Ayn Rand

[Brooke]

She categorically ignores what happens next after her titans of human genius create their marvelous society.  

Not at all.  Afterwards, they would operate like everyone else in the societal structure she advocates.

She somehow expects us to believe that they, unlike all their predecessors, will not rig the game so as to keep their likely less brilliant offspring at the top.  It is what always happens and the only tool we have against such oligarchy is government of the people, by the people and for the people.  

This is the whole point of her book:  to fight against that and to have a resulting land that follows the rule of law where the laws do not trample on personal freedoms.

then proceeds to spend more effort rigging the system against possible competition from other self made men and we end up in a fuedal oligarchy type situation.  Honest, dynamic competition is what we ought to strive for and for that to be true we must maintain opportunity for all because we never know where the next Steve Jobs type will be born.

You and I have opposite interpretations of Atlas Shrugged, I see.  I strongly believe that most people familiar with Rand would agree that she is for honest, dynamic competition and that her works clearly portray that preference.

Thank you, but I will stand with Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill and other such men and women on this one.

Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill don't seem at all very close to each other, to me.  Teddy Roosevelt seems (based on my reading of "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt", by Morris) to have been in favor of imperialism, big government, and government control and would, I think, not appreciate Rand's ideas.  Churchill was an anti-socialist, much more in favor of free markets, and would, I think, get along just fine with Rand's ideas.

[Brooke]

It must have been Nice to have time to read books not required by teachers
,if it wasn't homework, I was working on the farm from dawn till dusk everyday  from 8 years old till I joined the Army,,, I welcomed the vacation, seven years of 530am to 430pm five or six days a week and the occasional 45 day stint on the ranges in west Germany beat the heck out of all those hours on the farm,, didn't read Rand till after I'd watched a video of her being interviewed on sixty minutes,, she made a lot of sense then,, the books seemed a bit dumbed down to me, but the story was basic and clear,, social control breeds mediocrity, even apathy,,,social freedom breeds exceptionalism !   Just my two cents,,,

<S> to you, to your hard work, and to your service!  America is lucky to have you in it.

I read a lot because of a long period of my life spent in school.  I did have the luxury of reading a lot overall, and I do feel lucky for that.  These days, it is much easier since there are audiobooks, and nearly everyone has to drive or travel at some point.  So, these days, I subscribe to Audible.com and listen to books on tape whenever I'm driving or walking.  That way, I can go through two books a month.  Over the past ten years that way, I've read about 300 books.

Of all the books I've read in my life (many hundreds), the one I would most recommend -- the one that I think would most help the world if more people read it is:

Basic Economics, by Thomas Sowell

Or, if that seems too long, Economics in One Lesson, by Hazlitt.

Even for people who think they already know economics because they took a class in college.  These are not limited to microeconomic discussions of demand/supply curves, but a discussion of economics on the level of how societies work (or don't).

Either of these two books would help people understand something that is vitally important in crafting a good society and help them understand which government policies are good, and which are garbage.

[Motherland]

Okay, counterpoint, a blatantly political work that is actually good: the Grapes of Wrath. Considering the overall pro-socialist-revolution viewpoint of the novel I would say that the widespread popularity of this book in the United States speaks volumes about how overwhelmingly effective the story telling of this novel is.

I've never read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead, I've no desire to. Reading Of Mice and Men motivated me deeply to undertake Steinbeck's magnum opus. If Rand's parallel novella didn't motivate me in the same way, I see no reason to feel hypocritical about this. Message aside, if I didn't feel like I was reading shallow propaganda that sounded more like an allegory from a street preacher than a piece of literature, I would have been excited to read her more fleshed-out works. Especially considering I read both of these novellas at a point where my political viewpoint was much more in line with Rand's than Steinbeck's.

For an example of something that is written in a plain, quick and easy to read style, but does not insult the reader's intelligence, I think you could point to something on that list like Slaughterhouse-Five, or any other of Kurt Vonnegut's novels, which also have that air of this-person-obviously-did-not-major-in-literature about them.

[Karnak]

Not at all.  Afterwards, they would operate like everyone else in the societal structure she advocates.

That isn't possible because the social structure she advocates breaks the moment wealth/empires are passed on to the next generation.

This is the whole point of her book:  to fight against that and to have a resulting land that follows the rule of law where the laws do not trample on personal freedoms.

No, her point was that self made men need to be unfettered by the restrictions of their lessers in order to create a glorious world and enjoy their justly won wealth.  She fails miserably at it too because she doesn't account for human nature.

