Ayn Rand

[Zbu]

Geez, this whole thread is making me look wistfully at that copy of Atlas Shrugged I scored for a buck (along with a few other copies of her nonfiction) on Ebay. I guess I like torture, just to see what all of this is about. It sounds like a hoot,a holler, and a MST3K episode all rolled into one.

 

[Jono]

After reading "Atlas Shrugged" I simply let it digest for a few years, then I read it again and wrote a poem about love/hate.

It's a disgustingly inspirational read of epic, stimulating proportions (erhm..) and I do not align myself at all with Ayn's crappy, uber colourful sentiments.

 

[BlackCat]

I'm probably just going to get myself in trouble here, but I thought I should offer a dissenting voice, because I am disappointed by how other dissenting voices went away so quickly.

First, though, you should understand that I am not an objectivist, and I don't swallow everything Rand has to say without question. I agree with you on the point that AS is not the best piece of literature ever. It seriously needed an editor, and some of the ideas she tries to bring up for her philosophy are questionable. I had a hard time slogging through the parts where she reiterates the points she has already made, and like many others, I, too, skipped the Galt speech after about the first ten pages.

But on the other hand, I recognized that the book was written like a morality play. The good people are "good" and the bad people are "bad." It's the style she uses. If you don't like it, that's your choice, and it's fine. It seems you don't like that style because it's "unrealistic." It's true that her style hardly mirrors real life. Someone else (sorry, don't remember) brought up Aesop. His stories are of a similar style. It's to get his point across. Would you then argue that because his style doesn't match real life, his morals at the end are worthless? If you say no, can you say the same about Rand, then? It seems to me that complaining about a book's cover, and then ignoring the content is a little shallow.

I'm not saying you have to agree with everything, and in fact, I don't. I totally disagree with what she thinks about women and their role in society. I think her bad guys are too simplistic and stupid. (Aren't the bad guys in superhero comics the same way?) I wish that they had more backbone and would have fought against her perfect heroes more. But on the other hand, I think a lot of what she has to say is important, or at least, thought-inspiring. When I say thought-inspiring, I'm not saying she made you agree with her. I'm saying that she says things that will make you think, particularly about your values, your role in society, your government, and your taxes. Even if all she did was reaffirm them for you, at least she made you think about them. Doesn't that deserve some credit?

For me, she solidified a lot of the things that I already had running around in my head. Whether or not she herself was arrogant, I didn't take her book that way. I read the "self-made producer" as an ideal that all people could achieve. I read the "average joe" and the "moochers" as other potential things for people to become, albeit less attractive. Essentially, I read it as: you have a choice. Are you going to be a producer, a joe, or a moocher? I don't know about you, but I want to be a producer. I want to achieve all that I possibly can with my life, because then, I will have fulfilled my potential as a human being. This doesn't mean that I'm going to go out tomorrow and become a businessman and start a giant corporation. No, this means that I'm going to take the gifts I have, and use them to the best of my ability, whether it's writing, architecture, or fixing cars. To not do so would be a terrible waste.

Third, and this was most important of all: Galt creates an impossible engine! It was some BS out pulling static electricity out of the air, but it was an engine that was essentially creating power from nothing - it would have been a Zero Point Energy engine if she wrote this book now.

<snip>

I felt betrayed by someone who was supposed to be so concerned with objective reality would make one of the story's major plot lines rely on something that was so clearly impossible.

Come on now, this is a silly argument. You're telling me that you've suspended your disbelief for other fiction stories, but yet, you won't for AS? That is hypocritical. Technically, the engine could have been any kind of advanced hypothetical device. Rand used it as a vehicle to lead Dagny to Galt. How does explaining the specifics of the engine detract from the message of the book? So you don't agree with it. So. Move on. It's not central to the story.

Consider the original Star Trek. It takes place on a starship, which uses "warp" drives, transporters, and phasers. These things are completely rediculous and impossible by current technology. Remember the episode with the half-black, half-white people and how it commented on the obvious absurdity of racial differences? Based on your engine argument, that would then render Star Trek unfit to comment on society (the racial issues described) simply because it has impossible and laughable technology.

How, in the text, could the guard, by thinking for himself, have made a correct decision?

Finally, I have an answer for you. The guard could have decided for himself (which was the point). Dagny gave him a choice: let her in, or die. He didn't choose, so she made the decision for him. Maybe it was a sloppy manner in which Rand wrote this scene, and she didn't think about the undertones that it may have had, but no one's perfect. The scene is pretty inconsequential, so nitpicking it to death doesn't really accomplish much, I think.

All in all, I still think everyone should read this book. Not for it's style nor for the story. I think people should read it for its message about what people could be if they wanted to, and the perseverance, follow-through, and reward of following your dreams. It's about being the best person you can be. The trappings are meaningless.

