link the totalism of her philosophy was a major flaw in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.

But at worst this makes her a flawed philosopher. As a writer I consider her one of the greatest (at least, among what I read) and her works first class. Anyone who enjoys literature must read Ayn Rand - irrespective of his/her philosophical leaning.

[blp]

So she's actually good? Oh, OK. I'd heard she was trash, so never read her.

This line that Sitaram quotes is interesting:
'I swear by my life and my love of it that I shall never live for another's sake, nor ask anyone to live for mine.'
It's interesting becaus Rand's circle gave us Milton Friedman, the man behind monetarism, which was the major creed underpinning Thatcherism and Reaganomics and the quote sounds like a direct precursor of Thatcher's 'There's no such thing as society'. And that idea, for the effects it's had, is hard to forgive.

[red leaves]

I think what her experienced made her philosophy,she had a feaful childhood,filled with revolusion,she needed power to protec herself from cruel world and need a hero to heal the world,yet her books is good,at lease contain part of truth.

[baddad]

I think what her experienced made her philosophy,she had a feaful childhood,filled with revolusion,she needed power to protec herself from cruel world and need a hero to heal the world,yet her books is good,at lease contain part of truth.

I agree ...as always, and no less so with Ayn Rand, a life bleeds through the author's fingers to stain the page......

[Ryduce]

Hey I was just wondering which One of the Ayn Rand books would you recommend,or which would you consider the best.My library pretty much sucks,but they have an infinite supply of Ayn Rand.So for future reference it would be nice to know where to start.

[Virgil]

I tried Atlas Shrugged and after about 50 pages I gave up. I got a collection of her books in my library unread.

[IrishCanadian]

I read Fountainhead for my grade 12 philosphy class. It is an excelent way of studying her "philosophy" if you like Ayn Rand ... but I personally would not recomend any of her work.

[papayahed]

I slogged through Atlas Shrugged, but I gave up a quarter way through and skipped her long diatribes that pushed her philosopy and mostly stuck to the story.

[jessezzel]

Out of all of her books ive only read Anthem and The Fountainhead. If you want a quickie read Anthem but if you want the long and hard of it The Fountainhead. It is actually a really good book even tho it takes about forever to read it.

[Countess]

I found it much easier to look up her philosophy, Objectivism, poke holes through it (its easy enough) and then move on to something harder.

[Truth_Told]

I found it much easier to look up her philosophy, Objectivism, poke holes through it (its easy enough) and then move on to something harder.
true it may have been easier to look up her philosophy and skim through it, but then that takes away from the challenge of reading her writings and truely understanding what she has to say. because no matter where you look up Objectivism its all going to point to the same definition, but by reading her writings you will get her philosophy as well as how she expresses her thoughts about it and such. as for the original question in this thread, I read "The Fountainhead" this year as a juinor in high school and i absolutely loved it. the reading may seem boring to some but it is all based on your comprehension level and i think, attention span.

[jessezzel]

oh yeah i almost forgot ther is a ten thousand dollar prize for writing an essay on the fountainhead if you are a senior and another essay comp for juniors for reading anthem i think... so yeah just find the ayn rand institute web site and im sure it is ther

[Hazel-Ra]

I adore the Fountainhead, although it is the only one of hers I've read. I'm shocked that some of you dismiss her work so lightly. I think she raises some very interesting points. In fact, after never having a "favourite" book, after I read the Fountainhead I decided this book was it.


I found it much easier to look up her philosophy, Objectivism, poke holes through it (its easy enough) and then move on to something harder.
I'm curious as to what holes you find in Objectivism. All it is basically saying is that each person should be free to do whatever they feel is right for them, so long as it doesn't have a negative affect on another. I don't really see what's so bad about that.

[cruciverbalist]

I've read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. As works of literature, I don't think there is much to commend in Ayn Rand's writing as her characters tend to be uni-dimensional and the plot is rather unrealistic...only serving to 'prove' her philosophy. But when I first read the Fountainhead, it did have a strong impact, though now, there is much that I don't agree with. The core of Atlas Shrugged is almost similar and would have been greatly helped if it had been (much) shorter. If you should choose to read Ayn Rand, I would recommend The Fountainhead or one of the other shorter works.

[Diceman]

I'm curious as to what holes you find in Objectivism. All it is basically saying is that each person should be free to do whatever they feel is right for them, so long as it doesn't have a negative affect on another. I don't really see what's so bad about that.

FWIW, I agree with Rand 100% on the above. Each person can do only what is right for his and herself; look after yourself, do not live for the sake of another (except insofar as this helps you look after yourself), and do not expect others to live for your sake. Accept personal responsibility for yourself and your destiny.

However I take a right turn at the point where Rand claims that the direct result of this premise is pure unabashed laissez-faire capitalism. The capitalist Utopia named "Galt's Gulch" described in Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" could just as well have been a commune, given that all of the parasites and "rotters" had been excluded.

I agree with Rand's premise. I don't agree with her conclusion.

[genoveva]

Try We the Living.

[Evergreenleaf]

I read a speech that Rand made, I think it was to West Point graduates, and I couldn't stand it. I found her to be condescending and her ideas hard to agree with. I've never read any of her books because of this, but maybe I shouldn't judge a writer by her speeches.

[blp]

I just saw an episode of South Park where officer Barbrady is tricked into admitting he can't read by a sex criminal librarian. Barbrady learns to read, loves it, and goes on to crack the case. At what you think is the end, the criminal gives him a copy of Atlas Shrugged, followed by credits. The show starts up again so he can announce publicly that the book has convinced him that reading is, after all, a complete waste of time.

[davoarid]

I'd recommend "We the Living." It's her only novel that's not completely about Objectivism--it's more focused on trashing an ideology (communism/fascism) than advocating her own.

[genoveva]

We the Living is also her first novel.

I read once, somewhere, that Atlas Shrugged was second to the Bible as being the most influencial book. For what that's worth...

[jessezzel]

I noticed that there are no current threads on any of Ayn Rand's stuff or anything.
I'm just wondering does no body like her or something?
If anyone has an interest in her or her philosophy please discuss it, I would love to hear others opinions on her.

[genoveva]

There are actually quite a few. Perhaps you can try searching the Forums for Ayn Rand.

[jessezzel]

eh... i found a few, but nothing major. Alot of people complain about her. For some reason I enjoy her style of writing, the people in her books just seem like more than people they are embodyments of ideas and ideals. I dont know why I seem to like it.

[davoarid]

The Objectivist movement reminds me in many ways of the Transcendentalists: both were extremely popular during their time, but had all but vanished from the map 30 years later.

[papayahed]

eh... i found a few, but nothing major. Alot of people complain about her. For some reason I enjoy her style of writing, the people in her books just seem like more than people they are embodyments of ideas and ideals. I dont know why I seem to like it.


I know what you mean, in many books I'll come across a character and think "I know that person".

While I don't subscribe to her philosophies I do like her books, I can't help but wonder though if they wouldn't have been better without her trying to beat us over the head with her philosophy.

[davoarid]

Hey I was just wondering which One of the Ayn Rand books would you recommend,or which would you consider the best.My library pretty much sucks,but they have an infinite supply of Ayn Rand.So for future reference it would be nice to know where to start.
My answer to you would be...

"If you want my advice, Peter," he said at last, "you've made a mistake already. By asking me. By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don't you know what you want? How can you stand it, not to know?"

"You see, that's what I admire about you, Howard. You always know."

"Drop the compliments."

"But I mean it. How do you always manage to decide?"

"How can you let others decide for you?" :brow:

From The Fountainhead.

[Bandini]

I agree with Rand's premise. I don't agree with her conclusion.

Me too. One of the problems with Rand's ethical egoism is that we don't all 'start from the same position'. Another is that we can have problems, bad times etc. and a just society needs to recognise that. I think that she is loathsome.


We the Living is also her first novel.

I read once, somewhere, that Atlas Shrugged was second to the Bible as being the most influencial book. For what that's worth...

Nonsense! Perhaps amongst American Ultra Capitalists. She was a footnote when I was studying Philosophy.





Pedants Corner: influential

[Jarndyce]

Objectivism is a nice concept, on paper. It's also a very nice ideal for the individual. Yes, I will do what I can to take care of myself, using my mind and my body, and if everybody does the same, people will flourish. At least those who are of sound enough mind and body to flourish, that is.

And this is where the concept begins to break apart. Objectivism, or capitalism for that matter, are not systems by which a social construct can be managed. Unless you truly believe that the herd is for culling, then you cannot believe that government can be conducted by a society of individuals.

