Talk Elections

I purchased Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead at a bookstore last night, and was wondering if anyone here had read it or Atlas Shrugged. If so, can you give me a short review?

I've read over 70% of Atlas Shrugged. The ironic thing is that my english teacher is giving them away for free because the Ayn Rand foundation was giving them away to teachers a couple years ago. Therefore, a book by someone who despised charity is being given away fro free.

Anyway, Atlas Shrugged is basically the story of a world where the common man is glorified, and businessmen are either demonized or are horrible businessmen who just mooch off each other or the government. Eventually, after more and more government regulation, the businessmen start disappearing one by one. I'm not going to give you the ending (you may have already read the ending on wikipedia).

In terms of reviewing it, a friend and I were joking about what a movie about the book might be like (there was actually a "part one" at some point). If it was to be accurate, the camera would have to stare at a character's face for ten minutes (or more) and just watch the slightest shift in the character's expression (trust me, you had to be there). Needless to say, the book is long and it has a lot of description. If you stop reading, it's hard to get back on, though I've done it. If you can stomach all the description and back-story, you might also be offended on how the book rips things such as charity, marriage, and God. However, if you can read it, that alone is an accomplishment.

I've read Atlas Shrugged. I found it quite interesting, although unconvincing and badly written.

I'd rather have an abdominal drain fitted without anesthetic.

I've been planning to pick up some of Rand's writing soon. I doubt I'll agree with much of what she has to say, but I am curious just what all the fuss is about. I've heard she's not that good a writer though, which is what's stopped me from picking her up yet.

I read Anthem, which I think is her shortest work. It doesn't have the complexity of some of the others, but it was interesting enough for a quick read.  A defense of individualism against collectivism, which I appreciate, but in a way lacking because her sort of individualism doesn't really lend itself to a consideration of the complicated and intimate meaning of human relationships.  I think if I were going to read a book as large as Atlas Shrugged I would go instead for Dosteyevski. The book of hers I am interested in reading is We The Living, as it is based more in her own life experience and those suffering under a historical totalitarianism.

I'd rather attend a Ke$ha concert followed by a death metal show followed by a service at BushOklahoma's church than read one paragraph of the nonsense spewed by that abominable woman.

I've read Atlas Shrugged four times (Never read The Fountainhead D:)

It's quite long but it's basically about how capitalism is good. That's the very blunt summary, it'd take several hours to describe the whole book.

Atlas Shrugged was probably a poor choice to read the week when I retired at age 35. 

The back story was good science fiction. She likes long, rambling monologes and was hidous at writing dialogue. 

Rand was a better philosopher than fiction writer.  Some of her philosophy is flawed in some aspects, i.e. assuming that money is the sole motivation in life.

How does that work?

I've read Atlas Shrugged thrice over the years. The first two times I was an impressionable young (13-15, some age around there) and ate it up. The third time though, a few years later, I read it in a more critical light and found how lacking and one dimensional the philosophy truly is. Rand's philosophy kind of works within the confines of her novel because the main protagonists are all flawless.

Even then, when reading the book, pay attention to the character of Eddie Willers especially towards the end. It's a perfect tale of how the average man gets screwed over by objectivism even if they're a hardworking capitalist at heart themselves. It was that observation more than anything else that made me realize how unapologetically horrible Rand's philosophy really is.

Haven't read either, but I've heard they're both incredibly boring.

Easy, all you need is for you spine to be in two parts.

The movie, Part I, just opened 15th; is it comparable to the book?
 Local radio guy interviewed the producer today. 400 screens $2m, gets bumped up to 1200 screens tomorrow.

Part 2 - 2012 April 15th
Part 3 - 2013 April 15th

Atlas shrugged is poorly written by means of description. This book is not sub-par in it's description, no, quite the opposite, 2 whole pages of close to 500 words describing this guy and his back story. Until about page, I don't know 200, it is nothing but torturous character development with a little spark of plot here and there. Then the book gets interesting. I'm not going to review the plot that much except this. Galt's speech in my version of the book is.
5 whole chapters.

I'm getting a impression from this thread & the authors that China has a lot in common.

The movie would need or could have many layers of rubicon type scripting.

anyone seen the the movie yet.

I saw a trailer for it, and it looked like they changed a lot of the book. However, I haven't finished the book yet. I wonder if it'll be successful enough for a party two, or if it'll just flop.

Suggest reading We the Living.  Probably Rand's best written work.

I've read both... one by choice, one for a book club.... the writing is abominable and incredibly, incredibly dense. The concepts themselves are interesting... but that didn't stop me wanting to take a running leap at a kitchen knife half-way through TF and about 20 pages into AS.