BlackCat

 

[delphi_ote]

His stories are of a similar style. It's to get his point across. Would you then argue that because his style doesn't match real life, his morals at the end are worthless?

For the most part, yes.

 

[Cain]

I read The Fountainhead, and thought it was awful. No, worse than awful. Ayn Rand writes stroke books for alienated suburban youth who feel their greatness is scandalously overlooked. Not many people who read her as adults have the same kind of emotional reaction.

For a philosophy that describes itself as supremely "rational", these books are loaded with emotionally-laden language. See for instance Jeff Walker's excellent book _The Ayn Rand Cult_ for an instructive comparison to the Bible. It's philosophy for business majors. Actual philosophy majors, many of them, end up abandoning her.

 

[Skeptic]

But on the other hand, I recognized that the book was written like a morality play.

Indeed so; which is why it's literary quality is so low.

It seems you don't like that style because it's "unrealistic." It's true that her style hardly mirrors real life. Someone else (sorry, don't remember) brought up Aesop. His stories are of a similar style. It's to get his point across. Would you then argue that because his style doesn't match real life, his morals at the end are worthless?

Aesop is "unrealistic" in an unimportant sense: he has talking animals and similar stuff in his stories. He is very realistic in the observations his talking cats and singing donkeys (or whatever) make about the human condition.

Rand is "realistic" in having in an unimportant sense: of writing a novel about people and factories, etc. She is very unrealistic in her understanding of what really makes human tick and in her characers. Aesop's frogs are far more realistic than Rand's people in all important respects.

Essentially, I read it as: you have a choice. Are you going to be a producer, a joe, or a moocher? I don't know about you, but I want to be a producer. I want to achieve all that I possibly can with my life, because then, I will have fulfilled my potential as a human being. This doesn't mean that I'm going to go out tomorrow and become a businessman and start a giant corporation. No, this means that I'm going to take the gifts I have, and use them to the best of my ability, whether it's writing, architecture, or fixing cars. To not do so would be a terrible waste.

Indeed so. But such "deep philosophical conclusions" are trite trivialities, which Rand seems to have bought by the pound at the same place new age "self-help" books and Hallmark greeting cards get them, the little-known corporation Statements of the Bloody Obvious, Inc.

Come on now, this is a silly argument. You're telling me that you've suspended your disbelief for other fiction stories, but yet, you won't for AS? That is hypocritical.

The problem is not that Rand describes events that are false, or even impossible, in the real world; the problem is the events and plot twists she describes lack plausibility and credibility within the imaginary world of her novel.

Technically, the engine could have been any kind of advanced hypothetical device. Rand used it as a vehicle to lead Dagny to Galt. How does explaining the specifics of the engine detract from the message of the book?

The problem with the engine is not that it won't work or is fictional. It is that it adds yet another strike of unrealism to Galt's character--he is the bravest, strongest, most honest, most determined, etc., etc., etc., person alive (and/or ever) AND he is also, judging by his engine, the most talented and amazing inventor of all time AND he invented the economically most important single invention in history (more or less).

Galt is simply utterly unbelievable as a character and about as possible to relate to as it is to relate to Superman. This would have remained the case, incidentally, even if Rand by chance had made Galt invent the internet, which as we all know is quite possible. In real life things happen that defy versimilitude, as we all know; in a novel they shouldn't.

All in all, I still think everyone should read this book. Not for it's style nor for the story. I think people should read it for its message about what people could be if they wanted to, and the perseverance, follow-through, and reward of following your dreams.

But that's just the point: NOBODY could possibly expect to be anything remotely like John Galt, so the fact that preserverance and follow-through works for him that gives us about as much insight as a novel where Superman, after lots of trying, finally does manage to learn to fly.

 

[ZirconBlue]

It's philosophy for business majors. Actual philosophy majors, many of them, end up abandoning her.

Personally, I couldn't give a rat's a** what "philosophy majors" might think.


"There is nothing so ridiculous that has not at some time been said by some philosopher."

 

[drkitten]

For me, she solidified a lot of the things that I already had running around in my head. Whether or not she herself was arrogant, I didn't take her book that way. I read the "self-made producer" as an ideal that all people could achieve.

Well, that's part of the central problem. Because, regardless of whether or not you read it that way, she didn't write it that way. (She probably wanted to, but she lacked both clarity of vision and writing ability.)

Specifically, the "self-made producer" is in no sense an achievable ideal -- or for most people, even a figure particularly worthy of respect. Without exception, the various Supermen in the books are not rational (they take insane risks without prudently considering the consequences or likelihood of failure), not moral (they have little regard for those around them and demand unquestioning obedience to those same risks, and will demonstrably kill without compunction anyone who does not share their opinions), not honest (they have no qualms about lying to those "beneath" them), not responsible (they take on committments they have no intention of fulfilling), et cetera.

