Atlas Shrugged or Fountainhead?

That's an excellent point, Jennifer. Joe was making a point in another thread about how the dominant cultural vision of capitalists is the evil, scheming entrepreneur. Atlas certainly serves an important purposes for aspiring capitalists--it gets them psyched and excited. Nothing great ever happened because someone got really lukewarm about an idea. Great excitement leads to great actions and great accomplishments. People SHOULD feel GREAT and EXCITED about their business and especially their entreprenurial endeavors. Atlas indeed can help people feel differently about amassing great wealth in the business of their choosing! It IS heroic!

Post 21

Friday, January 28, 2005 - 6:12am

And, Ive only read Atlas about 4x, Fountain 2x---and now I'm Jonesing to re-read them, so to the head of the list they go!

Post 22

Friday, January 28, 2005 - 10:58am

As far as Rand's fiction goes:

1) I would say to read Atlas Shrugged first, if only because I like The Fountainhead better. I just believe in saving the best for last.

2) I am not a fan of Anthem at all; to me it's short but just way too bare-bones and non-specific for me to enjoy much.

3) We the Living is very good, because it has a strong female lead, but I don't like it nearly as much as the first two I mentioned, because it's just too depressing all the way through.

But as far as Rand's non-fiction goes:

1) I would say to read Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, because it lays out the basic philosophy in a very academic and formal way. But also, it saves the most enjoyable reads for last, which are:

2) The Return of the Primitive, The Voice of Reason, and then all other Rand non-fiction books...

Finally, I would read the books which are critical of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, just to see the counter-arguments, which you may or may not judge as valid:

1) My Years With Ayn Rand, by Nathaniel Branden (who was her original protege and extramarital lover), and

2) The Ayn Rand Cult, by Jeff Walker (he points out some legitimate grievances and then others which I think are irrelevant and fallacious smears)

And that's it.

Post 23

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 1:08pm

I read The Fountainhead 1st. The whole subject/ideas/themes were totally, radically, new to me. I was 2-3 mos dragging myself through the 1st 1/3. Then...I started getting interested; don't ask how/why I dragged through the beginning. I'm not even sure today; but, I'm glad I did. I finished the rest in less than a week.

My suggestion is to read Anthem 1st. It's a 'quick read.' In it's own way, it's 'abstract,' theme-wise, but, we're not talking tensor-calculus or surrealism. Upon finishing it, you will definitely know if tackling (and, appreciating) The Fountainhead is for you; and, I suggest that one before delving into Atlas Shrugged.

LLAP
J:D

(Edited by John Dailey on 10/19, 4:21pm)

Post 24

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 5:01am

Ayn Rand appealed to children. I mean "appealed" in both senses: she sought them out; and they liked her.

Last week, I tried to read Atlas Shrugged and I put it down after about 60 pages. The writing is bad.

She wrote with a passion that seemed to say something, but said nothing in particular, as if something were yearning to be expressed, but failed to be born, as if she had an idea, but it could not be formed, as if she wanted to change the world, but did not know how, as if she tore the pages from a book of philosophy and stuffed them into a book of history, as if the twilight of her hopes were the dawn of a new era. She wrote in awe of great scientific ideas that she did not understand. She trembled with energy, energy born not of achievement, but of anger. "There goes a great writer," someone said, but she did not hear him. She paced nervously, and sat at a desk. Taking a pen, she found a sheet of paper.

Post 25

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 6:41am

You're so glum these days...
Atlas Shrugged
She wrote with a passion that seemed to say something, but said nothing in particular
Atlas said something specific about a very great many particulars of life, from smoking to symphonies. All the particulars culminate in one ruling particular message, the particularity of civilisation, of freedom. The passion takes form in countless particulars in the book, and by extension it takes form in all the particulars of your life.

as if she wanted to change the world, but did not know how

I don't understand you. The passion always seems to me potentiated by its clear direction, not least of all in the foreword to Anthem.

