Ever read Atlas shrugged?

[jamil]

I've never read any of his work, but I've listened to many hours of his lectures. Certainly one of the more sane academics of the day.

In the context of what I’m saying, he’s an excellent communicator. Rand gabe plenty of speeches too. They were as difficult as her writing.

 

[ancjr]

In the context of what I’m saying, he’s an excellent communicator. Rand gabe plenty of speeches too. They were as difficult as her writing.

I've seen the Donahue episode she was on.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

I can't agree with the criticisms being posted here.

Mark me down in the "masterpiece" column.

 

[ancjr]

I know what the Bible says about the Atheist, and I'm going with the Bible over anyone else's opinion.

 

[Snapdragon]

It should be rewritten, they could clean it up and not make it so ponderous in parts but it should be mandatory reading in high school

Interesting concept. A classic book by a renowned author, that deals with the loss of individuality to corporate and governmental control, should be rewritten to your specifications.

 

[Leadeye]

I have to agree with jamil here, it is a rather ponderous book, but some people just have difficulty expressing ideas and concepts in the form of a story. Some authors tell great stories that are just that, stories.

Much like Paradise Lost or The Brothers Karamazov, it's a story with a message that's just a hard read.

 

[jamil]

I can't agree with the criticisms being posted here.

Mark me down in the "masterpiece" column.

See? This appears to me a failure to see legitimate criticisms, and only see the parts that resonate with you. It’s good that the thesis of the book resonates with you. I’ve integrated some of what I think are the saner aspects of objectivism into my own thinking.

But there are legitimate criticisms. Did you read the passage I quoted above? That’s objectively bad writing. That kind of nonsense is laced throughout the book. It would have been a mich better novel if she’d have left that kind of crap out. It would have been a much better story if she had been less overt with the ideological stuff and let the reader discover the underlying “truths” for himself, rather than beating him about the head with them.

 

[jamil]

Interesting concept. A classic book by a renowned author, that deals with the loss of individuality to corporate and governmental control, should be rewritten to your specifications.

It’s a classic book in that it’s old and popular. It’s the ideology sold within the pages that made it so. The same storyline told by a good story teller would improve it greatly. Notice that it’s mostly not the ideological message I object to. It’s that the writing and storytelling is **** compared with other popular authors. It’s the message of the book that made it popular.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

See? This appears to me a failure to see legitimate criticisms, and only see the parts that resonate with you. It’s good that the thesis of the book resonates with you. I’ve integrated some of what I think are the saner aspects of objectivism into my own thinking.

But there are legitimate criticisms. Did you read the passage I quoted above? That’s objectively bad writing. That kind of nonsense is laced throughout the book. It would have been a mich better novel if she’d have left that kind of crap out. It would have been a much better story if she had been less overt with the ideological stuff and let the reader discover the underlying “truths” for himself, rather than beating him about the head with them.

You think it's bad writing? Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But I do not agree.

 

[jamil]

You think it's bad writing? Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. But I do not agree.

Did you read the passage? I have plenty more I could post.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

Did you read the passage? I have plenty more I could post.

Yes, I did.

 

[Cameramonkey]

Did you read the passage? I have plenty more I could post.

dude, you do realize taste is subjective, right?

 

[Snapdragon]

Did you read the passage? I have plenty more I could post.

dude, you do realize taste is subjective, right?

Reminds me of the time when a co-worker looked at my cup of coffee and said "you don't have enough cream in your coffee". I said "yes, I do". She said "Look at it. Look how dark it is. There's not enough cream." This went back and forth a couple of times, each time with my co-worker honestly believing that if she could get me to simply look at my coffee, I would realize that she was right.

 

[jake blue]

dude, you do realize taste is subjective, right?

Agreed. Jamil, you're not going to change anyone's mind if it's already made up, just don't waste your time. The ensuing debate is going to end up being entirely subjective.

 

[Mikey1911]

And as the Old Lady once wrote:

When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.

(The corollary is: When I disagree with an irrational man on INGO, I can ignore him and wait for the mods to "shooter" him.)

 

[SnoopLoggyDog]

Read it many years ago. The concepts upon which the book is based are interesting. The story itself was like a 100 mile slog through a mangrove swamp. Shooting the book would be way more fun.

 

[jamil]

Behold, the masterpiece:

A gray cotton, which was neither quite fog nor clouds, hung in sloppy wads between sky and mountains, making the sky look like an old mattress spilling its stuffing down the sides of the peaks. A crusted snow covered the ground, belonging neither to winter nor to spring. A net of moisture hung in the air, and she felt an icy pinprick on her face once in a while, which was neither a raindrop nor a snowflake.

 

[jake blue]

As an aspiring author myself I'm half tempted to edit a version of one of my own stories using Rand's prose and see if it as richly embraced for it's profoundness.

 

[Mikey1911]

If it were true that men could achieve their good by means of turning some men into sacrificial animals, and I were asked to immolate myself for the sake of creatures who wanted to survive at the price of my blood, if I were asked to serve the interests of society apart from, above and against my own - I would refuse. I would reject it as the most contemptible evil, I would fight it with every power I possess, I would fight the whole of mankind, if one minute were all I could last before I were murdered, I would fight in the full confidence of the justice of my battle and of a living being's right to exist. Let there be no misunderstanding about me. If it is now the belief of my fellow men, who call themselves the public, that their good requires victims, then I say: The public good be damned, I will have no part of it!

—Henry Rearden

Something that should be said to the face of the Collectivist-Media Complex that styles itself as the “Democratic Party”.

Something that would constitute
“Speaking Truth to Liars”.

 

[BigRed]

Something I find striking about most people who have strong opinions about this book. Praise and criticism are usually ideologically based instead of objectively based.

You read the praise here and it’s not because it’s a well written book. It’s because people agree with her ideology. Objectively, it’s poorly written with numerous awkward passages like the one I quoted earlier. And the ideology behind it is not subtle. The best works with an agenda behind them leaves the reader to discover those concepts for themselves. Rand just declares them to the reader. There’s almost no discovery.

Similarly I’ve read many criticisms of her book, and the most easily found criticisms are usually ideologically left leaning people who object to her message and say almost nothing about the legitimate criticisms.

In either case, I don’t think it’s that neither noticed the driveling passages, or the overt one sided messaging throughout. Their priorities are either to praise or condemn the messaging.

I think it deserves a more objective review of the book, not an automatic, ideologically derived opinion of it. Good message? Okay. Fine. I’m not a big fan or critic of objectivism, though I’ll just say it’s not all that aligned with human nature. But nevertheless that’s purely subjective. Bad message? Yeah that’s subjective too.

Edit: this post is dedicated to BigRed. It’s been awhile since my last long post.

I re-opened the book this week...currently on the thirteenth chapter.

I agree with a point made by jamil in his post 19....particularly his last line.

Rand could have used an editor to get to the point BigRed can sum up in a few words.... central state can go straight to Hell.

Still, jamil would find it a challenge to abridge the gap and cut to the chase.


The book was made into a movie a while back...while Rand can be a long read, there is much more in the book than can be condensed into a movie...continues to be worth the read.