What other work of fiction would you compare it to? To me it seemed like Lester Dent trying to write The Great American Novel, without being able to leave the dimestore characterizations and pseudoscientic gadgets of previous works behind. I halfway expected Galt’s eyes to have gold flakes glittering in them when he was excited about something. Galt’s Motor, Reardon’s Metal, the palm print doors, the voice activated doors, the laboratory contents turning to ash if the wrong person enters, and of course the show-topper-Galt’s ability to take over all the radio stations around the world in order to [del]bore the entire world to death[/del]inspire the entire world to arise via a 70 page diatribe best described as an Objectivist’s version of Coleridge’s original 300 line idea for Kubla Khan.
On second thought, I apologize to the spirit of Lester Dent. Never even at his pulpiest, even if he were paid a buck a word, would he ever have inserted such a long plot circuit breaker of a speech into a story.
Calm down, dude-it’s only a work of fiction.
It’s hard to be calm when I keep falling off my chair howling with laughter! Especially when I look at the tag line of this board and at the earnest assertions in this thread of what’s in the book from folks who don’t seem to get that you actually need to read something to understand what’s in it. I mean, come on…is that funny, or what?!?
Little Nemo,
Please stop.
Go read the book if you want. Or not. But your notion that you understand what Rand wrote in the book, or understand her philosophy that underlies it is proven wronger and wronger with every one of your posts.
Do you believe that, if others read the book, they would come up with pretty much the same opinions as you do about it?
Um…about questions like the strike and other ridiculous assertions of what’s in the book that people in this thread seem to have when they haven’t read it? Absolutely. That’s why I’m asking Nemo to back up his assertions with some cites from the book because I know they aren’t in there.
Look, as I’ve said, I have zero doubts that had he (or you or most of the other folks in this thread who decided to weigh in on a fictional book without bothering to read it) actually read the book there would be little in there he’d find agreement with. He’d probably hate the book and the underlying theme of the book as well (not to mention the writing style and the way Rand smelled no doubt). And I’m sure he’d find plenty to rant and rave about. But for the sake of the gods, at least rant and rave about shit that’s actually in there, as opposed to the laughable stuff he’s ranting and raving about because he THINKS it’s in there.
This conversation and entire thread is almost surreal.
Not half as surreal as believing the any great percentage of the population, even the population depicted in the story, would be inspired to revolt by listening to this speech.
Can you show me where I stated such a belief? Feel free to quote me on that. Oh, wait…you don’t have to read what I wrote, any more than you and others needed to read what Rand wrote in order to state, with perfect conviction no doubt, what I or she wrote.
You are right…it gets more surreal as the thread goes on. And, I have to admit, the entertainment value of this thread is still really high.
If you can quit LOLing all over the floor and rejoin the conversation, would you mind giving your opinion of Galt’s speech and it’s possible effectiveness in causing a political uprising. Do you think people would just stand around and listen to the whole thing?
My opinion of Galt’s speech is that it’s a speech and as a plot device it works with the rest of the story to distill the message Rand was trying to convey. You have to look at the speech in the context of the story, and what’s going on at that point in the story when he gives it as well as the context of the world Rand is portraying in her fictional work. In the real world, especially today’s world I doubt the speech would be understood or approved by most people outside of libertarian types who might find the speech long winded but overall would agree with at least some of it. The rest of the population? It would be TLDR/L.
Seriously, what are you trying to get out of this line of the discussion? The same would be true of Marx writing…or, hell, people reading the Silmarillion. The thing is, while YOU and others in this thread might hate Rand with every fiber of your being and despise the books she wrote and you didn’t read with the fire of 10,000 suns, obviously SOME people like it because even after all these years the books are still popular with certain people. Different strokes and all that.
As I’ve said, my personal tastes ran more towards Fountainhead of the books of hers I read, but I liked AS well enough. If people don’t like it, it’s no skin off my ass, to paraphrase from Fountainhead :p. What I don’t understand is why people who dislike her and her books and haven’t read them want to engage in threads like this and make assertions that, to anyone who HAS read the book makes them look like idiots for putting them forth.
Please cite this claim.
No, that is not force. Refusing to work is not “force”. Force means literal physical force. You are making up a nonsensical definition of “force”. It would be illegal to aim a gun at someone and say “give me more money”. I hope that would be illegal in your ideal world, too. Worker strikes would not be illegal in GG. Again, you just made that up out of whole cloth. How many times to do you need to be corrected before you realize you don’t know what you are talking about?
Please cite this.
You read the book, right?
Do you think it would be illegal for workers to go on strike in Galt’s Gulch?
Do you think Ayn Rand or the Gulchers would support any form of “nobility”?
The trouble with Galt’s speech is that seems to be directed to our society, not this fictional society depicted in the book. Every single aspect of that brobdingnagian diatribe seems to be directed towards the readers and not the characters-not one single part of it seems to be designed to fit within the structure of the story…except for the very brief mention near the beginning of the speech where he tells his captive audience that he convinced them to join him by telling those industrialists exactly what he is telling them now. I suspect not a one of them sat there for hours listening to him drone on and on, and instead cut him off after 20 minutes(max) and joined up just to get him to shut up. That speech is in no way a part of that fictional story-it is the author herself on a soapbox interrupting her own story to give a speech. That speech, in my humble opinion, should be open to criticism as a stand-alone.
A strike in Galt’s Gulch is a strike in name only-it seems to translate directly to a mass quitting. There is no power, no leverage, no value to a strike in Galt’s Gulch.
I don’t believe there area any people who are explicitly said to be black, but most people in the book are not racially described. There is, of course, a Hispanic-- one of the main characters of the book is Hispanic.
Not sure why you would ask that question since Rand was explicitly vocal about her opposition to racism. I suspect she envisioned most of her characters to he white, since she was white. I would do the same if I were writing a novel unless I wanted to right a novel whose theme was racism.
I disagree with your analysis, but I’m not sure why you feel the need to interject it. You can tell Nemo he is wrong without us thinking you’ve fell under AR’s spell.
The question was simple: Would it be illegal for workers to strike in GG? Nemo thinks it would be. Is he right or wrong (see below)?
Merciful Og, Czark, you linked to the whole goddam speech in spoken form! Three hours and eighteen minutes long! The blinding brilliance of the reasoning coupled with the crystalline clarity of her eloquence is a dangerous combination, not a power to be trifled with! Have a care, man!
Would strikers in Galt’s Gulch have the same rights, the same leverage, as those in the outside world? If so, then they have the right to strike. if not, if there is no difference at all between “striking” and quitting en mass, then no, they do not have the right to strike as the common man understands the term.
Maybe I read it wrong, and I am certainly open to correction-What sort of leverage, beyond creating a need to hire new workers, do strikers have in Galt’s Gulch?
While were at it, can someone explain to me WTF is going on with those malformed people in many of Picasso’s painting? Eyes in the wrong place, all the proportions wrong. It’s not realistic at all!?!?!?
Forget it. Apparently you get cooties (or something) if you disagree with someone who dislikes Ayn Rand, even if that someone is factually wrong.