Rand has basically become the Marx of the Tea Party... albeit for those who can read.

That's just a little bit offensive to old Karl, no? She's more a Marcuse of the right.

I just finished reading Atlas shrugged this afternoon and it was well... different.

I think Rand has a few legitament points, mainly about the "looters" in the book but overall it was lacking in many ways. For one, there are only two characters in the book that are just copied over and over again with different names: the industrialist and the looter, no one else.

She seems to be operating under some kind of strange delusion that emotion is completely useless in all situations. Even her best musician writes with no emotion. Huh? How can the world's best musician operate that way. It's totally unbelieveable but to make an exception would ruin her thesis. It's sort of irritating that all her "good" characters are also psychopaths. It's like her idea of a utopia can only be achieved when we suck the world dry of all personal relationships. Who'd want to live in such a world as that even if the trains do come on time? Her ideas of how science is conducted are rather absurd as well.

I also virulently dissagree with her views of religion and sex (which probably goes without saying). She seems to be simultaneously arguing that morals are absolute and that morality doesn't exist.

I noticed this too. She seems full of contradictions on stuff like that.

I've just started reading The Fountainhead. Not to far into it yet but it doesn't seem that bad.

Atlas Shrugged did not impress me in the slightest.  As others have mentioned, it was poorly written, so poorly that I did not bother continuing after the first few pages.  Is the Fountainhead any better?

Regards,
John Doe

My father loves The Fountainhead, I've never tried it.  Only Rand I've managed to get all the way through was Anthem, and that's basically an oversized short story.

Anthem is like a second-rate "Harrison Bergeron."  I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

One thing that seems pretty clear... she really didn't like women did she?

Perhaps she just didn't like the characteristics traditionally associated with women by people like you, you male chauvinist.

;) 

Ah yes! That must be it ;)

Just ordered a copy of Atlas Shrugged.  I don't agree with most aspects of Rand's philosophy, but Anthem enticed me... even though that book definitely exaggerates collectivism.

Bump

I too am reading Atlas Shrugged. It is, simply put, challenging. It is 1,000 pages (not too much of a challenge, I just read Nixonland) and is very (almost too) descriptive. Rand’s philosophy is something I only half agree with. Her defense of the common man and his capacity to well in society is something I have always believed in and agree with. But the attacks on religion really bugged me. Rands philosophy states (a description was in the back of the book) that “facts are facts, A is A”. If one believes in God, then one should look at Gods existence as “fact” and “reason”. Rand also glorifies the common sociopath. I like the book, and I like the respect she held for the common man, but all in all, I find it was poorly written.

I just watched these videos today, and I thought they gave a good insight into Rand’s views and personality.




Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUwTHn-9hhU&feature=related
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6N4KbLbGYgk&feature=related
Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-q7cje1I3VM&feature=related
Part 5:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfqq4VKh1xM&list=UUNTrCzThyx2lV9B0KuM4RBg&index=36&feature=plcp

It is so incredibly boring!

I read Atlas Shrugged about ten years ago.  I found it to be slow, at first, but about halfway through it gets more interesting.  I suppose it's a bit like the movies "Malcolm X" and "Titanic" in the sense that it's a little too long, but not a bad read.

The Fountainhead was much better, in my opinion.  It's also very long, but it has less fluff.  It's good for the non-conformist in you.  At first glance, it is a story of one man and his struggles as an architect against a successful rival, but the book addresses deeper issues.  If you only read one of these two books, let it be Fountainhead.

When I was 12 I at least realized that the junk I was reading fell under the 'Fantasy' label.

My copy of Atlas Shrugged has worked pretty well as a doorstop.

Atlas Shrugged was a massive book in size, depth, and detail. It had way too many subplots, way too much detail, and as mentioned, had only two characters in multiple forms. But, for all her kinks in Atlas Shrugged, she still is a decent writer. Certainly not the best ever, but if you read Anthem and We the Living you will quickly find that her writing style was not as bad as it was in Atlas Shrugged.

If you are getting into Rand, I suggest you first read Anthem, and then We the Living. Anthem gives you a basic introduction to Objectivism. We the Living gives you background on why she thought the way she thought.

