Who is John Galt?

[Emil Miller]

I didn't say she wasn't widely translated. But a writer can be widely translated and not mean anything to the people of these countries. Go ask the Portuguese or the Italian if they even know her or give a hoot about her ideas, I think a few will probably have heard of her, fewer will care.

You could say that about the millions of people of any nationality who haven't heard of her, but they probably aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway. Very few people, proportionately, have read Das Kapital but nobody would doubt its influence.

[Scheherazade]

You could say that about the millions of people of any nationality who haven't heard of her, but they probably aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway.

A rather harsh and dismissive comment, I'd say.

I hadn't heard of Rand until I joined this Forum along with many authors considered "influential" in Europe or the USA. I do not think that was because I lacked seriousness where my reading was concerned but simply because I was exposed to and was very busy reading other authors and books, which were deemed "influential" in my own culture.

I agree with Heteronym to a certain degree that culture and social background shape our learning experiences. As much as I wanted to, I could not see the point of On The Road or Catcher in the Rye, for example, even though they are considered important books in shaping a certain era in American Literature.

[Emil Miller]

A rather harsh and dismissive comment, I'd say.

I hadn't heard of Rand until I joined this Forum along with many authors considered "influential" in Europe or the USA. I do not think that was because I lacked seriousness where my reading was concerned but simply because I was exposed to and was very busy reading other authors and books, which were deemed "influential" in my own culture.

I agree with Heteronym to a certain degree that culture and social background shape our learning experiences. As much as I wanted to, I could not see the point of On The Road or Catcher in the Rye, for example, even though they are considered important books in shaping a certain era in American Literature.

Yes this is why I say: 'probably' aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway. There is usually an exception to the rule and this is underlined by the fact that you came to know of Rand through a literary forum which proportionately has relatively few members compared to the overall readership of the countries from whence its members originate.
I too don't see the point of and why On The Road or Catcher in the Rye are supposed to be influential but was aware of them long before the forum came into existence.

[Heteronym]

You could say that about the millions of people of any nationality who haven't heard of her, but they probably aren't the kind of people who would be likely to read seriously anyway. Very few people, proportionately, have read Das Kapital but nobody would doubt its influence.

Well, the thing is, at least up to 1992, Karl Marx was amongst the top ten most cited people in academic writings. The other nine? Lenin, Shakespeare, Aristotle, the Bible, Plato, Freud, Chomsky, Hegel and Cicero. So even serious academics don't seem to take her that serious at all. I'm sure most people haven't read it, but if you ask most people whether they've heard of Karl Marx's Das Kapital, anywhere in the world they'll say, yes. Ayn Rand? The further you move from the Anglo-American world, the likelier her name and work will be obscure.

[WyattGwyon]

Recently, a friend of mine living in Seattle (we had both read Atlas Shrugged as teens—and yes I am the kind of person who reads serious literature), mentioned in passing that in a local bookstore he saw Atlas Shrugged shelved in the science fiction section. I assumed this was an intentional slight perpetrated by a manager with a sense of humor. The more I thought about it, however, the more I saw the logic behind the decision, for the novel's weak and strong points (as well as that on which the plot turns) are precisely what one might expect from that kind of genre fiction:

Strong points: There is an intriguing conception behind it: the notion that the destruction of the world could be a profoundly moral act carried out by a novel's heroes. The plotting and pacing of the plot is actually pretty ingenious—as science fiction, though glacially slow if you are a fan of the genre.

Weaknesses: The "good" characters are cardboard mouthpieces for the author's philosophy and they all spout lengthy, more or less interchangeable speeches. One is constantly pummeled with puerile symbolism and hackneyed imagery. The author seems to have had a penchant for rape fantasies and a comical, Darwinian view of romantic relationships. The alpha male de jour always gets the girl, as she trades up like four times to finally land the ultimate specimen of absolute philosophical purity. Aaaargh!

