ayn rand

[Subdude]

The Big Picture blog takes a big whack at Rand today:

I haven’t read Rand’s work for decades, but I do recall two things: A) It was a giant pedantic bore; 2) Debating it with people in College was always a hoot. The thing that struck me most was the lack of rigor in the arguments — it was more religion than logic, more wishful thinking than reality based observations of how humans actually behave.

You can the concentration of ARAs in a certain groupings. These are the folks who blame the CRA for the collapse of the economy; ARAs tend to be hardcore idealogues; many are rabidly partisan. All too many are deeply uninformed. They breathje co0gnitive dissonance they most people breathe oxygen. When confronted with facts, data, reality that challenge their ideology, they make up new facts.

I imagine that Freud would bluntly use Randian logic to note they inhabit a guise of superiority in part to compensate for vast and deeply felt inferiorities and insecurities. That’s right, those of you who feel compelled to talk about how big your junk is are typically are sporting selections from the wee person’s aisle.

Malcolm Gladwell is a guy who knows how to write compellingly readable stories. The takeaway in his book Outliers The Story of Success is quite unRandian — it is that luck plays an enormous factor in out-sized success. That is a factor the Randians prefer to ignore.

What I find so weird about Rand is that there are more than a few people I respect who gobbled up her work. These are not ARAs — but are otherwise rational folks who never quite went full tilt into ARA-hood. But they have a huge respect for her work. Me? I prefer “lessers” like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and John Maynard Keynes. I prefer John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle of Liberty over Rand’s Objectivism.

Dangerous Minds contextualizes the pedantic bore portion of the Rand legend:

“It’s Rand’s dialogue that seals her reputation as an author you just can’t take seriously. To be fair, she was writing in her second language, but the problem with her books is that no one actually speaks to one another, they just make speeches at each other. Hectoring, long-winded speeches. It’s fine to read stuff like that as a teenager, but when I crack open one of her books today, I shake my head in disbelief at how bombastic and horrible her writing is.”

Bombastic and horrible? You are being too kind . . .

My actual problem with Rand — behind her blindingly horrific prose — is that she was pushing back against a totalitarian system in the Soviet Union, a corrupt and morally indefensible system she had every right to be infuriated by. But she applies that righteous fury and outrage to a Democracy, whose economy is Free Market based. Hence, rather than challenging the politburo, she challenges Unions. Cooperative behavior seems to be hard for her to grasp. One suspects she would have disliked Consumer Reports, or Zagats, or Amazon’s user ratings.

Worst of all, Rand’s Objectivism has become the rationale for all manner of morally repugnant behaviour. However, I did take one personal lesson from Atlas Shrugged to heart: Anytime I see a parked car with a John Galt bumper sticker, I like to knock off one of the sideview mirrors, and leave it on the hood. I include a note stating my selfish, random act made me feel good, and therefore should be a perfectly fine act in their world.

I assume the recipients miss the irony . . .

Link to full post

If you have some time check out the readers' comments. Just like the replies to the GQ article above, it seems that some of her followers don't take criticism lightly.

[AtticaFlinch]

The Big Picture blog takes a big whack at Rand today:

Link to full post

If you have some time check out the readers' comments. Just like the replies to the GQ article above, it seems that some of her followers don't take criticism lightly.

An often overlooked aspect of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that with any scrutiny at all, it essentially implodes in on itself. First though, it must be recognized that in her ideology, achievement for selfish reasons is inherently a positive thing. In the world of Ayn Rand, to be greedy is an act worthy of divinity. If you aren't greedy, and you don't exclusively work towards self-serving ends, then you necessarily are weak, and you serve to prey on society as a whole. But, and here's the glaring hole (or perhaps irony) in Rand's logic, if an individual seeks to make the larger government (or group action) work for him to take money from a wealthier group for his own benefit, then isn't that individual simply using the government as a tool, much like one of Rand's heroes would use an innovation or some other thing, to make money? Essentially, both individuals, a Rand protagonist and a Rand antagonist, uses all the tools at their disposal to make more money for themselves.

