Are these books worth keeping and reading?

Cafe Society
21

[QUOTE=Missy2U]
My husband brought back another box of books from Community Service yesterday, and among them were Atlas Shrugged and We the Living. Over the years, I’ve heard an awful lot of negative stuff about Ayn Rand and these books are not - er - short.

In nutshell, are these worth keeping and reading or do these go in the “donate” pile? What did YOU think of them if you’ve read them? Are they good stories? AM I going to have to spend hours trying to figure out what she’s really getting at (some deeper meaning or some such bullshit)? I’ve heard Ayn Rand is all about “angst” - if I want angst I’ll talk to my kid. When I read for fun, I want to be entertained - will I be?

Keep in mind I’m the poster that couldn’t get through Bonfire of the Vanities to save my life - it just sucked IMO that bad.
[/QUOTE]

*We the Living * is an early work written before Rand’s ego ran wildly out of control and is actually quite readable.The thing that ruins *Atlas Shrugged * for most readers is the frequent, lengthy sermonizing about her philosophy–very tiresome if you’re not already strongly sympathetic to her views, and I doubt that you are. If half-baked quasi-Nietzscheanism isn’t your thing, read *We the Living * and skip Atlas Shrugged.

22

Anyhting by Rand makes excellent kindling. When I was a philosophy student the adherents to objectivism were just slightly less looney than scientologists.

23

I think Atlas Shrugged is worth a read. I’ve actually considered reading it again - the first time I read it I skimmed over most of the book and just followed the major storyline. She had some extreme ideas that she likes to hammer you over the head with but if you read the book at least you can bash her with impunity.

24

[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
Doh, yes. That was the main point of The Fountainhead.
[/QUOTE]

No. It wasn’t.

25

It’s impossible to understand Ayn Rand without realizing that she was a refugee from the Soviet Union. That she had seen her country enslaved by people who constantly claimed to be working for the good of humanity. And people who didn’t have the correct unselfish public spirit could literally be sent to the firing squad. All in the name of altruism, and sharing and self-sacrifice.

And, hard as it may be to remember here in 2007, back in the 50s marxism was still intelletually respectable. She had seen her country overrun by collectivism. Collectivist Fascism had overrun Europe and had only been defeated at tremendous cost and suffering.

So she saw mistaken ideologies as a tremendous threat, and could never get over the feeling of insecurity, that enlightenment values could be overthrown by a few thugs spouting stupid platitudes about self-sacrifice. And since liberal values were so insecure against evil philosophy, stupid and incorrect choices of values were just as evil, because that is what enabled the totalitarians to seize power. Failure to defend liberal values wasn’t just misguided, it was a positive evil that lead straight to the Gulag. Her fixation on the absolute importance of the correct ideology/philosophy is a reaction against the explicitly ideological/philosophical Marxist regime she had escaped.

So her entire body of work is polemical, and a bit hysterical. But the image from Atlas Shrugged of an entire country destroying itself in the name of the common good and selflessness isn’t ludicrous, because that exact thing happened in Russia, it happened in Germany.

She preached that the family was unimportant, and the self was all…not surprising considering that in order to escape the Soviet Union she had to cut herself off from her family, forever. Her fixation with powerful men…well, let’s just say that the so-called rape scene in The Fountainhead isn’t a masculine fantasy, it’s a personal fantasy of Ayn Rand. The nonsensical scene where Reardon gives up Dagny so she can be with John Galt? Look up Nathaniel Branden. And so on.

Of course, my defense of Rand as a product of her particular psychology and history would be bitterly opposed by her, since her ideal was the self-created individual motivated entirely by rational thought and the pursuit of excellence. As she put it: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

26

[QUOTE=H3Knuckles]
Well, I’m going to give a dissenting voice;

I’ve never read them, but my brother (basically libertarian, who works in the stock market), and my sister (democrat/liberal, but not exactly hard-left) both love it. In my experience, people either love it or hate it (Atlas Shrugged), and this board is heavily skewed to people who hate it, based on my experiences about when it comes up in conversations here. While of the two people I know who most like it, neither are of the political bent that detractors here will imply that it’s for. But political inclination, or perhaps more accurately, one’s perceived politics seems to be a big part of whether people like it.
[/QUOTE]

My political inclination is certainly a lot more towards Ayn Rand’s than away, but I could barely finish Atlas Shrugged. I’m libertarian enough that there is no political party in my country that even comes close to representing my views. I’m a big believer in capitalism, government noninterference in economic life, and self-responsibility, but I’m also a believer in believable dialogue, realistic characters, and following Strunk’s advice to omit needless words.

