She thinks women should be independent thinkers, strive to be the best they can be at whatever they set their minds to, wether it's an engineer or mother. Which part do you object to?
Can't believe there's no thread for Atlas Shrugged [by Ayn Rand]
- Thread starter erika
- Start date
She thinks women should be independent thinkers, strive to be the best they can be at whatever they set their minds to, wether it's an engineer or mother. Which part do you object to?
A "voluntary sex-slave" is impossible. She says women should enjoy sex. Any objection?
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 59
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,781
- Reaction score
- 668
All due respect, but if you honestly think what the Soviets, or the Chinese, or the Cubans, or the North Koreans did/have done/continue to do was in any way resembling what Marx had in mind, then you quite simply haven't read Marx.
I'd also like to point out that the Russians themselves were arguably better off under "socialism" than the capitalism and "free political system" they have now. But that's getting too much off topic.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 59
The system the Russinas have now is neither capitalist nor politically free. Putin has succeeded in rocketing that place straight back to 1954.
- Joined
- Feb 13, 2008
- Messages
- 2,781
- Reaction score
- 668
In the days of the Soviet Union, you could have all the money in the world but you couldn't buy anything. Nowadays you can buy anything, you just need all the money in the world. lol. Say what you want, call it what you want, but whatever it is, it's certainly much closer to capitalism than to socialism.
As for political freedom, I agree with you. That's why I put free political system in quotes.
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 59
You need all the money in the world, AND, all the money Russia is in the hands of, like, six people. Most of them former KGB agents...
You know what? Let's just say the place is screwed up and leave it at that lol.
Chains of Love?
I just finished re-reading Atlas Shrugged in preparation for a class, and I think it is pretty darn obvious what is not likeable in Rand's view of women as expressed in the novel (and elsewhere.)
Example one: The party scene where Dagny wears a diamond bracelet and Rand says, "the diamond band gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained."
Example two: Reardon is admiring Dagny as she poses for him half-dressed because he likes the contrast between "the railroad executive who was a woman he owned."
(Rand is very into expressing the relationship between man and woman as a proprietary one, and the "true" woman wants to be "owned." Or, as Dagny put it in the scene where Francisco takes her virginity, "Don't ask me for it - oh don't ask me - do it!" She also describes herself to Reardon as "a luxury object that you've paid for long ago." There are many examples of this scattered throughout the novel.)
Example three: In the luridly over-written first sexual encounter between Dagny and the heroic John Galt, in addition to all the possession imagery, Rand adds another nice touch - violence. A real woman likes it when a man throws her on the ground, clonks her in the head and bites her "viciously."
In short, Rand advocates that for a woman to be truly fulfilled, regardless of how powerful or accomplished she is, she has to be in an extremely submissive relationship to a dominant man.
Femininity = Chained? Yikes! Not hard to understand why people would find this offensive.
I just finished re-reading Atlas Shrugged in preparation for a class, and I think it is pretty darn obvious what is not likeable in Rand's view of women as expressed in the novel (and elsewhere.)
Example one: The party scene where Dagny wears a diamond bracelet and Rand says, "the diamond band gave her the most feminine of all aspects: the look of being chained."
Example two: Reardon is admiring Dagny as she poses for him half-dressed because he likes the contrast between "the railroad executive who was a woman he owned."
(Rand is very into expressing the relationship between man and woman as a proprietary one, and the "true" woman wants to be "owned." Or, as Dagny put it in the scene where Francisco takes her virginity, "Don't ask me for it - oh don't ask me - do it!" She also describes herself to Reardon as "a luxury object that you've paid for long ago." There are many examples of this scattered throughout the novel.)
Example three: In the luridly over-written first sexual encounter between Dagny and the heroic John Galt, in addition to all the possession imagery, Rand adds another nice touch - violence. A real woman likes it when a man throws her on the ground, clonks her in the head and bites her "viciously."
In short, Rand advocates that for a woman to be truly fulfilled, regardless of how powerful or accomplished she is, she has to be in an extremely submissive relationship to a dominant man.
