Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Im just curious who here has read all or part of this book. Did you agree or disagree with what you read?
I read it for the essay contest ($10,000 to the winner) and I found it very engaging, though in the end unpersuasive. She was clearly a very intelligent woman.

One thing thats strange to me is the way alot of devout christians love this book. It makes me wonder if they actually read it......? She spends alot of time in that book attacking christianity so its hard for me to see why christians love her so much, except that she advocates for the kind of economics they favor. But yeah she says some really nasty things about christianity: belief in God is based on a willful refusal to think, christian ethics leads directly to dictatorship - in one place she even quotes jesus and shows how wrong he is. Dont get me wrong shes entitled to her opinion but how is it that Christians go along with this? Her whole view point is diametrically opposed to whats in the bible.

So... yeah... any thoughts on this book?

I read it in the summer between high school and college. I enjoyed it, actually. I was it's target audience: relatively naive intelligent kid that felt that he could relate to the misunderstood geniuses of the book. I out grew that, and with it my objectiveness leanings over time.

I actually like it as an alternate history story. A lot of people hate the plot and the characters, and maybe they're right, but I found the slowly building collapse of society interesting to read about. I felt bad for poor eddie at the end though.

Haven't read it, though it is on my "To Read" list.

yes.... everyone can see themselves as the misunderstood genius of a misunderstood genius story. instant identification. commercially very safe. Enders Game was kind of like that too.... Objectivism has a nice, satisfying compactness and internal logic to it.... but it has the faults of its virtues - its narrow, it only accounts for a part of the human experience. I find it particularly annoying how to Ayn Rand the only production is material production. I mean she talks about the mind all the time but really what that tends to result in is producing and acquiring things. Theres more to life than things.

I thought alot of her social commentary was pretty good. The way the society collapsed, yes.... I thought her polar opposite world - the utopia at galts gulch - was pretty absurd. "over here a distinguished judge and philosopher is contentedly raising pigs. mmm mmm good bacon." what a bunch of nonsense. would never happen. She was spot on about shifting the blame and never taking responsibility. As near as I can tell this is 1 activity occupies the majority of many Americans days.

I like the idea of a society coming slowly apart, it's a really fascinating idea. Everything else is gak.

Before you even look at the politics of the thing, it needs to be acknowledged that is a very poorly written piece of fiction. It just isn't acceptable to stop in the middle of the climax and have a character give a monologue for about 50 pages. The prose is stilted, and the characters are not at all real - they're pastiches that act in silly ways to demonstrate Rand's ideas. If the novel were to be judged on as a piece of fiction it never would have sold out it's first edition, yet it's had countless reprints.

So what's in the philosophy that's so appealing? Basically Rand creates a number of extremely gifted supermen and puts them in charge of major companies, and says these men are the sole reason why these companies succeed, and the reason why society progresses. Everything that restricts or limits these men is bad and will destroy society. It is a fantasy that allows the reader to presume he is one of those geniuses, held back by our society. This has great appeal to the smart kid who was is getting picked on in highschool. It has just as much appeal to the over-confident kid who's just got his first pay cheque and seen the government took $200 - if only that was still his money and he could buy things and gain the status he deserves.

You know how you'll meet an idiot on your university campus who announces himself as a communist and goes off on rants about the evils of corporations or whatever. Well that guy is stupid in exactly the same ways as Rand and her followers are. They've rejected the complexities of society and life, and embraced a very simple view that places themselves as it's victim and some other group as it's perpetrators. The communists just chose to hate the rich, the Randians chose to hate the poor and the government. Everything else is much the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:One thing thats strange to me is the way alot of devout christians love this book. It makes me wonder if they actually read it......? She spends alot of time in that book attacking christianity so its hard for me to see why christians love her so much, except that she advocates for the kind of economics they favor.

You know, it wasn't so long ago that christians were are large part of progressive, socially minded economics. And given what Jesus kept talking about, I can't see why that shouldn't be the case.