If you look at the details of Dagny's behavior, in particular, she comes across as being as nearly sociopathiclaly self-centered, to the point that in a more "realistic" novel she would have been the villianess of the piece.

But then when you consider the actual actions these supermen take -- and the way that the consequences of those actions differs from the expected consequences -- it's also obvious that it's not possible to for a person to "become" one of these supermen, since the definition of such supermen is that everything goes right for them..

Essentially, I read it as: you have a choice. Are you going to be a producer, a joe, or a moocher? I don't know about you, but I want to be a producer.

Good. But, sorry, you can't. You seen, in order to be a producer, you have to be unrealistically perfect. But since you're not, you have no rights whatsoever, since the producers need have no regard whatsoever for the average joes. Find a nice producer to whom you can sell your soul, because that will at least give you a shred of sustenance until she decides to leave you on the track in the middle of nowhere -- if she doesn't simply shoot you in the back first.

 

[delphi_ote]

"There is nothing so ridiculous that has not at some time been said by some philosopher."

Yes. Her name was Ayn Rand.

 

[specious_reasons]

Come on now, this is a silly argument. You're telling me that you've suspended your disbelief for other fiction stories, but yet, you won't for AS? That is hypocritical.

That's a fair criticism of my complaint. Let's say, though, that I'm willing to suspend disbelief depending on the story. I'm willing to allow warp drives in science fiction and unfathomable beasties in horror stories. I'm less willing to allow such things in political/philosophical novels. Let's just say that my distaste for the unreality of the novel came to the boiling over point upon discovering Galt's engine. It was the point where I decided that I'd had enough, that the novel didn't represent any reality that I could relate to.

I remember reading Hard Case by Dan Simmons. My enjoyment of the book was severely curtailed by the fact that the main character seemed to have information that was beyond his capability to know. He had sussed out who the "bad guy" was, apparently early in the story's timeline, and worked through all of the details, to the surprise of the reader. This is the same type of problem I had with Atlas Shrugged.

Technically, the engine could have been any kind of advanced hypothetical device. Rand used it as a vehicle to lead Dagny to Galt. How does explaining the specifics of the engine detract from the message of the book? So you don't agree with it. So. Move on. It's not central to the story.

Well, to me the engine represented the point where the heroes of the story transcended reality and became superhuman. Not just Galt, but Taggert and Reardon who understood the significance of the engine in a partially disassembled and weathered form. It was the point when I decided that Rand's vision was unachievable. It had a central significance to me.

 

[drkitten]

That's a fair criticism of my complaint. Let's say, though, that I'm willing to suspend disbelief depending on the story. I'm willing to allow warp drives in science fiction and unfathomable beasties in horror stories.

Something else that should be mentioned here is what I've sometimes called the first-chapter rule.

Basically, if you are going to make an unreal world, you get the first chapter of your novel to define in what way it's unreal. So if your story hinges on interstellar travel, tell me up front : "Captain's Log : Stardate E to the I Pi Plus One. We are now in orbit around the planet Mammae, noted for its busty and scantily-clothed women. The crew want shore leave." If your story involves elves, mention them. If you are going to put in unfathomable beasties from the depths of Hell, some sort of foreshadowing of the supernatural is necessary. And don't tell me only in the fifth chapter that the narrator has been a talking frog all along.

And once you establish the rules about what is real and what isn't, stick to them.

The world of Atlas Shrugged gets progressively less real as it goes along -- and not in a positive or controlled way.

 

[jj]

The world of Atlas Shrugged gets progressively less real as it goes along -- and not in a positive or controlled way.

It does indeed have a very strong sense of increasing disassociation.

On the other hand, one of the classic ways to write horror novels is to start out utterly mundane, and let things go off just a little bit here, a little bit there, a bit more here, a bit more there, they really don't follow your recipe, especially some of the better ones, they start out, as it were, in the light of day and slip slowly into a cavern of shadows and increasing "creepy"... This is especially true of the ones where you're not quite SURE if it's the protaganist or the environment is going down the tubes.

But no, Atlas Shrugged isn't one of those. And it does seem to get farther and farther out as time goes on, and finally John Galt produces a deus ex machina or three.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Yes. Her name was Ayn Rand.

Well played!

 

[delphi_ote]

Well played!

Thanks. And thanks for having a sense of humor. The thread is a lot more fun that way.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Thanks. And thanks for having a sense of humor. The thread is a lot more fun that way.

I pretty much have to maintain a sense of humor on this topic. I like a lot what Rand has to say (or at least the message I get out of it), and while I do think she was in serious need of an editor, I still like the stories well enough (I've read Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, and We the Living). However, I don't feel educated enough in her philosophy to debate it, especially with some of the sharper whits on this forum. And with "friends" like Melendwyr on my side, who needs enemies?

