Printable View
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?
Nevermind.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nome1486
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.
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
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 . . .
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
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sitaram
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.
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.
Didn't she die alone and bitter?
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?
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/for...ead.php?t=3911
Happy reading! :)
every time you read ayn rand...
god kills a puppy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by metaxy99
: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....
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.
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.
Ayn was something of a romantic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ayn Rand's Oath
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by imthefoolonthehill
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.........
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. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by baddad
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.
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.
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......Quote:
Originally Posted by red leaves
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.
I tried Atlas Shrugged and after about 50 pages I gave up. I got a collection of her books in my library unread.
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.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Countess
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
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'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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Countess
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazel-Ra
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.
Try We the Living.
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.