I had never heard of her before I moved to the US.
I read the books so that I can understand all the “Who is John Galt?” references in the various newsgroups that I frequented.
See those funny underlined parts of people’s posts? Those are called links. If you have a cursor on your screen, you can put it on top of those links, and then when you click on them, more information will come up. I know that having more information can feel alarming and challenge the existing information that you have, but you might try it out. It can be very liberating.
In any event, if you clicked on the link that’s been offered more than once in this thread about best-selling books, you’d find: A Tale of Two Cities, The Lord of the Rings, And Then There Were None, The Hobbit, Le Petit Prince, The Da Vinci Code, The Catcher in the Rye…
All of these, believe it or not, are in fact novels (or novella, in one case). Even The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has reportedly sold more than Atlas Shrugged, and that’s if you accept the Ayn Rand Institute’s estimate of 6 million copies ever sold.
We ought to have monthly threads devoted to Douglas Adams. His philosophy is much more realistically viable anyway.
I’d hardly heard of her before coming to the Dope, and she’s really not a famous person here. Also, the first time I was ever really interested in learing more than the Cliff Notes I picked up at Uni, was in a The Incredibles thread, IIRC.
Yeah. Well, they may wish it sold half a million copies every year, but that ain’t happening. A might equal A, but the only people scrambling for Atlas Shrugged right now are teabaggers spurred on by Michelle Malkin. I’d bet that 10% of the copies sold this year will actually be read, and about 1% of those will have the desired impact on the reader.
Still on your high horse, I see.
Look, the extent of my knowledge on the sales of Atlas Shrugged was based on a comment William F. Buckley made on Charlie Rose’s show. I don’t recall when the interview was done, but probably sometime in the late nineties. And not only did I consider Buckley, as the author of some 53 or so books and presumably well plugged in to the world of publishing (a world in which accurate sales figures are notoriously hard to come by) and not particularly enamored of the book itself (he felt The Fountainhead was a good book but said about Atlas Shrugged, “It’s a thousand pages of ideological fabulism; I had to flog myself to read it”), that he not only was in a position to know what he was talking about but had no particular reason to make it seem like a bigger seller than it was.
Then again Buckley was something of a genious, and geniouses often do things for reasons that aren’t readily apparent to us mere mortals. Perhaps he truly was a fan of AS and felt the best way to promote it was to disclaim it first, or perhaps he just felt it made for a more interesting comment in an interview setting where interesting comments are a good interviewee’s stock in trade. I don’t know, but I do know I felt he was sufficiently plugged in to know what he was talking about.
As for The DaVinci Code, Harry Potter, etc., I believe those came some years after the Rose interview took place.
First, I’m not sure if you know what “high horse” means. Secondly, you keep saying that you have no knowledge or interest in sales of Atlas Shrugged, but rather than address information in links from other sources, you keep spit-balling increasingly nonsensical hypotheses to justify your claim (well, the claim of Buckley that you nevertheless cling to). First, it was maybe that other figures were just US numbers, then it was maybe the other numbers were for something other than novels, now it appears to be a claim that … what? That A Tale of Two Cities has sold 194 million copies since the Charlie Rose interview with William F. Buckley, surpassing Atlas Shrugged? What, there’s been a run on Lord of the Rings subsequent to the Charlie Rose interview with Buckley?
I’m kind of interested to see what your next hypothesis might be! Truly you have a dizzying intellect.
My next hypothesis is that it would be wise to blow you off because this is not an argument worth having.
Atlas Shrugged sells as it does. Period. It doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. Buckley’s comment was interesting because one wouldn’t expect AS to be the best selling novel of all time, so that’s why I posted it. If it turns out not to be (and I haven’t looked into it for the simple reason that I have other things to do and don’t particularly care), then it’s not as interesting as not worthy of comment. Either way I couldn’t care less.
You know, I’ve had to take pains not to call you the names I usually do it the Pit, such as Hector the Contrarian or Hector the Librarian, because it isn’t allowed in this forum. And while I’ve never been one to go running to the mods over this type of thing, you would do well to keep in mind the types of things aren’t allowed here as well.
Rand’s view of charity was a little more complicated than simply “not harming yourself” in the process. For one thing, the recipient of charity has to deserve it, or be an innocent victim of other people’s evil. In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny’s brother James was one of the worthless scoundrels who brought a great deal of suffering upon himself and countless others . . . including his wife Cheryl, who is at first mistaken about his true nature, thinking he’s one of the good guys. When she starts to realize the truth about him, she goes to Dagny to apologize. Dagny tries to help Cheryl, “not because you suffer, but because you don’t deserve to.” She would never have helped her brother, who was the source of his own suffering. If she had tried to help him, she’d be acting against her own values.