Rand's favorite target of unions uses their solidarity and common goals to belie the fact those common goals are selfishly motivated to make the individuals' lives better. The individuals in the unions don't collectivize to make more money for just one person in the group. If any indiviual was told that while everyone else in the union would financially benefit from a strike, but that one individual would not, then that individual would likely be the first scab across the picket line. Even in collectivizing, the goal is based on individual needs and desires. That being said, the use of force or collective action is ultimately an individual effort which should, in Rand's eyes, make the effort good and noble. The goal could be stated more clearly this way: I want more money. How do I get more money? I can join with some colleagues and demand more money. It's supply and demand. If we remove our labor (the product) from the market, then we can demand more value for that labor. Using this logic, even the antagonists are protagonists, and every action is truly a capitalistic action.

Ayn Rand ignores this (or post-modernism had yet to rear its ugly head at the time she was doing the bulk of her writing), and it makes her opinions appear as dated as dancing the Charleston. All those looking for modern analogues may find some resemblances with the bailouts of large corporations, but those who find those resemblances have themselves ignored one simple fact. These businesses have "nationalized" at their own request. The government didn't force these firms to take the money. And, unlike a true nationalization, the firms all have an exit strategy where they again become solvent and repay the American taxpayers. When they've returned the money (plus interest), those businesses are again 100% private (or, er... public as the case actually already is).

And then again, those businesses taking the TARP funds are doing nothing different than Rand's villains. They're taking money for their laziness, or lack of productivity, and are living off the collective teet of the American people. They've done very little to get a lot, and in doing so, they've taken money from others whose labor warranted the funds. This is true capitalism. This is true greed. This is Ayn Rand utopia. You get what you can - when you can get it - by any means available. In this regard, there is no difference between the the CEO of Goldman-Sachs and a welfare recipient who uses every new child she has as a raise on her welfare check. We all use whatever talent we have and whatever little luck we get to garner the most possible reward for the least possible work.

But, that narrative doesn't work for the Ayn Rand acolytes who like to think of all innovators and visionaries as victims of the big bad government. They latch on to Rand's fear of totalitarianism as the only possible role of government. Somehow, they seem to think the world will exist as a better place if corporations, whose goals are strictly to generate revenue, ran the place over governments, whose goals should be to protect the people who serve under them. Myself, I prefer to think of government in a Lockean sense, which is the same way our founding fathers saw it. The government is a force bound to protect the inalienable rights of the people, and those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness (six in one...). That government is formed of the people and by the people, not of the corporation and by the corporation. The needs and desires of the 2% at the top do not outweigh the needs and desires of the remaining 98%. And so on...

If anything, that irrational fear of the government is about the only real parallel from this modern world and Rand's world of make-believe. If a person will see the government as a bogey-man in all aspects, then I can understand why that same person would cling to The Fountainhead as they would a blankie. Anyhow, I have no cohesive point behind this. It's just an Ayn Rant. Hopefully her books will one day be enjoyed only by antiquarians who appreciate them for being the relics they are, and not as some prescient arbiter of government domination and subjugation.

[bachanon]

"stossel" on fox business news discusses "atlas shrugged" by rand tomorrow night.

ayn rand link

[Highway6]

Finally saw Fountainhead this weekend. It was just one of those movies I figured I owed myself to see.

I knew it wouldnt be as good as the book, most movies arent, even more likely with a movie that old.... Knew it would be kinda corny... but damn was it bad.

I grew up on Cary Grant movies, i was expecting North by Northwest levels of drama and acting. It reminded me more of Metropolis with the over the top expressions, drama, and cartoonish way they incorporated his buildings into the scenes.

Oh well.. Glad I got that over with.

[TheNiche]

Finally saw Fountainhead this weekend. It was just one of those movies I figured I owed myself to see.

I knew it wouldnt be as good as the book, most movies arent, even more likely with a movie that old.... Knew it would be kinda corny... but damn was it bad.

I grew up on Cary Grant movies, i was expecting North by Northwest levels of drama and acting. It reminded me more of Metropolis with the over the top expressions, drama, and cartoonish way they incorporated his buildings into the scenes.

Oh well.. Glad I got that over with.

The book was 800 pages for a reason.

[bachanon]

The book was 800 pages for a reason.

a movie today could certainly draw out the characters more. i read that "atlas shrugged" is in the works.

