Reading the reviews on Amazon really made me think even harder.
Some of the positive, “this book will change your life”, etc etc…Habitat for Humanity is evil, etc etc…really make me wonder what these people were smoking.
It’s so bad it’s laughable. And I have even more appreciation and respect for the Brains at MST3K. I wonder if they felt this way when viewing Manos for the first time.
I mean, the one guy says, the businesses cannot fail-they are not allowed to fail, or have that luxury. Da’hell?
It’s painful, but a good painful…like scratching a mosquito bite until it bleeds.
I mean, no one seems to care about anything…they’re dull. They’re self-loathing…I really think that deep down, Rand hated everything. No kidding.
And yes, Fenris, I will read The Disposessed as soon as I can get a copy, dammit!!! Nag nag nag-you sound like my mother!
Anyhoo, I’ve got to temper it with Doctor Zhivago. Yuri Zhivago-now THERE’s an ideal man. And I’m sure Hank Reardon was nowhere near as sexy as Omar Sharif.
My God. I am in so much pain right now. This book is starting to make me loathe humanity. The hate and utter despair just drips off of the pages.
Yes, I’m going to TRY to finish-I’m up to “The Sign of the Dollar” now. I want to burn this book. I want to find Ayn Rand, bring her back to life and kill her painfully and slowly all over again. I also cannot think of a single book in my posession which can erase the utter loathsomeness of this brick. (And YES, Fenris, I will get Dispossed! As soon as I CAN!).
I’m reduced to reading cheesy dime romance novels-some of the really really bad ones just to recover.
I wonder if it would be better to skip the book…and JUST read the speech?
My god…can’t sleep, Ayn Rand will eat me…can’t sleep, Ayn Rand will eat me… Guin curls up in a corner hugging stuffed chameleon and rocking back and forth…
ah, guin, guin, russians are such a fun, and loving lot.
ms rand can get a bit full of it at times. (okay 800 pages of times.) but just think, no matter what you do in life you will be 800 times happier than she.
as to atlas shrugged, i’ve read it a few times. as with any book i found parts that were enlightening and parts that were not. i believe that ms rand was rather frustrated with the times she grew up in, the whole role of women thing. this really shows up in all her books she seems confused with what the women should be doing so they all end up as people you could never identify with. it does make reading her books rather difficult. she seems to have a better handle with the male characters.
you should have seen her on phil donohue before she died. whoa nelly, what an interview. when one guy stood up and said that he had read all her books and believed totally in what she said, and then he grew up…
i believe i saw laser beams shoot from her eyes. she had no patience with anyone who disagreed with her.
Actually it was a reference to/riff on a funny line Heinlein. He had a character discover FTL communication and another character commented that Einstein must be known to is graveyard buddies as “whirligig Al”.
When there’s a terrorist attack, people seriously question whether responding in our “normal” methods would be “stooping to the terrorists’ level.” But when there is an Ayn Rand thread, you can bet that people will attack her in the same manner as what they are attacking her for. Amusing. (even more amusing is that I pick such an exaggeration to make my point; I’m sure that irony isn’t lost on some of you)
And for the record, I think Collounsbury has the best term yet: Randistas!
I’m glad you’re giving it a try anyway, Guin. Maybe now when you complain about her you’ll have some better stuff In fact, I expect a full Ayn Rant (name courtesy of jarbabyj) in the Pit when you finish. Chop chop!
Guin, Guin, Guin… you don’t need to be narcissistic to see things in black in white, you only need to believe in strict materialism and absolute morality. Even an absolute altruist who hates him/herself could do this.
There have been several web pages devoted to a refutation of what she called an epistemology. I think they are rather simplistic refutations but if you are diligent you can even find some that are contextually accurate. S’alright by me.
As far as the “humanist” perspective goes, remember that Ayn felt she built Objectivism our of “the nature of man.” She felt very strongly that man was only special in that he used explicit reasoning; this alone (it seems) is what sets man apart from animals, no other perspecitve is postulated. Which means, essentially, that she felt she was the most “humanist” person around—now there you may be able to pull the narcissism in
My personal recomendation is to skip whatever part of Galt’s speech you feel you must, because apart from some references to characters in the book it can stand on its own merit. In fact, if the book is really grinding you that much you won’t be coming at the speech from a proper perspective.
Incidentally, what did you think of Fransisco’s “Money is the root of all evil?” speech? That is my all-time favorite discourse of Rand, followed in a close second by some essays from “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal” which is far more recommended, by me, over Atlas Shrugged.
Too bad Francisco got the quote wrong-it was LOVE of money that is the root of all evil, and even then it’s taken out of context.
I’m simply repeating something that was said by many who knew her and studied her. Not to mention the double standards she was guilty of.
I personally don’t believe in absolutes or black and white. Life isn’t like that.
Reading this thread has been fascinating, if only to gauge the state of Ayn Rand interest. A few observations from my review of the 2 pages of threads, and my experience reading her books:
Ayn Rand is a lousy fiction writer - there, I said it. It is NOT a commentary on her philosophy (I do that below), it’s just that, sentence for sentence, plot point for plot point, her books simply aren’t well written. The implication is that if people aren’t caught up in her philosophy or at least the passion of her writing, they tend to not see what the fuss is about. Don’t get me wrong, novelists-that-are-really-philosophers have a tough go of it and only a few really write well (e.g., Huxley and Orwell are strong writers, in the general view)
Atlas Shrugged is more allegory that applicable philosophy - sure, there is value in understanding the roles that each character represents - for the most part, they are not drawn in sufficient detail to be more than an iconic representation of a group of concept. The point is that the philosophy presented appears to be more effective at provoking discussion and critique of the existing system than it does in trying to provide a truly-fleshed out replacement.