And Rearden: He was certainly wealthy enough to support his wife, mother and brother, and constantly gave them the benefit of the doubt. But he finally came to realize that they were not only parasites, but were actively trying to destroy him. He could still afford to support them, but it would have been wrong to continue to.
And even when it comes to what most people would call “self-sacrifice” . . . Rand said she would risk her own life to save the life of her husband, because “life without him would be unbearable.” It’s loyalty to her own values that’s the important thing, and in her life, vary little ranked higher than her devotion to her husband.
I don’t care how many copies of Atlas Shrugged have been sold or read or placed on coffee tables or used as doorstops, but I find the nasty exchange over a fairly silly point in the discussion encourages me to shut down some posters.
Knock it off. That specific topic is now closed in this thread–along with all the nasty byplay that has accompanied it.
[ /Moderating ]
Well, that’s a bit odd, but fine by me. I’m sure it will be brought up again in next months’ Atlas Shrugged thread.
Also, once again, why was it that Rand disapproved so strongly of drug use? Nothing in her philosophy seems to imply that. Or was it simply a personal esthetic or practical attitude unrelated to her philosophy?
And Rearden tries to help the farmers who can’t ship their harvest because the baddies have effectively destroyed transportation, or something. (See, randites? I DID read the f***ing book. But I saw through what I would call its deceptive message.)
I think the book’s (ill deserved) popularity is caused by the fact that it feeds, justifies, corresponds to and rationalises the existing, slightly paranoid feelings that some people in the USA already have.
I can easily see why she would disapprove- because it blurs rational thinking and is an escape from reality. At Galt’s Gulch, Dagny was told that no one can stay there “by faking reality in any manner whatsoever”. In the context of the book, it meant that she couldn’t stay out of any emotional feeling or with any reservations, but only if she was rationally convinced of the Strike. But was Ayn for legal prohibition of drugs?
This goes to the very core of what it means to be “objective.” She had an absolute reverence for the human capacity for perceiving reality directly, without any obstruction or filter. But I can’t think of any reason why she’d consider anti-drug laws to be a proper function of the government. “Laissez-faire” applies to more than just economics.
Which is, of course, a faith-based presumption.
In fact, it’s almost certainly a **drug-**based presumption. One wonders what her friends were surreptitiously slipping into her drinks.
Arrgh. But if one is to have an “Objective” morality–because A=A, & Reality Is–then favoring one’s own Monkeysphere or one’s own necessarily subjective prejudices is too subjectivist. One should be looking for absolutes & universals, & measuring one’s own preconceptions to see if they stack up.
I think the problem with Randians is that they overrate their own objectivity & miss the actual objectivism of liberal cosmopolitans.
Objectivity does not mean you’re detached from your own feelings and values. It just means feelings aren’t tools of cognition. And I won’t argue Rand’s case on this subject, because I don’t entirely agree with it.
I believe that is the point. That one should be looking for objective absolutes and universals and to not simply indulge in the fantasies of how you believe the world “should” be or how you wish it would be.
It’s like the simplistic message of the much shorter book “Who Moved My Cheese?” If your “cheese” suddenly up and disappears (generally a metaphor for losing your job, a big client, getting passed over for promotion or some other negative event), you need to go find a new source of cheese. And yet it is a simple message that people seem to disagree strongly with. They will bitch and moan and complain and cry “it’s not fair” but ultimately none of that is productive.
I believe most people would rather indulge in fantasy and wishful thinking instead of dealing with an A=A reality. How many times have you heard someone use the expression “fake it until you make it”? How about, you know, actually preparing and training to do something well so you don’t have to bulshit your way through it?
Rands philosphies are a nice ideal, however I don’t believe she recognizes the objective reality that most people are lazy stupid retards who if not placated would probably end up destroying society in their attempt to take everything they feel entitled to. Sure that was the point of Atlas Shrugged, but I would be curious to see what happens in a follow up book when Galt & Co try to rebuild.
This is the best title for a thread I have seen in a long long time. AYN RAND FOR DUMMIES. In four words it describes perfectly both the subject and who is taken in my the pseudo philosophy. Really well done.