Ayn Rand

[epepke]

People who refuse to think for themselves and pass on all responsibility for thought to authorities are less than animals. Animals by and large do not possess the capacity for rationality (it's rather more complex than that, but that's the simple version). Humans that have rejected their capacity for rationality are thus worse than creatures that lack that capacity.

If you possessed the capacity to think rationally, you would have understood the messages in the text. You wouldn't necessarily have agreed with them, but you would have been able to know what they were. Instead you create strawmen because it's easier than working to understand.

No, this is a pathetic straw man on Rand's part. I've never met a security guard like that, and even if I had, then Gagme Dagger (or whatever her name is) probably employed tens of thousands, and if Rand's sex scenes are any indication, spent many happy hours exuding piss and seed on the accounting reports, gleefully chortling about how cheap she could get them.

 

[gypsynuke]

Yes, currently. That doesn't mean that the USA don't have the laws required to reintroduce the draft if necessary. I could be wrong, but I don't think that I am: "Don't all countries have laws like that? 'All able-bodied men' of a certain age etc.?"
I just saw Michael Moore's 9/11. In that documenatary there are a couple of examples of the way in which soldiers are recruited. They may have joined the military willingly, but many of them don't exactly seem very pleased to go to Iraq. The contractual obligation of people lured into the military because their living conditions and opportunities in American society seem even more desolate, just stresses that it is a very special kind of willingness we're talking about here.

Michael Moore doesn't produce documentaries. He's a filmmaker and each film shows his vision to the world, just like Spielberg and Coppola.
Having spent 4 years in the Navy I would rather not have, I can certainly say no one twisted my arm to get me to enlist. I joined because I couldn't afford the universities I was accepted to, once upon a time I was a very poor little boy. Now everythings great and life goes on.
I've rambled a bit but my point is there is no special kind of willingness. You make the decision and you may regret it, but no one is forced into military service in the United States.

 

[delphi_ote]

Rand's authorial style would be better suited for 15th century Italy...

What are you talking about? Every sentence this woman wrote was a crime against the English language. There's no style to it at all, let alone 15th century style. The woman could not write. She was incompetent.

She picked up the key from the ground—then waited for a few brief moments, as had been agreed upon.

Read that again. We'll talk when you can justify the use of the dash, the redundancy, and the use of passive voice after the comma. While you're at it, justify including the entire statement. Who cares that she waited? It's a totally unnecessary detail. It doesn't give any insight into the character's state of mind or further the plot. The sentence is pompous filler. Oddly enough, the sentence comes right after what could have been a great opportunity for character development (in a Rand novel... I know. I can be pretty hilarious sometimes.)

Rand could have used this as an opportunity to explore how Dagny reacted to shooting the man. How did she approach the corpse? Reluctantly and disgusted? Impassionately? How does she pick up the key? What does she think while looting the corpse of the first human she's ever murdered? If Dagny is cold and calculating, focused entirely on the plan, why not describe her watching her clock until the precise moment she's supposed to move on? If instead Rand wanted to convey that Dagny was upset, why not describe her spending the "few brief moments" contemplating the corpse and her actions? These are supposed to be purpose driven heroes, but their actions and personalities are just never explored in any kind of depth. They aren't real. They just go through the motions to act out this ridiculous morality play.

My 11th grade English teacher taught better creative writing skills. Rand is a hack. Do not insult my native tongue by implying her bastardization of it is some kind of intentional stylistic device.

 

[epepke]

Michael Moore doesn't produce documentaries. He's a filmmaker and each film shows his vision to the world, just like Spielberg and Coppola.

If Moore hadn't won the academy award for Best Documentary, I doubt that anyone would bother to criticize him. He wouldn't be as rich, either.

Hey, I liked Canadian Bacon.

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

I think her style was perfect for Germany in the 30s and 40s.

 

[Beth]

I found Rand readable if a bit pedantic at times. 'Course, I was over 40 when I picked up Atlas Shrugged and read it for the first time. But I didn't find her writing style any worse than many others that are considered some of the best. I thought Tolstoy and Dickens both far harder to read.

 

[Orwell]

I found Rand readable if a bit pedantic at times. 'Course, I was over 40 when I picked up Atlas Shrugged and read it for the first time. But I didn't find her writing style any worse than many others that are considered some of the best. I thought Tolstoy and Dickens both far harder to read.

Your assessment of literary style leaves a lot to be desired...

 

[delphi_ote]

I found Rand readable if a bit pedantic at times. 'Course, I was over 40 when I picked up Atlas Shrugged and read it for the first time. But I didn't find her writing style any worse than many others that are considered some of the best. I thought Tolstoy and Dickens both far harder to read.