[TheNiche]

An often overlooked aspect of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that with any scrutiny at all, it essentially implodes in on itself. First though, it must be recognized that in her ideology, achievement for selfish reasons is inherently a positive thing. In the world of Ayn Rand, to be greedy is an act worthy of divinity. If you aren't greedy, and you don't exclusively work towards self-serving ends, then you necessarily are weak, and you serve to prey on society as a whole. But, and here's the glaring hole (or perhaps irony) in Rand's logic, if an individual seeks to make the larger government (or group action) work for him to take money from a wealthier group for his own benefit, then isn't that individual simply using the government as a tool, much like one of Rand's heroes would use an innovation or some other thing, to make money? Essentially, both individuals, a Rand protagonist and a Rand antagonist, uses all the tools at their disposal to make more money for themselves.

Wrong. There was really only one sort of unselfish people in Rand's novels, and they were the weak people. There was always at least one main character in the novels that materially supported the protagonists and that looked up to and admired them, even though they couldn't articulate why. The weak people, whether major or minor characters, were frequently portrayed as essentially well-meaning and hard-working people. In one novel (I won't spoil it for anyone) one of these well-meaning weak characters, a soldier, shoots the protagonist. Rand does not portray that person as evil, just as manipulated and as part of the system.

The villains, on the other hand, were anything but weak; they were motivated by greed to such an extent that they were willing to usurp the human rights and dignities of others--up to and including genocide--to secure power and wealth for themselves.

There's no irony in this. Her stories are validations of the political philosophers of the enlightenment period and of the framers of the U.S. constitution and warnings as to the mechanisms that would weaken or destroy that cherished system of government. If you don't believe me, go back and read the chapter-long courtroom monologue delivered by Roark in The Fountainhead.

Essentially, both individuals, a Rand protagonist and a Rand antagonist, uses all the tools at their disposal to make more money for themselves.

The protagonist makes money. The antagonist takes money.

Rand's favorite target of unions uses their solidarity and common goals to belie the fact those common goals are selfishly motivated to make the individuals' lives better. The individuals in the unions don't collectivize to make more money for just one person in the group. If any indiviual was told that while everyone else in the union would financially benefit from a strike, but that one individual would not, then that individual would likely be the first scab across the picket line. Even in collectivizing, the goal is based on individual needs and desires. That being said, the use of force or collective action is ultimately an individual effort which should, in Rand's eyes, make the effort good and noble. The goal could be stated more clearly this way: I want more money. How do I get more money? I can join with some colleagues and demand more money. It's supply and demand. If we remove our labor (the product) from the market, then we can demand more value for that labor. Using this logic, even the antagonists are protagonists, and every action is truly a capitalistic action.

That's a fallacy of composition.

To the best of my recollection, Rand never put forth a situation in her novels where the owners of firms colluded to establish an effective monopoly on a category of product, however I seriously doubt that she'd be in favor of it for the very same reason as that she's not in favor of labor unions that do the exact same thing. But Rand is nothing if not consistent, so I'm pretty sure that she'd have frowned on it.

Ayn Rand ignores this (or post-modernism had yet to rear its ugly head at the time she was doing the bulk of her writing), and it makes her opinions appear as dated as dancing the Charleston. All those looking for modern analogues may find some resemblances with the bailouts of large corporations, but those who find those resemblances have themselves ignored one simple fact. These businesses have "nationalized" at their own request. The government didn't force these firms to take the money. And, unlike a true nationalization, the firms all have an exit strategy where they again become solvent and repay the American taxpayers. When they've returned the money (plus interest), those businesses are again 100% private (or, er... public as the case actually already is).

A core theme in her writings was comparative political systems and the mechanisms that bring about their change.

For three out of her four novels, she had to start from a contemporary reality that a reader could recognize and go from there. But it's been 60+ years. Things have changed and most people who read Rand's novels today weren't even alive when they were written. In situations like this, you have to be a student of history to provide adequate context.

Nevertheless, many of the mechanisms she brings up that promote systematic political change still have some validity. I think that it probably is fair to draw parallels between the bailouts of the modern day and those from Atlas Shrugged, but clearly Atlas Shrugged is NOT a history of the future. It was never intended as such, nor could one novel possibly capture all the situational permutations that have ever been or will ever be possible. That's expecting too much from it. It's science fiction, not a formal epistemology.