[BeingaBunny]

Sorry, I advise you to read a different author. There's a good reason as to why her fans are called Randroids. They are my natural enemies.

Philosophy can be dangerous in the wrong hands.

[yellowsubmarine]

the fountainhead was great, but with atlas shurgged i think rand went overboard and ultimately exterminated whatever appeal her so-called philosophy had upon me. If you're planning to read rand then begin and end with the fountainhead, you won't feel betrayed later on.

[Lycosparks]

I have only read "Anthem," and I really enjoyed it.
I hope you give it a try!

[pani]

Hello. First let me say that I'm new here (and I'm fairly new at posting messages in general). Please, be kind.

Anyway, I'm thinking about reading a work by Ayn Rand and, from what I've seen, it seems I'd enjoy 'Atlas Shrugged' the most. Would that be a good book to start with, or would anybody recommend starting with something else?


hey i new to the thread as well..

i suppose Fountainhead wud be the best one to start with .. ? i am reading that now..

[Jack_Aubrey]

I started the Fountainhead yesterday and I can't put it down. I have friends and relatives who have read her works time and again and recommend it as the best place to start.

[Dusk]

Even though it's short story I would suggest 'Anthem'

[Manfred]

I read "The Fountainhead," and found it to be one of the most interminable, slow-going slogs it has ever been my displeasure to sit through. I finished it, but it took me two months.
Be prepared to be spoon-fed healthy doses of what is commonly known as the American Way--rugged individualism, capitalistic propaganda, etc., and helped on its way by intense introspection that you can guess the outcome to, along with painfully unrealistic dialogue that resembles soliloquy more than anything else.

[daddysfiddler]

The only book I've read by Rand is Anthem. I absolutely loved it. It was short, to the point and interesting. I read it in like 2 hours max, but I got so much out of it. I read it for English class, and now have to write three essays on it, but I'm actually looking forward to writing these essays. I would definitly suggest Anthem to anyone wanting to read an Ayn Rand book.

God Bless
<><

[yellowsubmarine]

I could not agree with you more, Jamesian.

[yasminasim]

I seem to have jumped into the Ayn Rand fray unwittingly. Please don't judge her works by reading them randomly. They all form part of a chain and each is a natural extension of the former. Start with "We the Living", then "Fountainhead". "Atlas Shrugged" is the culmination of her thoughts and the essence of objectivism. "Anthem" is the end result of what happens when we start putting mediocrity as the benchmark for talent.

Don't read her books as mere novels but as a projection of yourself. What you decide regarding her is what you are.

Let us not run down genius. Ayn Rand was one, even if many do not agree with her.

SitaRam, I quite agree with you on your analysis of Ayn Rand but if I recollect she was quite opposed to the idea of a "birthright need" approach and not charity.

[ctalatta]

I've been thinking about reading Ayn Rand's Romantic Manifesto, the only thing stopping me is the fees in my library account.

But, I was curious on your opinion whether the novella is worth my time or if anything of Ayn Rand is worth my time. :crash:


?=)

[JBI]

A lot of people I know greatly dislike this author, and a lot of people I know love her. I suggest giving her a try; you are using the library anyway, so it won't cost you anything.

[aeroport]

Actually, it sounds like in this case it will cost you something! But yes, Madam Rand certainly deserves a go. Her thoughts on literature and art sometimes seem pretty bizarre; I've not read all of the RM, but her other nonfiction is great fun. I might suggest taking a look at some of her articles in The Voice of Reason, if you can find that somewhere, before deciding if you want to read an entire book. Obviously, I love her - even if I am not a great admirer of her as an artist. But perhaps that's just me.

Edit - And welcome to the forum!

[cows]

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?

[PeterL]

My thought was that she wasn't a very good writer, because she wanted to psh her philosophy at the expense of good writing.

[metal134]

I haven't read Rand yet, but she's on my list. After I finish "War and Peace" (less than 100 pages left!), I will read "Anthem", largely because I am interested in reading the inspiration for Rush's 2112. I also have "Atlas Shrugged" on my bookshelf waiting to be read and I plan to buy "The Fountainhead" as well.

[kilted exile]

I dont like Rand, mainly due to the fundamental differences between our ideologies.

[Rick Hendricks]

I’ve read it several times, as well as all her other literature. Ayn Rand stated a belief in rational man that is difficult to challenge. She proffered that man’s virtue was based on a code of values. An atheist, Rand felt religions were the tool of primitives, and rationals should reject such notions. She made many revelations of her thoughts through her quotes as noted below:

“…man [is] a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievements as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.” [Ayn Rand]
"Everyone has the right to make his own decision/s, but none has the right to force his decision on others."
('The Virtue of Selfishness', Chapter 12)
"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."
('For the New Intellectual' 1961)
"The [U.S.] Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals ... it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government ... it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen's protection against the government."

She wrote well, and you must admit she captures your interest, quite riveting. A proponent of Capitalism, she championed free markets. Her deficit was that she seems to have assumed corporations acted with a higher moral purpose in all their dealings. The money speech reveals some of her circular reasoning.

In the long run, she presents an excellent, albeit not perfect philosophy. You may want to check out her notes on this work… very interesting stuff.

All the best,
Rick

[Slangalang18ca]

I read The Fountainhead, which was pretty good, and have just started reading Atlas Shrugged. In my opinion, Rand's philosophy definitely has some good proponents, but as was already stated, it isn't perfect. While I think that man should be rational and have integrity, I don't think it's very realistic to always do so at the expense of others.

[cows]

Thanks, I think I get it now: people who Rand bash do it because their personal philosophies conflict. Perfectly understandable. Especially if you see her as the philosopher that she said she was. But I'm looking at this book just like any other piece of fiction, where a writer's personal philosophy is usually noticable.

I have to say that I'm impressed with her character development so far. Maybe because the morality of man is her core subject, she presents her characters uniquely.

I just wanted to know why some people I talk to have a bad attitude toward her.

Thanks

[papayahed]

I read Atlas Shrugged and really liked it but I pretty much skipped all her incessant rambling about her philosophy. It made the story go a lot quicker.

[quikmart]

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.

[EAP]

My stance on Rand is the same as Terry Goodkind's stand on chickens.

[Rick Hendricks]

Rand also displayed some inconsistencies in her writing and life. She claimed she was so pro-Capitalism because she was reared in a Communistic country. She was also an atheist, which was also part of the USSR's ideology. Why didn't she become a theist?

Her message was that man is a heroic being, and this heroic being is entitled to retain the fruits of his/her labor. This is very consistent with people I know that lived under Communistic regimes.

She wrote this book (Atlas Shrugged) in response to the ever encroaching government of her era.

All the best,
Rick

[ennison]

There's no catch. She's just a nutter.

[chaplin]

I have only read Atlas Shrugged, and that took me months to read both because of its length and its exhausting tendentiousness. As a work of art, Atlas Shrugged is horrible, terrible, but as a statement of a philosophy it does a good job, but that is not really a compliment when that philosophy is totally absurd, and embarrassing if you adhere to it. In my opinion, the philosophy put forward is the unapologetic worship of money and the shunning of any sort of altruism or charity towards others, rationalized by some sort of extremist self-reliance. I am obviously no expert on Rand, but her philosophy seems to me to be one of those philosophies that people like to argue for but find it hard and foreign to actually live.

[Morrisonhotel]

She was also an atheist, which was also part of the USSR's ideology. Why didn't she become a theist?


Being a theist is hardly an implicit part of becoming pro-capitalist.

As for the works in question, I find her to be hopelessly dull and completely lacking in any form of good narration. I despise her political ideas the most though: being opposed to homosexuality seems at odds with regards to her reasons for being anti-racist.

[obesechicken13]

Rand died alone, because her husband died earlier. 5 yr marriage, im doing a report on her.
Since I dont know how to start a new thread Ill just post here. Does anyone think that Howard Roarks could really exist? I mean the guy has absolutely perfect morals that he sticks to. How could society allow someone like him to exist. Thats just disgusting. Could society allow Howard Roark or John Galt whichever you prefer to exist?

And not completely unrelated is this world coming into a new age of cynicism?

[PeterL]

I don't completely disagree with Rand's philosophy, but I think that it is rather shallow. For some people her philosophy is excellent, but I wish that she had written novels in which she showed, rather than told, her ideas.

[Rick Hendricks]

Being a theist is hardly an implicit part of becoming pro-capitalist.