You and I have opposite interpretations of Atlas Shrugged, I see.  I strongly believe that most people familiar with Rand would agree that she is for honest, dynamic competition and that her works clearly portray that preference.

Yes, so she says, but then sets up a situation in which it is guaranteed to fail and she omits even addressing that by not even mentioning the next generation and the problems of inherited wealth and power.

Teddy Roosevelt and Winston Churchill don't seem at all very close to each other, to me.  Teddy Roosevelt seems (based on my reading of "The Rise of Theodore Roosevelt", by Morris) to have been in favor of imperialism, big government, and government control and would, I think, not appreciate Rand's ideas.  Churchill was an anti-socialist, much more in favor of free markets, and would, I think, get along just fine with Rand's ideas.

Both were in favor of democracy.  Rand was fundamentally opposed to democracy.

[Brooke]

Okay, counterpoint, a blatantly political work that is actually good: the Grapes of Wrath. Considering the overall pro-socialist-revolution viewpoint of the novel I would say that the widespread popularity of this book in the United States speaks volumes about how overwhelmingly effective the story telling of this novel is.

Large segments of the US (especially academia) are pro socialist, so that is not so surprising to me.  Nevertheless, I agree that the writing craft in it is excellent.  There is no question that Steinbeck is a masterful writer.

I've never read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead, I've no desire to.

We should confine our discussion to things we both have read.  It's not very useful to stray into, "I've never read that, but if I had, this is probably what I would have thought about it." 

For an example of something that is written in a plain, quick and easy to read style, but does not insult the reader's intelligence, I think you could point to something on that list like Slaughterhouse-Five, or any other of Kurt Vonnegut's novels, which also have that air of this-person-obviously-did-not-major-in-literature about them.

Vonnegut is also a masterful writer, and his ideas are interesting.  I don't remember Slaughterhouse-Five being anything big on the scale of how one should craft societies, though.  On that scale, there are many intelligently written books that are mainly an enjoyable journey.  I put those in a different category than books like Atlas Shrugged, The Prince, Walden Two, 1984, The Communist Manifesto, Brave New World, The Road to Serfdom, etc.

[Motherland]

Large segments of the US (especially academia) are pro socialist, so that is not so surprising to me.  Nevertheless, I agree that the writing craft in it is excellent.  There is no question that Steinbeck is a masterful writer.

We should confine our discussion to things we both have read.  It's not very useful to stray into, "I've never read that, but if I had, this is probably what I would have thought about it."  

Vonnegut is also a masterful writer, and his ideas are interesting.  I don't remember Slaughterhouse-Five being anything big on the scale of how one should craft societies, though.  On that scale, there are many intelligently written books that are mainly an enjoyable journey.  I put those in a different category than books like Atlas Shrugged, The Prince, Walden Two, 1984, The Communist Manifesto, Brave New World, The Road to Serfdom, etc.

I don't look to novelists for political guidance. Granted, I'm not very much interested in politics at all. I tend to view political messages in pieces of art, literature or otherwise, as unfortunate sidetracks. And I would not put something such as the Communist Manifesto in a similar category to the Grapes of Wrath, even if the latter could be looked at as putting historical materialism into allegory. Honestly even the politics of the Grapes of Wrath taint it slightly for me, whether or not I disagree with anything Steinbeck wrote.

What I read in Anthem lines up with what I've read about the rest of Rand's work. My issue isn't even so much with Rand in particular as with the idea that literature should be excused of superficiality if there's some sort of message behind it. The thing is, Rand stands for this more than any other author I can think of. Her lack of ability to create fleshed out characters and a compelling story is always justified by her proponents for her message. Even you did this earlier in the thread. I don't see why I would be compelled to read any more of the words she's written.

I further disagree with the idea of writing utopian societies into novels. The idea that in 800 or 1200 pages you can outdo 12000 years of human civilization to me is exceedingly egotistical. Slaughterhouse-Five or Cat's Cradle or whatever, or the Grapes of Wrath, or Brave New World, or even Animal Farm or whatever you want to look at as an example, Vonnegut nor Steinbeck nor Huxley nor Orwell, not Camus, not even Marx, had the intense ego and sense of self-righteousness to say 'this is what the world should look like' in 120 pages or 500 pages or 6000 pages. They put forward small slivers of life and presented them in ways that were thought provoking, perhaps challenging the status quo, encouraging you to consider different perspectives, but never claiming objective answers.
Therefore, I object to the underlying idea of Rand's writings.