I agreed overall with Rand’s views on the divide between capitalists and the “looters.” But Rand’s views on religion are the opposite of what I think as a Christian. As a Paleoconservative, I believe that church/private welfare or charity programs are very beneficial to society and should be encouraged. But I don’t believe that my tax dollars should pay for welfare that I will never get. Rand’s opposition is much more sinister. Rand believed that it was belittling for a man to help another man because it did not benefit him. When pressed about this, Rand once said “I believe in charity and assistance. If my husband wants me to go get some milk at the store, I will do it. Why? Because it is in my self interest to keep his love.” If my mom, brother, or grandma asked me to go get some milk, I would do it whether it benefited me or not. As far as I know, love is supposed to be as close to unconditional as possible. Atlas Shrugged seems kind of contradictory when Dagny Taggart buys the homeless man dinner. Wasn’t that charity? You finally think something good is happening, when bam, you realize Dagny’s goal was to find out about an old factory. Once again, selfishness prevails.

Rand’s objection to Christianity was the most powerful argument for atheism I have ever read, but it had no effect on my spirituality whatsoever. Rand basically said that believing in a God would make you subhuman-a slave to a master. But, through Jesus dying for me, I am freed, and eternally in debt to him. I am pretty sure Rand would agree with me that you have to pay what you owe. How do Christians pay for the unpayable debt we have to Jesus? We love one another, as he loved us. Furthermore, Rand preached ration or reason as the best way for man to find answers. Ration tells me that human kind developing on our own is impossible, and that evolution is only half true. Others will disagree, and say that evolution is rationalized. That’s fine. It’s just a common disagreement, but at the end of the day, reason is seen through the eyes of the beholder.

Overall, Rand was a great writer, a decent (but misguided) philosopher, and a literary icon. While I don’t know what her personality was like, judging by her childhood and life in Russia, she was a very bitter, angry women who had a lot of hate. Christianity would of solved her problems, but she was very principled and stubborn, so she would never have excepted it. Her views on gender roles, charity, and “selfishness” were alright in theory, but awful in practice. It is not a bad thing to condemn the government for having social programs, but too condemn man himself? That is not Libertarianism at all. Its just the opposite in fact. Atlas Shrugged is a 7/10 in my opinion.

Anyone that thinks that she was a good writer needs to be sent to a re-education gulag immediately for some intensive brainwashing.

I think that the problem with Ayn Rand's books is that she's pushing an agenda so hard that it gets in the way of character development and her ideology becomes more important then telling a story and having multidimensional characters. That's not unique to her, it's also true for a lot of agenda driven fiction, "How The Steal Was Tempered" is another good example as are a lot of Christian apologetics like the "Left Behind" books and nazi garbage like the "Turner Diaries" which I skimmed at one point, couldn't stomach much of though.

Her notion of objectivism doesn't hold very well philosophically at all. At its core moral egoism doesn't really make sense. And I mean that not in a moralizing way but on pure logical grounds.

Could you expand on this?

Essentially, you can say that people ought to keep their own money even if they want to give it away. But that is pretty dumb. Alternatively you can say that people should just do what they actually do (since people sort of by definition do what they want) but that isn't a prescriptive moral theory. Rand sort of goes back and forth between the two in Atlas Shrugged. You can perhaps argue that people are brainwashed and that this should override what they think they want, but such a line would be the same kind of moralizing Rand is criticizing.

I think the worst part about children being continuously born is that there will always be a fresh new mind interested in discussing The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

It is truly the greatest flaw of God's creation.

Yes, nor does it really sound like moral egoism.


Max Stirner wrote that people always do what's in their interest, but because they often do so without admitting to themselves that that's why they do it (for example, by saying that they donate to charity because it's "the right thing to do", rather than because donating to charity makes them happy, and being happy is in their interest), people's thoughts and actions are confused and contradictory. Those who recognize that self-interest is the be-all and end-all of life, and actually think and act accordingly, are called "voluntary egoists", while everyone else is called an "involuntary egoist".

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was 15, and it turned me into a die hard partisan Democrat.

Well, they are books completely unknown in the rest of the world. That has to mean something (and something not precisely good).

Then it still isn't much of a prescriptive moral theory, just a description of why people do what they do.

Anthem fits very nicely in with the dystopian novels of the 1930's along with A Brave New World and predates 1984. It is so simple a 5th grader could read it and take away a lesson about how dreadful a collectivist society like that in the book would be.

I have not read We the Living but some people who are put off by the length of her two big novels happen to like that book particularly because it is semi-autobiographical and a more concise tale of real world totalitarianism.

A lot of people have issues with Rand's characters and if you are not interested in long monologues about individualism, being uncompromising, being against second-handers, etc. then you will not be able to enjoy The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged that much. Some people appreciate the mystery aspect of the story - "Who Is John Galt", the trail for the motor in the factory, the disappearing business leaders. Others may like the world it envisions and see some parallels to the absurdity of our modern world.