One of the worst things about the evangelical movement in the US forming a close alliance with the conservatives is how much it's changed their own views on economics.

sebster wrote:
You know how you'll meet an idiot on your university campus who announces himself as a communist and goes off on rants about the evils of corporations or whatever. Well that guy is stupid in exactly the same ways as Rand and her followers are. They've rejected the complexities of society and life, and embraced a very simple view that places themselves as it's victim and some other group as it's perpetrators. The communists just chose to hate the rich, the Randians chose to hate the poor and the government. Everything else is much the same.

Word.

I like Ayn Rand's books but only because I like the idea of ideals turned into fairly 2 dimensional characters and played out. I thought The Fountainhead was better overall (Howard Roark is one of my favorite fictional badasses).

Edit: A favorite quote:

"Now, talk. Talk about the things you really want said. Don't tell me about your family, your childhood, your friends or your feelings. Tell me about the things you think"
Mallory looked at him incredulously and whispered:
"How did you know that?"
Roark smiled and said nothing.
"How did you know what's been killing me? Slowly, for years, driving me to hate people when I don't want to hate.... Have you felt it, too? Have you seen how your best friends love everything about you--except the things that count? And your most important is nothing to them, nothing, not even a sound they can recognize. You mean, you want to hear? You want to know what I do and why I do it, you want to know what I think? It's not boring to you? It's important?"
"Go ahead," said Roark.
Then he sat for hours, listening, while Mallory spoke of his work, of the thoughts behind his work, of the thoughts that shaped his life, spoke gluttonously, like a drowning man flung out to shore, getting drunk on huge, clean snatches of air.

Yeah, I think sebster's right - that's awfully wooden prose.

I'm happy to see you guys have this locked down really well as this book appeals to a sort of emotionally and mentally stunted personality type that's all too common among gamers. Seriously, Rand will rot your brain, kids.

She's sort of like Steinbeck in the gray, coldness of her description, but instead of describing a dusty field for 7 pages she talks about how scummy and weak charity workers look and how badass and unfeeling her main characters are

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican; it belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow; it belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

Rapture.

A city where the artist would not fear the censor.
Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow,
Rapture can become your city as well.


No, wait, that was Andrew Ryan, not Ayn Rand.

Also, don't ever compare Steinbeck to Rand, as Steinbeck actually could write; his Pulitzer and Nobel prize are the most obvious tip-offs. His descriptions weren't wooden or lacking in human dimension. If you really want unending pages of description that go on and on, you need Henry Melville or perhaps Cooper (of the James Fenimore variety).

Ha, I don't claim to be a literature junkie so I won't argue :p I just couldn't stand reading Steinbeck in school. "The woman is breastfeeding the homeless guy! It's nearly over!" comes to mind

Hmmmm- I think a fitting analogy would be that Ayn Rand is the CS Goto of philosophical fiction. You'll enjoy her, right up until you actually learn something about philosophy.

I should admit that I only read The Fountainhead, but that was enough for me.

Which reminds me, isn't there a term for when an author has a character that essentially a mouthpiece for themselves? I can't remember it now.

sebster wrote:
You know, it wasn't so long ago that christians were are large part of progressive, socially minded economics. And given what Jesus kept talking about, I can't see why that shouldn't be the case.

One of the worst things about the evangelical movement in the US forming a close alliance with the conservatives is how much it's changed their own views on economics.

Yes. the alliance between christian conservatives and economic conservatives is extremely bizarre to me. The christian ethic and the free market ethic are polar opposites. As Ayn Rand points out 1 views money as the root of all evil the other as the root of all good.

The Republican party could never survive without the votes of "wal mart republicans" - people who dont have any money but vote republican. They're voting to impoverish themselves and make their employers richer why? Because they dont like the gays or abortion or they think the president is a muslim. They're basically allowing themselves to be duped because they want to vote their prejudices. Oh well if they go along with it they deserve what they get.
AF

Ahtman wrote:Which reminds me, isn't there a term for when an author has a character that essentially a mouthpiece for themselves? I can't remember it now.

