Ayn Rand

[collegelife101]

What bugs me about Rand, even though I love her works, is that she is very excessively repetitive.

Atlast Shrugged was 1000 pages of the same idea over and over. Rand did not know how to develop heir philosophies in a story setting. She understood how to make characters that fit her philosophy and she understood how to explain her philosophy in the context of a plot and the characters she created. Unfortunently these things do not make great novels by themselves. After reading 200 pages of Atlas Shrugged I failed to find any new ideas or any additions to the ideas she already suggested. I feel now that her novels were a way for her to get larger audiences to learn about Objectivism because her characters are only vehicles for her philosophy and the plot only serves to drive them to the ends she finds ideal. I don't shun her for Objectivism, I just feel she should have stuck to writing books on philosophy without disguising them as novels.

 

[SFG75]

Atlast Shrugged was 1000 pages of the same idea over and over.

I don't believe books like hers can be written without the repetition. take The Grapes of Wrath. Over and over it's how the Joad family is taking it in the shorts economically. Upton Sinclair' The Jungle? How Jurgis Rudkus gets screwed at work. I don't mind the repetition, it points out all of the misgivings the person has against a certain cause. Steinbeck was able to nail the rich, state strike-breakers, not to mention other folks of that ilk. Rand takes on organized religion, government, those who are all about "let's save the world," not to mention the overall incompetent.

I don't shun her for Objectivism, I just feel she should have stuck to writing books on philosophy without disguising them as novels.

But isn't this common as well? Camus and others wrote novels with philosophical overtones.

Just some kernels of thought.

 

[ja9]

It was Nathaniel Branden (born "Blumenthal" but changed his name) that Ayn Rand was carrying on with. He was/is a psychologist and author of "The Psychology of Self Esteem, among other things. He was many years Ayn Rand's junior, and in some ways was her surrogate son - until they had a major falling out she called him her "intellectual heir". It was all pretty sordid, but everyone took it oh-so-seriously at the time. Since they both got the permission of their spouses first, I guess they felt like that made it OK.

I grew up in the San Fernando Valley, and Any Rand had a house in what is now Porter Ranch, a few blocks from where I lived. My mother was a friend of hers, and used to go to meetings of what turned out later to be the Objectivists. I spent many hours in Any Rand's living room as a child, mostly bored out of my mind because it was all way over my head and there was pretty much nothing to do. I remember both her and Nathaniel Branden, although I didn't realize at the time who they were. I can recall my mother and father arguing about her, with my father not buying into any of her ideas and my mother defending her and pretty much telling him that he was an oppressive male. I wonder why I have trouble with authority figures??

My mother was a 1950's housewife and born too early - had she come of age in the '60's, she would have been right in her element. As it was, she was tied down to a husband and kids that she never really wanted but didn't believe she had any choice about. Too bad for all concerned, but that's just how it was. My mother was an interesting woman - she knew Charles Manson too, and thought that between Manson and Ayn Rand he was far the more interesting.

 

[Schattengestalt]

I know this is kind of an old thread, but I had to get my two cents in.

SFG said, "I don't believe that her works have garnered the respect that they are due simply because of ideological, rather than literary, standards" and I was actually told by my english teacher not to read her at all or try to use any shade of her ideas in the AP because she isn't "well thought of in literary circles." needless to say I never tried to, at least in her class (that teacher is a communist, though).

I've also seen many people here say that they were only interested in rand while they were teenagers, like it was rebellious and different. I'm a teen and I guess my teacher's admonitions only spurred me on, but I do like her strong characters. I've read 'anthem' and 'we the living' so far, but I bought 'the fountainhead' yesterday. it seems to be what most people like (probably because it's shorter than 'atlas') so I'm looking forward to it.

no one here has mentioned 'we the living' yet and I'm wondering why. do people simply start with the bigger ones? I can see how rand's characters are really cardboard cut-outs, but isn't that true of all writing that's simply meant to illustrate a point?

