Does Ayn Rand piss you off?

[redfox1111]

Recently I finished We the Living which I choose to read out of my love for Russian history not because it was wrote by Ayn Rand but what I don't seem to get is why people are so polarized over her other works. I've read Anthem which from what I've seen in some reviews is a microcosm of her larger works so of course I can't say I've read her two main novels but what I don't understand is how her work or at least her philosphy expressed through her work makes readers love or hate her. Other authors and yes maybe to a lesser extent express their own personal philosophy through their works but they don't get nearly the same reaction.

I don't want to get anyone going by comparing her to better authors but for example an atheist can appreciate the Brothers Karamazov and not mind the sections featuring the Elder Zosima but say someone who is not in complete agreement with Rand reads a one hundred page dystopian novella she wrote gets completely irriated, why?

[Poetaster]

As a writer or philosopher she doesn't 'piss me off', but I hate to say she's a terrible writer, and a lazy philosopher. Her novel Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst things I've ever read, maybe the worst considering the length and how darn boring it is.

[Ecurb]

Ayn Rand pisses people off because she and the members of her "cult" argue unfairly. Although she called her philosophy "Objectivism", there was nothing objective about it, and the tactics Nathaniel Branden and other true believers used to defend it were far from "objective".

I read her two big novels as a teenager and enjoyed them. They are melodramatic pot boilers, but the egomania they tout reflects that of many teenagers (not me, of course).

Paul Ryan, the last Republican Vice-Presidential candidate, claimed she is his favorite philosopher. Considering the jingoistic propaganda she promulgated, that's more of a knock on Ryan than on Rand. However, reasonable people may despise her for her influence on Ryan and other unsophisticated readers.

[Poetaster]

I feel I should point out that, being British, her influence on my contemporary politics is pretty minimal.

[tonywalt]

I think she pisses people off in the literary world not because of her writing or hair style, rather because her views. Simple.

[Iain Sparrow]

Recently I finished We the Living which I choose to read out of my love for Russian history not because it was wrote by Ayn Rand but what I don't seem to get is why people are so polarized over her other works. I've read Anthem which from what I've seen in some reviews is a microcosm of her larger works so of course I can't say I've read her two main novels but what I don't understand is how her work or at least her philosphy expressed through her work makes readers love or hate her. Other authors and yes maybe to a lesser extent express their own personal philosophy through their works but they don't get nearly the same reaction.

I don't want to get anyone going by comparing her to better authors but for example an atheist can appreciate the Brothers Karamazov and not mind the sections featuring the Elder Zosima but say someone who is not in complete agreement with Rand reads a one hundred page dystopian novella she wrote gets completely irriated, why?

I think you're probably underestimating her influence on Conservative Philosophy, especially here in America. Her works of fiction were never anything beyond vehicles for her Objectivism and related views... which can be rolled up neatly as "looking out for number one, and screw everyone else".
So does the Russian Witch piss me off... not much, no more than any other long-dead cult leader.:)

[redfox1111]

I'm certainly interested in the references to her being a cult leader. I don't mean to call people on the left out but I guess it may sound like that so here it goes, cult is obviously a stronger word, at least I take it to be and I assume you aren't using it too lightly. What if I refer to communists as cult members? I could make a cogent argument as to why they are but I'd believe the use of the word would come into question. Now please don't take it that I'm trying to defend Ayn Rand but another example would be say I referred to people who read books like One Dimensional Man or anything from the members of the Frankfurt School as cult members, or Marcuse or Adorno as cult leaders? I feel like people would not accept that but with a more right leaning author(and I say right leaning in a broad sense) she is then a cult leader?

[Iain Sparrow]

... and actually, in fairness to Ms. Rand I should have added that if you're asking, should 'The Fountainhead' and 'Atlas Shrugged' be remembered as milestones in literature... well, yes I do. I'm of the opinion they should be required reading. I don't need to agree with a writer to understand the importance of their work.

[Iain Sparrow]

I'm certainly interested in the references to her being a cult leader. I don't mean to call people on the left out but I guess it may sound like that so here it goes, cult is obviously a stronger word, at least I take it to be and I assume you aren't using it too lightly. What if I refer to communists as cult members? I could make a cogent argument as to why they are but I'd believe the use of the word would come into question. Now please don't take it that I'm trying to defend Ayn Rand but another example would be say I referred to people who read books like One Dimensional Man or anything from the members of the Frankfurt School as cult members, or Marcuse or Adorno as cult leaders? I feel like people would not accept that but with a more right leaning author(and I say right leaning in a broad sense) she is then a cult leader?

