A brief reflection on Ayn Rand's 'Atlas Shrugged'

[Didymos Thomas]

Ayn Rand, is she even considered in the same context as the great thinkers, what does the philosophical community, the intellectual community feel about her works.

One can find varying opinions. If I recall, there is a UT philosophy professor who makes regular article contributions to aynrand.org

But for the most part, her work is laughable. Sure, Rand has been influential, but that's about all. The general consensus is that Rand is a sub-par author and hardly worth calling a philosopher.

You realize that if she does not make the grade, she will be martyred, crown of thorns and all, the eternal sufferer of all womanhood-its a touch subject What's this, the oldboys club?

Simone de Beauvoir, Mary Wollstonecraft

These are significant names in philosophy, and women. Well respected and the subject of serious study.

*edit* As a bit of caution, and of sympathy for Rand, I'm in no position to criticize her status as a playwright. I've read her novels, and her philosophical works, but none of her plays. I don't expect much from her (3?) plays given my experience with the rest of her work, but you never know.

[Crazeddemon]

She writes in such a plain way that i can understand why it is hard for some to read, but you must remember English is not her native language and the book is almost 2000 pages depending on what copy you get.

Anyway, i believe that the portrayals of characters in the book is pretty good considering that the idea and message she is trying to portray is black and white, good and evil, the book paints the picture pretty well. Of course you don't get some of the side arguments from people who vary on a couple of topics, but to her that was unnecessary and a waste of thought to even consider talking about. For they are the ones who believe they are good, but if they have conceded even just a part of what is right and just for what is for something else then they cannot be good. So the good is presented and everything else falls into line accordingly.

[Didymos Thomas]

She writes in such a plain way that i can understand why it is hard for some to read, but you must remember English is not her native language and the book is almost 2000 pages depending on what copy you get.

I'm not sure the book is difficult to read, just long and written in such a way that you almost have to force yourself to finish the book. Same is true of The Fountain Head. Anthem wasn't bad at all.

I don't give Rand a pass because of the language. English is one of many languages Thich Nhat Hanh uses, and is certainly not his native tongue. His words are simple and eloquent. I'm sure his Vietnamese prose is superior to his English, but none the less....

Anyway, i believe that the portrayals of characters in the book is pretty good considering that the idea and message she is trying to portray is black and white, good and evil, the book paints the picture pretty well.

That's the point, though, isn't it? Literature that uses the same old dualism isn't very good literature. That's kid stuff.

But Rand was certain of her artistic capacity - and was quick to remind everyone around her of how brilliant she thought herself to be. To be so convinced of one's literary genius and then to write such a childish book as Atlas Shrugged is shameful arrogance.

[Crazeddemon]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I'm not sure the book is difficult to read, just long and written in such a way that you almost have to force yourself to finish the book. Same is true of The Fountain Head. Anthem wasn't bad at all.

Well that is what i meant. And Anthem was less interesting to me so i felt it was a little harder to read after you figured out the basic premise.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

That's the point, though, isn't it? Literature that uses the same old dualism isn't very good literature. That's kid stuff.

But Rand was certain of her artistic capacity - and was quick to remind everyone around her of how brilliant she thought herself to be. To be so convinced of one's literary genius and then to write such a childish book as Atlas Shrugged is shameful arrogance.

Well, I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but if you remember in The Fountainhead when the book club talks about all those terrible horrible novels that act like they mean a lot, but are really just a bunch of wishy washy words thrown together without a serious purpose. So her perception of good writing is much different from the masses.

Do you get what i'm talking about or does it seem rambly?

[Didymos Thomas]

Well that is what i meant. And Anthem was less interesting to me so i felt it was a little harder to read after you figured out the basic premise.

Then we've had a very similar experience with Atlas. Anthem should not win any awards, but at least Rand was concise. Because she kept the book short and to the point, her limits as a writer were not nearly as apparent, and the book was more powerful than her larger volumes.

Well, I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, but if you remember in The Fountainhead when the book club talks about all those terrible horrible novels that act like they mean a lot, but are really just a bunch of wishy washy words thrown together without a serious purpose. So her perception of good writing is much different from the masses.