So, for young readers: Sure go ahead. You will be exposed to big ideas and from it you will learn a lot that is relevant to the world in which we live, since this book is the power behind the libertarian movement. It may do you good to think about issues the book raises. But it is not very good literature. Reading it expecting something on the level of middling Asimov, you might not be too disappointed. I can't help thinking, however, that there are hundreds of better novels one might read . . .

[Shevek]

I think it's unfortunate that on a literature forum some members are trying to discourage others from reading a book. For better or for worse, Atlas Shrugged is one of the most influential books of all time and it deserves a read for that reason alone.

Regardless of its debatable influence, the OP expressed boredom with the book. I don't advocate dropping a book the second it gets boring, but Atlas Shrugged really doesn't get any better as it progresses. The whole thing is pretty tedious unless one can stomach the fact that it's a long-winded propaganda piece.

[stlukesguild]

I quite like this article on Rand:

http://www.firstthings.com/article/2...-with-ayn-rand

[Emil Miller]

So even serious academics don't seem to take her that serious at all. I'm sure most people haven't read it, but if you ask most people whether they've heard of Karl Marx's Das Kapital, anywhere in the world they'll say, yes. Ayn Rand? The further you move from the Anglo-American world, the likelier her name and work will be obscure.

That may be because some serious academics have a penchant for taking themselves too seriously. In any case, how representative are they compared to those who might have been influenced by Rand?
It is unlikely that her name is restricted to locality in the age of the Internet. A former member of this forum who lives in the Philippines told me that Atlas Shrugged had been a major influence in her life.

I quite like this article on Rand:

' There was, however, the same frantic look of terrible recognition in my eyes, the same pitch of hopeless horror in my voice, the same sense of doom. I had just discovered that some malevolent wretch had done it at last: had made a film of Atlas Shrugged.'



'All right, all right—perhaps I’m being just a little spiteful. I may even be overreacting.'

No kidding ?

[Summer M]

Regardless of its debatable influence, the OP expressed boredom with the book.

After reading 3% of it.

I don't advocate dropping a book the second it gets boring, but Atlas Shrugged really doesn't get any better as it progresses. The whole thing is pretty tedious unless one can stomach the fact that it's a long-winded propaganda piece.

There is value in reading boring literature, because an intellectual life requires one to read many boring writings. Besides, it is impossible to read only interesting things because one can't tell what's interesting until one reads a work through. So, one's reading "career" will invariably involve reading many boring works. That's OK.

EDIT:

... if you ask most people whether they've heard of Karl Marx's Das Kapital, anywhere in the world they'll say, yes

Questions of this form usually get a "yes". Put the question is the following form: "Please name the major work by Karl Marx, the one that is 3,000 pages long", and not five percent will know the answer.

[Dark Muse]

I absolutely loved the book. I get that a lot of people do not agree with Rand's philosophy, but I am honestly not sure why people are so hard on her writing. A part of me thinks their opinions of her philosophy affect the way in which they judge her books as a whole.

Personally I think she creates some very intriguing characters and I do generally enjoy her writing. The first book I read of hers was The Fountainhead, and at that time I really knew nothing about her philosophical view points or the controversy about her. I just read the back of the book, and thought it sounded interesting. And I found the book to be completely fascinating. Granted it is true that through reading her I did become something of a Rand fan, and I do agree with some of the ideas she proposes. But I enjoyed the book for its own sake as well.

I think you should give it a chance.

[Whifflingpin]

"Please name the major work by Karl Marx, the one that is 3,000 pages long", and not five percent will know the answer.
Is it "The Fat Lady Sings" ?

[Emil Miller]

I absolutely loved the book. I get that a lot of people do not agree with Rand's philosophy, but I am honestly not sure why people are so hard on her writing. A part of me thinks their opinions of her philosophy affect the way in which they judge her books as a whole.