But, that narrative doesn't work for the Ayn Rand acolytes who like to think of all innovators and visionaries as victims of the big bad government. They latch on to Rand's fear of totalitarianism as the only possible role of government. Somehow, they seem to think the world will exist as a better place if corporations, whose goals are strictly to generate revenue, ran the place over governments, whose goals should be to protect the people who serve under them.

Agreed. The greatest detraction from Rand's work are the throngs of people with poor reading comprehension who claim to be her 'followers'. And probably one of the greatest errors she ever made was to encourage her acolytes to speak as though they were speaking for her and not for themselves. Fact is, she's not an anarchist, she's not a Libertarian, she's not Tea Party...even though they all variously try to posthumously co-opt her as one of their own. She was an old-school conservative, frankly, the sort that campaigned for Goldwater but that bitterly opposed Reagan. She called her own shots and should be judged on the merits of what she has said for herself, not what others have said about her.

Myself, I prefer to think of government in a Lockean sense, which is the same way our founding fathers saw it. The government is a force bound to protect the inalienable rights of the people, and those rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of property/happiness (six in one...). That government is formed of the people and by the people, not of the corporation and by the corporation. The needs and desires of the 2% at the top do not outweigh the needs and desires of the remaining 98%. And so on...

If anything, that irrational fear of the government is about the only real parallel from this modern world and Rand's world of make-believe. If a person will see the government as a bogey-man in all aspects, then I can understand why that same person would cling to The Fountainhead as they would a blankie.

You ought to re-read The Fountainhead. Pay attention this time, especially toward the end.

I really don't see that your views and Rand's are so distant.

[Subdude]

Post that vanished from yesterday's 'Big Picture' regarding Alan Greenspan:

Paul Samuelson on Market Self-Regulation, Greenspan

Ritholtz.com | 14 February 2010, 8:28 am

Very sharp quotes from Paul Samuelson in The Atlantic on Easy Al, and the ability of markets to self-regulate:

“The craze that really succeeded the Keynesian policy craze was not the monetarist, Friedman view, but the [Robert] Lucas and [Thomas] Sargent new-classical view. And this particular group just said, in effect, that the system will self regulate because the market is all a big rational system.

Those guys were useless at Federal Reserve meetings. Each time stuff broke out, I would take an informal poll of them. If they had wisdom, they were silent. My profession was not well prepared to act.

And this brings us to Alan Greenspan, whom I’ve known for over 50 years and who I regarded as one of the best young business economists. Townsend-Greenspan was his company. But the trouble is that he had been an Ayn Rander. You can take the boy out of the cult but you can’t take the cult out of the boy. He actually had instruction, probably pinned on the wall: ‘Nothing from this office should go forth which discredits the capitalist system. Greed is good.’ (emphasis added)

Ritholtz likes nothing better than taking swipes at Randroids.

[N Judah]

http://www.alternet.org/books/145819/ayn_rand%2C_hugely_popular_author_and_inspiration_to_right-wing_leaders%2C_was_a_big_admirer_of_serial_killer/?page=1

And yet Republican faithful like GOP Congressman Paul Ryan read Ayn Rand and make declare, with pride, "Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism." Indeed. Except that Ayn Rand also despised democracy, as she declared: "Democracy, in short, is a form of collectivism, which denies individual rights: the majority can do whatever it wants with no restrictions. In principle, the democratic government is all-powerful. Democracy is a totalitarian manifestation; it is not a form of freedom."

[Subdude]

Charles Atlas Shrugged.

[bachanon]

finally finished reading the fountainhead. (i know, it took months...always in the middle of ten different books.)

i agree with niche. roark's character, the ideal for rand, is neither greedy nor prideful. roark simply knows who he is. he doesn't take from anyone. simply, he is his own man. he requires no adulation nor does he bend to criticism. he operates without pretense. (confident people tend to frustrate or frighten those who are merely pretentious.)

rand sees a collective society as one which will kill that which is independent or uniquely individual.

the characters with a collective bent use the word "egotist" when describing roark. rand's roark, as her ideal man, is not endorsing egotism. the inverse is true. toohey, keating, even wynand, were in fact the egotists.

while reading the book, i was frequently reminded of the period in which she wrote and her background; facts which enhanced my experience.

i would suggest reading about rand before reading her books. it helps to see where there might be undue prejudice.

would toohey be considered a "straw man" or even wynand?

