Ayn Rand

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.

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:


?=)

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.

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!

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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