The Works of Ayn Rand

[ahenobarbus]

She's just not very original. She stole most of her philosophical idea from Nietzshce (and refuse the admit it), and The Fountainhead seems like it was stolen from Ibsen. (H.L. Mencken had made both fashionable around the time she arrived in the U.S.)

I don't where she stole stuff for Atlas Shrugged, except that the plot is a little like Lost Horizon.

[Deleted]

warmblankey said:

guinastasia said:

Now, I've decided to give The Fountainhead a read. I'm trying to keep an open mind, but I'm scared I'll turn into a raving Objectionist who quotes her at every turn.

Hee. I think you meant raving Objectivist, but I like yours better; it's more in keeping with the 'no one can truly understand me, I'm too unique' conceit of Rand's writing.

D'oh! Yeah, that's what I meant. Don't know WHY I typed that.

So far, it's interesting. I'm only up to the part where Francon fires Roark, so I have a ways to go.

What bugged about AS, is that Dagny, for all her fierce independence, just basically became the simpering female when confronted with first Hank, then John Galt. She just wanted to live for THEM. And for all of Rand's about capitalism, and how it was IDEAL, and individualism, really, capitalism is a lot like communism in that it encourages conformity. At least, I thought, Francon and Keating in Fountainhead sort of illustrate this. Schmooze, grease palms, give the customer what he wants, don't be TOO daring, play the public whim, and THAT'S how you make money. Yeah, you need new and daring ideas, but you also need to play to OTHER PEOPLES' WISHES. NOT that communism is good, but it's just amusing how she can reconcile idealism and individuality in big business where people make money playing to what's POPULAR.


Still, Keating's more entertaining so far than Roark. He's a weasel and a user, and it's fun to watch him lie and cheat. Villains are always so much more fun, even the charicatures. And in Atlas, my favorite character was Dagny's friend Eddie, because he was just the only one NOT supposed to prove something.


And isn't being a nonconformist JUST for the sake of being a nonconformist just as bad as playing to the crowd? Do what you want, not because you have to be DIFFERENT. But because it's what you WANT.

Well, I finished the book. All in all, not bad, and MUCH better than Atlas Shrugged.

Spoilers:


Okay, I liked Roark, he wasn't TOO bad, although I have no sympathy for him when he blew up the housing project. It was his own goddamned fault for agreeing to cheat for Keating. For all his "man is integrity, blah blah blah, I want to see my project built," dammit, that was fraud. The people in charge of the project had no idea he was connected, so they didn't owe him a damned thing.

Dominique-UGH! What a fucked up chick. The only way she could have what she wanted was to be raped? And yes, I see what Rand meant by "rape by engraved invitation." She wanted him, but she didn't want to GIVE IN to him-she wanted to make him rape her, as twisted as that is. Then she only wants to be around things she hates, she wants to destroy Roark because she loves him. Then she marries Keating, the biggest weasel, then leaves him for Gail Wynand. Okay, I didn't mind that.

But then after Gail basically destroys himself for the sake of Roark, because of what he admires, and how he KNEW he couldn't be what he admired, but he had to try, she drops him like a bad habit for Roark.

So, it wasn't too bad. But her politics and her ideas about sex are way fucked up.

[swanflake]

I know nothing about this author, but at another board I go to, this woman that I hate once said Ayn Rand is her favorite author. Then this other woman I hate at another board once quoted Ms. Rand in her siggy line. So I deduced that I would hate Ayn Rand. This thread has been interesting. Please continue.

[Deleted]

Ah, okay, thanks Moldy.

[outlier]

swanflake said:

I know nothing about this author, but at another board I go to, this woman that I hate once said Ayn Rand is her favorite author. Then this other woman I hate at another board once quoted Ms. Rand in her siggy line. So I deduced that I would hate Ayn Rand. This thread has been interesting. Please continue.

I'll try and raise some defence here. Some of Rand's writing is quite good. And it can be very stirring. You want Galt or Roark to suceed. You admire their dedication. For once, our heroes don't win the days with guns and brawn but with brains and hard work. For once, our female characters aren't wilting flowers that cling on the arms of their men. And Rand, to her credit, actually thought hard about philosophy to come up with her own system of behaviour and mores. For all of these reasons, I think Rand's work is worthwhile and interesting.