I've also looked into Objectivism and while it seems a bit harsh, I agree with a lot of what I've read. she does seem to go to extremes, though, and I don't think branding something as 'evil' is the best way to handle it.

and as a side note, most of the people at school who've been really excited to see someone reading ayn rand have been indian, although I didn't notice it until this thread... hmm. it seems odd to me that they would so strongly endorse someone who was against organized religion yet they are all, to my knowledge, deeply religious hindus.

 

[Heteronym]

I can see how rand's characters are really cardboard cut-outs, but isn't that true of all writing that's simply meant to illustrate a point?

I think the problem is that 'writing meant to illustrate a point' isn't very respected; and rightly so, I might add. If you want to 'illustrate' something, get yourself crayons. If you want to develop a philosophical theory, stick to non-fiction. If you want to write literature, have something genuine to say about the human condition.

Objectivism might charm some people who were disillusioned with Soviet communism (Rand's case, I understand), but I doubt most people could see their existence reflected on it.

 

[Schattengestalt]

^ true, heteronym. and I also wanted to clarify, because I've thought about it a bit more, when I said "I agree with a lot of what I've read" I should have added 'to an extent' because I do think she gets a bit... intense.

 

[tundra]

no one here has mentioned 'we the living' yet and I'm wondering why. do people simply start with the bigger ones?

I am a big Ayn Rand fan--and I did start with the biggest first and work down. I didn't know about her smaller works initially. Atlas Shrugged has been my favorite book for years now. It's her writing style that I love. I also like deep character development and intricate plots, and that book is rich in both. I am no philosopher and really thought the John Galt radio speech was a bit much, but I still enjoy her work very much. I remember thinking when I first read it that I wanted to have "A is A" as my license plate (but that idea only lasted for a day, thank goodness).

 

[Heteronym]

What does 'A is A' mean?

 

[tundra]

What does 'A is A' mean?

From this website:

"Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are—and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." Thus Objectivism rejects any belief in the supernatural—and any claim that individuals or groups create their own reality.

If I remember correctly, the book is split into 3 parts, and “A is A” is the name of the third part. It’s also mentioned within the text.

 

[Heteronym]

Funny, reminds me of O'Brien in 1984 saying how they can make people believe 2 + 4 = 5.

I can see why Raynd upsets the post-modernists, who think everything is a social construction created by while male imperialist westerners.

Can't really disagree with her that reality is external to Man's consciousness. I just doubt there's a bullet-proof method to apprehend it.

'A is A' is a bad example because A is really a man-made thing and whoever wants to use the alphabet has to agree that A indeed is A to understand a text written in that alphabet. Same for numbers and musical notes.

Abstract concepts like good and evil, justice, love and beauty, however, are not facts, are not external, and are not what they are.

 

[tundra]

A is A has a nice ring to it. I guess I thought of mathematic variables when I saw that. A = A and nothing can disprove that. I think A is A is a good example for her to use. I don't know how else you would say it when any other thing you could come up with instead of A would be named by man, written in a man-made language, which according to you makes it a bad example.

 

[Heteronym]

A is not a reality external to Man's consciousness, it's an arbitrary man-made linguistic symbol. The symbol used to define a sound known as 'ei' could be any other. In fact, other alphabets have different symbols for that sound.

Trees, rocks, mountains, lakes, stars, are external to Man's consciousness: they're not man-made and exist whether mankind lives or dies.

'Tree is Tree' makes more sense to me

 

[galoosh33]

I've only read one book by her, 'The Fountainhead'.

To be honest, I took it from the library quite at random (I think the librarian recommended it, but I did not delve into the plot too much), not having heard of Ayn Rand beforehand.

I remember the book left quite a mark on me, and I really enjoyed the reading itself. I'm not sure what it was- her style of writing, the actual plot, the way she describes the characters that makes you feel as though you know them - but something about it captivated me.