Ayn Rand’s philosophy plays into a fantasy ideal - we all want to think of ourselves as Roarks or Galts - part of some elite. But the practical reality of virtues of selfishness get lost quickly - it’s a variation on Acton’s “power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely” - the more we believe our own press regarding selfishness, the more likely we will be unable to see the direction it is taking us - towards corruption. Notice I am not commenting on its conservative leanings - just the impracticality of its foundation. There are plenty of liberal philosophies that are impractical, too - e.g., communism, such as it has be implemented so far.
I tend to recommend to people that they need to read Rand once when they are 17 (preferably the Fountainhead; it is marginally better written) and be in awe of it; and once when they’re 25 so they can see it for the interesting yet poorly written and impractical doctoral thesis run amok that it is…
Please don’t do this. Simply regurgitating the opinions of others is intellectual dishonesty of the highest magnitude.
You started this exercise with noble aims, to understand those with different viewpoints. Is it impossible for you to come to that understanding on your own? To understand Rand you must seperate the philosophy from the person. Her entire philosophy was based upon the existance of ideals/morals which existed independent of individuals. Objective good, objective evil, objective reality. To apply the approach so many others have used to discredit her ideas simply shows that you aren’t willing to look at the philosophy objectively. If you aren’t willing to abide by her rules so you can actually see/understand the type of world that philosophy creates, how can you claim to understand it?
Think for yourself. Walk that mile in Rand’s shoes, at the end of the mile, take the shoes off and reflect on the experience. Don’t let others do your thinking or your walking for you.
I’m talking about psychologists who analyze her. Besides, if she DID suffer from a disorder-that’s not an insult. And it’s not a nasty thing-I myself am Obsessive Compulsive-I’m sure it shows in the way I am.
And she did have many double standards…let’s not kid ourselves. I’m just saying we have to take into account WHY she may have thought the way she did.
Since when did it become an insult to say someone MIGHT have suffered a mental disorder?
My apologies. I believed you were reading the books to understand her philosophy. How she developed that philosophy would be irrelevant in such an endeavor, as would be her mental state/personal life. If you’re interesed in doing a personality/case study of the woman, your methods are fine. You used the words “follow(s) the philosophy of”. I believed that meant you referred to the ideals espoused by both writers. I apologize for my misunderstanding, I will now take my leave of this discussion if you please. I have read enough case studies, opinions and unauthorized biographies of the woman to be willing to take my chances on not knowing enough about her when I get a Ayn Rand question in Trivial Pursuit.
Sorry, I guess you’re right, but I’m still having a hard time taking this book seriously. It’s hard to believe she was serious about what she was saying, because to me, it’s absolute rubbish. TO ME, that is.
My dear, I never claimed it was not absolute rubbish. I have admitted that I believe her philosophy untenable in any real world scenario. All her characters are very shallow. I can’t think of a single dynamic character except for perhaps Dagny(and only perhaps). Change simply isn’t in the philosophy, yet we all know change is an integral part of life on Earth.
For what it’s worth, I didn’t understand her philosophy after reading her fiction. It took some more study and reading some of her nonfiction(which would probably kill you if Atlas Shrugged is as painful as you say it is) before came to, what I believe is, a good understanding of her views.
One time I was with a friend of mine from High School and we were playing Magic. I saw that he was wearing a t-shirt that said “Ayn Rand Fan” and chuckled and asked him if he wore that shirt to Magic tournaments for intimidation value against any opponent who might know what it meant. He said no, he just liked her books. “I mean all the philosophy is bunk, and I would never, ever call myself an Objectivist. But if you can get past the philosophical overtones and just focus on the story in her novels, they’re pretty good. I like to pretend there is a world out there like that, where the good guys are really good and the bad guys are really bad and everything is black and white.” A very interesting viewpoint.
I will offer one last piece of advice. Don’t post again until you finish the book. Let yourself go into Rand’s world for a little while. Remember, walking in someone else’s shoes means taking your own off.
Honestly, I can’t see why. I wish you would start a thread somewhere where we could go over it. I suppose may be we could do it here: Atlas Shrugged, Chapter 1 arguments.
I was happy to hear your resolve to read this book after all the flaming you gave her. And still do, obviously. And since you didn’t read “The Fountainhead” you can still spout off the rape rants.
It is very easy to understand why she may be inflammatory. I just wish you could get around that. I certianly try and ignore your inflammatory rhetoric when I read what you say. I think you probably do the same for others here.
Guinastasia trust me, when you finish with Atlas Shrugged, read Robert Tressell’s The Ragged Trousered Philanthropist… you will feel much better about the world.
eris-I’m going to try not to get too into this thread anymore before I finish the book.
That said, I would say the way she describes liberals. And mainly because the best and the brightest in the book fail to take into account that the common laborers ARE essential to running the world-how would Hank’s factories function if not for the janitors sweeping the floors, or the men who actually help construct the machines? How else could Dagny’s railroad function if not for the people who manufactored the various parts needed for construction? The people who helped process the upholstry in the cars? The guy who helps clean it up?
Face it-we as a society DO need to depend on others. The laborers in the early part of the 20th century and the 19th, weren’t asking for big houses and free entertainment-they were asking not to be forced to work 18 hour days in dangerous conditions for little pay-and as for quitting if they didn’t like it-where else would they go-there really wasn’t anywhere else? How can a factory make quality items if you have poor, starving, sleep-deprived workers doing the job?
If economic and industrial process always triumphs, how can one explain the Titanic?
In fact, I expect a full Ayn Rant (name courtesy of jarbabyj) in the Pit when you finish. Chop chop!