Atlas Shrugged, as novels go, is a piece of shit. It’s every bit as bad as a Harlequin romance or a Star Trek dime novel; in fact, since it’s much longer than those, it’s worse, and anyone who says otherwise is just blinded by ideology. (I will also concede that many people who hate it hate it for its politics, not its shitty writing, and would love an equally awful novel that advocated their political beliefs.) It’s almost as bad as Clive Cussler. Unless you’re the sort of person who loves anything they agree with, it’s just painful to read. And I stress I actually lean heavily towards her side of the political battlefield.

But people loved The Da Vinci Code and it was painful to read, too, so go figure. Some people have even claimed to have finished Lisey’s Story, which I would not have believed possible.

As to the “you should read it to know what all the fuss is about,” I can’t disagree more. If a book sucks, stop reading it unless your grades depend on it. If you want to understand the political message, look it up on Wikipedia, which you can read in 1/1000th the time and without your eyes exploding in flame from the atrocious dialogue.

27

I read Atlas Shrugged in college for the very reason you mentioned. Everyone said it was a book I ‘must’ read.

Piece of absolute shit. I wouldn’t use it to prop the door of the outhouse open, even if I was going to tear pages out and use them as toilet paper. After I’d eaten bad meat and ex-Lax for a week.

I kept muttering “yes, I get it, please move along now…”

I don’t disagree with her ideas entirely, or agree for that matter, but I get the feeling that if I’d ever met the woman, I would have stridently opposed anything in the world she supported. It’s that bad.

28

[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
No. It wasn’t.
[/QUOTE]

Cunning argument!

29

[QUOTE=RickJay]
As to the “you should read it to know what all the fuss is about,” I can’t disagree more. If a book sucks, stop reading it unless your grades depend on it. If you want to understand the political message, look it up on Wikipedia, which you can read in 1/1000th the time and without your eyes exploding in flame from the atrocious dialogue.
[/QUOTE]

My point was to at least start reading it and decide for yourself, rather than just take the opinion of a bunch of people on a message board as the final word.

There have been posts by people who have enjoyed both books mentioned by the OP. I would imagine the reason they enjoyed the books is because they decided to take it upon themselves read them.

30

[QUOTE=RickJay]
But people loved The Da Vinci Code and it was painful to read, too, so go figure.
[/QUOTE]

Oh my goodness. I didn’t think there were two of us on the planet. I thought that reading The DaVinci Code was as painful as rolling around naked in a pool full of glass splinters.

For the OP…I’ve read Anthem, Atlas Shrugged, and The Fountainhead. Ayn’s philosophy aside (and I lean toward her individualistic thoughts), they’re not horrible, but a few more edits should definitely have been performed.

AS is one of the few paperbacks that didn’t fit very well in my laptop case’s outer pocket. It should have been slimmer.

-Cem

31

[QUOTE=Little Plastic Ninja]
Cunning argument!
[/QUOTE]

No, it’s a statement of fact. Similar to your statement except that yours was inaccurate.

32

[QUOTE=Lemur866]
It’s impossible to understand Ayn Rand without realizing that she was a refugee from the Soviet Union. That she had seen her country enslaved by people who constantly claimed to be working for the good of humanity. And people who didn’t have the correct unselfish public spirit could literally be sent to the firing squad. All in the name of altruism, and sharing and self-sacrifice.

And, hard as it may be to remember here in 2007, back in the 50s marxism was still intelletually respectable. She had seen her country overrun by collectivism. Collectivist Fascism had overrun Europe and had only been defeated at tremendous cost and suffering.

So she saw mistaken ideologies as a tremendous threat, and could never get over the feeling of insecurity, that enlightenment values could be overthrown by a few thugs spouting stupid platitudes about self-sacrifice. And since liberal values were so insecure against evil philosophy, stupid and incorrect choices of values were just as evil, because that is what enabled the totalitarians to seize power. Failure to defend liberal values wasn’t just misguided, it was a positive evil that lead straight to the Gulag. Her fixation on the absolute importance of the correct ideology/philosophy is a reaction against the explicitly ideological/philosophical Marxist regime she had escaped.