The fact that she combined all her opinions in the book doesn't upset me one bit, in fact I think that's a part of it's charm. If I remember correctly she was pretty young when she wrote the book, that also really surprised me...

I haven't gotten around to reading 'Atlas Shrugged', simply because the length of it, I guess... Is it anything like 'The Fountainhead' ? If so I guess I should read it!

 

[WoundedThorns]

The Fountainhead is long, but i'm glad it is. for some reason i just fall into it.

i read a about a third of it two years ago. didn't entirely get into it. this year i chose it for a literary research paper. i liked it a LOT better while keeping communist undertones in mind. its just.. sweating with anti-communism. i laugh, i get mad, i love it. i'm also possibly a future philosophy major =P so maybe thats why

 

[unKeMPt]

I really, really dislike Ayn Rand.

I think she has rationalized the huge gap in the standard of living between the North and the South. It's easy to develop (and embrace) a philosophical strategy that says what's best for you is best for all when you're living in countries that primarily benefit from the neo-colonialism of LDCs. Now, I hardly doubt the value of capitalism, or that the pursuit of profits would even allow it to be stopped. But the very notion of that as a truth is absurd; even most liberal economists accept that two rational people working for their own sake do not always meet the socially optimal conclusion, as evidenced by collective action problems and the prisoner's dilemma. I think this self-interest -- and the emphasis on self-interest as the nature of humans is really sad in that it denies us what I consider our best virtues -- breeds a callousness towards the pains and tribulations of others.

 

[SFG75]

The New York Times had an interesting article today about the coming 50th anniversary of the release of Atlas Shrugged. The news has been somewhat filled with her as of late with the publishing of Alan Greenspan's book.

 

[direstraits]

I really, really dislike Ayn Rand.

I think she has rationalized the huge gap in the standard of living between the North and the South. It's easy to develop (and embrace) a philosophical strategy that says what's best for you is best for all when you're living in countries that primarily benefit from the neo-colonialism of LDCs. Now, I hardly doubt the value of capitalism, or that the pursuit of profits would even allow it to be stopped. But the very notion of that as a truth is absurd; even most liberal economists accept that two rational people working for their own sake do not always meet the socially optimal conclusion, as evidenced by collective action problems and the prisoner's dilemma. I think this self-interest -- and the emphasis on self-interest as the nature of humans is really sad in that it denies us what I consider our best virtues -- breeds a callousness towards the pains and tribulations of others.

Sorry, unkempt, I read your post several times, but I don't understand you. My fault, I assure you, but I'm very curious about your opinion about how you don't disagree with capitalism, and tie that with gaps in standard of living.

ds

 

[SFG75]

She has some influential backers who are setting up endowmentson various cmapuses. NPR story Appropriate?, I guess so.

 

[WoundedThorns]

I've only read one book by her, 'The Fountainhead'.

To be honest, I took it from the library quite at random (I think the librarian recommended it, but I did not delve into the plot too much), not having heard of Ayn Rand beforehand.

I remember the book left quite a mark on me, and I really enjoyed the reading itself. I'm not sure what it was- her style of writing, the actual plot, the way she describes the characters that makes you feel as though you know them - but something about it captivated me.

The fact that she combined all her opinions in the book doesn't upset me one bit, in fact I think that's a part of it's charm. If I remember correctly she was pretty young when she wrote the book, that also really surprised me...

I haven't gotten around to reading 'Atlas Shrugged', simply because the length of it, I guess... Is it anything like 'The Fountainhead' ? If so I guess I should read it!

I've heard Atlas Shrugged is better in terms of storyline and character development. I know somebody who read it about 20 times and used it for inspiration for his artwork. I may be wrong, but The Fountainhead was her first stab at a novel so she was bound to improve. I have not read Atlas Shrugged but it's definitely on my "to read list"

I really, really dislike Ayn Rand.

