The euphemism “thought experiment” could be applied to almost any piece of propaganda fiction, e.g. The Turner Diaries.
Now hold on just a minute there. The reader, not the author, decides what the book is to them. I don’t mind being called conservative, but is it really necessary to so quickly indict me as intellectually lazy for enjoying the book? That’s a bit out-there for me. Intellectually lazy, to me, more easily fits dislike a novel or writer because we don’t like their politics. For what it’s worth, I’m a big fan of Aaron Sorkin’s work. Not my politics, but very well written.
I enjoyed it as a novel, and would have wether or not I found the political bent appealing to me. Excepting Gault’s speech, which ran on just about forever where a good executive summary would have done nicely, it was well written and the characters and their situation told the story, not the author. Who’s next? Will you next opine that Thomas Paine was a bloviating blowhard with far more political agenda than writing talent?
L. Ron Hubbard? You’re kidding. You must be kidding.
What you’re describing is a “glorious celebration of selfishness.”
Not a characterization Rand would have disputed, either. She called one of her books The Virtue of Selfishness.
I’m not going to say that every fan of Rand’s work is self-deluded. But face facts, her philosophy is designed to appeal to people that have a falsely inflated idea of their abilities. It tells them that they haven’t failed because they lack any genuine talent - they failed because society fears their talents and is working to hold them back. Their failure to succeed becomes proof of their superiority.
The counterargument to Rand is that plenty of people do succeed in modern society. Why did the masses allow them to rise while holding others down?
We get it. You don’t like it. What in particular do you not like about her philosophy? And please don’t just go into another incoherent rant.
Fair enough.
Maybe a better way of saying it was that Rand believed that enlightened self interest was a good thing and that in a free society people should not be forced to act against their own interests.
I would say her philosophy appeals to people who believe that hard work, ingenuity and a track record of success is and should be the way to get ahead in this world. Jobs or contracts should go to the best qualified, not who has the best connections or most politically acceptable.
The flaw in her writing is that there are only two types of people. Supermen/women like Dagny Taggart or Hank Reardon who are singleminded of purpose and corrupt half-wits like Mouche or the other Taggart.
Funny, I thought my rants were coherent. Anyway, you’re not getting it. If it was just a political screed that would be one thing, but it’s a political screed that is poorly plotted and badly written. My previous posts have commented on the stupid rapture -> tribulation -> paradise plot, so I’ll leave that be for now. I could talk about how Atlas Shrugged is a rough sex romance without any actual sex or romance. I could talk about the one dimensional characters. I could mention the train crash where she blames the victims (apparently, if you don’t have the right politics you should die). Instead though, I’ll focus on the writing itself here. Let’s look at a couple of quotes from the thing:
Ug… Just ug. That is some of the most overwrought prose I have ever come across. The whole book is like that. The damn thing just will not stop. It screams trying way too hard.
Ha! Now we have a side of hypocrisy to go with our overwrought prose. Too funny. You also have to love the word “drunkenest” Finally, there’s this:
No more! For the love of God, no mas! I’m begging you, Ms. Rand, just make it stop!
In The Fountainhead, the answer is the influence of LW intellectuals like Ellsworth Toohey (the Anti-Roark), who makes it his life’s work to suppress excellence and exalt mediocrity.
Try to find anyone who disagrees with this. Pretty much everyone thinks that the best people should get ahead based on their merits.
The difference between Randians and the rest of us is that we think that’s how it’s working now. Superior abilities are generally recognized and rewarded by society. Rand and her followers say that the masses are jealous of those who have superior abilities and hold them down.
A Monkey With a Gun - You will get no argument from me that Atlas Shrugged is a painful read.
I don’t know that most people do believe in a meritocracy. At least they don’t act as if they are being evaluated or rewarded based on their job performance.
I don’t think it’s about jealousy either. It’s about entitlement. Randians see a rich businessman in his big house and say “some day I’ll have a house like that.” Some other people look at the same businessman in the same house and say “some day I’m gonna get that jerk!”.
And that’s why leaper compared The Shell Game to Atlas Shrugged.
No, Randians only imagine that people think like that. There’s actually very little success-based hatred in America. People want to join the rich not tear them down.
In that case, it is the non-Randians who have the more realistic hope.
I think most people in the US believe in meritocracy. But I also think a lot of people are really frustrated that we don’t actually have a meritocracy. Or at least we have a very imperfect one. Inherited wealth interferes with meritocracy. Cronyism and nepotism interfere with meritocracy. Poverty interferes with meritocracy.
That was basically one of the major themes of Atlas Shrugged. Cronyism and nepotism ultimately creates poverty by placing incompetant or less than most competant people in positions of power and authority. An economy can’t function if hard working and smart people can’t find work because jobs go to lazy and incompetant cronies and idiot nephews.
Of course, free-market capitalism is no more resistant than Stalinism is to cronyism and nepotism.
I used a bit of hyperbole, but not really that much. So no, I wasn’t kidding. Well, maybe a little.
Scientologists will read some baaaad novels just because they were written by Hubbard. Anybody that doesn’t like the book obviously doesn’t understand the deeper meaning. Adherents of Rand are the same way. Just look at msmith537’s response to the O.P.
and another thing
I like Orwell, but Rand is crap. Similar politics, but one is written for adults (Orwell’s talking animals were even more adult) and the other is written for kids who want to be adults. Rand’s themes always come back to “why won’t somebody understand me?”
It’s childish.