Femininity = Chained? Yikes! Not hard to understand why people would find this offensive.
These are all variations of the same thing. It's her preference to be "taken" by a powerful man rather than having the virginity begged for by some sappy, overly sensetive art major who weeps when his love interest gives him a dissapproving glance. And you're missing all the parts where she claims ownership of the men she "wins". It's all about the contest of wooing the best mate for yourself that you can get. I critique some erotica in return for having my stuff critiqued, and this is stuff that's written by women for women and it sells. The male MC is almost NEVER some wimp in need of coddling. He's a guy who comes along, sees the female MC, likes what he sees, and goes and gets it. Even when the male MC is shy, he's always a diamond in the rough and knows what he wants underneath.
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2007
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 110
- Location
- Oregon Coast
- Website
- www.catherinebusinelle.com
I know exactly what James means about it being life-changing in some ways. There were parts of it that simply made me want to be a better person. At the end of the book, when it becomes more and more obvious what Rand was espousing, I disagreed with her philosophy but was still absolutely blown away by how powerfully she had made her point. I remember thinking I would be willing to spend my life improving my writing if I could someday hope to influence readers like she had influenced me--and I disagreed with her!
Also, whatever you think about Objectivism and whether or not fiction writers should promote a philosophy, she certainly has all of us talking about a ludicrous ideology decades after it would otherwise have been laughed out of town.
Also, whatever you think about Objectivism and whether or not fiction writers should promote a philosophy, she certainly has all of us talking about a ludicrous ideology decades after it would otherwise have been laughed out of town.
Last edited:
I agree with everyone who found the worldview presented in this book as "cold." I'm generally pretty conservative, but when I read this book (As I exited high school) and saw the logical outcomes of conservative economic thinking applied throughout life, it struck me as, not only harsh, but immoral. The good guys in the story are those who look out only for number 1 and the bad guys are the ones who give selflessly to others. (These are broad generalizations, I know... but Ayn Rand extolls selfishness.) What's up with that? That strikes me as the opposite of who I want to be.
That said, I do agree that those who are lazy do not deserve handouts and that those who work hard have a right to what they earn.
These days I'm pretty middle-ground on many political issues. I consider myself mostly apathetic, I guess.
That said, I do agree that those who are lazy do not deserve handouts and that those who work hard have a right to what they earn.
These days I'm pretty middle-ground on many political issues. I consider myself mostly apathetic, I guess.
Yeah, rape fantasy sells to some women. But the point is that's fantasy. Rand seriously advocated for the dominant male, submissive female interaction as the appropriate relationship for men and women in accordance with her Objectivist philosophy. That's what's offensive.
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 138
- Reaction score
- 11
A voluntary sex slave is not impossible. A slave does not have to be held against their will.
Her women aren't fulfilled until they subjugate themselves to a "Great Man." That's my objection.
Oh, and the prose is dreadful, right from the first page.
My son wants to read Atlas Shrugged for an essay contest sponsored by The Ayn Rand Institute. The problem for him is going to be the essay is due by September 17 and at over 1300 pages Atlas Shrugged is by no means "light reading."
I fear my son has chosen a book waaay over his head.
I haven't read the book since I was in college and even then it was something I approached as a chore to get through instead of a pleasure to read. There are great books and there are long books and Atlas Shrugged is a very long book that has become great over the passage of time. I consider it to be in that pantheon of works which are admired more than they are read.
Then again, I feel the same way about all the Toni Morrison novels my wife owns.
I fear my son has chosen a book waaay over his head.
I haven't read the book since I was in college and even then it was something I approached as a chore to get through instead of a pleasure to read. There are great books and there are long books and Atlas Shrugged is a very long book that has become great over the passage of time. I consider it to be in that pantheon of works which are admired more than they are read.
Then again, I feel the same way about all the Toni Morrison novels my wife owns.
I liked it, but didn't read the
40 page speech at the end of the
book. Felt like it was just a recap
of what she'd already written.
Her ideas, got her published, and
I believe she sold a few copies of the
book and others.