You're right, I was being a bit bombastic with my comments... but I will continue calling her that "Russian Witch". It has a nice ring to it.:)
As for political philosophy, I am a huge fan of Thomas Paine.
His books Common Sense, The American Crisis, Rights of Man, and The Age of Reason promoted ideas far ahead of his contemporaries... and I wouldn't consider him a cult leader.:)

[Ecurb]

I'm certainly interested in the references to her being a cult leader. I don't mean to call people on the left out but I guess it may sound like that so here it goes, cult is obviously a stronger word, at least I take it to be and I assume you aren't using it too lightly. What if I refer to communists as cult members? I could make a cogent argument as to why they are but I'd believe the use of the word would come into question. Now please don't take it that I'm trying to defend Ayn Rand but another example would be say I referred to people who read books like One Dimensional Man or anything from the members of the Frankfurt School as cult members, or Marcuse or Adorno as cult leaders? I feel like people would not accept that but with a more right leaning author(and I say right leaning in a broad sense) she is then a cult leader?

My understanding (and I'm not an Ayn Rand expert) is that Objectivism is called a "cult" for several reasons:

1)A guy named Jeff Walker wrote a book called "The Ayn Rand Cult". I haven't read it. Here's the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ayn_Rand_Cult

2) Objectivism was taught and defended by people who had personal relationships with Rand. Nathaniel Brandon, a leading figure in Objectivism, was her lover. Objectivism was taught at "The Ayn Rand Collective", which consisted of a small group of acolytes. It later became the "Nathaniel Branden Institute". Cults are typified by allegiance to a prophet (more mainstream religions show alliegance to priests or pastors, instead). Cults are also typified by the personal relationships (often sexual) between the acolytes and the prophet, as was the case with Rand and Objectivists.

3) After Rand's death, Leonard Peikoff founded the "Ayn Rand Institute", which promulgated and taught Rand's ideas. Simply naming the program after the prophet invites comparisons with a cult.

[lummis]

I'm a little surprised to learn that people think of Objectivism as a "cult". I haven't paid attention to it for a long time but at one time, in my 20s, I was a semi expert on objectivism, Ayn Rand, etc. I read everything related to her and attended lectures at the Nathaniel Brandon Institute but I never thought of it as a cult. I admired her (and Brandon) but always saw an unrealistic element in her views. A key element of a cult is that the followers accept the leader's view of the world just because the leader says it's so, even if it's wacky, and believe that the leader is all-knowing. I don't remember the Ayn Rand followers thinking that way. I certainly didn't. For example I remember discussions about how an objectivist country or government would function and most agreed that it wouldn't function well at all, including Rand. She herself said more than once that objectivism is not a basis for a form of government. She said that she intentionally wrote black-and-white fiction so the ideas would stand out in bold relief. But she reminded people that it was fiction and that she didn't have all the answers. She said, for example, that she wondered about and couldn't explain the powerful effect that music can have on people.

I remember the Nathaniel Brandon Institute events as mainly psychology oriented (not philosophy oriented) and the attendees as people focused on psychological problems in their own lives. One series of lectures that had a huge positive impact on me was entitled "Romantic Love". I still think of that as an excellent lecture series that almost anyone would benefit from, no matter what they thought of Ayn Rand's philosophical views. If you've ever given a lecture on a serious topic yourself you know the challenges and you'd surely admire these lectures. It doesn't amount to a cult, just good lectures.

My first encounter with her is a vivid memory. When I was a graduate student at Columbia she was scheduled to give a lecture on campus. I had never heard of her but a friend had read Atlas Shrugged and wanted to see her in person so we went. The auditorium was packed and the crowd was a little rowdy. The moderator introduced her as a author and a dumpy-looking old lady with a awkwardly large handbag walked to the lectern. The lectern was a little too high for her so she seemed diminished by it, and she didn't say anything for a long time while she got notes out of her handbag and arranged them on the lectern. She began by talking about objectivism, reality, A-is-A, etc. - her usual stuff. Then somebody in the audience shouted out an off-topic question, which she ignored. Then several people started shouting out hostile remarks. Then a lot of people started booing. (Remember this was a college campus event with an audience of teenagers and 20-somethings.) The moderator came to the lectern and started telling the audience to be polite but she said "I'll handle this" and pushed him away. She got intense and focused but not the least bit rattled. For about 30 seconds she answered the hostile comments in a way that made clear to everyone that they were mindless and silly. Then the booing seemed stupid. There was a huge ovation from everyone, probably including some of the booers. At the end of her talk there was applause and cheers that continued for a long time. It was a star performance and a "wow" experience for me. Her ability to think on her feet and express herself was amazing. There was tremendous admiration but it wasn't cult-like.

Probably after her death some people (Paul Ryan maybe included) tended to make her into a cult leader but it was mainly respect and admiration in the day.

[WyattGwyon]

The cult bit is a bum rap. Every element of her philosophy militates against the slavish mindset cults require.