I think the lead female character, Dagny Taggart is an interesting one and a much improved lead than the sacrificial Dominique Francon from The Fountainhead. The architectural discussions of The Fountainhead certainly are thought out to the point of looking at Frank Lloyd Wright vs the other popular architects of the day such as Le Corbusier whose style maybe is closer to that which Roark was going for but who made projects like the one that Peter Keating would typically make. The world of Atlas Shrugged takes a leap in to wild conjecture where you can say it too is a dystopian world like in Anthem - 19th century adventurer railroaders meet mid 20th century corporations where the world has more or less fallen to People's States. Having read a few essays from the Voices of Reason collection, watched some videos of her and her immediate heir Leonard Peikoff, and read Anthem and The Fountainhead I feel I have a good understanding on the strengths and weaknesses of Rand going into Atlas Shrugged both from a literary and philosophical point of view. This was important for me. I don't think Atlas Shrugged is a good starting point for Rand. It is a big time investment at over 1,100 pages. I seriously doubt Donald Trump has read it - maybe audio book perhaps but even there I am not sure if he has the patience. The books take about 100-200 pages to get into the groove I've found.

I like her punchy style and word choice though she falls back on tropes - how many times are they looking up at skyscrapers or over some cliff? Her philosophy is incomplete and uncompromising in practice they talk about reason. On paper it expands on some good ideas from Aristotle and the Founding Fathers, is in line with classical liberalism and the Enlightenment, as well as giving a voice to the non-aggression principle at least in regards to personal conduct and domestic affairs.

The fiction books do not delve into foreign policy. The essays do and her less stated allegiance to US-Israeli militarism and pre-emptive & total war is my biggest issue. She would have advocated a quick war against Iran for the hostage crisis. Perhaps this is why she did not support Reagan in 1980 though she had supported Nixon (prior to his price controls and ending of the international gold standard exception of course).

Unfortunately Peikoff and the current Ayn Rand Institute head Yaron Brook are even more into the pro-Israel militarism stance than Rand and they talk so much about attacking Iran so I continue to view the current Objectivists with a grain of salt. It is this that bothers me about them much more than for instance a silly point about Robin Hood in Atlas Shrugged, the misuse of the word 'selfish', or her blatant dismissal of religion.

In that her philosophy and writing came at an ebb in free market ideas and was the kickstarter of the modern libertarian movement - Rothbard and Walter Block both have interesting anecdotes about meeting Rand, Nathaniel Branden, and Alan Greenspan  and how they were rejected by Rand - it is a key for greater understanding of capitalism. In particular because you can go into nearly any bookstore in America and find at least these two novels it is very important as she has much more reach than Mises, Hayek, Rothbard or the classical liberal economists & philosophers of the 18th and 19th centuries will ever have.

As a post script and if anyone is interested two professors who have taught about the book in university and are Ayn Rand Institute scholars are hosting a Facebook Live group to go through Atlas Shrugged chapter by chapter - no spoilers allowed. It will feature discussions, lectures and comments on the topics in each chapter as they occur. Given how I have a positive feeling about the books and some of the philosophical curiosity behind it I decided to join the group. They start on September 2nd.

I got the book as a present earlier in the summer. Don't know when I'll read it, but it's likely to be one of the next three books I read.

Is that really true? When I was 11, I deliberately misspelled a word in a spelling bee so I wouldn't win. I was teased a lot about being "smart" and having "a computer brain" and felt self-conscious. Clearly, misspelling the word was not in my best interest, though it did help avoid some of the negative emotions (self-consciousness and embarrassment) that would have come from winning. I think "everyone is selfish" assumes people are much more rational, assertive, and self-assured than they are in reality.

Some thoughts on Atlas Shrugged that I wrote up a while back:

1) Despite her tendency to go on and on at times, Rand has a great knack for metaphor, magical realism, and imagery. The descriptions of the collapsing society are long-winded, but almost always captivating. Things fall to pieces very gradually, mimicking how these things happen in real life (socialism always works in the beginning, when there's still a lot of wealth to seize). One great line stood out to me: "The inhabitants of New York had never had to be aware of the weather. Storms had been only a nuisance that slowed the traffic and made puddles in the doorways of brightly lit shops... Now, facing the gusts of snow that came sweeping down the narrow streets, people felt in dim terror that they were the temporary intruders and that the wind had the right-of-way."

2) The mystery is built up expertly. Lots of fake-outs, which get irritating in an effective way-- they make you want to read more. When the origin of the phrase "Who is John Galt" gets revealed, it's immensely satisfying. In the last third of the book, the pieces start to fall together intricately, and in a logical, coherent way.