 

[delphi_ote]

However, I don't feel educated enough in her philosophy to debate it, especially with some of the sharper whits on this forum.

Just jump in. As long as you're having fun and keeping away from the nastier discussions, I think you'll find this a great place to sharpen your wit.

And with "friends" like Melendwyr on my side, who needs enemies?

We're not going to judge your opinions harshly just because others happen to agree with you. So far, you've been great.

This post:

OK. You got me. I did, indeed, skip most of John Galt's monologue.

Absolutely had me cracking up.

 

[BlackCat]

Okay, so, here's what I understand your arguments to be: a) the book is poorly written, in style and in language; b) the protagonists are superheroes, perfect, and one-dimensional; c) the setting and pacing of the story is unrealistic; d) consequences in the book don't match real life; and e) the message is ridiculously obvious, and anyone with common sense should have thought of it before reading the book.

I am not debating these things. I don't want to debate these things, especially because in some cases, I agree with you.

All I was trying to say in my first post was that despite these things, I still found something good in it. I was trying to show something positive amidst all the negative.

It seems that you feel the need to disagree with me anyway, and tear apart my arguments. I don't mind, but it's a waste of your time because none of my thoughts on the book hinge on whether the items written in the first paragraph are true or not.

Indeed so. But such "deep philosophical conclusions" are trite trivialities, which Rand seems to have bought by the pound at the same place new age "self-help" books and Hallmark greeting cards get them, the little-known corporation Statements of the Bloody Obvious, Inc.

Scientists are often accused of living in their "ivory tower" and ignoring the world around them. I can tell that Rand's message was completely obvious to you, so you figure that it must be to everyone else as well, right? This is what is meant by the "ivory tower" idea. Just because you understand everything instantly, doesn't mean everyone else does. Common sense isn't very common. (I'm sure you've heard that before.) Some people have to be told and explained that which is perfectly clear and obvious to you. Science and skepticism are perfectly clear concepts to us, so why are we still fighting against so much superstition/religion/etc. in the world?


I am amazed at how many of you vehemently defend your opinions. Perhaps you've seen another thread on these forums that talks about "The Scoffer Effect"? It seems to me that in an effort to assert yourselves as correct, you alienate those you're attempting to convince. Then, you won't even listen to their arguments, much less consider them. This can make you seem harsh, arrogant, and rude. It's not like we're defending scientific law against superstition, here.

BlackCat

 

[Skeptic]

All I was trying to say in my first post was that despite these things, I still found something good in it. I was trying to show something positive amidst all the negative.

Fair enough!

Scientists are often accused of living in their "ivory tower" and ignoring the world around them. I can tell that Rand's message was completely obvious to you, so you figure that it must be to everyone else as well, right?

But it's not as if Rand is giving us a new physical theory or a deep metaphysics. Her ideas seem to sum up as "be all that you can be!" and "work hard to improve your skills and be productive!". Really, this DOES seem to me to be rather obvious to everyone.

Science and skepticism are perfectly clear concepts to us, so why are we still fighting against so much superstition/religion/etc. in the world?

Perhaps because human beings seem to be born with, or at least raised with, religious instincts to see design in everything and to not doubt what they're told. Skepticism isn't trite; Ayn Rand's maxims are.

I am amazed at how many of you vehemently defend your opinions. Perhaps you've seen another thread on these forums that talks about "The Scoffer Effect"?

We're not scoffing at YOU, we're scoffing at Rand, and/or people who take Rand to be the greatest thinker ever, which you obviously do not. I don't think I've attacked YOU in my reply--simply pointed out that I think some of your arguments are incorrect.

Our disagreement seems have centered on the issue, not of Rand's philosophy, but of whether Galt is a believable or unbelievable as a character in a novel. Surely this is hardly scoffing at you?

Actually, your idea for a "scoffer effect" threat would be interesting--why not start another thread about this (probably in "Forum community" or "religion and philosophy", I suppose) about this issue?

I would say, though, that the "scoffer effect", while real, tends to be a folie de deux: A vehemently attacks view X, B decides A is scoffing, not at X, but at him personally, counter-attacks A, and we have the making of a nice, long, flame war...

 

[drkitten]

Actually, your idea for a "scoffer effect" threat would be interesting--why not start another thread about this (probably in "Forum community" or "religion and philosophy", I suppose) about this issue?

T'ai Chi already tried this, and got hammered roundly when it became obvious that it was another one of his trolly little threads.

 

[specious_reasons]

All I was trying to say in my first post was that despite these things, I still found something good in it. I was trying to show something positive amidst all the negative.

I feel for you. As much as I'm trashing Rand on this thread, I happen to agree with many of the elements of Objectivism. If I hadn't been exposed to those ideas before reading Atlas Shrugged, I might have been more receptive to the book as a whole.