Tolstoy was a translation. Like Rand, he did not write in English. Unlike Rand, he wrote with an unparalleled understanding of the human condition. Even though his novels are rendered nearly incomprehensible in the English language, people still struggle through them because there is a rewarding revelation and new perspective waiting at the end. Rand writes endlessly and incomprehensibly to beat you over the head violently with the same mind-numbing thought: selfish = good. There. I just saved you a thousand pages.

Dickens was among the most verbose writers in the English language, but he was also a master of the language. Read this passage:

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all doing direct the other way - in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.

Verbose? Yes. But there's deliberate meter. You can tap your foot to the rhythm of the entire passage. There is rich imagery and association. Dickens was a master novelist. I hate his books, but he was unbelievably skilled with the English language.

Rand's style is deliberately concocted to be dense and unreadable. She didn't make her writing anymore expressive by enveloping it in a smoke screen of bad grammar and nonsense abstraction. Because she camouflaged her pseudointellectualism and one dimensional characters in this way, a train of would-be thinkers have devoured her books for the smug sense of satisfaction that they alone can penetrate the mystery of her works. That satisfaction is a delusion. There isn't anything going on in these books any of us didn't think about when we were 13 years old. Rand's genius was that she conned semi-intelligent individuals into believing the selfishness of their teenage years was some grand new philosophy.

In short, Ayn Rand was a pompous air head trying to sound unfathomable. If she had lived today, Atlas Shrugged would've only been famous as the longest Live Journal entry ever written. To compare her to Dickens or Tolstoy only demonstrates that you don't understand all three.

 

[Orwell]

Funny, English is not my native tongue, and I've read Tolstoy in French. I've never had any trouble with Dickens' prose, even though my english isn't that good. Tolstoy, translated to French, was a pleasure to read.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...In short, Ayn Rand was a pompous air head trying to sound unfathomable. If she had lived today, Atlas Shrugged would've only been famous as the longest Live Journal entry ever written. To compare her to Dickens or Tolstoy only demonstrates that you don't understand all three.

Actually, you can tell the difference between her books. Her first one We the Living is actually quite readable. It is only later that she culminates into the ultimate "Believes in her own press" obtuseness with Atlas Shrugged. Though there were glimmers of bad decision making in the last chapter of the first book, I kept thinking Kira was being an idiot.

 

[delphi_ote]

Funny, English is not my native tongue, and I've read Tolstoy in French. I've never had any trouble with Dickens' prose, even though my english isn't that good. Tolstoy, translated to French, was a pleasure to read.

It always depends on the translation, doesn't it? I've been so happy with the translations of Umberto Eco's books into English, and a translation of Ovid's Metamorphoses. So far, I haven't been lucky enough to find Tolstoy rendered nicely in my native tongue, but I'll keep looking.

 

[Beth]

Your assessment of literary style leaves a lot to be desired...

Actually, I think it has more to do with the age at which I first encountered them. I was more mature when I read Rand than the others.

 

[Skeptic]

People who refuse to think for themselves and pass on all responsibility for thought to authorities are less than animals.

Except, of course, when that authority is Ayn Rand's.

Like all gurus, when she said, "those who do not think for themselves are less than animals", what she meant was, "those who disagree with me are less than animals".

This is certainly how she treated "heretics" within the objectivist cult, and the way those in the cult think of others.

If you possessed the capacity to think rationally, you would have understood the messages in the text.

See what I mean?

You disagree with Rand, so you "reject rationality"--because, according to Rand and her followers, the only reason one could possibly disagree with Rand is by failing to be "rational".

It couldn't possibly be that Rand is just wrong...

 

[specious_reasons]

WOddly enough, the sentence comes right after what could have been a great opportunity for character development (in a Rand novel... I know. I can be pretty hilarious sometimes.)

Rand could have used this as an opportunity to explore how Dagny reacted to shooting the man. How did she approach the corpse? Reluctantly and disgusted? Impassionately? How does she pick up the key? What does she think while looting the corpse of the first human she's ever murdered? If Dagny is cold and calculating, focused entirely on the plan, why not describe her watching her clock until the precise moment she's supposed to move on? If instead Rand wanted to convey that Dagny was upset, why not describe her spending the "few brief moments" contemplating the corpse and her actions? These are supposed to be purpose driven heroes, but their actions and personalities are just never explored in any kind of depth. They aren't real. They just go through the motions to act out this ridiculous morality play.