Uh, appropriate url at this point to Bob the Angry Flower and Atlas Shrugged: One hour later

There are flipsides to each of the above points. Some of the writing is turgid and overly long. [See: John Galt's 80- page speech.] Our heros are so single minded as to be like sociopaths. [See: Howard Roark sitting in his office staring at the phone waiting for work.] The enemies are weak cowards set up as strawmen. There's the rape, the convient wealth and technological advances. And the philosophy is flawed, with Rand herself not even following it (or rather following it at her convenience).

But I still think they're interesting books. You can dismiss them, but you should have reasons for dismissing them.

_{Climbs off soapbox.}

[Deleted]

Females aren't wilting characters? I beg to differ! Dagny, originally strong and independent, just throws herself at whatever alpha male is leader of the pack. Dominque pretty much falls in love with Roark after he rapes her. And I found John Galt to be the most boring, pretentious whiner that ever was written.

Mind you, I will say, that they are interesting. Well, I found Fountainhead to be. Atlas Shrugged was incredibly painful, because she has no concept of subtly.

Now, of course, if you like her, that's fine. I'm not a fan, but I AM glad I read those two books, because I feel I did learn something. But they're not what I'd call a light, or easy read.

[outlier]

guinastasia said:

Females aren't wilting characters? I beg to differ! Dagny, originally strong and independent, just throws herself at whatever alpha male is leader of the pack.

Well, I was picking out a few positive and negative points and couldn't cover them all. (There's a 32K limit in this text field.) And I did mention the rape. But still I would never describe the female characters of a Rand novel as "wilting". Like you say "originally strong and independent". Which is a plus.

Now, of course, if you like her, that's fine. I'm not a fan, but I AM glad I read those two books, because I feel I did learn something. But they're not what I'd call a light, or easy read.

*palms forehead* I didn't say that I liked them. I didn't say they were good books. I think they're interesting.

You see, every discussion of Rand I've seen has a tendency to polarise into gushing praise and "OMG I can't believe you like that rubbish". That's not helpful or informative and I wanted to point out what people might appreciate in them and why they are such well-known books rather than just dismissing them out of hand.

Anyway, to fresh material: the Wikipedia entry on "Atlas" is kinda interesting, pointing out that the book is set in some indistinct time. I remember assuming it was a novel of 1930s when I read it, rather than post-war. There is also a series of books called "Better Reads" (available in some libraries) that summarise the plot, characters and and criticisms of classic novels. The one on "Atlas" is fairly daming, noting that the antagonists are uniformly without virtue (weak, whining and even unattractive) and even have "weak" names.

[Deleted]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply that you liked them. I just mean, in a generic sense, that it's okay IF you do. I do agree with you, good or not, like them or not, they ARE interesting.

[dulcinea]

maddiemoo said:

All I know is that college freshman read her books in an attempt to look intelligent. Since I myself am a college freshman, I am attempting to avoid her books to keep myself out of that cliche.

Ugh. My freshman year roommate was a Randite. I have had more than my share of roommates, and she was the absolute worst (and i have had some horrific roomates; one actually had a make believe boyfriend, who she eventually "killed" in a car accident). She had a couple of Ayn Rand posters up around our room, as well as an Ayn Rand screensaver. She was a "practicing" objectivist. In this case, she used it as an excuse to be as selfish, egotistic and self serving as possible. Which made sharing a room with her a fabulous experience. I have never known anyone to be as condescending, not to mention completely passive aggressive. So now I get a nervous tick whenever I hear anything about Ayn Rand.

[bastinado]

I had a friendship end because I didnt care for Ayn Rand. This was, of course, during college and Rand was one of my closest college friend's favorite author so she insisted I read THE FOUNTAINHEAD. Which I did like a good friend and when she eagerly asked me how I like the book, I replied that it was okay as a melodrama but I didnt agree with the Objectism philosophy. She asked me if I found the character of Dominque as fascinating as she did. I replied no, Dominique didnt come across as a real person at all and was probably the weakest character in the book. Then she got so mad at me that she called me a "Peter Keating" which I guess to her mind would be the greatest insult she can think of and left in a huft. . . . leaving me with the dinner tab. I get slightly amused whenever I remember the incident. I was well rid of such a friend.