A "raisonneur" IIRC.

sebster wrote:I like the idea of a society coming slowly apart, it's a really fascinating idea. Everything else is gak.

Before you even look at the politics of the thing, it needs to be acknowledged that is a very poorly written piece of fiction. It just isn't acceptable to stop in the middle of the climax and have a character give a monologue for about 50 pages. The prose is stilted, and the characters are not at all real - they're pastiches that act in silly ways to demonstrate Rand's ideas. If the novel were to be judged on as a piece of fiction it never would have sold out it's first edition, yet it's had countless reprints.

So what's in the philosophy that's so appealing? Basically Rand creates a number of extremely gifted supermen and puts them in charge of major companies, and says these men are the sole reason why these companies succeed, and the reason why society progresses. Everything that restricts or limits these men is bad and will destroy society. It is a fantasy that allows the reader to presume he is one of those geniuses, held back by our society. This has great appeal to the smart kid who was is getting picked on in highschool. It has just as much appeal to the over-confident kid who's just got his first pay cheque and seen the government took $200 - if only that was still his money and he could buy things and gain the status he deserves.

You know how you'll meet an idiot on your university campus who announces himself as a communist and goes off on rants about the evils of corporations or whatever. Well that guy is stupid in exactly the same ways as Rand and her followers are. They've rejected the complexities of society and life, and embraced a very simple view that places themselves as it's victim and some other group as it's perpetrators. The communists just chose to hate the rich, the Randians chose to hate the poor and the government. Everything else is much the same.

I agree with all this. I think her mixing of philosophy and drama can potentially work. Frank Herbert did it in Dune after all. But yeah the plot is absurd. Rearden loves Dagny but then decides half way through "Galt can have him he's the better man." Get out of here. What a bunch of nonsense. The plot was never all that interesting but after about page 700 I just started skipping it entirely.

Ahtman wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican; it belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow; it belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

Rapture.

A city where the artist would not fear the censor.
Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow,
Rapture can become your city as well.


No, wait, that was Andrew Ryan, not Ayn Rand.

Also, don't ever compare Steinbeck to Rand, as Steinbeck actually could write; his Pulitzer and Nobel prize are the most obvious tip-offs. His descriptions weren't wooden or lacking in human dimension. If you really want unending pages of description that go on and on, you need Henry Melville or perhaps Cooper (of the James Fenimore variety).

or Mein Kampf perhaps? Ooo Godwin's law activate!

reds8n wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Which reminds me, isn't there a term for when an author has a character that essentially a mouthpiece for themselves? I can't remember it now.

A "raisonneur" IIRC.

RAISONNEUR - TWS/Bingo - 80 points

Hey guys. I just gotta say. Ayn Rand seems a very intelligent theorist, and a completely lousy writer. The characters are so one sided and the plot of her ideals gets hammered so far down your throat every other page.

I first read the Fountainhead and was very engaged by Howard Roark's idealism as I was in a place myself similar to his, frustrated by being forced into mediocrity and working dirty jobs and bosses who were dumber and less creative than I percieved myself to be.

I read Atlas Shrugged a few years later and I was appalled by her characterization of John Galt as the perfect 'get things done' guy. Nobody like that exists. Ms. Rand wanted it to exist, but it doesn't. There is no 'perfect' burger flipper to whisk off into a velley to make your burgers because he is so good at it. There is just burger flippers who do it because they have to, and they don't really care if the burger is good or not just as long as they get their piddly little check and don't get a complaint to their boss. Reality is not an idealistic affair with what it 'would' be like if only the smart people made decisions. Reality is that bureaucracies function slowly and systematically for a reason to keep the entire society on some (acknowledgably flawed) functioning level.

The Fountainhead seemed like an inspiration for creative minds.

