'Atlas Shrugged' author sees resurgence (CNN) {Ayn Rand -- ick!}

[eppur_se_muova]

From Doug Ganley
CNN

(CNN) --
***
In the midst of the credit crisis and the federal government's massive bailout plan, the works of Rand, a proponent of a libertarian, free-market philosophy she called Objectivism, are getting new attention.

"If only 'Atlas' were required reading for every member of Congress and political appointee in the Obama administration. I'm confident that we'd get out of the current financial mess a lot faster," Wall Street Journal columnist Stephen Moore wrote in early January.

It's obviously getting attention from the general public. Rand book sales are "going through the roof," said Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute. According to Brook, "Atlas Shrugged," her most famous novel, has sold more copies in the first four months of 2009 than it did for all of 2008 -- and in 2008, it sold 200,000 copies. It's been in Amazon.com's top 50 for more than a month.
***
"Atlas Shrugged" concerns a group of corporate chieftains and individualists who go on strike in protest of government intervention in business. Among those trying to figure out what's happening are Taggart and steel tycoon Hank Rearden. Eventually they meet John Galt, an engineer who had been elevated to legendary status by "stopping the motor of the world" in encouraging other individualists to drop out, and who delivers the novel's showstopping 50-page speech -- an expansive summary of Rand's philosophy.
***
"Is it a novel? Is it a nightmare? Is it Superman -- in the comic-strip or the Nietzschean version?" Time magazine asked in its review, adding that Rand's "philosophy must be read to be disbelieved. ... She deserves credit at least for imagination; unfortunately, it is tied to ludicrous naivety."
***
more: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/books/04/27/ayn.rand.atlas.shrugged/index.html




Well, great -- we can look forward to even more wingnuts feeding their preconceptions on this hack corporate fantasy -- what does it take for a bad novel to die for good?

[hatrack]

1. Well, it just goes to show that boring, ponderous, and truly SHITTY writing is timeless!!

:eyes:

[Doremus]

6. x 1

No wonder her writing was shitty.

The woman was as interesting as a doorknob.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

[glaeken777]

8. still sitting on my shelves

I've tried multiple times to make it through ATLAS and FOUNTAINHEAD, and never get further than 100 pages. I finally gave up after failing to convince myself I should force my way merely b/c these are considered "classics" of modern American lit.

I did manage to finish ANTHEM, mainly because of its brevity and the subject matter, but it still came off as a bland copy of 1984.

She is truly a long-winded and boring writer, I don't care what anyone says.

[hatrack]

9. There's a reason you gave up after forcing yourself through the first 100 pp. . . .

Just as there's a reason I gave up (and quickly) on "Left Behind" - the books in question SUCK.

[Taverner]

2. Another book Freepers will buy, read one chapter and use as a paperweight

[geckosfeet]

3. IMO the RW conservative hacks that I know are far too

uneducated and belligerent to pull off anything like the social restructuring that takes place in the novel.

[AllentownJake]

4. Atlas shrugged is not reconciable with Christianity

Its the exact opposite of Christ's message.

[Qutzupalotl]

16. +1

That was my problem with it too. One could say her philosophy is a poison for the soul.

[HereSince1628]

5. Ayn sees and speaks from the dead? Clearly, I should have read her more closely.

TURN OFF THAT LIGHT!!!!!!!!!!

[eppur_se_muova]

7. She's one of the Undead? I guess that would figure. nt

[Turbineguy]

10. If the assholes

who got us into this mess had read this book we wouldn't be in it.

[glitch]

11. Republicans have to go somewhere, now that their party is imploding.

Perhaps they'll form a third-party, the Objectivists. They can run Angelina Jolie against Sarah Palin in 2012. :rofl:

[The Traveler]

12. A problem for Randians

is that their very survival depends utterly on the committed actions of people who do not adhere to their philosophy of self interest. Ayn Rand claimed that "There is no such thing as 'the public'" (That is very nearly a quote, but it is probably not quite exact. Close enough to convey the idea, though.) This argument is an inescapable conclusion of Objectivism, as Rand herself proclaimed in an interview. Yet Randians rely on those who dedicate themselves to service of that non-existant public (e.g. soldiers, police, firefighters, paramedics and others). Such folk accept crap wages for dangerous and/or difficult work largely because of the satisfaction earned by serving purposes greater than one's self interest.

Randians must claim that such noble aspirations are dysfunctional in nature, if they are to be consistent with the philosophy they proclaim. In that sense, practitioners of Objectivism must rely on those who reject their philosophy ... and to me that points to a fatal weakness of the philosophical argument. Further, Rand's Objectivism fails to take note that what serves the self interest of the individual can damage or destroy the population group (tribe/nation) that brought forth that individual, and upon which that individual relies for their survival and commerce. Objectivists cling to climate change denial in large part because its implications in that context.

Frankly, I don't see how anyone who has successfully navigated puberty can find Rand of philosophical or literary interest. One really wishes one could hand these poor, self-centered, immature people a can of "Grow the Fuck Up".