[dbigtex56]

The book was 800 pages for a reason.

The reason being, she was an amphetamine addict. This is not an ad hominem attack, it's a matter of record.

Her books have 'speed freak' written all over them.

[TheNiche]

would toohey be considered a "straw man" or even wynand?

I'd say, yes. A writer of fiction that embraces and espouses a concept of good and evil typically has to set up their antagonists to show their true colors or otherwise fail. For all kinds of different reasons, the motives of real-world antagonist analogs are usually oversimplified by protagonist analogs and not clearly understood by the antagonists, themselves; also, real-world outcomes are rarely so cut and dry.

[TheNiche]

The reason being, she was an amphetamine addict. This is not an ad hominem attack, it's a matter of record.

Her books have 'speed freak' written all over them.

In her late twenties or early thirties while working on The Fountainhead, Rand was prescribed Dexamyl as an appetite suppressant. The medication contained Dextroamphetamine and Amobarbital as active ingredients. Neither of the active ingredients approached the effects of street drugs marketed as "speed". According to this biographical website, which cites its sources extensively, Rand took two pills per day for about thirty years and stopped taking them on a doctor's advice in the early 70's.

Based on the content of her literature, I think that it'd be plausible and even likely that her mood or energy level was elevated by Dexamyl. We the Living (her first novel, which immediately preceded The Fountainhead) is darker than any of the works that followed. Then again, I'd probably cheer up on HAIF a lot, too, if I were once more able to achieve career success. :shrug: Whatever the case, I'm having difficulty finding evidence that Rand was addicted or otherwise engaged in substance abuse. It'd be helpful (and a tad bit more intellectually honest) if you would cite sources, as I have.

[dbigtex56]

In her late twenties or early thirties while working on The Fountainhead, Rand was prescribed Dexamyl as an appetite suppressant. The medication contained Dextroamphetamine and Amobarbital as active ingredients. Neither of the active ingredients approached the effects of street drugs marketed as "speed". According to this biographical website, which cites its sources extensively, Rand took two pills per day for about thirty years and stopped taking them on a doctor's advice in the early 70's.

Based on the content of her literature, I think that it'd be plausible and even likely that her mood or energy level was elevated by Dexamyl. We the Living (her first novel, which immediately preceded The Fountainhead) is darker than any of the works that followed. Then again, I'd probably cheer up on HAIF a lot, too, if I were once more able to achieve career success. :shrug: Whatever the case, I'm having difficulty finding evidence that Rand was addicted or otherwise engaged in substance abuse. It'd be helpful (and a tad bit more intellectually honest) if you would cite sources, as I have.

Your intellectually honest source is the Objectivism Resource Center i.e. the Ayn Rand Fan Club?

LOL!

[TheNiche]

Your intellectually honest source is the Objectivism Resource Center i.e. the Ayn Rand Fan Club?

LOL!

So...we shouldn't believe them based on who they are? That's a circumstantial ad hominem attack. They cited sources. You have neither supplied us with your own cited sources or with a criticism of the reliability or validity of theirs.

Incidentally, if you read through the bio I linked to, you will find that there are numerous aspects about Ayn Rand that don't reflect well on her as a likable person. It would no doubt have been difficult to know her or associate with her on a personal level. It doesn't matter. If prescription drug use, irritability, and promiscuity were reasons to discredit someone's artistic or intellectual endeavors, then I'd have to delete a ridiculous amount of my music collection. I'm not going to, obviously. I pay homage to an artist because I find their work enjoyable on its own merits, not because they're likable people.

[KinkaidAlum]

I must have terrible reading comprehension skills because I don't see a similarity between Rand and AtticaFlinch's lines of thinking AT ALL.

It's been at least a decade since I last read one of her books (Atlas Shrugged) but all I can remember is that it made me sad. There was something inherently pathetic about her characters in my mind. Of course, I could have just been pissed because my ECON professor gave me a C+ on my report of that book (which was rather scathing).