Funny, when I read that, I figured Dagny considered the guard, who apparently died instantly and silently after being shot in the heart, was a useless pile of flesh lying on the ground. He was only even worthy of her attention because he represented a minor obstacle. Had he actually presented her with resistance, she might have mourned his death. Instead, she just picked up the key and waited the required amount of time.

I found such scenes less realistic than even the most outrageous action movie. Even the most superhuman of action heros either fool the guard or kill him silently if he's suspicious, but she thwarted the guard well before shooting him. She defeated him by force of will - forcing him to make a decision! How horrible!

How could the guard have such utter disregard for his training? Certainly, if she was supposed to be there, she would have had some form of authorization. Wasn't there a process by which the guard could have determined if she was legitimate? Oh, I suppose that was why he was trying to get his commander. Her refusal to wait for confirmation should have indicated that he shouldn't be letting her through, so he should have refused her. The "decision" she forced on him should have been a no-brainer.

The world in Atlas Shrugged rings so untrue to me. Certainly, there are people who would rather die than make a choice, but as much as I fret about the general stupidity of humans, I often find myself surprised at the necessary wisdom people can muster.

 

[delphi_ote]

Funny, when I read that, I figured Dagny considered the guard, who apparently died instantly and silently after being shot in the heart, was a useless pile of flesh lying on the ground. He was only even worthy of her attention because he represented a minor obstacle. Had he actually presented her with resistance, she might have mourned his death. Instead, she just picked up the key and waited the required amount of time.

But the whole thing is so widely open to interpretation because Rand just didn't express herself very well. We know what she wants us to think from all of the previous passages. Dagny shot the guy in cold blood, took the key, and calculated the precise time she was supposed to leave. But as my 8th grade English teacher said, "Show, don't tell." In this pivotal scene, we're just given one awkward sentence.

I found such scenes less realistic than even the most outrageous action movie. Even the most superhuman of action heros either fool the guard or kill him silently if he's suspicious, but she thwarted the guard well before shooting him. She defeated him by force of will - forcing him to make a decision! How horrible!

How could the guard have such utter disregard for his training? Certainly, if she was supposed to be there, she would have had some form of authorization. Wasn't there a process by which the guard could have determined if she was legitimate? Oh, I suppose that was why he was trying to get his commander. Her refusal to wait for confirmation should have indicated that he shouldn't be letting her through, so he should have refused her. The "decision" she forced on him should have been a no-brainer.

The world in Atlas Shrugged rings so untrue to me. Certainly, there are people who would rather die than make a choice, but as much as I fret about the general stupidity of humans, I often find myself surprised at the necessary wisdom people can muster.

Right there we find the deepest flaw in both her novels and her philosophy: Rand didn't understand people.

 

[Dcdrac]

I work on an IT support desk and I know there are otherwise competent thinking people who phone up with the silliest queries they could sort out themselves with a modicum of thought but choose not to think.

 

[Jorghnassen]

I work on an IT support desk and I know there are otherwise competent thinking people who phone up with the silliest queries they could sort out themselves with a modicum of thought but choose not to think.

Yes, but do you kill them in cold blood?

 

[Piscivore]

I work on an IT support desk and I know there are otherwise competent thinking people who phone up with the silliest queries they could sort out themselves with a modicum of thought but choose not to think.

"Chose not to think" is a little harsh, isn't it? Oftentimes it is more expedient to ask for help. Say Executive "A" has a presentation to make in an hour and he still has to go get the overhead projector from the stockroom and make sure the secretary brings in the water glasses, really quick, let me check the Powerpoint presentation on my laptop... Oh holy Jeebus, there's something wrong with the laptop!

Sure, he could probably figure out eventually what the problem was, but isn't it a lot more efficient for him to call IT support who is A) more knowledgeable, and B) probably thinking with a cooler head right now?

Even the smartest, most logical, most virtuous, sexiest person will make mistakes from time to time. Any philosophy (or novel, for that matter) that claims otherwise should be immediately suspect.

 

[Dcdrac]

Yes, but do you kill them in cold blood?

It has crossed my mind, but being a peaceful minded type I would never do it.

Its things like we have a meeting starting in 2 minutes and we need this presntation loaded on a laptop when the meeting is in a building five miles away.

 

[Ian Osborne]

I work on an IT support desk and I know there are otherwise competent thinking people who phone up with the silliest queries they could sort out themselves with a modicum of thought but choose not to think.

I feel your pain, but if yourself and a colleague gave that person contradictory advice, would you condemn him for being confused? The guard was put in an impossible position, then lambasted for not thinking, even though thinking wouldn't have helped the situation anyway.