Printable View
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by quikmart
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.
I just picked up paperbacks of Atlas Shrugged and a 50th Anniversary edition of The Fountainhead.Quote:
Originally Posted by cows
The Fountainhead is full of marketing junk, Ayn Rand philosophy, commentary, Ayn Rand reading lists, join the Ayn Rand philosophy club, etc. A real turn off.
Like you, I find that she was a decent fiction writer. But, that's all. Not great, but the novel is so far decent. In her prologue and epilogue, Ayn Rand wrote about needing to formalize a philosophy in order to complete her book. I totally disagree, that's so disingenuous. Her philosophy seems little more than hedonism. Like anyone else, her world-view is a product of her upbringing. In Rand's case, she escaped the Russian Revolution and Soviet Communism. She approved of the U.S. model of capitalism--OK. Rand then grew up in the 30s, in an art deco period, when architectural influences were ubiquitous. Again, OK, so her thinking was shaped by the era. New and innovative she is not, however.
I don't get the impression at all that she needed to create a new philosophical system (which is bogus, she did no such thing) to write her fine novel of industrial age ethics, which is as relevant today in corporate cubicles as ever.
Everybody has a philosophy. It is so degrading, so "L. Ron Hubbard" when the artist tries to push their philosophy in commercial venues. Why couldn't she have been content to write fiction, and keep the sophistry insertions out of the pages of her novel? It's bad enough I find her romanticizing of her selfish heroes repugnant. They are good characters, but without great characterization.
That's the main issue I have with this novel so far, that it's not the novel that troubles me but that Rand's agents indulged her spoiled but mediocre ego, encouraging her to believe she was a brilliant savant of social reform.
Another thing I am discovering is how predictable the plot is. So far I have predicted everyone's next move with 100% accuracy.
- Peter doesn't find Catherine at home. Where is she? At her Uncle Ellsworth Toohey's union rally, of course! Who didn't see that coming?
- There's a character named David who marries his fiance Elaine. We see him sliding, missing work. By now we have a clear picture of what motivates Peter, so it's a no-brainer that his self-serving ambition means facilitating David's removal, ditto what happens to his firm's lead designer.
Every step of the story is so formulaic, so transparent. There is no mystery, at least not yet. Still, I turn the page. The book is an easy read!
A SparkNotes character synopsis describes Roarke this way: "Rand holds him up as everything that man can and should be. Consequently, Roark does not develop over the course of the novel—the ideal man does not need to change." That doesn't make for a very interesting lead man. Even Moses had temper tantrums and shook his fist at God now and again.
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.
Ignoring Rand's philosophy makes The Fountainhead an enjoyable read. Go figure.Quote:
Originally Posted by JBI
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,
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
Howard Roarke is utterly boring. Character development? There is none. As for Peter Keating, we've figured him out in the first 60 pages, when he's back-stabbing his way upward to become Francon's right-hand man. Here is a sample sequence of dialogue, from pages 130-131, where he is talking to his old friend Peter Keating (or, should I say, Keating is talking to an apathetic Roarke?) after Roarke opens his own office:Quote:
Originally Posted by cows
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?
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ratroo
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.
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:
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.
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
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.
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.
Jozanny,Quote:
Originally Posted by 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/for...ad.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_upQuote:
Originally Posted by Scheherazade
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.Quote:
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.
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.
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.
Second-handers is what she calls them in the FountainheadQuote:
Originally Posted by laidbackperson
Dark Muse: I thought of you when I decided to post the url to this critique of Rand .
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
Great article! Thanks for posting it Jozanny.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
I read fountainhead in like 4 days
what a book
Awful writing. Combined with a philosophy that makes me physically shake with anger. Not a good combo.
I loved Anthem. I wished it had been longer. So I'm looking forward to reading "Atlas Shrugged".
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
Yes, I probably should get some profressional help, but I am not going to, because I have too much fun being demented.Quote:
Originally Posted by dfloyd
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollopicu
I agree with Chait about her inability to truly create characters instead of mere mouthpieces, but this all being conceded, Fountainhead is better structured as a novel, and slightly more interesting in how it uses the brutualism of 20th century architecture as a stand-in for her beliefs about the purity of good industry.
Rand might have called herself an atheist, but she was a personality cult on steroids.
How very interesting... I can see how the hypocrisy would bother you. I'm the same way. I myself don't let people off the hook so easily. Still... I want to read Atlas Shrugged because I'm eager to compare it to Anthem. I truly enjoyed it.
I have to admit though..what you posted, slightly disturbed me about her integrity and strength as a person.
I myself have stood so strongly behind my own beliefs to the point of alienating myself from most people of the outside world. (not internet) I'm ok with that.
On the other hand. Love is a strong emotion to control, if in fact she was in love with her ***. I don't know the history and story behind that drama.
Now you have me curious about her. I have to read up on Rand. If you have anything you'd like to share, I'd love to read it.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollopicu
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by mal4mac
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 :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Pollopicu
For instance in "Top Ten" edited by Zane over a hundred of today's top writers choose their top ten novels. These include many contemporary novels. Out of over 500 picked nothing by Rand is chosen. What did you love about Anthem? Are you reading admired contemporary authors, like Roth or Marquez? If so how is Rand better?
If you are living on a diet of bread and mouldy cheese you might love a bit of sour pickle.
Well first of all, until I read Anthem, I had never read a dystopian novel. I don't think I have since, so I don't know what to measure it up against. I can't compare Rand to Dumas, Flaubert, or Bronte..
I loved it because it was refreshingly different from the classic literature I'm use to reading. I might feel different once I read other dystopian novels on my wish-list. Like "The Trial" by Kafka, Maybe "1984" by Orwell, and "the Lottery" by Jackson.
I have not yet read Roth or Marquez. Would you please recommend which of their works I should read.
These are good ones to try. Also "Brave New World" by Aldous Huxley, and H.G. Wells's science fiction stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pollopicu
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Muse
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.Quote:
But all serious critics agree with Howard Bloom that Rand is a terrible writer. Have you read any generally admired writers - like Tolstoy, Dickens, Twain? Does Rand really compare to them? If so, why do you think the critics are wrong and you are right?
I wish intelligent and respectful men like him focused their energies on real issues I think is the death of our society as a whole.
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.