I mean, the novel is a waste of trees-all that paper.
I don’t think I finished the last chapter-because that was when we had to put our kitten to sleep, and I was too depressed already.
But ugh! That book just made me hate humanity. It was so far out there, and ridiculous. For all her yapping about reality, she was so far from reality that it was sick.
I don’t know about that. Sure, Heinlein was definitely a bit … conservative … but I don’t know that he was so unsophisticated as to push ST’s unabashedly fascist world as the “ideal.” I think he’s just exploring one possibility among many, and that Rico isn’t necessarily his ventriloquist’s dummy. If you step back from the book and realize that while, yes, a society founded on personal responsibility and self-sacrifice (run by the miltary) has some pros to it, you also see that it preserves the bravado that leads to the needless slaughter on the Big K. So even though the Generals dropped with everyone else–and got killed with everyone else–their acceptance of responsibility for the disaster doesn’t negate the fact that it was still a shortsighted mistake.
Plus, if ST is Heinlein’s vision of an ideal world, then what the heck do you make of the religious sex romp posited in “Stranger in a Strange Land”?
The first moment the thread went from addressing the original poster’s questions to becoming yet another Rand bashing book review.
Concerning the original poster’s followup comments about the movie, I don’t think one will be made unless, as indicated by Sam Stone, the relatively few conservatives in Hollywood got together to make it happen.
Rand was trying to get this book made into a film before she ceased to exist (;)) so I assume that the Objectivists would like to see it made into a film as well.
Good God awmighty. I swear Starship Troopers should be used as a Rorshach test.
Heinlein has been accused of being (for just that one novel) a fascist and a communist. He liked nothing better than reading reviews that contradicted themselves.
Actually, Heinlein was usually accused of being communist on the basis of “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress”.
And don’t forget that she doesn’t have characters, she has sock puppets, to use a term relevent to this forum. In earlier terms, she used her characters to “soapbox” to a degree that was unbelievable. For example, take a look at the supposed “love scene” between Rearden and Taggart - they spend an intimate moment that stretches to page upon page making speeches at each other.
Rand reminds me of that old Monty Python routine about the Icelandic saga sponsored by some Chamber of Commerce that keeps inserting ridiculous commercial messages into the story.
If Rand wanted to use her novels to promulgate her philosophical messages, fine. But casting it in the form of a novel means that it should WORK as a novel - if she didn’t want to worry about plot and characterization, she should have stuck to writing nonfiction manifestos, rather than putting the manifesto in the mouth of John Galt for God knows how many pages.
BTW, what happened when Telemachus sneezed?
As someone who read the novel as a teen, I’d be happy to try a miniseries based on same – with an eye to seeing how a team of writers could simultaneously try to do justice to the novel without being completely out-of-sync with modern corporate capitalism as it is in the U.S.A. today, some half-century after the novel’s initial publication. Since Rand’s vision of the economy (with its concommitant values, as presented by her) and that which confronts (assaults?) the average worker today have virtually nothing in common, that would be quite a stretch!
Consider this: Rand’s novel is a depiction of America in the full flush of its industrial period, if declining into a massive depression orchestrated by John Galt. Steel, natural resources, and agriculture (all low "value-added goods) appear to be its greatest industries. Railroads are the primary mode of intercontinental transport of both passengers and freight (as it actually was, during the 1930’s-'40’s). These industries feature, as dominant or major players, large national (not multinational) corporations that appear to be privately owned, and led by their founder, or by members of the founder’s family.
Most Americans use products and services that are truly “made in America,” with intercontinental trade at a minimum, and American corporations content to keep their operations – with their significant overhead and employee rolls – at home.
The service sector of the economy is miniscule compared to its share today, as is the small (but rapidly burgeoning) public sector – which is depicted as being weighted towards social services and social engineering experiments, as opposed to the military per se.
Broadcasting is limited to radio (IIRC, TV hadn’t been invented yet as of the writing of the novel; in any event, Galt delivers his speech over the radio, not TV); entire industries based on basic electronics patents do not as yet exist; the United States is a fledgling world power, not as yet a true superpower, and is not portrayed as having international hegemonic aspirations; NASA doesn’t exist, of course; and except perhaps for a few cautionary warnings about urban and industrial rabble threatening to riot against the “achievers,” neither do racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, explicitly or by implication. (Francisco D’Anconia doesn’t really count, because he’s Chilean or Argentinian, IIR.)