[dbigtex56]

So...we shouldn't believe them based on who they are? That's a circumstantial ad hominem attack. They cited sources. You have neither supplied us with your own cited sources or with a criticism of the reliability or validity of theirs.

Not they. Him. His name is Richard Lawrence, and noblesoul.com is his exclusive property. Also, he has a financial interest in preserving Ms Rand's alleged good name.

You really need to not trust everything you read on the internet.

I've wasted enough time on Ms Rand for one lifetime. Goodbye.

[TheNiche]

I must have terrible reading comprehension skills because I don't see a similarity between Rand and AtticaFlinch's lines of thinking AT ALL.

Well, I did try to bridge his opinion's and Rand's using a work that you haven't read. And perhaps, by your own admission, your memory of the work that you did read is spotty.

It's been at least a decade since I last read one of her books (Atlas Shrugged) but all I can remember is that it made me sad. There was something inherently pathetic about her characters in my mind. Of course, I could have just been pissed because my ECON professor gave me a C+ on my report of that book (which was rather scathing).

You had an econ professor that assigned one of Ayn Rand's sci-fi novels as required reading!? That's an abomination to their field of study. I'd probably be bitter about it, too, if I had been compelled to read it under those circumstances.

[TheNiche]

You really need to not trust everything you read on the internet.

I've wasted enough time on Ms Rand for one lifetime. Goodbye.

That's good advice, generally speaking, but it also undermines the credibility of your initial accusation, that Ayn Rand was addicted to amphetamines or was a "speed freak".

Also, I'd really appreciate a comment on whether you have ever appreciated or patronized an artist of any sort that had similar character flaws to Rand's. Did their unlikable persona detract from your ability to appreciate their work?

[AtticaFlinch]

I must have terrible reading comprehension skills because I don't see a similarity between Rand and AtticaFlinch's lines of thinking AT ALL.

I freely admit that most of what I wrote was spontaneous and not terribly well thought out. It had occurred to me as I had been reading through this thread. It was that niggling little annoyance that sat like a burr under my saddle since the first time I read The Fountainhead. Frankly, Rand's philosophy just doesn't make sense under a microscope. Everybody is motivated to some degree by self-promotion, self-preservation or greed. Had Rand bothered to flesh out her lesser characters, mainly those in the masses who act as one force (presumably because they're all being manipulated), she'd have discovered their motivations were more complex than she could possibly understand. And, had she not been so kind to her protagonists, and admitted their character flaws more honestly, particularly their narcissism and indiscriminate greed necessary to be a true titan of industry, her philosophy would have fallen apart before her books were even published.

Out of curiosity, was this required reading at Kinkaid or at college? I was subjected to some pretty heady books in high school, but they tended to be better written and told more interesting stories. Then again, I did go to a public school. Instead of The Fountainhead, I read Les Miserables in high school. The books are similar in length and share similar themes (class warfare, wealth, industry, economic change and government intervention), though they come to markedly different conclusions. While The Fountainhead is the literary equivalent of eating cardboard, Les Miserables has well developed characters who grow to understand the distinctiveness and subtleties inherent in the human experience. Life may be tragic, but it's not because one class of people is trying to take from those who actually work. Rather, life is tragic because we're all trying to take from everybody, and everybody has good in them and everbody has evil. There are no true protagonists and there are no true antagonists. All life is a chaotic free-for-all. That's my interpretation anyhow.

That's good advice, generally speaking, but it also undermines the credibility of your initial accusation, that Ayn Rand was addicted to amphetamines or was a "speed freak".

Also, I'd really appreciate a comment on whether you have ever appreciated or patronized an artist of any sort that had similar character flaws to Rand's. Did their unlikable persona detract from your ability to appreciate their work?

It depends on the medium, it depends on the artist and it depends on the depths of depravity of their character. For instance, when I was a teenager, I liked Ted Nugent. Then I learned more about him, and now I turn the radio dial every time one of his songs come on.