Try pleasing all the people and know
what you are?
A. a politician
B. a liar
C. a fool
D. insane
E. all of the above
40 page speech at the end of the
book. Felt like it was just a recap
of what she'd already written.
Her ideas, got her published, and
I believe she sold a few copies of the
book and others.
Try pleasing all the people and know
what you are?
A. a politician
B. a liar
C. a fool
D. insane
E. all of the above
- Joined
- May 8, 2009
- Messages
- 2,095
- Reaction score
- 268
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Website
- undeadwhispers.yuku.com
I have to preface this with the statement that Ayn Rand saved my life. When in my teens and deeply depressed, not least because of being gifted in a school system that institutionally disapproved of such on top of being extremely lonely and neurotic on top of all the problems inherent in the protracted emotional puberty that is the norm in our society--I read her novella Anthem.
Then I read it again and again and again. It was a psychic injection of anti-depressants, the emotional equivalent of suddenly elevated blood sugar. Reading that work did much to let me survive.
Having said that--and having read all of Rand's fiction and much of her non-fiction--I must say that Rand's philosophy is seriously flawed. Part of that is tone. She did not seek to persuade, but to convert. Her way was not to question anyone else's ideas but to condemn, vilify and mock. Likewise, she possessed little self-knowledge and projected her own tastes onto the world, insisting that approach things (even deeply personal matters as sexuality or taste in music) in any way other than her own was some brand of Evil.
Frankly, I think many of her ideas are inherently flawed to say the least. She seemed to have little understanding of nuance, was far from an expert on many subjects about which she issued edicts, and made sweeping judgments with a very broad brush.
Which is not say she wasn't brilliant (she was), that at her best her fiction is not riveting (it most certainly can be), that she wasn't a startling and original artist (again, she very much was).
But her personality infused her philosophy, and most of her adherents seem to have embraced the most problematical of her tendencies as holy writ. For example, Objectivists in general like to accuse others of "irreducable evil" as in "a concept or belief that cannot be advocated without the advocate acting from an immoral motive." Now, this frankly is nonsense. Human beings are more complex than that, by a couple of orders of magnitude. More, it is a tool to condemn rather than understand, to alienate rather than teach, to feed vanity rather than arrive at any useful truth or policy. Rand herself never saw this. Her "intellectual heir" Leonard Peikoff (frankly, an intellectual pygmy IMHO) would never question it. Most Objectivists that I know find in the Movement an excuse for calling themselves the Uberman. No matter how sterile their actual achievements, they identify with Howard Roark, with John Galt, with Francisco d'Anconia. How many think of themselves as Cheryl Taggart or Eddie Willers? For that matter, how many exhibit the trait so common in Rand's heroes of feeling pride in doing simple, honest work even if menial?
At heart, Objectivism envisions a society that can only work if the vast majority are Objectivists -- a futile hope. Rand's ideas in their fundamentals have some real value. They certainly are worthy of discussion. Sadly, those who consider themselves Missionaries (I'm not kidding--these people try to settle arguments by looking up what Rand said, i.e. an argument from authority) of her ideology for the most part discourage actual discussion or debate. This is a cue they picked up from Rand herself.
Rand ended her life so hyper-critical of the world she found it impossible to simply read a book, driven to rage and distraction every single time anyone else made a "mistake." Her bout with lung cancer began with her telling a doctor that all those statistics about smoking were meaningless -- but when the diagnosis came in she put out her cigarette and quit cold turkey on the spot (methinks very few of her adherents would have that kind of courage and strength-of-will). The less said about the train wreck of her personal life, the better.
But again -- let us not forget that at her best she was a extremely powerful and moving author. She's not for everyone (this is a concept she would probably have trouble with) but at her best she reaches right into some people's hearts and souls, lighting a fire of hope and joy. No small feat. Tragically, her artistic impulses came to be short-circuited by her intellect. The opening of Book Four of The Fountainhead -- a passage nearly every fan of the novel mentions with praise and fervor -- she regarded as a silly piece of self-indulgence. She did not trust her intuition, so never learned how to use it, to wield it, to mine it. So, in time, she lost contact with it.