Also, upon reading and listening to some interviews with Rand, I realized that I would never be able to see eye-to-eye with someone for such an underlying contempt and hatred for her fellow human. I find her to be an all-around vile person.

[pembquist]

It's easy to sneer derisively at L. Ron Hubbard because of scientology, but before scientology he was a highly regarded science-fiction author.  Have you read any of his books from the height of his science-fiction career?  Some of them are quite good and are considered both by readers and luminary writers to be classics in that field.

Also, the reader list that you turn your nose up at (because it contains works by Hubbard and Rand while containing a majority of picks in common with academic-oriented lists) is only one list.  Did you also look at the Radcliffe's list and see that two Rand novels appear on it?

I'm curious if you can tell us, since you are coming forth as a judge of what should and should not be on a list of the world's 100 best novels, how many of those 100 books have you read?  Do you have a good basis for comparison?  What are some books you would put on a list of 100 best novels?

I am the last person to tell somebody what the hundred best novels are as I find the whole idea of a hundred best novels list silly. On the other hand, when someone starts citing inclusion on some popular list like this as a reason why someone else's opinion is "so wrong," it seems appropriate to respond with the equally pretentious notion that the list is invalid due to the amount of crappy literature it contains.

Of the Board's, Reader's and Radcliffe's lists I have read 32,44,32. Which must mean I am virtually unlettered by the lights of this moronic branding scheme.

I can tell you the names of novels I like and even why they are better in my opinion then other novels I like or don't like, but I'm simply not capable of saying any 100 books are universally better for you as a reader than all the rest ever published. It is absurd.

As for Good old Ayn, she sure is a polarizer and maybe as far as the forum goes she should be on the same list as politics and religion are at the dinner table.

[Brooke]

That isn't possible because the social structure she advocates breaks the moment wealth/empires are passed on to the next generation.

I disagree.

No, her point was that self made men need to be unfettered by the restrictions of their lessers in order to create a glorious world and enjoy their justly won wealth. 

You are glossing over something very important:  that there are necessary, just laws (against murder and theft, for example) that all people equally are subject to, and that there are unnecessary, unjust laws (one group lobbying and getting the ability to steal another group's property or unfairly impeding a competitor through deals involving cronyism, for example).  Rand is in favor of the former and against the latter.  Your statement is only true with respect to restrictions in the latter category and incorrect if you mean it to apply to both categories.

She fails miserably at it too because she doesn't account for human nature. . . .

Her books revolve around human nature, namely that if allowed, people end up using coercion to steal things rather than through free transaction.  This is the same thing you are complaining about, yet she addresses it directly, and it is the central theme of her works and philosophy.  Your feeling is that the first generation involved in setting up such a system will be OK, but their children will relapse into corrupt kleptocracy again.  Well, there are no systems that escape that the potential problem of degeneration.  To avoid degeneration every system -- hers, the ones the Romans used, the ones the Greeks used, the one America was founded on, communism, etc. -- has to be upheld by people.  This is a given from the start.

Rand was fundamentally opposed to democracy.

True, as long as you understand that the definition of "democracy" in this case is what the founders of the US were also opposed to (which is why we have a republic, electoral college, House, Senate, Excutive, Legislative branch, etc.).

An Ayn Rand quote:

"'Democratic' in its original meaning [refers to] unlimited majority rule . . . a social system in which one’s work, one’s property, one’s mind, and one’s life are at the mercy of any gang that may muster the vote of a majority at any moment for any purpose."

[Brooke]

I don't look to novelists for political guidance.

Novelists have had significant impacts on politics whether or not you look to them for such.

I don't see why I would be compelled to read any more of the words she's written.

That's true of any literature.  Some books have great plots but the writing isn't so great.  Some books have mediocre plots, but great characters and dialogue.  Some have only great and interesting prose.  Some have everything done well.  Still, some people like a book; some don't.  That's all OK.

I further disagree with the idea of writing utopian societies into novels. The idea that in 800 or 1200 pages you can outdo 12000 years of human civilization to me is exceedingly egotistical. Slaughterhouse-Five or Cat's Cradle or whatever, or the Grapes of Wrath, or Brave New World, or even Animal Farm or whatever you want to look at as an example, Vonnegut nor Steinbeck nor Huxley nor Orwell, not Camus, not even Marx, had the intense ego and sense of self-righteousness to say 'this is what the world should look like' in 120 pages or 500 pages or 6000 pages. They put forward small slivers of life and presented them in ways that were thought provoking, perhaps challenging the status quo, encouraging you to consider different perspectives, but never claiming objective answers.
Therefore, I object to the underlying idea of Rand's writings.