I think she has rationalized the huge gap in the standard of living between the North and the South. It's easy to develop (and embrace) a philosophical strategy that says what's best for you is best for all when you're living in countries that primarily benefit from the neo-colonialism of LDCs. Now, I hardly doubt the value of capitalism, or that the pursuit of profits would even allow it to be stopped. But the very notion of that as a truth is absurd; even most liberal economists accept that two rational people working for their own sake do not always meet the socially optimal conclusion, as evidenced by collective action problems and the prisoner's dilemma. I think this self-interest -- and the emphasis on self-interest as the nature of humans is really sad in that it denies us what I consider our best virtues -- breeds a callousness towards the pains and tribulations of others.

I skimmed your answer. I'm not into politics or economics in any sense, but I got the impression that she wrote The Fountainhead to showcase that the ideology she was forced upon by communist Russia did not work nor was it genuine. Ellsworth Toohey paralleled Russian communist ideals of altruism and all working together for one but then showed that he was corrupted. He brainwashed Catherine to dedicate her life to charity but she eventually broke down. Rand demonstrated that individualism (i guess capitalism) is the best lifestyle through Howard Roark because the best ideas will surface and contribute to society.
I'm curious if Rand ever read Marx and realized that "communist" Russia wasn't really communist.

SFG said, "I don't believe that her works have garnered the respect that they are due simply because of ideological, rather than literary, standards" and I was actually told by my english teacher not to read her at all or try to use any shade of her ideas in the AP because she isn't "well thought of in literary circles." needless to say I never tried to, at least in her class (that teacher is a communist, though)...

Ironically I used The Fountainhead for a literary paper. The teacher didn't understand it. public school -_-
The paper really did stray from the literary aspect though. I don't think you're teacher should've have said that though, I doubt she's aware of all literary critism of one book.

..I've also seen many people here say that they were only interested in rand while they were teenagers, like it was rebellious and different...

I can see how a teenager would relate to it - I related to Howard Roark when reading it at 16-18. I suppose he is "rebelling" against his society but that wasn't his intention - he hated the term "modern," which signified rebellion. Rand did not want to create an angsty character. Roark simply did not care what anyone else thought, which is usually the opposite of a teenager.

 

[SFG75]

I really, really dislike Ayn Rand.

I think she has rationalized the huge gap in the standard of living between the North and the South. It's easy to develop (and embrace) a philosophical strategy that says what's best for you is best for all when you're living in countries that primarily benefit from the neo-colonialism of LDCs. Now, I hardly doubt the value of capitalism, or that the pursuit of profits would even allow it to be stopped. But the very notion of that as a truth is absurd; even most liberal economists accept that two rational people working for their own sake do not always meet the socially optimal conclusion, as evidenced by collective action problems and the prisoner's dilemma. I think this self-interest -- and the emphasis on self-interest as the nature of humans is really sad in that it denies us what I consider our best virtues -- breeds a callousness towards the pains and tribulations of others.

Interesting comments-I would have to agree with the idea that selfishness is a good to a point, but isn't the answer to all of the world's problems. Rousseau pointed out that while we might be truly free on a tropical island, we are more free, and have a greater life, when we give up some rights to coexist with others. I have lost the absolute right to keep all my money, but that means that I have gained paved roads, police protection, good schools, and a slew of other benefits that make life easier. Not everyone wants to live like the unabomber, which is something lost on Rand. The callousness of which you speak is something that most objectivists can't see in the weakness of their philosophy. Life to them is a constant "pull yourself up by the bootstraps" race. The fact is, some people will NEVER be able to do that for whatever reason-physical or mental handicaps, catastrophic injuries, or living in an area where economic opportunity is extremely limited.

In America, we have things such as the company pension, the 8 hour day, the minimum wage, sick leave, vacation leave, and other benefits. Those items came about through cooperation(i.e.-"Collectivism") through labor unions, not the actions of individuals selfishly pursuing their onw interests. Had Rand's philosophy held sway for most of American history, we wouldn't have made the progress that we've made up to this point-we'd all be working for 15 cents at a dangerous factory, exposed to the whims of the market.