[AtticaFlinch]

Let me correct myself. I've read Atlas Shrugged, not The Fountainhead. Like when I read a Dan Brown novel, one instance of crap was enough to keep me from reading any more of the writer's catalog. I'd once made the mistake of reading Elmore Leonard because I'd read that Quentin Tarantino liked his books. It took me five utterly scheisse novels to realize Tarantino has no taste. From that point forward I've been considerably more protective of my time and won't read a second book from an author if the first book sucked.

[KinkaidAlum]

You had an econ professor that assigned one of Ayn Rand's sci-fi novels as required reading!? That's an abomination to their field of study. I'd probably be bitter about it, too, if I had been compelled to read it under those circumstances.

Nope. As a first year at Hobart, you're required to take a multi-disciplinary course taught by professors from several departments. The course I took had an econ prof, a philosophy prof, and a women's studies prof. It was a fascinating class.

[AtticaFlinch]

Nope. As a first year at Hobart, you're required to take a multi-disciplinary course taught by professors from several departments. The course I took had an econ prof, a philosophy prof, and a women's studies prof. It was a fascinating class.

The only reason I read Atlas Shrugged was because Rand had several fan clubs that gave college scholarships to anyone willing to read one of her novels and write a book report on it. (Is that irony that they were giving away money for doing basically nothing?) I was riding the crest of my populist anti-wealth wave at the time and the novel made me sick to my stomach. It left a bitter taste in my mouth for two reasons, neither of which I could articulate at the time: 1) Her ideas were elementary level simplistic, and I knew despite their naivety (or perhaps childishness), they'd influenced many powerful people, and 2) The book was so poorly written. Seriously, the story was ambitious, but poorly executed. The characters may as well have been written as sticks of wood. Rand feebly attempted (I guess) to make the reader empathize with characters who were utterly devoid of life. The only way to properly empathize with one of her protagonists is if you too feel unfettered greed is good, and even then, that's about the only way to connect with one of her characters. Every other character was written as a hackneyed archetype without reason or logic beyond the basic template. Reading Atlas Shrugged is like reading a high school student's first attempt at a novel. It was a good effort, but the student still lacks a compelling writing style and an understanding of the world and the motivations of people.

[Subdude]

Just when you thought it was safe to go to the movies..

Atlas Shrugged Begins Principal Photography

June 14th, 2010

We reported last month that an adaptation of a 1957 novel was gearing up to start shooting despite no cast members announced and now it seems the film has started shooting and we also know who's starring in the film. Variety is reporting that Atlas Shrugged started shooting over the weekend. It was also said that if the film wasn't in production by Saturday, they would have lost the rights to the Ayn Rand adaptation.

Paul Johansson will be directing the film based on the adapted script by Brian Patrick O'Toole. Johansson will also act in the film as well, portraying John Galt, with Taylor Schilling starring in the lead role of Dagny Taggart and Grant Bowler portraying Henry Reardon.

Link

[Subdude]

Stumbled on an amusing quote about Rand:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

link

[JLWM8609]

Something else about Ayn, she took government assistance.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html

[Subdude]

Something else about Ayn, she took government assistance.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/01/28/ayn-rand-took-govern.html

Now why does that not surprise me? No doubt she was able to dream up some grand philosophical rationale for why mooching off of the government was wrong for other people, but OK for her.

[TheNiche]

Let us say that there is a gifted artist whose paintings are renowned for a unique style and subject matter. The artist's works are unique, original, and have provoked spirited praise and equally spirited scorn for decades. It is revealed long after the artist's passing that the artist molested numerous toddlers prior to killing them...and slowly and with extreme precision, so as to draw out the toddlers' suffering.

Not the slightest stroke of paint upon a canvas has changed. Overshadowed by the legacy of the person, the works are forgotten.

[dbigtex56]

Let us say that there is a gifted artist whose paintings are renowned for a unique style and subject matter. The artist's works are unique, original, and have provoked spirited praise and equally spirited scorn for decades. It is revealed long after the artist's passing that the artist molested numerous toddlers prior to killing them...and slowly and with extreme precision, so as to draw out the toddlers' suffering.

Not the slightest stroke of paint upon a canvas has changed. Overshadowed by the legacy of the person, the works are forgotten.

To counter an analogy that is inept, sickening and silly is difficult, but here goes:

What you've overlooked is that every one of the artist's paintings is entitled "Why I Do Not Molest and/or Kill Toddlers".