As for her writing, unfortunately, the bad reviews above are spot on. Execrable, cliche descriptive passages abound. Her characters are monotone mouthpieces for her philosophy. In Atlas Shrugged, several of the good guys (and, by the way, there are nothing but black and white, comic-book style moral distinctions among the characters) make long speeches with voices that are entirely interchangeable. Dagny, the heroine, spends the book running through men in her quest for the ultimate alpha male, which, of course, means the purest Objectivist mouthpiece — And Rand had a penchant for violent, bodice ripping sex. When Dagny finally finds her glorious specimen, he channels Barnacle Bill the Sailor, throwing her down on a sack in a train tunnel for thirty seconds of hard thrusting in the missionary position.

A friend of mine from Seattle reported that in his local bookstore, Atlas Shrugged appears in the science fiction section, which, as it turns out, is entirely appropriate. The plot is well done, turns on the destruction and rebuilding of the world, and is enacted by the kind of superficial, one-dimensional characters one expects in that genre.

[Ecurb]

Ayn Rand was not a "cult leader" in that she was an atheist, and "cult" refers to a religious group. However, based on what I've read, the term (used metaphorically) in not inaccurate. Here's a link to a New Yorker article from a few years back:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/11/09/possessed-3 (for some reason the link woks on my phone, not on my PC).

The article is a review of two biographies of Rand, and excoriates both her literary skills and her cult-like leadership. The lack of irony in the "Ayn Rand Collective" is noted.

Beyond what I've read, I know nothing about it. lummis obviously is more intimately involved.

Regarding Rand's philosophy, again, I'm no expert. However the notion that self interest is somehow "natural" to humans and therefore can lead them to fullfill their potential is far from an "objective" truth. Not only humans, but all (female) mammals regularly give scarce resources away to others (their children). Indeed, the "nature" of mammalian (and some other animal) mothers is to be altruistic, without which trait the species would not survive.

[Calidore]

the kind of superficial, one-dimensional characters one expects in that genre.

I have to object to this. "Superficial, one-dimensional characters" are a hallmark of bad writing in any and every genre, including wannabe "literary" fiction. Good sci-fi has well-drawn characters, just like good writing everywhere else.

[WyattGwyon]

I have to object to this. "Superficial, one-dimensional characters" are a hallmark of bad writing in any and every genre, including wannabe "literary" fiction. Good sci-fi has well-drawn characters, just like good writing everywhere else.

You are right. But I think it is possible for science fiction to be good in spite of superficial characterization and that this is perhaps less the case for literary fiction(?)

[Poetaster]

Her fans are fanatically passionate and her prose isn't good enough to merit it. That's why she rubs people the wrong way: she's awful and praised for it.

[Quietudity]

The interesting thing about Ayn Rand for me is that I read Anthem back when I wasn't aware of how controversial/unliked she was. It was also the very first dystopian novel I ever experienced, and honestly, I really enjoyed it. So I made a point of reading other novels of that same genre, such as Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, Lord of the Flies, Never Let Me Go, and The Handmaids Tale, but hated each and everyone of them with the fury of a thousand demons. So although I innocently enjoyed Anthem very much, I've just lost interest in that genre/topic altogether.

btw I'm a Deist.

[totoro]

I could take her or leave her to be honest. I did think Atlas Shrugged was way overrated though.

[Thrillers306]

Thank you Lumnis for sharing this. I read both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I was in my early thirties and her perspective boggled me. To say the least, I had never read anything like it before. Of course objectivism is not a cult but it does help a person do something for their own happiness and not feel guilty about it.

[Sol Invictus]

I could really care less about Ayn Rand. She did a poor job of assembling her "life philosophy" of objectivism.

[DATo]

As a writer or philosopher she doesn't 'piss me off', but I hate to say she's a terrible writer, and a lazy philosopher. Her novel Atlas Shrugged is one of the worst things I've ever read, maybe the worst considering the length and how darn boring it is.

My sentiments exactly .... A+A = -5*.

[Aly Jaffar]

I think this beacause she is a controversial philosopher, and a writer who writes for demonstrating her specific philosophical views, and not a good writer, as I see. Rand is an extreme rightist, and has a great number of followers who believe in extreme Individualism‎, some of them are organizations, and famous people like the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales. So you will have a lot of people hate her for her extreme views (some of them are rightists, and the most are leftists). and you will find people hate her for the dogma of her views, and escpecially her followers. you will also find people who criticize her style in writing.

Personally, I like Ayn Rand, Though I don't agree with her philosophy at all, I think she is one of the most interesting thinkers of the 20th century, and her literature isn't bad. In fact I liked "Anthem", which was the first book I've read by Rand.

[wordeater]

I read portions from "Mein Kampf" without becoming a Nazi.
I read portions of "Das Kapital" without becoming a communist.
I read "Atlas Shrugged" without becoming a capitalist.

If I get through a book of 1000 pages it must be quite well written. I liked Dagny Taggart's struggle to build that railway. It helped me see some arguments in favor of capitalism. However all the non-capitalists were presented as morons, so overall it was too propagandist, and didn't show both sides of the story.