Ayn Rand

Bill Buckley hated Rand haha. He published Whittaker Chambers' legendary review of Atlas Shrugged on National Review, which is regarded as one of the most scathing reviews about anything ever put to print lol.

That said, he agrees with me in that video---Fountainhead is an infinitely better novel, and is worth reading on its merits if only because it's a great novel. It only arrives at Rand's polemic incidentally, whereas Atlas Shrugged tries to NOT arrive at it over a thousand pages and, well, fails.

Buckley was a classic conservative though. His objections of Rand's philosophy rose out of the fact that he was building a conservative movement that cherished Patriotism, Charity and religious morality---which Rand opposed, but rarely wrote about in her novels. His critique was that Rand's rejection of altruism diminishes noble self-sacrifice---be it to your country or to your family or to your God. But Rand spent the rest of her life extending Objectivism over those things too. Self-sacrifice would cover things that you value beyond your survival and it's righteous to pursue them because they'd still be in your self-interest.

But she never had kids, so it was impossible for her see how that breaks apart pretty much after they hit puberty.

AngryGerbil said:

Here it is again.

We see that he can not describe what is dull or lifeless about the characters or why they suck. Merely that he has heard that they are and thus, at least one of her books isn't worth reading.

Click to expand...

Well so far you're not entirely wrong. I've read enough Rand, and enough about Rand, to know that I'm not interested in reading any more of Rand's work. I examined the evidence I had available and formed an opinion. How quaint. I believe most people would call that "critical thinking."

He also uses the term 'authors of fiction' at the very end to deride and belittle her ideas.

Click to expand...

I used the term "authors of fiction" to distinguish Rand's fictional novels from the work of scientists that perform empirical research. I don't hold authors that write fiction in as high of regard as I hold scientists when it comes to the subject of objective truth. If you prefer to call Rand a "philosopher" instead of an "author of fiction," then I'll say it again your way. I don't hold philosophers in as high of regard as I hold scientists when it comes to the subject of objective truth.

LMGTFY

Rand is not a scientist, and her fictional works don't hold up very well at all when compared to the myriad volumes of scientific literature that describe the same subject using facts instead of opinions.

There are no great authors of fiction and none of them have ever taught us anything. Dostoyevsky, Shakespeare, and Hemmingway are all retarded cunts in Melvin-World.

She was a philosopher who suffered under the Bolsheviks, but Melvin doesn't know this because she is taught to everyone, including him, that her characters are boring and she is merely nothing more than a novelist.

You should have seen the look on my wife's aunt's husband's face last night at their neice's wedding when I said her name to him in conversation. He's a Professor of South American history. He had a momentary look of laughter in his eyes and then explained to me that she is not a very good writer. When I asked him why he thought so, he tried to change the subject to Paul Manafort.

Nobody discusses her ideas because nobody knows them because nobody reads them because they have all been warned off against her.

Why the warning? I ask everyone who hasn't read her. Why do you suppose they caution you so strongly against her?

Click to expand...

Roughly 75% of that mess is just irrelevant gibberish that doesn't address anything I've said at all, and I'm not going to waste my time arguing against the 25% where you're mostly wrong. Have fun with your conspiracy theory!

khorum said:

Anthem isn't her strongest book, though it's the shortest lol. It's mostly remarkable for preceding 1984 by over a decade.

Calling Atlas Shrugged a 1,000-page opinion piece is fairly shallow, though. You don't need to "research" it, it's a pretty quick read. It's shorter than most GRRM or Stephen King books and probably a bit more entertaining. It's not gonna convert you or anything. No more than reading Derrida or Chomsky would convert you.

She's a gifted writer and novelist, that's why we're still talking about her 80+ years onwards. If Atlas Shrugged is too long to entertain forming your own opinion on her work, try Fountainhead----it's the better novel anyway, and way less "political", if at all.

Click to expand...

Preceding 1984 by over a decade is not remarkable at all. Just to name a couple books of that genre that I personally believe are especially noteworthy, Huxley's A Brave New World, and H. G. Wells's Time Machine were published 6 and 43 years before Anthem, respectively. There's more than a few dystopian novels that predate Ayn Rand.