I do not dismiss Ayn Rand or her works. Nor do I encourage others to do so. But, like everything, take it with a grain of salt and eyes open. She did not have all the answers. No one does. But she does ask important questions, and some of her answers have the ring of truth while others are very worthwhile to consider. Just don't make a doctrine out of her words.
Un-clicking my soapbox icon now...
Then I read it again and again and again. It was a psychic injection of anti-depressants, the emotional equivalent of suddenly elevated blood sugar. Reading that work did much to let me survive.
Having said that--and having read all of Rand's fiction and much of her non-fiction--I must say that Rand's philosophy is seriously flawed. Part of that is tone. She did not seek to persuade, but to convert. Her way was not to question anyone else's ideas but to condemn, vilify and mock. Likewise, she possessed little self-knowledge and projected her own tastes onto the world, insisting that approach things (even deeply personal matters as sexuality or taste in music) in any way other than her own was some brand of Evil.
Frankly, I think many of her ideas are inherently flawed to say the least. She seemed to have little understanding of nuance, was far from an expert on many subjects about which she issued edicts, and made sweeping judgments with a very broad brush.
Which is not say she wasn't brilliant (she was), that at her best her fiction is not riveting (it most certainly can be), that she wasn't a startling and original artist (again, she very much was).
But her personality infused her philosophy, and most of her adherents seem to have embraced the most problematical of her tendencies as holy writ. For example, Objectivists in general like to accuse others of "irreducable evil" as in "a concept or belief that cannot be advocated without the advocate acting from an immoral motive." Now, this frankly is nonsense. Human beings are more complex than that, by a couple of orders of magnitude. More, it is a tool to condemn rather than understand, to alienate rather than teach, to feed vanity rather than arrive at any useful truth or policy. Rand herself never saw this. Her "intellectual heir" Leonard Peikoff (frankly, an intellectual pygmy IMHO) would never question it. Most Objectivists that I know find in the Movement an excuse for calling themselves the Uberman. No matter how sterile their actual achievements, they identify with Howard Roark, with John Galt, with Francisco d'Anconia. How many think of themselves as Cheryl Taggart or Eddie Willers? For that matter, how many exhibit the trait so common in Rand's heroes of feeling pride in doing simple, honest work even if menial?
At heart, Objectivism envisions a society that can only work if the vast majority are Objectivists -- a futile hope. Rand's ideas in their fundamentals have some real value. They certainly are worthy of discussion. Sadly, those who consider themselves Missionaries (I'm not kidding--these people try to settle arguments by looking up what Rand said, i.e. an argument from authority) of her ideology for the most part discourage actual discussion or debate. This is a cue they picked up from Rand herself.
Rand ended her life so hyper-critical of the world she found it impossible to simply read a book, driven to rage and distraction every single time anyone else made a "mistake." Her bout with lung cancer began with her telling a doctor that all those statistics about smoking were meaningless -- but when the diagnosis came in she put out her cigarette and quit cold turkey on the spot (methinks very few of her adherents would have that kind of courage and strength-of-will). The less said about the train wreck of her personal life, the better.
But again -- let us not forget that at her best she was a extremely powerful and moving author. She's not for everyone (this is a concept she would probably have trouble with) but at her best she reaches right into some people's hearts and souls, lighting a fire of hope and joy. No small feat. Tragically, her artistic impulses came to be short-circuited by her intellect. The opening of Book Four of The Fountainhead -- a passage nearly every fan of the novel mentions with praise and fervor -- she regarded as a silly piece of self-indulgence. She did not trust her intuition, so never learned how to use it, to wield it, to mine it. So, in time, she lost contact with it.
I do not dismiss Ayn Rand or her works. Nor do I encourage others to do so. But, like everything, take it with a grain of salt and eyes open. She did not have all the answers. No one does. But she does ask important questions, and some of her answers have the ring of truth while others are very worthwhile to consider. Just don't make a doctrine out of her words.
Un-clicking my soapbox icon now...