Trav

[Democracyinkind]

13. Atlas Shrugged isn't a book, it was a cry for help by a deranged woman. Nobody cared.

The tragedy is that people take it seriously. And for the occasional freeper: You are not John Galt. You have more in common with the kids in Calcutta than with John Galt, because he is a FICTIONAL CHARACTER whose very existence is impossible and whose claim to credit was the invention of a science fiction device defying the laws of thermodynamics. Go figure. Nobody is John Galt. Never was, never will be.

" She deserves credit at least for imagination " No she does not. If you would have built a 50's-style faulty book-writing computer and given it to the CIA that's what I'd expect. For God's sake the woman had problems and couldn't communicate meaningfully with anyone in the real world - AS was her revenge.

the chapter " The politics of pull " and generally the representation of the moochers like her brother do have their merit though. What a shame that it is hidden in a 1000+ page supremacist fantasy.

Another thing. The only people who have actually read the book through turn out to be lefties who want to refute it. I've never met someone who read it and took it seriously, not to mention believe in its "message".

[Aviation Pro]

14. And the flimsiest of disasters starts the whole ball rolling....

...a train wreck if you will.

Yes, I read the turd-like tome from ex-Russian aristocrat Rand.

[mitchum]

15. Alice Rosenbaum was a terrible philosopher and even worse novelist

[Marr]

17. Huh? It was largely Ayn Rand's "philosophy" that caused the mess to begin with.

[lame54]

18. Good thing she's dead so she can't profit from it...

although some other scumbags will

[Batgirl]

19. I fail to see how anyone can buy into her "philosophy" unless

they've either lived a very sheltered life, or are using it to rationalize criminally dishonest business practices (under the guise of identifying themselves with Rand's fictional heroes/captains of industry.

As a member of the first category in my teens, I thought the fantasy world she created seemed completely reasonable/realistic. For instance, she asserted that under s system of pure unfettered capitalism, the best possible outcomes would be achieved due to everyone acting from a perspective of "rational self-nterest". Therefore, we didn't need an FDA to ensure drug safety, for instance, because drug companies, acting from rational self-interest, would never market a product that would injure or kill their customers. (edited to add: ROFLMFAO)

The same would be true of our financial sector of course. Decisions would be made from rational self-interest, so we would never end up with short-term financial killings being made based on irrational greed and destined to end with an implosion of the global economy when those little chickens finally came home to roost.

Now doesn't that all sound rosy? Who wouldn't want to believe in such a pleasant-sounding fairy tale.

She had to write fantasy novels to illustrate the wonder and logic of her philosophy, populating her books with characters who belong to a fantasy species of hominid.

It can be quite disconcerting to find out how far reality is from her fictional depiction of such, but usually it only takes sitting in a few business meetings and seeing first-hand what part "rational self-interest" plays.

[MisterP]

21. Robert Hunt said that readers were seduced by the relentless glamour of the GQ model-CEOs' lives:

most of which she took from her days with Cecil DeMille--zeppelin orgies, skyscrapers, Art Deco accessories
the massive size of the tope, Hunt says, actually works in its favor: it becomes an investment
I wonder, though, if any Randroid transferred their money to failed banks' CEOs? I mean, otherwise they'd be on FDIC dole

[Batgirl]

24. I haven't read that, sounds interesting.

But also, there are many True Believers who buy into her depiction of corporate elites as being superlatively competent, dedicated geniuses who are wealthy only as a result of their own talent and virtue. Her leaders of business and industry actually don't care about money as an end in itself, they are passionate about their companies in a very personal way, having built them from the ground up with plenty of backbreaking labor. And since we all benefit from the fruits of their dedication and generosity, their great accomplishments in science, technology and medicine ... the least we can do in return is not bedevil them with any sort of governmental regulations.

So in a way, I suspect the right wing uses the true believer Randians/Objectivists the way they use their fundie religious base. They appeal to them on the grounds of their deeply felt idealism, whether in a fundamentalist Christianity, or a fundamentalist "libertarianism." Meanwhile, the actual monied elites believe in nothing except more money and power, period.

[Danger Mouse]

20. When times are tough, folks turn to the used book bin for toilet paper.

Fortunately, Ayn Rand's weighty tomes prove to be as absorbent as they are thought-provoking.

[devilgrrl]

22. Stephen Moore and the rest of the Randites have never been right about anything.

Keep trying you bozos. :eyes:

[October]

23. Just met a woman who's reading Fountainhead or w.e. and her hubby's reading Atlas

I recently became "friendly" with this woman because our children participate in the same extracurricular activity.

She walked into the building with her Fountainhead (?) book and proclaimed to all that it was like the 17th time she's read it -- insisted everyone has to read it -- best book in the universe, etc.

My jaw dropped.

Then she added (she's loud, too) that her husband is reading "Atlas Shrugged." I was near apoplectic. She was telling me how it's "...against the man...fighting the man." She's white.

My head is still spinning. I seriously think she has NO IDEA what she's reading. When she said it's "...against the man..." I added, "Well, maybe the extreme right-wing version of that." She didn't respond which made me think she didn't realize what she was reading.

She and her husband are in their early 30's. He's an "apple genius" and she's a hairdresser going back to college. I think they are extremely ignorant. How else to explain her very loud support of this drivel???

Help me understand, please.