Most women seem to be housewives, although a few defy social convention in order to enjoy high-powered careers (like Dagny Taggart) or be underappreciated in the arts (the actress; the writer). [Since “the pill” won’t be available for another generation, one wonders exactly what Dagny is relying on to not get pregnant in her various trysts… neither she nor her lovers seem to be taking any precautions.] America’s culture and outlook are portrayed, approvingly, as essentially provincial (Rand openly mocks those forward-thinking proponents of soybeans, an Asian import, for example), and by implication both xenophobic and WASPish (never mind that Rand herself was an atheist by conviction and was born Alice Rosenbaum, a Russian Jew, and whose family perished in WWII-Leningrad).
But hey, if Ted Turner wants to take a crack at it, I say “be my guest”. I wouldn’t invest in such a production, though – and if I was a major Turner stockholder, I’d question the wisdom of going ahead with such a project. :rolleyes:
Her writing is easy and fun to parody. I once wrote this in the Literature Game thread, and it was quickly identified as being Ayn Rand:
Salena bent full backwards, draping herself across Crocker’s ebony desk. “I give myself to you,” she declared, “not because of some intrinsic value that I discern in you. Rather, it is my own pleasure that I seek to fulfill.”
Crocker gripped her legs and pushed them forcefully apart. “Be quiet, woman!” he said in a voice that was deliberate and masculine. “I choose to have my way with you, not because I think it might surcease or statisfy whatever longings you may possess, but because I seek to mitigate the primal fire that burns within me — the fire that is man.”
Salena swept away the items on the desk all around her, sending them crashing to the floor, desperately clutching Crocker’s head as he nibbled hungrily between her breasts. “Oh, I do not love you! But if I were to love you, it would not be the kind of empty, charitable love that recognizes within you any quality that might merit my admiration, which I reserve unto myself, but rather the kind of love that one animal has for another, knowing that its only chance for survival is to form a bond with another, a bond not based on weakness, but upon strength.”
Cradling her hips and heaving his massive body against hers in long, deliberate, rhythmic, quiescent pulses, Crocker gasped “I love not you, but myself. For I am man, the paragon of earth’s creatures, given the means, not by God but by nature, to please a woman in the manner that she ought to be pleased. I care not for your love, and would refuse it were you to offer it to me. I seek from you nothing more than the completion of my own desire. Man does not exist for the purpose of making women whole, but for the purpose of making them swoon to his wishes.”
The crushing blows of his invasive undulations drove Selena into a state of madness, a state of unmitigated pain and pleasure, in which she wallowed until the mighty power of her pent-up ebullition burst forth and consumed her. She screamed out loudly between her clenched teeth, “This is the end for which I have used you as a means! This orgasm is not a gift from you, but rather something I have given to myself! I take it from you! Despite whatever motive might have been behind your actions, I recognize nothing about you that might benefit me, other than this!”
The deep and violent rumblings from Crocker’s own loins erupted in a swell of electrical surges that raced through his contracted muscles. “I AM MAN!” he growled, “the noblest of all the creatures and the crowning achievement of evolution! This is my reward for suffering through my association with you! Were it not for this moment, you would have been a waste upon this earth!”
In the quiet afterglow, she struggled to breathe under his heavy weight. “Was it good for me?” she asked.
He looked into her eyes, and saw there the adoration he had sought. “You are so dutiful. I nearly value you.”
Up until I read Libertarian’s post I was convinced that all the people that disliked AS were somehow mistaken. But talk about jogging your memory… that book was really poorly written. I do still like the story itself (minus the 400 or so unessary pages and the cheap ending).
Damn, Libertarian, it wasn’t that bad! I wonder, have you ever tried Bulwer-Lytton?