As for the works in question, I find her to be hopelessly dull and completely lacking in any form of good narration. I despise her political ideas the most though: being opposed to homosexuality seems at odds with regards to her reasons for being anti-racist.


I recommend you read "The Protestant Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism (Weber)." But that wasn't my point. I was speaking to the inconsistency.

What you are really saying is you despise her political ideas, and thus will not give her credit for being a good writer. Most of her readers find her work replete with good narration, even those who disagree with her politics. "The Fountainhead" became a "bestseller," and a movie, not too shabby for a woman in those times.

I fail to see her considering homosexuality immoral having any relevance to the discussion of whether or not she is a good writer.

All the best,
Rick


Her atheism had nothing to do with Communist ideology:
"My philosophy includes only what man can perceive, identify, and demonstrate by means of reason. It doesn't permit the invention of "facts," or the acceptance of anything on faith - that is, without rational demonstration. But there is no evidence for any kind of God, afterlife, or mystical dimension."
(from the "Night Call" radio program; 1969)

Point taken.

My comment referred to the inconsistency she displayed about the USSR. She revolted against all it stood for, and became pro-Capitalist. The USSR was an Atheist state, why didn’t she stand against that?

She also may ignore evidence not suitable to her beliefs.

All the best,
Rick

[Morrisonhotel]

I recommend you read "The Protestant Ethic & The Spirit of Capitalism (Weber)." But that wasn't my point. I was speaking to the inconsistency.

What you are really saying is you despise her political ideas, and thus will not give her credit for being a good writer. Most of her readers find her work replete with good narration, even those who disagree with her politics. "The Fountainhead" became a "bestseller," and a movie, not too shabby for a woman in those times.

I fail to see her considering homosexuality immoral having any relevance to the discussion of whether or not she is a good writer.

All the best,
Rick

I have read said work. It doesn't make a difference to my point - being pro-capitalist does not automatically make you religious (regardless of any ethics arguments).

Did you miss the bit about me saying that I thought her narration was awful and that her works were dull? Having read a bit on the academic response to her, it seems apparent that my comments were perfectly justified.

Let me put 'bestseller' in context: Elton John's Candle in the wind is the biggest selling single of all time. Just because something is a bestseller, does not mean that it has artistic integrity - or any points from which a critic can consider it 'good'. Justifying this as a point by saying she is a woman is neither here nor there (Austen, Eliot (she still sold well after it became apparent that she was, in fact, a female), Bronte sisters, Chopin, Shelley, and so forth)

I am, in no way, an advocate for reading literature as a purely mechanical thing - i.e. reading a piece of literature solely as an artistic endeavour. Disavowing her views in relation to her literature seems, well, stupid - would you have such a high opinion of her if she had praised, and practised, Nazi-ism?

[kilted exile]

My comment referred to the inconsistency she displayed about the USSR. She revolted against all it stood for, and became pro-Capitalist. The USSR was an Atheist state, why didn’t she stand against that?


What??? Atheism is one shared belief, Just because I dont believe in a God does not mean I should agree on any other subject. There is no necessity for an atheist (or theist) for that matter to subscribe to any particular political belief system just because of their opinions on the existence of a "god" figure.

It is like saying every protestant should support the UVF, and every catholic the IRA.


**Apologies if this infringes on the politics rule, but I have tried to keep it as seperate as possible**

[Rick Hendricks]

I have read said work. It doesn't make a difference to my point - being pro-capitalist does not automatically make you religious (regardless of any ethics arguments).

Did you miss the bit about me saying that I thought her narration was awful and that her works were dull? Having read a bit on the academic response to her, it seems apparent that my comments were perfectly justified.

Let me put 'bestseller' in context: Elton John's Candle in the wind is the biggest selling single of all time. Just because something is a bestseller, does not mean that it has artistic integrity - or any points from which a critic can consider it 'good'. Justifying this as a point by saying she is a woman is neither here nor there (Austen, Eliot (she still sold well after it became apparent that she was, in fact, a female), Bronte sisters, Chopin, Shelley, and so forth)

I am, in no way, an advocate for reading literature as a purely mechanical thing - i.e. reading a piece of literature solely as an artistic endeavour. Disavowing her views in relation to her literature seems, well, stupid - would you have such a high opinion of her if she had praised, and practised, Nazi-ism?

she didn't praise and practice Nazism, did she?

As for your other opinions... they are of no interest to me.

So have a jolly day.


What??? Atheism is one shared belief, Just because I dont believe in a God does not mean I should agree on any other subject. There is no necessity for an atheist (or theist) for that matter to subscribe to any particular political belief system just because of their opinions on the existence of a "god" figure.

It is like saying every protestant should support the UVF, and every catholic the IRA.


**Apologies if this infringes on the politics rule, but I have tried to keep it as seperate as possible**

I was speaking to her vehement opposition to the USSR. As someone opposed in totality to the USSR, it would seem she would also reject everything that state represented, since it was "all" so horrible. It's not like saying "every Protestant should agree on any other subject." It being a necessity is not mentioned either. She had inconsistencies in her personal life also. Ask Nathanial Brandon.

[Morrisonhotel]

she didn't praise and practice Nazism, did she?

As for your other opinions... they are of no interest to me.

So have a jolly day.

The point remains valid nonetheless - regardless of whether she was or wasn't. Look at the battering de Man's reputation has taken since it became known that he was a Nazi sympathiser and propagandist.

Of course you have no interest in my opinions because they may well indeed be right.

[Rick Hendricks]

The point remains valid nonetheless - regardless of whether she was or wasn't. Look at the battering de Man's reputation has taken since it became known that he was a Nazi sympathiser and propagandist.

Of course you have no interest in my opinions because they may well indeed be right.

He??? Who is he?

Ayn Rand
"Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers."
[The Virtue of Selfishness]

[kilted exile]

I was speaking to her vehement opposition to the USSR. As someone opposed in totality to the USSR, it would seem she would also reject everything that state represented, since it was "all" so horrible. It's not like saying "every Protestant should agree on any other subject." It being a necessity is not mentioned either. She had inconsistencies in her personal life also. Ask Nathanial Brandon.

No my analogy is relevant.

You are suggesting if you disagree with the USSR, you must also reject atheism.

I am arguing that, if you follow this logic, it is neccessary for protestants to either support the UVF or reject their entire philosophies - including their belief in protestantism.

[Rick Hendricks]

No my analogy is relevant.

You are suggesting if you disagree with the USSR, you must also reject atheism.

I am arguing that, if you follow this logic, it is neccessary for protestants to either support the UVF or reject their entire philosophies - including their belief in protestantism.

I am not arguing, just stating a flaw in her “human nature,” which had inconsistencies. I am suggesting that since she claimed to reject everything USSR, it's inconsistent to retain the state mandated atheism, which in a free society she has the right to reject. Yet, she had this stance and IMHO was inconsistent regarding theism.

[donmac117@sbcgl]

"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."

My eventual reaction to Ayn Rand is to steer clear of her and her advocates. I find that charasmatic theorists do more damage than good. The Rand quote above is an illustration, possessing a half truth. Capitalism also brings out the worst in man: GREED.

When I read THE FOUNTAINHEAD, I was a young college student, not yet prepared with the wisdom to consider the full range of logic. I was a sucker for Rand's declarations. To continue uncritical belief in her philosophy requires closing your mind. Beware!

[Rick Hendricks]

"Capitalism demands the best of every man – his rationality – and rewards him accordingly. It leaves every man free to choose the work he likes, to specialize in it, to trade his product for the products of others, and to go as far on the road of achievement as his ability and ambition will carry him."

My eventual reaction to Ayn Rand is to steer clear of her and her advocates. I find that charasmatic theorists do more damage than good. The Rand quote above is an illustration, possessing a half truth. Capitalism also brings out the worst in man: GREED.

When I read THE FOUNTAINHEAD, I was a young college student, not yet prepared with the wisdom to consider the full range of logic. I was a sucker for Rand's declarations. To continue uncritical belief in her philosophy requires closing your mind. Beware!

So you think demanding the best of every man is wrong?

Did you find Marx any less charismatic? His ten proposed principles:

1-Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2-A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3-Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4-Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5-Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital an exclusive monopoly.
6-Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7-Extension of factories and means of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8-Equal liberty of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9-Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
10-Free education for all the children in public schools. Abolition of the children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production,

Communism brings out the worst in man: Stalin slaughtered 20 million people.

Since Rand thought man was a rational being, wouldn't that mean everyone should question everything? Not every Capitalist is driven by greed, and it has led to more innovation than its opposite.