I'm completely comfortable making what appears to be a shallow dismissal of an author I'm not interested in. I'm well aware of what kinds of fiction I enjoy and what I don't, thank you. If we were discussing a newer author that I've heard very little about, then I might reconsider my opinion if you could make a compelling case, which you didn't.

Melvin said:

Preceding 1984 by over a decade is not remarkable at all. Just to name a couple books of that genre that I personally believe are especially noteworthy, Huxley's A Brave New World, and H. G. Wells's Time Machine were published 6 and 43 years before Anthem, respectively. There's more than a few dystopian novels that predate Ayn Rand.

I'm completely comfortable making what appears to be a shallow dismissal of an author I'm not interested in. I'm well aware of what kinds of fiction I enjoy and what I don't, thank you. If we were discussing a newer author that I've heard very little about, then I might reconsider my opinion if you could make a compelling case, which you didn't.

Click to expand...

I said Anthem was ONLY remarkable because it preceded 1984 by a few years, not that it was particularly exceptional.

In fact, the most positive thing I said about Anthem was that it was SHORT, which it needed to be since it was just a novella. I noted that this was an important characteristic for you, since you lamented Atlas Shrugged's girth among the chief complaints that you found most damning from other people's opinions about the book. I suggested that were you inclined to form your own opinions about the book, it wouldn't be hard since it's not much larger than other novels from folks like GRRM or Stephen King and that was it.

If anything I was suggesting reading The Fountainhead instead. That's no dystopia so you're probably not interested so that's that.

BrutulTM said:

Why not just say that you read one book and don't remember it except that you didn't like it that much and don't know much about the other books and skip the debate about something you don't know anything about?

Click to expand...

I didn't say that because it's not an accurate description at all. The one Rand book I chose to read turned out to be pretty forgettable, which, along with everything else I read regarding Rand, helped me make an informed decision that reading any more of Rand's fiction would be an unenjoyable waste of time. At some point in this process I also picked up Atlas Shrugged and/or The Fountainhead off of the library shelf and did a little bit of skimming. This isn't something that happened in Junior High either, it was somewhere in the ballpark of 2006-2010 when I was actively looking on the internet for recommendations for good dystopian scifi for the first time. I remember exactly which library I checked out Anthem from because the librarian I had a conversation with about it was basically my Grandma's doppelganger.

khorum said:

I said Anthem was ONLY remarkable because it preceded 1984 by a few years, not that it was particularly exceptional.

In fact, the most positive thing I said about Anthem was that it was SHORT, which it needed to be since it was just a novella. I noted that this was an important characteristic for you, since you lamented Atlas Shrugged's girth among the chief complaints that you found most damning from other people's opinions about the book. I suggested that were you inclined to form your own opinions about the book, it wouldn't be hard since it's not much larger than other novels from folks like GRRM or Stephen King and that was it.

If anything I was suggesting reading The Fountainhead instead. That's no dystopia so you're probably not interested so that's that.

Click to expand...

Anthem's length was only part of what made it the obvious choice for me to see if I would like Rand's work. The fact that it's my personal favorite genre made it a no brainer (and also the reason why I started looking into Rand at all). When that one book turned out to be mostly a dud, and there were a plethora of critics that found similar and/or identical faults with Rand's other work, the only conclusion that made sense was "don't bother reading 1000+ pages of bad writing." I understand that a lot of people don't place as much emphasis as I do on having lifelike and believable characters in the fiction I read. Apparently Rand is one of those people that doesn't put as much effort as I prefer into creating lifelike and believable characters in the fiction that she wrote.

Would anybody else like to jump to a completely stupid conclusion about something I wrote that you chose to misinterpret in the most ridiculous way possible?

You must be a real blast at parties.

AngryGerbil said:

To criticize Atlas Shrugged because it 'lacks interesting characters' is like criticizing Star Wars because it 'lacks interesting shoes'.

Click to expand...

I am not convinced there were ANY shoes in Star Wars. (Mostly boots and sandals)




carry on