Re. my earlier post, what I’d like to clarify is that Rand was writing prescriptively, outlining the kind of from-the-top revolt she’d welcome should the collectivist/statist trends of her time continue unabated. But, fifty years on, her novel is very definitely a period piece, both chronologically and in the sense that today’s corporate culture is so at odds with that of Rand’s time. In fact, I think that even Rand, if she were alive today, would be hard-pressed to justify the robber-baron mentality so prevalent in the managerial/executive overclass. In today’s Fortune 500, the average CEO “earns” over 500 times the salary of his company’s average worker. The grotesquely inflated sense of self exemplified by the current parade of disgraced business executives is, scandals implicating accountancy firms and corrupted boards of directors aside, ultimately enabled by the willingness of the millions of overworked and underpaid employees to put up with it all – and it is our grossly undervalued labor, coupled with the public’s perverse willingness to gamble their meagre savings in the corrupted stock market, which makes the fat cats’ “compensation packages” possible. (Ironically, a bottom-up revolutionary withdrawal, along the lines of that of John Galt’s method of voting with his feet, is currently underway, as millions of American workers have disgustedly divested of stocks, and shifted into mutual funds, real estate, and other investments.) To consider the America of Rand’s novel, with its heroic apotheosis of the business leader, is like gazing into Alice’s looking glass.
Good one Libertarian. 
Yes, The Scrivener, as I see by your post and others, this movie project looks like a very tough job. IMHO if the Objectivistic Society retains the rights and still manages to produce this movie, and they follow the book too close, the result will end up like Battlefield Earth!!! In other words MST3K fodder (Yes Ukulele Ike I miss the bots too 
)
Guinastasia: I did specially remember your encounter with the book; that is why it is not a big priority for me to read. Still, threads like this one are a good way to learn what to skip from the book if the dreadful day of reading it arrives.
I would suggest not wasting your time then. If this is your attitude going into the book you will not like it so you’ll just end up wasting time and hate it anyway. I thought this board was supposed to be more open minded than most, but on some topics I guess not.
I would also point out that Guinastasia pretty much went into the book saying she’d hate it. The only reason she read it was because she was criticizing Rand in another thread and somebody told her she didn’t fully understand Rand’s philosophy.
I’ve got to agree in large part with RickJay. The novel isn’t well written. I read the book and thought the ideas were interesting, but if the book didn’t present such radical ideas I don’t think many people would read it for its literary value.
My favorite Ayn Rand parody can be found at, strangely enough, Free Republic.
I didn’t go in hating the book, per se, but the Ayn Rand school of thought, which I had read some things about.
The book itself-even though I disagreed with the philosophy, I think I would have liked the book-had it been well-written.
At first it wasn’t too bad-it was entertaining. I liked Eddie because he seemed to be the only character that wasn’t flat and being used to press a point.
However, it just got so silly after a while. Like, Hank’s family. His brother was such a whiny little priss. He wasn’t a liberal, but a spoiled brat.
It was just so laughably simplistic and so unrealistic. The Fenris reccomended that I read Ursula Le Guin’s The Disposessed-which I haven’t been able to find.
And another thing that annoyed me was the names. The names were so stupid.
I don’t think anyone should shy away from this book even if they know ahead of time the writing is pretentious and gives new meaning to l’ong-winded.’ Even if you don’t agree with Rand’s “Virtues of Selfishness” or whatever she called her quasi-philosophy you should read this book. Skip through Galt’s insanely long monologue, brush over the parts that resemble Libertarian’s parody (and they are plenty) and you could cut the book easily in half. The overall story is still very compelling and even slightly plausible in some regards. There will always be some people in power who are just as scared and stupid as the ignorant conformists in Rand’s novels.
Considering that one of the main themes in his TV show is the evil of corporate selfishness, I doubt that he would be too enthusiastic about this project.
Look harder. It’s well worth reading. Actually, I just looked on Amazon - it still seems to be in print.
BTW, if you want to see how to have a character do a long Galt-ish monologue, and have it work, look at the monologue by Austin Train at the end of John Brunner’s “The Sheep Look Up”. The difference is that Brunner could write (when he wanted to - the difference between Brunner’s good work and the stuff he clearly churned out to pay the rent is enormous).
Actually, in all seriousness, I loved the book. Even the writing. The thick and obvious Russian influence, I think, is appropriate.