Ideas can be very interesting.  Ideas about how societies work or can work can be very interesting to some people.  All you have to do is subtract 200 years from your 12,000 years of human civilization, and you would miss the American experiment, which was started through ideas communicated through writing.

Also, upon reading and listening to some interviews with Rand, I realized that I would never be able to see eye-to-eye with someone for such an underlying contempt and hatred for her fellow human. I find her to be an all-around vile person.

I don't think she hated her fellow humans overall.  She hated kleptocrats, totalitarians, and socialists.

[Brooke]

I am the last person to tell somebody what the hundred best novels are as I find the whole idea of a hundred best novels list silly.

You have not hesitated in expressing that a book is bad.  Why hesitate to give some examples of books that you think are great?

I'm simply not capable of saying any 100 books are universally better for you as a reader than all the rest ever published. It is absurd.

You have said that books by Rand are universally worse.  I'd like to find out what you've read that you think is great and important.

As for Good old Ayn, she sure is a polarizer and maybe as far as the forum goes she should be on the same list as politics and religion are at the dinner table.

Everything on this board is a polarizer, nothing moreso than just discussion of the game itself.

Discussion and debate are FUN!  No one is forced to participate if they don't like it, but I'd hate to see everyone forced not to participate, even those who do like it.  I hope that you like it, too. 

[Motherland]

That's true of any literature.  Some books have great plots but the writing isn't so great.  Some books have mediocre plots, but great characters and dialogue.  Some have only great and interesting prose.  Some have everything done well.  Still, some people like a book; some don't.  That's all OK.

That's certainly true,
but all of those are components of literary value. An underlying political philosophy is not literary value. If Ayn Rand wanted to write a textbook, or some manifestos, or some articles, that would've been fantastic. Passing off a textbook as a piece of literature is contemptible.
Literature is art. It can be communicated through text. Ideas can be communicated through text. Many of the most interesting ones have been. That is where the parallel ends.
The idea presented by an article in a scientific journal is endlessly interesting. The ideas of Locke or Lenin or Einstein or Darwin are infinitely interesting. They're not art. Art is a separate realm of human affection.
Now I will get back to my math and chemistry textbooks. Which, while similarly valuable, are also not art, but thankfully their authors did not try to pass them off as such.

[WWhiskey]

Maybe we should let her speak for herself

http://youtu.be/1ooKsv_SX4Y

[Midway]

Maybe we should let her speak for herself

http://youtu.be/1ooKsv_SX4Y

 

Although I think she would have appreciated people discussing her ideals and ideas as they try to fully comprehend them as well.  

It takes some effort to reason through it all (and many won't "get it"l, but it is worth the effort.  She was a genius and I suspect will be discussed for many centuries, especially as economies and systems of government continue to evolve (forward or backwards).

[Brooke]

That's certainly true,
but all of those are components of literary value. An underlying political philosophy is not literary value. If Ayn Rand wanted to write a textbook, or some manifestos, or some articles, that would've been fantastic. Passing off a textbook as a piece of literature is contemptible.
Literature is art. It can be communicated through text. Ideas can be communicated through text. Many of the most interesting ones have been. That is where the parallel ends.
The idea presented by an article in a scientific journal is endlessly interesting. The ideas of Locke or Lenin or Einstein or Darwin are infinitely interesting. They're not art. Art is a separate realm of human affection.
Now I will get back to my math and chemistry textbooks. Which, while similarly valuable, are also not art, but thankfully their authors did not try to pass them off as such.

I disagree.

There is no binary distinction between literature and something instructive.  Every instructor and professor I've ever had in an English lit class, and many authors who have expressed an opinion on it one way or the other, considered great literature to be art and something instructive, and that art without it might be literature but is not great literature.  Then, what is considered good form in art is highly subjective.  Rand's literary technique is not on par with Steinbeck, Vonnegut, Hemmingway, Shakespeare, etc.; but that is exclusive company.  You can't say that anyone not on par with the greatest literary masters in history does not write literature (or at least can't say it and still be correct ).  Rand has better technique than 90% of the published fiction out there.

In addition, there is a large tradition of mixing an agenda into literature, where that agenda could have been written as a nonfiction narrative, but is much more compelling and accessible as fiction.  The Jungle, Walden Two, Brave New World, 1984, War of the Worlds, Animal Farm, and Dr. Zhivago are just a few non-Rand examples.