Personally I think she creates some very intriguing characters and I do generally enjoy her writing. The first book I read of hers was The Fountainhead, and at that time I really knew nothing about her philosophical view points or the controversy about her. I just read the back of the book, and thought it sounded interesting. And I found the book to be completely fascinating. Granted it is true that through reading her I did become something of a Rand fan, and I do agree with some of the ideas she proposes. But I enjoyed the book for its own sake as well.

I think you should give it a chance.

I gave up on Rand's We the Living about one fifth into the book as it went over ground that I was very familiar with from other books covering the period and didn't seem to be adding anything to the scenario. I don't find her philosophy of 'objectivism' a cause for rolling on the ground in self-abnegation but I could never agree with the idea that The Virtue of Selfishness is an acceptable title or theme for a book. Perhaps I should try to read it sometime but I doubt if I could ever accept such a denial of the basic human instinct of charity.
However, blanket condemnation is something that both Rand and her critics have in common and, amusingly enough, in judging her work it's objectivity that's required. I'm sure she would have agreed.

[cyberbob]

I absolutely loved the book. I get that a lot of people do not agree with Rand's philosophy, but I am honestly not sure why people are so hard on her writing. A part of me thinks their opinions of her philosophy affect the way in which they judge her books as a whole.

Personally I think she creates some very intriguing characters and I do generally enjoy her writing. The first book I read of hers was The Fountainhead, and at that time I really knew nothing about her philosophical view points or the controversy about her. I just read the back of the book, and thought it sounded interesting. And I found the book to be completely fascinating. Granted it is true that through reading her I did become something of a Rand fan, and I do agree with some of the ideas she proposes. But I enjoyed the book for its own sake as well.

I think you should give it a chance.

I like her philosophy and I enjoyed reading her book of essays "philosophy-who needs it?" but as works of art, her stories just aren't that good.

I think part of the problem for me was that I had already read The Fountainhead, and after reading that 1000 page book, I didn't feel like reading another 1000 page book that was essentially the exact same story.

I think she's very smart and I admire some things about her, and I agree with you that a lot of the hate that she gets comes from people who A.) have never read her books. or B.) Won't give her a chance because they're too committed to their left-wing politics.

And the thing is that people misconstrue her philosophy a lot of the time. Her philosophy isn't out to defend just business moguls. I mean, a lot of the antagonists in her stories ARE businessmen. Her philosophy doesn't espouse greed or social darwinism, it espouses the power of the individual. That applies to artists and thinkers as much as businessmen.

People also misinterpret what she means when she says that selfishness is a virtue. She doesn't mean selfishness in the way that we usually associate it. As in being cruel or willing to do whatever to get what you want. In fact, the antagonists in her story are selfish in this sense and mostly they all end up miserable. In that sense, she would be just as much against the corruption in wall street as the most ardent liberal.

With all of that being said, I still can hardly stomach reading her books. It's just not my idea of what art should be. I don't have a problem with intellectual/political/didactic art per se, but at least do it ARTFULLY.

[Summer M]

I could never agree with the idea that The Virtue of Selfishness is an acceptable title or theme for a book. Perhaps I should try to read it sometime but I doubt if I could ever accept such a denial of the basic human instinct of charity.

These ideas have not originated with Rand. Why isn't Twain reviled for espousing some of the same views in What is Man?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by the basic human instinct of charity, but Richard Dawkins has probably done more to destroy that idea on scientific grounds than Twain or Rand have done to destroy it on philosophical or theoretical grounds.

[Dark Muse]

With all of that being said, I still can hardly stomach reading her books. It's just not my idea of what art should be. I don't have a problem with intellectual/political/didactic art per se, but at least do it ARTFULLY.

I find what you say quite interesting, considering that I do find her books to be genuinely captivating to read. Perhaps it is just because I do like philosophical novels as a whole. Or maybe it is just that because I feel on a personal level I can relate so well to a lot of what she says that makes the reading of it more interesting for me.