Right, Rand developed her own brand of aesthetic 'philosophy' which boils down to the rejection of anything that does not promote Rand-style virtues. Remember, she thought altruism to be immoral. To Rand, literature that treats compassion and selflessness in a positive light, or that criticizes self-absorption, is completely worthless and meaningless. In her "Problems of Philosophy" she writes about read through various ads for books. Those that one would expect to be contrary to Objectivism simply by reading the back cover Rand harshly criticized, and was not afraid, on these grounds alone, to call the author entirely irrational among other things.

I get her point. If you buy into Objectivism, such literature is nothing more than vile propaganda. But I have a hard time tossing the Shakespearean sonnets away as vile propaganda.

Do you get what i'm talking about or does it seem rambly?

I think I understand you. If I appear to have missed the point, let me know

[Crazeddemon]

Well, I don't fully agree with Rand, though I feel she had a great amount to offer in the way of motivation for the productivity and progress of man (though her idea of women is less than flattering). I think there are some basic premises of her philosophy that can be applied to my own, it's just where you draw the line on how much you need to know before you can make a decision. And while making that decision you must always know that there may be more to know about the topic out there, but based on your gathered knowledge hopefully you can get the job done right. It may be hard to remain patient enough for this understanding of things can come about, but it is well worth it and it will be just and honorable.

Again I rambled, but use that to sum up my argument so far in defense hahaha.

[AmericanPop]

I am no English major but I do find literary value in the book. I find that she is particularly talented in her description of the human countenance. She somehow manages to blend two, three, or even four emotions into one facial expression, and to make it fit the moment. I can see how somebody incapable of reading between the lines would find her characters bland and inhuman. But it is up to the reader to grasp the indirect references and therefrom derive meaning. I am also impressed with her use of colour.

[Crazeddemon]

Agreed. Also, the point i would like to make to Didymos is that while you may not feel that Shakespeare is crap and his sonnets were beautiful, is there any reason you can back it up? Is he conveying an idea worth conveying? or did he just doll up the same theme that we've heard a thousand times before. If you agree with many other parts of objectivism, there is absolutely no reason not to agree with this part. If you say that you just don't like it or don't agree, you have no viable reason to back up your statement and you cannot agree with objectivism at all because one inconsistency tears down the whole philosophy.

[Didymos Thomas]

AmericanPop- Given any writer, praise can be found for that author. Even among the worst. Describing a facial expression does not translate to human characters. As I said, they are flat. Dagny is the roundest character of the book, and the only change we see in her is that she is more confident in her disregard for her fellow man. Not exactly a brilliant expression of humanity.

You may find some literary value - so do I. Atlas is a great example of how not to write a book that is supposed to cover one's entire philosophy. If you want examples on how to write a magnum opus, see Dante's Divine Comedy.

Crazeddemon - I don't buy into Objectivism. I find her philosophy to be silly and childish - Rand's ethics are the playground ethics of a three year old. But as I said earlier, the discussion and critical examination of Objectivism is worth another thread.

Any yes, I would gladly defend Shakespeare's sonnets as well as his status as a playwright. My criticisms of Rand's literary work is more than 'I just don't like her work'. Again, I actually enjoyed Anthem. If you want to read my criticisms of Rand, which are certainly more than personal preference, I have presented some of those thoughts in this thread.

But I find no trouble taking on Rand's aesthetics here as we are talking about literature, art. Rand's aesthetics calls all works disagreeable to her philosophy to be absolute junk - worthless and depraved. The simple fact that her aesthetics would cast Shakespeare, Dante, Dostoevsky, and just about every other truly great writer into the flames is enough to justify abandoning Rand's aesthetics.

[AmericanPop]

I am really enjoying Rand's views on love. What is it about the human condition that causes us to make a claim on it, and unconditionally? None of us would make the same claim on something like respect, or admiration, so why love? How true is that old aphorism, that states: Love is Blind? Is it really? Is it even possible to love somebody for what they are? What does that even mean? Is a human not defined but by their virtues and vices?

If there is anything to be said about the institution of the family, it is that it is burdened by time. A family is like that inescapable context from which most of us never leave. And with time, we tend to forget the reasons for which we once loved. We forget that as children our love for our parents blossomed alongside the care they delivered to us. As children we appreciate our parents because they are the guarantors of our self-interests; of our basic needs. A mother is loved by her son not because of some causeless, mystical bond that appeared out of no where, but because she is associated with feelings of security, comfort and self-worth that are the result of her virtues: integrity, compassion, responsibility etc.