3) For all I've heard about how unrealistic and silly the book is, I can't put my finger on why it feels silly. It sure does seem ludicrous at times, but I'm still waiting on the argument that empirically explains that. Some people say it's ridiculous to imagine a situation where incompetent fools seize control of a country's agriculture, killing millions in a massive famine... except that happened in China. Some people say it's silly to imagine a country where the best and brightest are persecuted because they are the best and brightest... except that happened in Cambodia. Some people claim that it's insane to say that corrupt bureaucrats who are impotent and inept in every aspect of their lives could rise to power in a country, plundering the nation's wealth for themselves and killing those who protest their rule... except that happened in Russia. I think that, without the context of communism, the book seems pretty dumb to a lot of people. I guess they'll learn just how realistic it is one way or another.

The most ridiculous part of the book is easily the "strike" itself, where the nation's most productive individuals  off to Colorado while everything decays behind them. But this is just a description of the brain drain, only with a little magical realism. Rand even accounts for this by making every nation in the world a socialist "democracy," which leaves smart people with nowhere to run. Yeah, it's exaggerated... but it's got one foot in the realm of possibility.

4) A great lead character. Why is Dagny Taggart-- a genius railway executive who constantly outshines her talentless brother-- not considered a feminist icon? Maybe it's because Rand also uses her as a channel to work through her demented sexual predilections. Still, despite a few eyebrow-raising sex scenes, I found this character compelling. She has a very rational thought process that makes her relatable and human. Like all of Rand's characters, she's an archetype and an exaggeration, but I appreciated her ruthless competence and cutting wit.

5) Rand showed incredible foresight in mocking her detractors. Her critics (who have never read her works) call her "anti-social," "psychopathic," and "egotistical," which ironically makes them sound like villains in one of her stories. This creates a feedback loop in which those who critique her fulfill her prophecies. This woman was a legit troll. I find this whole situation funny.

Now the bad:

1) Given the existence of global warming, the book hasn't aged well. It literally ends with a judge writing a new amendment to the constitution, stating that congress shall pass no law restricting free enterprise. Really, Ayn? No law at all? So those people drinking flammable fracking water in Oklahoma have no legal recourse in your perfect world? I don't think the woman grasped the concept of unintentional externalities (as evidenced by her love of cigarettes). If she'd known about climate change, she'd probably think it was awesome.

2) A distinct lack of unique characters. Every "good" (see: selfish) character is handsome/beautiful, confident, and completely without any self-doubt. Every "bad" character has a loathsome, ugly name (Wesley Mouch), and the various bureaucrats are generally indistinguishable from one another. There are a few notable exceptions, but I think there are a lot more facets to human nature that Rand didn't bother to explore here. When a worldview boils everything down to a "two kinds of people" theory, you know it's flawed. All of the conflict is external to the characters; there's very little personal growth in the story, and Rand leaves no possibility of redemption for her villains. Also, in the entire US, there is apparently only one person capable of running a bank, one person capable of mining coal, one person capable of manufacturing cars, etc. It seems extremely half-assed.

3) A sixty-page speech. This comes right before the last hundred pages of the book, and makes the conclusion feel rushed in comparison. Hey Ayn, did you know that speeches of this length are indicative of megalomania? You and Qaddafi would have been best buds. I feel no shame in saying that I skipped this part (it's the only part of the book I did this with).

4) Going off of point number two, no characters change. In Rand's world, changing is seen as a weakness, and I somewhat agree-- but one should always alter their worldview based on contradictory facts (though not based on contradictory opinions). If a villainous "looter" character had seen the error in his ways at the end, that might've made Rand's tent a little more inclusive. But I don't think she has any interest in reaching across the aisle, as evidenced by her statement that "the midpoint between right and wrong is evil." As it is, the villains do ultimately see their own errors, though by that point they're essentially beyond saving. One character, an industrialist, does go through a change-- he learns to be less generous. ayy lmao

5) Despite some predicative power, the book conjures up some caricatures that are just patently ridiculous-- not the least of which is the preeminent scientist who denounces reason. 1000 pages later, and I'm still not sure what Rand was trying to say with that character.

6) The most conclusive argument against Objectivism appears to be its followers. Rand herself testified against communists for McCarthy-- a sin I can almost forgive, considering her personal history. Paul Ryan is a Rand-lover who appears to have no understanding of insurance, health care, or government in general. Donald Trump says he read The Fountainhead, a dubious claim at best, given that the book is well beyond his attention span of 140 characters. But then again, Rand's fans include Gene Roddenberry, who created the best television series of all time, and which incorporated some elements of her philosophy. Overall though, I don't think it's fair to judge a philosophy by its adherents, which is fortunate for Rand.