Of course Rand's work reads like a Marxist tract. It is a Marxist tract.
Rand grew up in the Soviet Union and so was taught the Marxist 'philosophy' in depth. Then when she moved to the West she inverted it. She became the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist. She accepts the theology but what is bad in the original becomes good in her 'reworking' of it.
She agrees with the Marxists on how capitalism works and she thinks that it working that way is the best way the world could work.
I don't care much for Marx and I don't care much for Rand as both advance world views that must come about no matter who gets hurt.
Other people have noted how Ms. Rand was trying to deal with her sexually submissive nature in her prose so I won't go into that.
Ultimately, Ms. Rand is used as an excuse for people to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
Oh? The book? I should comment on the book. It sucked. Too big and badly in need of an editor.
Rand grew up in the Soviet Union and so was taught the Marxist 'philosophy' in depth. Then when she moved to the West she inverted it. She became the Marxist equivalent of a Satanist. She accepts the theology but what is bad in the original becomes good in her 'reworking' of it.
She agrees with the Marxists on how capitalism works and she thinks that it working that way is the best way the world could work.
I don't care much for Marx and I don't care much for Rand as both advance world views that must come about no matter who gets hurt.
Other people have noted how Ms. Rand was trying to deal with her sexually submissive nature in her prose so I won't go into that.
Ultimately, Ms. Rand is used as an excuse for people to do what they want to do when they want to do it.
Oh? The book? I should comment on the book. It sucked. Too big and badly in need of an editor.
My friend, Sam the Objectavist, and his political foe, Alex the Commy, both tell me how wonderful Ayn Rand's characters are.
I tell them that they would not know a good character if it bit them in the ass.
Ayn Rand's characters have less depth than a spoon. They're not even two dimensional. They are one dimensional, bland, samey, caricatured fuckheads.
I hate her writing with a firy passion. Her ideas? Meh. Some of them are okay, others are not-so-okay.
But her writing sucks. Sucks sucks sucks sucks.
I tell them that they would not know a good character if it bit them in the ass.
Ayn Rand's characters have less depth than a spoon. They're not even two dimensional. They are one dimensional, bland, samey, caricatured fuckheads.
I hate her writing with a firy passion. Her ideas? Meh. Some of them are okay, others are not-so-okay.
But her writing sucks. Sucks sucks sucks sucks.
Atlas Shrugged
I am trying to make up my mind if i should read this one or not. I have read some excerpts and they are enough to send me into an angry rant...but maybe I should not judge a book by a just a couple pages.
What say you?
I am trying to make up my mind if i should read this one or not. I have read some excerpts and they are enough to send me into an angry rant...but maybe I should not judge a book by a just a couple pages.
What say you?
It's not well written. It preaches Ayn Rand's ideas more than it is a good story.
Just my opinion.
Just my opinion.
Oh god - there's so much to get outraged about now, I'd probably save myself for Jan 20. But if you have rants to spare, yes, why not read it?
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Messages
- 17,874
- Reaction score
- 4,667
- Location
- dunking doughnuts at Dunkin' Donuts
If it turns out you don't like it and throw it against the wall, be prepared for some extensive and expensive wall repairs.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2011
- Messages
- 16,938
- Reaction score
- 5,320
- Location
- Near the gargoyles
- Website
- www.alessandrakelley.com
Rather than throwing a useless and offensive book against a wall, I recommend using it as garden mulch. Then at least the book does some actual good in the world.
Anyone ever thought about doing there own take on Rand and her philosophy? That is why i was thinking about reading the book, to get a better grasp before i offer my own counter arguments.
Daylight Atheism has a great series of posts critiquing Atlas Shrugged in depth.
Personally, I cherry-pick that book. There are some things I like, such as John Galt's comments on original sin. There are some things I don't. It's never been part of a philosophy of life for me, and I prefer The Fountainhead.
Personally, I cherry-pick that book. There are some things I like, such as John Galt's comments on original sin. There are some things I don't. It's never been part of a philosophy of life for me, and I prefer The Fountainhead.