So her entire body of work is polemical, and a bit hysterical. But the image from Atlas Shrugged of an entire country destroying itself in the name of the common good and selflessness isn’t ludicrous, because that exact thing happened in Russia, it happened in Germany.

She preached that the family was unimportant, and the self was all…not surprising considering that in order to escape the Soviet Union she had to cut herself off from her family, forever. Her fixation with powerful men…well, let’s just say that the so-called rape scene in The Fountainhead isn’t a masculine fantasy, it’s a personal fantasy of Ayn Rand. The nonsensical scene where Reardon gives up Dagny so she can be with John Galt? Look up Nathaniel Branden. And so on.

Of course, my defense of Rand as a product of her particular psychology and history would be bitterly opposed by her, since her ideal was the self-created individual motivated entirely by rational thought and the pursuit of excellence. As she put it: “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”
[/QUOTE]

That is a well-worded response, and I agree with most of it. I have read almost everything Rand has written, and while I disagree with her political/philosophical ideas, her novels are thought-provoking. I think that Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are necessary reading for anyone who wants to be well-read. Anthem and We The People are nice additions, just for the sake of intellectual discussion at dinner parties or other gatherings.

Despite all the criticism, I think she had a significant voice in political/philosophical literature. And I still enjoy re-reading her works.

33

All of Rand’s works are definitely worth reading. Even if you don’t like them, at least it will be your honest opinion, rather than listening to all the “critics” who never actually read her books. But if you’re going to read Rand, you really should start with *The Fountainhead. *It’s a book about individuality and is easier to swallow than *Atlas. *Believe me, I know; I’ve swallowed both, many times.

34

[QUOTE=panache45]
All of Rand’s works are definitely worth reading. Even if you don’t like them, at least it will be your honest opinion, rather than listening to all the “critics” who never actually read her books. But if you’re going to read Rand, you really should start with *The Fountainhead. *It’s a book about individuality and is easier to swallow than *Atlas. *Believe me, I know; I’ve swallowed both, many times.
[/QUOTE]

The Fountainhead has the same theme as Atlas Shrugged. The idea that The Fountainhead is about doing your own thing and sticking to your own personal values (which is most people’s definition of individuality) is incorrect. Rand is still expressing the exact same values as Atlas Shrugged, but she is doing it from a different perspective. In The Fountainhead she approaches it from the viewpoint of one man, while Atlas Shrugged encompasses society as a whole.

It appears I am in the extreme minority in saying this, but Atlas Shrugged is without question the greatest novel I have ever read. I would disagree strongly with anyone who compares it to a Star Trek novel or romance novel. I have read many Star Trek novels as well as a few romance novels; there is no comparison. It is a philosophical novel. She chose the format of a novel to express her ideals. Obviously there are going to be many passages, including the 100 page speech previously mentioned, that are going to elaborate on her ideals. She uses character speeches to accomplish this. If you want to read a book where dialog is limited to single-word responses, and where no one talks about anything substantial or meaningful, then by all means read a romance novel.

Atlas Shrugged is certainly about heroes; heroes that have superpowers of absolute reason, ruthless efficiency, unwavering idealism. They live in a flawed world, but want to mold that world into their vision of Utopia. But just because these characters are idealized heroes is not a reason to discard the book. Many authors have written about heroes. It is a part of our culture. Heroes have existed in literature for thousands of years.

I do not see Rand’s view of the world as “hysterical”, either. All one has to do is look at the world today to realize that her view of how things might go if they continue along a certain path is pretty accurate. It has happened before and it will likely happen again.

I will say this: if you do not believe in the concept of absolute morality or absolute reason, you probably should not waste your time reading any of Rand’s work.

I do not agree with everything Rand says. I am not an Objectivist fanboy. I believe a few of her conclusions are flawed; this is because of faulty premises. However, I still consider her work to be great.

I would be interested in seeing someone say something beyond, “RAND SUCKS!” or, “RAND’S DISCIPLES ARE ALL LOONIES!” if they are going to critique her work.

35

[QUOTE=Mike Fun]
When I was a philosophy student the adherents to objectivism were just slightly less looney than scientologists.
[/QUOTE]
Yet no one seems to have a rational argument against it, just endless ad hominem.