Imagine no possessions (Lennon). Imagine not owning that computer you are using today, or the car you drive. That’s not so perfect either. That’s why I’m glad we have mixed economies. As you say, I find that charismatic theorists do more damage than good.”

All the best,
Rick

[Morrisonhotel]

He??? Who is he?

Ayn Rand
"Dictatorship nations are outlaws. Any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany and, today, has the right to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba or any other slave pen. Whether a free nation chooses to do so or not is a matter of its own self-interest, not of respect for the non-existent "rights" of gang rulers."
[The Virtue of Selfishness]

Paul de Man. Your profile says that you are a writer, really? As it seems that any writer alive today would know of de Man's work. Evidently, you've never heard of him: de Man along with Saussure and Derrida is probably the most important and influential literary and linguistic theorist/critic of the 20th-century. It came out that he was a Nazi sympathiser and that he wrote anti-semitic propaganda - subsequently, his influence and reputation as a theorist took a severe bashing.

I'm not disputing that Rand was not a Nazi so really that quote is irrelevant. Also, I believe that Rand was vehemently against American involvement in WW2.


Communism brings out the worst in man

So does unchecked capitalism.

[Rick Hendricks]

So does unchecked capitalism.

Capitalism has benefited far many more than Communism.


Paul de Man. Your profile says that you are a writer, really? As it seems that any writer alive today would know of de Man's work. Evidently, you've never heard of him: de Man along with Saussure and Derrida is probably the most important and influential literary and linguistic theorist/critic of the 20th-century. It came out that he was a Nazi sympathiser and that he wrote anti-semitic propaganda - subsequently, his influence and reputation as a theorist took a severe bashing.

I'm not disputing that Rand was not a Nazi so really that quote is irrelevant. Also, I believe that Rand was vehemently against American involvement in WW2.

If you didn't notice, the subject is Any Rand. So your introduction of de Mann is irrelevant.

You claim to be a student? Any student alive today would know that objectivity is essential, and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Are you glad America entered WWII?

[Morrisonhotel]

If you didn't notice, the subject is Any Rand. So your introduction of de Mann is irrelevant.

You claim to be a student? Any student alive today would know that objectivity is essential, and avoid ad hominem attacks.

Are you glad America entered WWII?

1) No, it is not. de Man was in relation to why, by your proclamations, we can't judge artists by their political beliefs - hence, perfectly valid.

2) I don't claim to be a student - I am a student (matriculated and everything). I'm stating the truth. Being a writer and not knowing who Paul de Man was is like being a critic and not knowing who Shakespeare/Dickens/Ibsen were. Where exactly have I started ad hominem attacks? If anything, you've been incredibly evasive of every point I've made.

3)That's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Rick Hendricks]

I never made any proclamations.

If you didn't recognize where you made as hominem attacks, you are most likely not a student.

Who is Bill Canon?

[Morrisonhotel]

I never made any proclamations.

If you didn't recognize where you made as hominem attacks, you are most likely not a student.

Who is Bill Canon?

1)

What you are really saying is you despise her political ideas, and thus will not give her credit for being a good writer.
I fail to see her considering homosexuality immoral having any relevance to the discussion of whether or not she is a good writer.

Whilst you never wrote explicitly those words, you constantly and consistently implied them. You've essentially stated that political beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to judgement of what makes a good writer or bad writer. Back to de Man - my point being that his work's critical reception took a huge bashing when all the stories came out (his works are generally received as not only the 'best' theory of the twentieth century but the most important): He's clearly a good writer yet the critical response to his work changed. Hence, again, my points have been perfectly valid: a writer's political beliefs can and do have an impact on one's judgement of their literature

2) Again, I've not made any direct attacks. I maintain that my points were perfectly valid in questioning whether you have any suitable input in to the subject of political beliefs and writing. In fact, I've attended two of the top universities in Britain, thank you very much. Who was it pushing ad hominem attacks?

3) I fail to see the relevance of this question.

[Rick Hendricks]

1)


Whilst you never wrote explicitly those words, you constantly and consistently implied them. You've essentially stated that political beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to judgement of what makes a good writer or bad writer. Back to de Man - my point being that his work's critical reception took a huge bashing when all the stories came out (his works are generally received as not only the 'best' theory of the twentieth century but the most important): He's clearly a good writer yet the critical response to his work changed. Hence, again, my points have been perfectly valid: a writer's political beliefs can and do have an impact on one's judgement of their literature

2) Again, I've not made any direct attacks. I maintain that my points were perfectly valid in questioning whether you have any suitable input in to the subject of political beliefs and writing. In fact, I've attended two of the top universities in Britain, thank you very much. Who was it pushing ad hominem attacks?

3) I fail to see the relevance of this question.

You read, "what you wanted to" into my words, based on your obvious biases. You need watch out for too giving much credence to textual semiotics. Next thing you'll be saying is that the Lizard King was a good poet.

2) You.

3) You don't know one of the world’s most famous, and successful: screenwriter, playwright, novelist.


What do you think John Locke would say about Rand’s ideas?


Each is given a bag of tools,
A shapeless mass and a book of rules;
And each must make, ere life is flown,
A stumbling block or a stepping stone.
—R.L. Sharpe

[kilted exile]

I am not arguing, just stating a flaw in her “human nature,” which had inconsistencies. I am suggesting that since she claimed to reject everything USSR, it's inconsistent to retain the state mandated atheism, which in a free society she has the right to reject. Yet, she had this stance and IMHO was inconsistent regarding theism.

I still do not see any inconsistency in rejecting the Soviet Union and being atheist. You are attempting to deal in absolutes and portraying that any atheist who disagrees with the practices that were carried out by the USSR is being inconsistent. This is patently not the case.

By the way Canon cant be that famous, Wiki has a page on all manner of even minor celebrities - however there is no mention of him.

[Morrisonhotel]

You read, "what you wanted to" into my words, based on your obvious biases. You need watch out for too giving much credence to textual semiotics. Next thing you'll be saying is that the Lizard King was a good poet.

2) You.

3) You don't know one of the world’s most famous, and successful: screenwriter, playwright, novelist.


What do you think John Locke would say about Rand’s ideas?


1) No, I didn't. That is the exact sentiments of what you have written. Stop trying to get out of an argument by stating otherwise. By all means, defend your position but don't make it seem that those weren't your intentions. Textual semiotics? Write more clearly then - it is not that difficult. I read the words and the phrases as they are written. If that is not how you meant then you should have clarified that straight from the beginning.

Hardly. There we go again with ad hominem attacks. Next you'll be attacking me for my taste in literature.

2) Again. Perfectly valid arguments. Stop avoiding them.

3) He's hardly that famous (note: when I think of famous and successful screenwriters and novelists I think of critically and commercially acclaimed sorts not somebody that IMDB ranks as having written only one film (admittedly the success of Wizard of Oz does make for an interesting discussion - even though he does not appear to have massively contributed to it) - assuming you mean Bill Cannon as I can't find any screenplay writers called Bill Canon on said site). When he has influenced almost every piece of modern literature, modern linguistic/ literary theory/criticism, and modern philosophy as de Man has then I might well give him the time of day.

I'm assuming that you mean the world-famous English philosopher? One, obviously, can't be entirely sure given your previous posts. Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument. I'm sure though that an intelligent man would have found a lot of Rand's political, social and philosophical ideas laughable (particularly her ideas on homosexuality, gender equality, and so forth). If you mean John Locke from Lost then I think the debate is at an end.

[Rick Hendricks]

1) No, I didn't. That is the exact sentiments of what you have written. Stop trying to get out of an argument by stating otherwise. By all means, defend your position but don't make it seem that those weren't your intentions. Textual semiotics? Write more clearly then - it is not that difficult. I read the words and the phrases as they are written. If that is not how you meant then you should have clarified that straight from the beginning.

Hardly. There we go again with ad hominem attacks. Next you'll be attacking me for my taste in literature.

2) Again. Perfectly valid arguments. Stop avoiding them.

3) He's hardly that famous (note: when I think of famous and successful screenwriters and novelists I think of critically and commercially acclaimed sorts not somebody that IMDB ranks as having written only one film (admittedly the success of Wizard of Oz does make for an interesting discussion - even though he does not appear to have massively contributed to it) - assuming you mean Bill Cannon as I can't find any screenplay writers called Bill Canon on said site). When he has influenced almost every piece of modern literature, modern linguistic/ literary theory/criticism, and modern philosophy as de Man has then I might well give him the time of day.

