My favorite part is this:
If only there were some way to have health care and schooling for all. Huh, I guess that only works in mythological places. Oh and Uncle can go to the Goodwill for his shirt, he’s the only lazy git in the bunch.
Or, rather, recognized that one particular attempt to implement it, in its own highly particular context, failed to succeed.
Where has communism succeeded, pray tell?
Wait, wasn’t Thompson the President? As in “Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Thompson will not speak to you tonight. His time is up. I have taken it over. You were to hear a report on the world crisis. That is exactly what you are going to hear.”
You may be right; it’s been a while. Let’s say that the President is not influential! You have the goofus who gets appointed as Economic Coordinator – I don’t remember his actual title (today, we’d call him a Czar.) He was, essentially, the only aspect of the U.S. Government seen in the book.
Yeah, Mr. Thompson was the President, though he was never referred to as such (I believe he was called the “Chief Executive.”) There were a couple of other government officials referred to (Wesley Mouch, the “goofus,” who started out as Hank Rearden’s “Washington man,” and Kip Chalmers, who ended up under a pile of rocks in the collapsed Taggart Tunnel, are two that come to mind). Mouch definitely was portrayed as having more power (or at least wielding more pull) than Thompson.
Well, you get 1,000 more pages of the same, so it can be a little monotonous.
You know, the book reads much better if you take it as an apocalyptic piece of fiction set on an alternate Earth where civilization is dying because of a philosophical crisis. In that regards, it’s rather unique and entertaining.
Actually, that’s the way she intended it.
I knew that quote didn’t sound right, so I had to look it up.
It wasn’t said as her point of view. It was said by Gail Wynand, one of her characters who eventually sold out. In fact, Rand is often criticized for having a too-high opinion of humanity, that her ideas are too unrealistic because people couldn’t live up to them.
Then why didn’t he?
The Rand excerpt isn’t incompetent, but wow is it a slog. It doesn’t have to be that long. In fact, making it so long saps it of its strength and punch.
Putting it in the form of dialogue just smacks the reader with its inauthentic voice. Prose doesn’t have to sound like a person speaking, but dialogue’s point is that it’s a person. The “person” behind this speech doesn’t exist. I get no sense of personality. There just isn’t the sense of an individual speaking about his life. And that is deadly when it’s such an long passage.
the_diego:
Are Israeli kibbutzim proof that communist entities can succeed in a free-economy nation?
In terms of the ideas it suggests, the passage is misleading, at best. There are multiple plot holes - the first one that comes to mind is that the student wasn’t allowed to go to college because “we first had to send everybody’s children through high school, and we didn’t even have enough for that” - but if that was the case, then the student wouldn’t even be able to go through high school, because they can’t afford to put everyone through.
I think the Ayn Rand was understandably poisoned against Communism, and gravitated towards a bizarre form of extremist Capitalism which is just as irrational. Despite this, her ideas are interesting as thought experiments.
In terms of literary value, I’m almost a bit insulted by all the comparisons to Animal Farm, which is one of my favorite books. Orwell, apart from his political motivation for writing, had great prose, dialogue, and description. His books aren’t just valuable from a political view - they’re pieces of art. Rand, on the other hand, sounds like a fanatic robot.
Well, he wrote stuff that others (well, ok, Robert Plant) emulated. So he’s at least influenced other’s style with his writing. He’s not Ginsberg, but as faux-ancient poetry, I think it works pretty well.
He certainly had problems with creating tight, dynamic prose. But this:
This makes me think that you’d agree with me that her literary sins are greater than his. Plus, isn’t that a monologue? Who is he talking to? Even a sparkly-eyed youth asking “and what happened next?” would have broken up the monotony of that excerpt. The character just drones on, and you knew where he was going at the end of the first paragraph.
As to the OP: I was only able to make it through three chapters of the thing when I tried. But if that’s what I had to look forward to, I’m glad I cut my losses. In those three chapters, any image or idea that was touched upon seemed to be drug on for pages of examination, even after I have clearly understood her point (and I’m neutronium when it comes to interpreting art ).
Yeah, I think Tolkein is a good writer, just not a good poet.
I haven’t read more Rand than excerpts, but I would say she’s not a good novelist. But she may be fine as an essayist.
I said dialogue just in that it’s supposed to be someone speaking, ostensibly to someone else. Just to distinguish it from the voice of the narrator.
It’s not a monologue. He’s talking to Dagny Taggart, who’s stuck on a “frozen train.” The guy doing the talking is a worker on the train. It’s been a while since I read the book so I don’t remember how they found each other. She probably heard him whistling one of Halley’s Concertos or something.
Slightly off topic, I just read “Anthem” last night.
Well, at least it was short.
It’s a story set in a dystopian future that caricatures collectivism – there aren’t even singular pronouns. One character is somehow born with vast intelligence – also is physically pure and clean and tall and beautiful.
(Rand suffered terribly from this kind of externalism. Moral character was very often mirrored by physical appearance.)
The p.o.v. character suffers rejection from his society, goes off into the forest, is followed by a woman (beautiful, of course) and they do the Adam and Eve thing, rebelling against society and discovering the forbidden word. “I.”
Okay, it wasn’t as awful a cliché in 1937… By today’s standards, it’s…readable.
Listen to Rush’s “2112”–you’ll get the same story, but shorter and with power chords. 
It depends what you mean by “success.” Throughout the history of the kibbutzim, all of the same issues arose that Rand defined. There were periods of great friction between an individual’s values and those of the group, especially compared to the capitalistic urbanization of Israel and global failure of socialistic governments. Even the concept of “greater good” wasn’t always sufficient to keep the groups together. But in spite of this Israeli kibbutzim have had an extra factor of the “greater greater good” of serving the Jewish homeland . . . a factor that has been virtually nonexistent in other countries.
And bear in mind that Israeli kibbutzim exist within a predominantly capitalistic country, and I doubt that any are wholly self-sufficient. And AFAIK the participants are there by choice (except for the kids), and can leave at any time.
Well, I found that passage kind of hilarious on quick reading. Until I realized it wasn’t a parody of a Randite libertarian (“I’m paying for someone’s wheelchair! The inhumanity of it all!” “Workers were drinking! They’d never do that in a Capitalist economy like Victorian London!”), but an actual Randite libertarian, anyway.
I like the part where the guy punched out the little girl’s teeth, 'cause he was forced to pay for her braces.