Atlas Shrugged seemed like an elitist pep-talk for people who think they know they are better than others. Sorry we can't all be John Galt, ms. Rand.

Gitzbitah wrote:Hmmmm- I think a fitting analogy would be that Ayn Rand is the CS Goto of philosophical fiction. You'll enjoy her, right up until you actually learn something about philosophy.

I don't think multilazors count as a philosophy.

True, but both authors make you realize exactly what's missing in their work. Goto's work is missing any semblance to 40k, and Rand's work is missing any to philosophy or reason. Compare to anything, say, Umberto Eco has written.

Frazzled wrote:

Ahtman wrote:Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow?

No, says the man in Washington; it belongs to the poor.
No, says the man in the Vatican; it belongs to God.
No, says the man in Moscow; it belongs to everyone.

I rejected those answers. Instead, I chose something
different. I chose the impossible. I chose...

Rapture.

A city where the artist would not fear the censor.
Where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality.
Where the great would not be constrained by the small.
And with the sweat of your brow,
Rapture can become your city as well.


No, wait, that was Andrew Ryan, not Ayn Rand.

Also, don't ever compare Steinbeck to Rand, as Steinbeck actually could write; his Pulitzer and Nobel prize are the most obvious tip-offs. His descriptions weren't wooden or lacking in human dimension. If you really want unending pages of description that go on and on, you need Henry Melville or perhaps Cooper (of the James Fenimore variety).

or Mein Kampf perhaps? Ooo Godwin's law activate!

Ha! Fascist apologist was the first thing I thought when I read that extract too.

I don't know that Rand's work is "missing" anything. Is it the greatest thing you've ever read? If you really like her views, probably. She didn't try to write the best stories ever,a ll she did was take an ideal to the extreme and put it in character form. She wrote "man as he ought to be" in her mind, and I believe she got her point across rather well. I guess I'm asking what she did "wrong" if the things people are complaining about was what she was trying to accomplish in the first place?

Yeah, Ayn Rand is pretty good. Wouldn't think of Roark as a badass though, I think he would be like that punk who sits in the corner all day and get the fact that he's an egotistical moron.

I mean, he blew up the houses being developed for the poor because his designs were changed. Rand said it was because it would raise the cost of the housing and went against its own ideals, but it could also mean that Rourke was having a tantrum and needed to blame someone else besides himself. Also, destroying the things you love so nobody else can have them? That's greed and borderline gluttony if we're talking about pie, and I can destroy some pie.

She caught my attention in middleschool and then I read the fountainhead for the same grant and found it difficult answering the grant essay questions because I really didn't believe in Rand's point.

I sent my essay in late anyways so I wasted my time reading that book.

@orkeosaurus
Multilasors don't, but Kill, Maim, Burn does. The multilasors are just a tool to enforce the philosophy.

I guess the things Ayn Rand was missing were things like respect for human dignity and tolerance. I suppose that isn't a crime, nor is it a crime to write poorly, but it doesn't mean her work is worth reading.

There's a difference between me saying her books aren't complete gak and saying I agree with her. I think she's worth a chin scratch or two but no more so than anything else. Her philosophy obviously didn't pan out in her own life very well. There is something to realizing that nobody owes anyone anything though. I think it makes it more special when someone freely gives then. Likewise when one can do what they want creatively because they wanted to, and they don't have to be ashamed by it. I love to hear passionate people speak about what they want to, and I like to do the same, letting the passion itself be the virtue and recognizing idle chitchat as sometimes a completely waste of my life. But whatever, her books are meant to be about as realistic as 40k and she even said that herself. The difference is she may well have believed it could work on a large scale when evidence and common sense would prove otherwise.

You and everyone else I know! What is this obsession with objectivism? I've got four friends who keep talking about this book like it's the bible. What's it about?

It will wear off. It kinda strips humans of their humanity, which lets you become much more focused, but makes it hard to relate to others sometimes when you'd actually want to. Does help you sift through unnecessary crap though