I'm assuming that you mean the world-famous English philosopher? One, obviously, can't be entirely sure given your previous posts. Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument. I'm sure though that an intelligent man would have found a lot of Rand's political, social and philosophical ideas laughable (particularly her ideas on homosexuality, gender equality, and so forth). If you mean John Locke from Lost then I think the debate is at an end.

Please show me my sentiments. I truly doubt you can express them in the terms you have attempted to frame them.

You don’t know textual semiotics, and, you claim extensive knowledge of Saussure?

Your argument sounds like it is totally unrelated to the discussion. de man being a Nazi has nothing to do with Rand (who you despise) advocating free markets et al. de Mann is dead too (1983). That also makes your words “a fairly pointless argument,” according to your statement above.

Screenwriters don’t get much recognition. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches. Here are some of his published credits below. Now this applies to “real life” not theory.

SKIDOO, written by Doran William Cannon; produced and directed by Otto Preminger; released by Paramount Pictures.

Doran William Cannon is a voting member of the writer’s branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Hollywood screenwriter, Doran William Cannon, has written dozens of screenplays and teleplays in over 40 years experience in story development. He wrote Brewster McCloud (directed by Robert Altman), the TV adaptation of the Aldous Huxley novel, A Brave New World, wrote, directed, and produced Square Root of Zero, and was a staff writer on Knotts Landing, among other credits. He wrote Authorship: The Dynamic Principles of Writing Creatively and teaches his Paradigm of Story Structure at retreats at his Circle © Writing Ranch, north of Santa Barbara, California.

BTW, I mirrored your style. How do you like it? Not very much, huh?

[Morrisonhotel]

Please show me my sentiments. I truly doubt you can express them in the terms you have attempted to frame them.

You don’t know textual semiotics, and, you claim extensive knowledge of Saussure?

Your argument sounds like it is totally unrelated to the discussion. de man being a Nazi has nothing to do with Rand (who you despise) advocating free markets et al. de Mann is dead too (1983). That also makes your words “a fairly pointless argument,” according to your statement above.

Screenwriters don’t get much recognition. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches.

BTW, I mirrored your style. How do you like it? Not very much, huh?

I have just shown you your sentiments in relation to the argument. Note the section where you state that her beliefs that homosexuality is immoral is irrelevant to this discussion - and, furthermore, the implication that politics are as well. By maintaining that one cannot judge how 'good' a writer on these grounds, you, effectively, get rid of all this form of criticism - and implicitly mean that political beliefs are not a way one can judge the merit of a writer (after all, if Rand cannot be subjected to the political basis of critique as to whether she is a good writer or not then no writer can).You're clearly now trying to save face.

I know textual semiotics extremely well, thank you very much - comes with how deeply-ground the teaching of English Lit. in linguistic theory is at my university. I never once proclaimed I had such a knowledge of Saussure - I merely stated his position as such an important theorist. de Man and Derrida, on the other hand, I have exceptionally good knowledge of their works.

It is not irrelevant. I have stated time and time and time again that the political beliefs of a writer are a perfectly valid form of critiqueing whether their work is good or not. The example of the change in opinion towards de Man's work shows this perfectly well - after all, he went from being an important and good critic to being slated as a bad one for, essentially, being a Nazi sympathiser (i.e. the political beliefs he espoused changed people's opinions on his merit as a critic and a writer). How can I make that more explicit? Should I draw the deductions in big letters somewhere? Well done, you've managed to use Google to find out so much about him. The difference between Locke and de Man is that whilst de Man is dead as well, his work is profoundly more influential at this precise moment in time on all manner of things. Locke's work has been challenged time and time again - as a consequence, it is almost inconsequential what his views would be on Rand.

Again, MASH has hardly had a profound influence on so many areas of intellectualism as de Man's work. I repeat my last sentiments when I state that I'll give him the time of day when he has influenced as many people as de Man. You just finished saying how famous he is, yet you then back-track and say that screenwriters aren't well known. Which is it? A look on wiki and IMDB brings up almost nothing (certainly nothing of artistic value or of particular fame)- he can't be that famous or influential. Also, he's actually dead (see IMDB.com). Also, you had to hide the first name of him - why do that if he is famous as "Bill Canon" - note: not Doran William Cannon? de Man's work has had profound influence on modern literature - you'd be hard pushed to find any theorist or writer who has a more influential role. How exactly is DWC's work any more real life than de Man's theories? That doesn't even make sense - MASH is not real-life. Where as de Man's work looked at, among other things, the interaction between people - what is more real life than one person talking to another, after all.

How exactly is your last post the same as mine? I've eruditely argued. You've done nothing but respond with, well, nothing.

[cows]

Hey,

PM eachother if your going to b*tch. This is 2 posts away from heated discussion, which was fine, but now you're just taking shots. I understand that its easy for people to criticize and act like children when you dont answer to a face, but cap it. Thanks.

Also, thanks to the contributors of this thread.

I'm another couple hundred pages into the book and can see how Rand's repetitious presentations are tiring. After the fifth rant about the 'proper' capitalist moral set, it gets old. Still, I stand by my claim that she is a decent fiction author (if nothing else, I don't consider her philosophy more than any other writer as I read the book) and does well with character development.

[Morrisonhotel]

Apologies, Cows (and admin.), it's my disposition that does it. Can't leave an argument until I've been proven correct. If Rick graciously agrees then this can be moved to PM.

[PeterL]

I was speaking to her vehement opposition to the USSR. As someone opposed in totality to the USSR, it would seem she would also reject everything that state represented, since it was "all" so horrible. It's not like saying "every Protestant should agree on any other subject." It being a necessity is not mentioned either. She had inconsistencies in her personal life also. Ask Nathanial Brandon.

Organized religions share a major characteristic with totalitarian government, they all seek to regulate the way that people live. Rand advocated personal responsibility and direction in all facets of life, so it makes perfect sense for her to oppose both the USSR and religion.

[Logos]

Posts have been edited. Please don't refer to each other as 'stupid' when putting your opinion/point across :)

[Rick Hendricks]

I have just shown you your sentiments in relation to the argument. Note the section where you state that her beliefs that homosexuality is immoral is irrelevant to this discussion - and, furthermore, the implication that politics are as well. By maintaining that one cannot judge how 'good' a writer on these grounds, you, effectively, get rid of all this form of criticism - and implicitly mean that political beliefs are not a way one can judge the merit of a writer (after all, if Rand cannot be subjected to the political basis of critique as to whether she is a good writer or not then no writer can).You're clearly now trying to save face.

I know textual semiotics extremely well, thank you very much - comes with how deeply-ground the teaching of English Lit. in linguistic theory is at my university. I never once proclaimed I had such a knowledge of Saussure - I merely stated his position as such an important theorist. de Man and Derrida, on the other hand, I have exceptionally good knowledge of their works.

It is not irrelevant. I have stated time and time and time again that the political beliefs of a writer are a perfectly valid form of critiqueing whether their work is good or not. The example of the change in opinion towards de Man's work shows this perfectly well - after all, he went from being an important and good critic to being slated as a bad one for, essentially, being a Nazi sympathiser (i.e. the political beliefs he espoused changed people's opinions on his merit as a critic and a writer). How can I make that more explicit? Should I draw the deductions in big letters somewhere? Well done, you've managed to use Google to find out so much about him. The difference between Locke and de Man is that whilst de Man is dead as well, his work is profoundly more influential at this precise moment in time on all manner of things. Locke's work has been challenged time and time again - as a consequence, it is almost inconsequential what his views would be on Rand.

Again, MASH has hardly had a profound influence on so many areas of intellectualism as de Man's work. I repeat my last sentiments when I state that I'll give him the time of day when he has influenced as many people as de Man. You just finished saying how famous he is, yet you then back-track and say that screenwriters aren't well known. Which is it? A look on wiki and IMDB brings up almost nothing (certainly nothing of artistic value or of particular fame)- he can't be that famous or influential. Also, he's actually dead (see IMDB.com). Also, you had to hide the first name of him - why do that if he is famous as "Bill Canon" - note: not Doran William Cannon? de Man's work has had profound influence on modern literature - you'd be hard pushed to find any theorist or writer who has a more influential role. How exactly is DWC's work any more real life than de Man's theories? That doesn't even make sense - MASH is not real-life. Where as de Man's work looked at, among other things, the interaction between people - what is more real life than one person talking to another, after all.

How exactly is your last post the same as mine? I've eruditely argued. You've done nothing but respond with, well, nothing.

Your "opinions" are many.



OK You win. Let’s put what you say into practice on you. This is how you sound.
I despise that you don’t like Ayn Rand. Therefore, you cannot write. In fact, you are a lousy writer. I don’t like the politics you imply, therefore you cannot write.
Hmmm, does your argument hold water now that it’s applied to you?

By your own words, “Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument.” Therefore, you cannot use de Man; he is dead. So are the others.

Papa Hemingway had an unfavorable view of male homosexuals. Does that mean he couldn’t write? Oh, sorry, he’s dead too.

Let’s speak of a living person. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches. Here are some of his published credits below. Now this applies to “real life” not theory; there is a difference. Mash was a worldwide phenomenon for 11 years after the original movie; millions and millions of people viewed it. You don’t think that had a significant impact?

Here are his published credits for your review:


SKIDOO, written by Doran William Cannon; produced and directed by Otto Preminger (Otto was no slouch) released by Paramount Pictures.

Doran William Cannon is a voting member of the writer’s branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, Hollywood screenwriter, Doran William Cannon, has written dozens of screenplays and teleplays in over 40 years experience in story development. He wrote Brewster McCloud (directed by Robert Altman), the TV adaptation of the Aldus Huxley novel, A Brave New World, wrote, directed, and produced Square Root of Zero, and was a staff writer on Knotts Landing, among other credits. He wrote Authorship: The Dynamic Principles of Writing Creatively and teaches his Paradigm of Story Structure at retreats at his Circle © Writing Ranch, north of Santa Barbara, California.

You can double check these in a few minutes. No backtrack; just stating a reality of the movies industry… the actors get the credits.

To say people changed their opinion about a person being a good writer because they discovered this person’s political leanings means they thought this person (I cannot name if they are dead; your rule) was a good writer. Then a “subjective decision” out of a personal bias was made about this nameless person. Does this mean the person cannot write? Of course, it doesn’t and you know that. However, it may mean they don’t like the ideology, and will punish this unnamed person, by saying he/she is a bad writer. This is a totally, subjective view, and that is where you started, with the subjective, “I despise.”

A good critic is not subjective.

Anyhow, I must travel for a few days. Let me leave with this you with this thought.

It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. Aristotle


Organized religions share a major characteristic with totalitarian government, they all seek to regulate the way that people live. Rand advocated personal responsibility and direction in all facets of life, so it makes perfect sense for her to oppose both the USSR and religion.

This has some truth to it in smaller Communistic states. The USSR, and China forbade religion, and Rand was Russian. Most organized religions abide by the laws of a "civil society," and these laws also regulate the way people live, usually for the better, however, not always. Nothing is perfect.

Most religions (not all), have modernized their organizations.

[obesechicken13]

>>Here are the Facts. Rand was born 1905 in St Petersburg(Petrograd later) Russia. Her family at first was sustained by a family pharmacy. Rand grew up in Bolshevik Russia, she experienced a civil war. She was a social reject clinging to books and then films. The family lost their pharmacy sometime. 1929 she went to America to visit relatives and never came back to Russia. She was asked by a friend to tell the world the truth about Russia, that they were dying.





Now for the highly opinionated part. If you support Rand please look away.

>> Rand's philosophy sounds great at first glance because she says so many things that we have to agree with some. Her rationality itself is flawed, she tries to justify some things that have (under observation) nothing to do with what she's using to justify them. She is a masochist because anyone who insults her generates PR for her philosophy of rational epistemology otherwise known as objectivism and is labeled by her followers as a clinger to collectivism.


>>Rand targets the youths because they are the most likely to blindly follow a philosophy that calls to their desire for wanting to know the meaning for life, and romantic affairs. She draws them in using rational self interest (letting your loved one drown because it would be in your own self interest to have joy afterwards and not die). Her poverty stricken youth fostered this selfishness (she even says that she has never needed to change her basic philosophy since age 3).


>>If you read the fountainhead or Atlas shrugged (which are both great books) you get drawn into the ideal of the Randean hero with the perfect morals. Rand calls herself a Randean hero, she is not. They don't exist past the teen years. They can't, not on this Earth. For more information about Rand read Reconsidering Ayn RandMichael B Yang. Its not such a great book, but it gets most of the main points across.

[metal134]

For anyone interested, I just came across this interview on YouTube with Rand done by Mike Wallace in 1959 (it's broken into parts). The page also has links to another interview with Rand done by Donahue (also broken into parts). The year isn't given, but they mention President Carter, so it was late '70's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-pHxlwFgOc&mode=related&search=

[Morrisonhotel]

Your "opinions" are many.
OK You win. Let’s put what you say into practice on you. This is how you sound.
I despise that you don’t like Ayn Rand. Therefore, you cannot write. In fact, you are a lousy writer. I don’t like the politics you imply, therefore you cannot write.
Hmmm, does your argument hold water now that it’s applied to you?

By your own words, “Given that Mr Locke is dead (and has been for some time) it's a fairly pointless argument.” Therefore, you cannot use de Man; he is dead. So are the others.

Papa Hemingway had an unfavorable view of male homosexuals. Does that mean he couldn’t write? Oh, sorry, he’s dead too.

Let’s speak of a living person. WDC, who is still alive, is also a producer, and screenwriter who worked extensively with Robert Altman, on “Mash,” ring any bells? See the ending credits at the end of Mash, if you can get a copy. He writes, produces, and teaches. Here are some of his published credits below. Now this applies to “real life” not theory; there is a difference. Mash was a worldwide phenomenon for 11 years after the original movie; millions and millions of people viewed it. You don’t think that had a significant impact?
To say people changed their opinion about a person being a good writer because they discovered this person’s political leanings means they thought this person (I cannot name if they are dead; your rule) was a good writer. Then a “subjective decision” out of a personal bias was made about this nameless person. Does this mean the person cannot write? Of course, it doesn’t and you know that. However, it may mean they don’t like the ideology, and will punish this unnamed person, by saying he/she is a bad writer. This is a totally, subjective view, and that is where you started, with the subjective, “I despise.”

A good critic is not subjective.


1)By the same form of deductions that means that you agree with Rand and are in fact a homophobe - I've not implied my political leanings here except my distaste of homophobia. Hence, if you disagree with my 'political' opinions then that makes you a flat out homophobe. As it is, you've never read any of my creative writing so really you're basing your arguments on blind assumption - I, on the other hand, am basing my opinion of Rand on known fact. Therefore, Rick, my argument still holds water. See, it's fun being proven wrong, isn't it?

2)Again, I've explained why de Man is still of cultural importance. Locke's importance and influence as a philosopher died out ages ago, de Man's influence is still very much with us. Do you read any posts or do you just gleam what you want to read from them?

3)Papa Hemingway was largely a hack. Can we keep our discussion focused on the matter in hand?

4) According to IMDB, Mr Cannon is dead:

Date of Death
12 March 2005, Santa Barbara, California, USA.

According to the "Writing Academy" he was involved in, it talks about "was" a screenwriter (not "is") and describes his "legacy".

I don't think it had a significant impact. Again, I've explained the difference between "real-life" (something which MASH is not - and, if it is based on any accurate event, it has artistic license which means it'll never be "real-life") and the actuality of de Man's work - please respond to points I make not just ignore them and write what you think I'm saying. How many people watched it? A few million. That's nothing. The world's population is approx. 6 billion at the moment. When MASH was written and shown, the pop. would, naturally, be less - but it still makes for a small amount of the world's population. Mr de Man's work has influenced right across the board - you'd be hard pushed to find any writer or critic in any country in the world who hasn't felt the influence of de Man in some way (that, naturally, passes on to the reading public). When you can say that about MASH (incidentally, possibly, from an artistic point of view, one of the most overrated films I've ever seen - there I'm using your logic to critique something) then fair enough but as it is you can't.

5) By your same response (we should, after all, imply the same judgement to all forms of writing), I could read Mein Kampf for example and would be able to read it subjectively. Something like that would, naturally, as a free individual mean that I would struggle to read it subjectively - I'd naturally have a response of disgust and, of course, it would blight my reading of it. If you read, for example, a pro-Nazi novel that was well written (I'd struggle to name such a thing but nevertheless) and then read an anti-Nazi novel that was well written - each with the same literary merits (great characterization, good plot, and what have you) - which would you feel more drawn to and which would you describe as a good piece of writing? The pro-Nazi novel? I hardly think so. Now, apply that further afield: if you had an extremely pro-Nazi writer who was, by all conventions, rated as a good writer (you'd struggle, I know)and compared that to an extremely anti-Nazi writer (again, rated in the same manner) -regardless of the subject material - which novelist would you prefer? Would you have no emotional response at all? I defy anyone to live in a democratic country and feel sympathy towards a pro-Nazi writer (Similarly, I defy anyone to read Rand, rate her, then read up on her background: do you still have the same response to her texts? I would very, very much doubt it). Again, if we had two texts (both with similar authors in terms of skill), one pro-Nazi and one anti-Nazi. You have no idea about the author's background. Which one would you feel, as a critic, you'd be drawn to? You could imply that I could Rand like this - I have tried and I gave my opinion of her as "dull" and lacking any form of good narration. I already think she's awful as a writer - what compounds my distaste for her, emotionally speaking, is her political views. I did not state my subjective opinion at first: I stated that I thought her writing was dull. There are clearly two seperate clauses here: one, that I think her writing is dull and two, that I despise her beliefs - I have demonstrated, via de Man (and the above examples), how it is a perfectly valid form of response to apply this to her writing as well. I urge you to purchase David Lehman's Signs of the Times: Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man - I've never seen a text so thoroughly destroy the notion that subjective reading is a bad thing (even if he does defend objectivety to some degree).

[Francis Parker]

I loved the Fountainhead- probably because at the time I read it I was an ironworker building a skyscraper in Philadelphia and wasn't in any kind of relationship- a loner and iconoclast like her protagonist- but years later when I attempted Atlas Shrugged, it just felt flat and uninspiring. Ditto Anthem which was not a comfortable read- the avoidance of "I" was too contrived and felt like I was being made to read some kind of experiment rather than a novel.

I think her philopsophy has done immeasurable damage to those who find themselves on the right hand side of the bell curve. Humans are not atomized individuals and libertarianism requires a highly educated, intelligent and individualistic population to work- something that never has and likely never will exist.

[PeterL]

This has some truth to it in smaller Communistic states. The USSR, and China forbade religion, and Rand was Russian. Most organized religions abide by the laws of a "civil society," and these laws also regulate the way people live, usually for the better, however, not always. Nothing is perfect.

Most religions (not all), have modernized their organizations.

Most, but not all, religions still wish to dictate personal behavior, so they are still totalitarian in nature.

When I get my time machine fixed, one thing that I will do will be to investigate the development of religion. That probably would be around 50,000 ybp.

[ennison]

I still contend she was off her rocker but so were and are a lot of writers. I can cope with that. From the vehemence of the discussion it's clear her political thoughts (The main reason she wrote was to get these across) still have a degree of vitality. Certainly they chime well with Post-Thatcherites here and neo-cons on the other side of the Atlantic. As a by the by: it aint possible to be a completely objective critic as we do not all have the same experiences. I'd say you become more objective by realising your own subjectivity. Except for those Dawkinite Holy Willie scientists who were born in the very test tubes they play with and never, but never are anything but absolut-atoot-ely objective. Oops but my subjective psyche is showing through.

[JADJARHD]

There should be an Ayn Rand sub-forum. I bet you would get some great discussions in that one.

[Logos]

The only authors who get their own specific discussion forum are those with (at least a few) works in the public domain, ie: published pre-1923 :)

Ayn Rand (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=about_ari) doesn't have any works in the pd, but there has been much discussion of her here, I think the latest topic is this one:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24450

There are many more topics about her if you search the General Lit forum.

[JADJARHD]

It is of course impossible to discuss Rand without discussing her politics so I will start there.

Rand works as a Social Critic. For example, in The Fountainhead Dominique is addressing a group and discussing the horrible living conditions of the poor. (She learned this by going and living with them) They approve of everything she says when it fits into their politics. But when she points out some of the flaws in the groups that she was observing (ie the father goes out and gambles what little money they did have) the group becomes angry because they wanted to view the poor as a noble group. This way the altruists could save the poor and feel good about themselves. Another example in The Fountainhead is the way the self appointed intellectuals are led around like sheep by Elsworth Tooey. You see a lot of this in the world.

The social critism in parts like these does have value even if you do not agree with it. Unfortunatly Rand tried so hard to distance herself from the legitimate hypocrisy that she had observed, that she began to idealise an unrealistic and very unappealing vision of the world. Just because the altruists in the book are ridiculous (just as many are in real life) does not condem (in my mind) real acts of altruism. The same is true of many of her critisms. And to me, living in a world in which everyone is as inconsiderate as Rand aspires to be, would make for a very unhappy place.

I would advise a potential reader to view Rand as an astute observer of what is wrong, but be careful about concluding that she knows what is right.


As for her fiction:

She is a very good writer who gets bogged down at times in being overly discriptive (and repititive) when introducing characters. She also can be long winded at times.

I have not yet read Atlas Shrugged although I own a copy. The Fountainhead is good in parts and disturbing in others. (The sex/rape parts are really twisted.) I would not recommend for or against reading this book.

We the Living is, in my opinion very intresting in that it gives Rand's point of view of the changes that happened in Russia that she observed. On the one hand, she was a biased observer. But on the other, she was a first person observer so I think the text has historical merit. How much merit is a good question I do not know the answer to.

Anthem is, in my opinion her best book, and one of the best works of fiction ever. It is short, which is a nice contrast to her other works and indeed very inspirational. It easily fits into the class of 1984 or Farenheit 451. I reccomend this book to any and all who love great fiction. (Incidently any Star Trek fans out there will recognize the fictional society in Anthem as the inspiration for the Borg.)

Thanks for clearing that up for me. You were right, that was a passionate debate in the other forum. I threw in my two cents but I am kind of glad I missed some of the more passionate postings.

[kilted exile]

I would advise a potential reader to view Rand as an astute observer of what is wrong, but be careful about concluding that she knows what is right.


I would be careful about concluding that she is an astute observer of what is wrong also

[JADJARHD]

I would be careful about concluding that she is an astute observer of what is wrong also

I think many of her observations about the world and the nature of people are accurate and relevant. Haven't we all known people like Peter Keating and his ilk? It's her reaction that I find unsupportable. Just because Howard Roark is the opposite of Peter Keating does not make Roarke admirable. The reverse is also true, just because Roark is unlikable does not make Peter Keating any less shallow.

In the same vein, just because Rand's advocacy of selfishness and capitalism are unnappealing does not make her observations about the negative impact of Marxism (or any other type of collectivism) any less true.

Yeah I read that quote a while back and thought it was the dumbest thing I had ever heard, so of course I had to share it. That way we can all laugh at how vapid Mariah Carey is.:lol:

[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. :rolleyes:

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

'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&#37; 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.

RyanHoward 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 :lol:

[The Intended]

Anthem was terrible. It's been a while since I've read it, but I remember my main problem being with the omitting of the word 'I', but not 'you'. 'You' is just as individualizing; you can't have one without the other, and her whole sort of communistic society pivoted on the acceptance of man as not individuals but as a sole being. Therefore, everything should have been 'we', or 'our.' That threw me off throughout the book, and I couldn’t get past it.

That being said, I'm about halfway through Atlas Shrugged and am enjoying it. Her philosophy is flawed but resonant in its belief that selfishness and want for profit fuel the world, and without it, we stagnate, which is true. But in the same sense, her ideas are overly simplistic, and exist in only the vacuum a novel can create: her philosophy depends completely on the virtue of men. Who was it that says 'Absolute power corrupts absolutely?' If her social-economic beliefs were to be applied realistically, we would have a great deal of Erons.

I find her writing style quite engaging.

[Kent Edwins]

Yes, I know that lit majors are generally left leaning and we don't like Rand, regardless of whether we've read her or not. I realize that, without treading carefully, this thread will turn political. But, nonetheless, lately I've been reading Atlas Shrugged at the beckoning of someone very close to me and the promise of a corporate scholarship and, with all due respect, I want to discuss it.

Who has read Rand? What does everyone think of Rand? Does she deserve a place in the halls of literature, or not?

Atlas Shrugged has a theme. It is a theme that I disagree with, for the most part, but it is still a theme. Today, not many writers try to have themes in their work. I respect Rand's appreciation of classicism and form, which many modern writers deny to all ends.

The book isn't particularly well written, but Rand wasn't writing in her native language. I guess that's something we all have to consider when reading it.

The characters are hit or miss with me. Some, like Hank Rearden, are really interesting. Others are sad cardboard cut outs of the ideas Ayn Rand wanted

[Dark Muse]

I love Rand, and though I have not read Atlas Shrugged yet, I have read The Fountainhead, and I thought it was fabulous. I know I am in the thin thin minority of acutally loving Rand's work, and further more agreeing with much of what she has to say. But I think she is fantastistic, and I do not find anything disagreeble in her philosophy, and The Fountainhead was truly amazing and sucked me right in from start to end.

I cannot wait to read Atlas Shrugged. I look forward to it.

[Jozanny]

My entire post was lost when these threads were merged, and I cannot repeat it word for word. Funny how that happens.

However, let me try again: As a novel, I agree with Dark that The Fountainhead was a better read than not, but Atlas Shrugged takes Rand's second-rate intellectual reasoning and beats the reader over the head with it. Meritocracy is important, but Rand tries, and fails, to make it a 20th century martyrdom. No governing system we've ever devised is perfect, and that includes free market capitalism, and equality of opportunity is not relentless predation against the superior values of the entrepreneur--which is basically the argument Rand makes. As others have indicated, it is a simplistic idea, and Objectivism doesn't receive much traction in academia because it doesn't make much sense.

Enforced egalitarianism has been a problem since Spartan society was in its heyday. Most reasonable thinkers agree here--but this is not the same thing as equal opportunity for all members in a society, allowing for the possibility of self-improvement. Rand was a rigid and closed minded thinker, and needs to be swallowed with a dose of caution.

[Scheherazade]

My entire post was lost when these threads were merged, and I cannot repeat it word for word. Funny how that happens.

Jozanny,

I am sorry that your post got lost but that does not happen when threads are merged. Everyday, when the back-ups happen, the Forum slows down (sometimes comes to a halt) at around 9.10-9.30. I can see from your post that you must have tried to post at that time, which might explain why your post was lost.

It is always a good idea to copy when typing a long post.

You can read about the back-ups here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30617

[Jozanny]

Jozanny,

I am sorry that your post got lost but that does not happen when threads are merged. Everyday, when the back-ups happen, the Forum slows down (sometimes comes to a halt) at around 9.10-9.30. I can see from your post that you must have tried to post at that time, which might explain why your post was lost.

It is always a good idea to copy when typing a long post.

You can read about the back-ups here:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30617

No problem Sche. One can debate whether posts are written notes or electronic convo, but if I get an idea from posting I usually make notes in my WP file separate from the post itself--and Rand isn't on my critical agenda:p. She has her enthusiasts and detractors. I don't think she was an imbecile so much as overzealous for the sake of her point, which I concede is a worthwhile point, but not to the exclusion of all else. Essays might have suited her better than novels, but then again, one does root for her messiah architect, all the same.:):thumbs_up

[Kent Edwins]

I don't think she was an imbecile so much as overzealous for the sake of her point, which I concede is a worthwhile point, but not to the exclusion of all else.

Not by any means. She tried to create an entire system of philosophy based on reasoning, and got a lot further with it than most people would have had the patience for. The ARI is an abomination, however, and makes her out to be much worse than she ever really was.

After spending pretty much all day watching old interviews of her, I'm convinced that her problem wasn't so much her philosophy itself. It was her complete and utter inability to meet differing points of view with the slightest bit of reason or basic civility, especially when put on the spot. For someone who touted themselves as an "objectivist", much of what Rand said in interviews about conflicting schools of thought seems to be emotional knee-jerking dressed up to the highest degree. You can dress up an emotional reaction with all the philosophical terms you want. But that doesn't make it any less of an irrational reaction.

[laidbackperson]

I have read both Fountainhead and Atlas shrugged few years ago. Although I felt completely disinterested in her Philosophy of objectivitism, I liked Fountain Head very much. I see it as a story of Howard Roarkes, an architect who was a real person in midst of phony people ( looters, I think Ayn Rand termed them in Atlas shrugged).
He believed in himself, his talents and loved his work truly. He did not mind helping Peter Keating, the savvy person, go-getter and topper from their school, who would approach him furtively for professional help. As the story starts Peter Keating was the rising sun whereas, Roarkes was a non-starter a person expelled from architecture school. But towards the end the picture completely changes and Pete Keatings ends up becoming a pitiable man whereas Roarkes rises very high.
Ayn Rand, the creator of Novel did not make Roarkes believe in God but Roarke’s character and actions were that of a true soldier of God.
I consider Fountain Head is a must read book for all youngsters just for the sake of study of Howard Roarkes character.I also consider Ayn Rand as a good writer if we see her without her philosophies.

[Dark Muse]

( looters, I think Ayn Rand termed them in Atlas shrugged).

Second-handers is what she calls them in the Fountainhead

[Jozanny]

Dark Muse: I thought of you when I decided to post the url to this critique of Rand (http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0).

I went through a similar enthusiasm for her writings when I was your age, but I now more or less sympathize with Chait's castigation. Much of her philosophy is really gift packaged around the romanticism of individual autonomy and talent, rather than being a real pushback against the tyranny of social equity--at least in terms of how she sees it.

[applepie]

I love Rand, and though I have not read Atlas Shrugged yet, I have read The Fountainhead, and I thought it was fabulous. I know I am in the thin thin minority of acutally loving Rand's work, and further more agreeing with much of what she has to say. But I think she is fantastistic, and I do not find anything disagreeble in her philosophy, and The Fountainhead was truly amazing and sucked me right in from start to end.

I cannot wait to read Atlas Shrugged. I look forward to it.

I'm the reverse:lol: I've read Atlas Shrugged, loved it, but I've not had the time to read The Fountainhead. I find that Rand is very consuming and intensive to read. I've yet to decide if a agree of disagree with the philosophy behind it. Regardless, I find in intriguing, but it is a study in paying attention to the details.

[mal4mac]

... this critique of Rand (http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/wealthcare-0).

Great article! Thanks for posting it Jozanny.

I've never understand why young Americans thrill to Rand's black-and-white ethics. Maybe its her veneration of the alienated outsider shunned by a world that does not understand his/her gifts. But there are far better books that deal with this character - try Camus, Kafka, Dostoevsky...

She's a curiously American phenomenon, never having any impact in Europe. I guess we have enough good outsider art. Importing bad outsider art seems unnecessary...

Rand's main idea is that the United States is divided into two classes--the hard-working productive elite, and the indolent masses leeching off their labor through taxes. As this elite includes Enron executives and investment bankers this idea is looking pretty lame!

She promulgates the moral absolute that taking from the rich is wrong, and selfishness as a virtue. She denies any basis for using government to reduce economic inequality. She holds people completely responsible for their own success or failure. She confers the highest moral prestige upon material success.

This is pretty nasty stuff. If you read Dostoevsky, you see Rasolnikov giving the last of his money to a sad drunk and his poor family, so that they can eat. This morality, a Christian and humanist morality, seems totally opposed to that of Rand, which seems to derive from misappropriations of Nietzsche and a bad reaction against her upbringing.

It's also rather stupid stuff. The ravages of fate can bring down anyone.

In the Marxist analysis, workers produce all value, and capitalists merely leech off their labor. Rand posited the opposite. In Atlas Shrugged, her hero, John Galt, leads a capitalist strike, in which the brilliant business leaders who drive all progress decide that they will no longer tolerate the parasitic workers exploiting their talent, and so they withdraw from society to create their own capitalistic paradise free of the ungrateful, incompetent masses.

Of course, in the real world, many business leaders are like the stupid, parasitic head of Lehman brothers, and most workers make useful goods.

Who makes the food and clothing for Galt and the young American outsider?

[joebob]

I read fountainhead in like 4 days


what a book

[meh!]

Awful writing. Combined with a philosophy that makes me physically shake with anger. Not a good combo.

[Pollopicu]

I loved Anthem. I wished it had been longer. So I'm looking forward to reading "Atlas Shrugged".

[dfloyd]

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.

[Pollopicu]

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.

[Dark Muse]

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.

Yes, I probably should get some profressional help, but I am not going to, because I have too much fun being demented.

[Jozanny]

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 one. However, I will eventually read "Atlas Shrugged" and rate it like I would any other work.

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.

[Pollopicu]

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.

[mal4mac]

I read and accepted her work as a novel and nothing more. I know nothing of her philosophy...

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?

[blazeofglory]

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.

[Pollopicu]

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?
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.

[mal4mac]

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.

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 :D

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.

[Pollopicu]

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.

[mal4mac]

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...

These are good ones to try. Also "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, and H.G. Wells's science fiction stories.

[Jozanny]

Yes, I probably should get some profressional help, but I am not going to, because I have too much fun being demented.

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.

[Pollopicu]

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 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.
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.

[DanielBenoit]

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.