She wrote in awe of great scientific ideas that she did not understand.

The logos of a science transcends the state of the art, so too therefore may our awe.

She trembled with energy, energy born not of achievement, but of anger

I think that the kind of disciplined energy radiating from her pages needs to come from a deeper faculty than mere anger. Mere anger doesn't write 1000 page books. Cognitive achievement must precede and mix with anger, there's your energy dynamo.

She paced nervously, and sat at a desk. Taking a pen, she found a sheet of paper.

I don't know if these are the works of a nervous woman trying to exorcise a great bee from her bonnet. I doubt it. But however the lesson got to us, it got to us. You can read the arguments and they make for great wisdom. So what's your boggle? Seems like you're having a great crisis of conscience, poor chap.

Rick Out

Post 26

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:58am

Michael:

Ok, that was hilarious. You piss me off a lot of the time, but that was quite funny.

Ash

Edited to add: Maybe we should have a "Bad Ayn Rand Writing" contest, kind of like the "Hemingway writing" or Bulwer-Lytton writing competitions.

(Edited by Ashley Frazier on 10/20, 8:07am)

Post 27

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 8:39am

Michael,

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

It is even funnier that you got a "serious" refutation.

(still laughing)

Michael

Post 28

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 8:51am

That was priceless. Ok Michael M. Now do some Faulkner would you?

LOL
John

Post 29

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:04am

It was a dark and stormy night - the lights were out in New York. The bridge loomed a massive mawl as I started on the long walk...

Post 30

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:35am

Michael M,

You're right that Atlas Shrugged isn't great writing. So why have I read it three times? It's interesting and compelling, that's why. Francisco's money speech is worth it all by itself. (Although by the third time around, and with some Objectivism under my belt, Galt's radio speech became a small masterpiece for me.) That's because Ayn Rand wrote more than a novel. She explicated for a general audience her philosophy. No small thing in doing that.

The Fountainhead is a better novel in terms of traditional literary standards. But I'm glad I read Atlas Shrugged first, for all its warts as literature, because I appreciated The Fountainhead much more as a consequence.

Andy

Post 31

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:06am

Andy you are of course right. AS is compelling and speaks to we who value it, on a deep level. I remember an actual physical feeling reading *both* books. Hard to describe, but almost a feeling of being more alive, more capable, more "heroic".

John

Post 32

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:20am

Let me state for the record that the writing displayed in Atlas Shrugged is great writing. World class great writing.

One of the hallmarks of a great writer is the establishment of a particular style - one that you can recognize after a few sentences - one that states his message clearly - one that gets to the reader - and one that can be lampooned.

Ayn Rand has all of those qualities. Her continued sales after all these years in an extremely competitive market is evidence of the appreciation of her work by people in general. Her writing speaks to people.

I am captivated and get completely immersed into the story when I reread Atlas Shrugged. That is great writing.

I have no doubt that Michael M was horsing around - not seriously saying that Rand is a bad writer.

Michael

Post 33

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:37am

Michael,

I don't think Michael M. was horsing around this time, but if he was, I'm not. Rand wasn't a great writer. AS wasn't great writing. Andy's got it right this time; the message was great, but the writing wasn't.

Sarah

Post 34

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:59am

Sarah,

Here we go into the "by what standard" thing. By all standards of great writing I can come up with, Rands' writing style is great.

I have a hard time with that word "literary" anyway.

Just because mannerisms and repetition, for instance, are part of Rand's style, this does not lessen the impact of her writing - on me and on millions of people, thus it does not make it less great.

If you want nuance, however, try sinking your teeth into the level of symbolism she presents. It's much deeper than most people think. Then there is a flow thing. There is no awkwardness that makes you have to stop and ask yourself what she actually meant (which is a part of too many writers' styles). Also, I can "see" the events transpiring in my mind.

These are just a few things. What are your standards for making that statement about not-great literary quality? Seriously.

Academic literature?

Michael

Post 35

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:08pm

*My* definition of "Great writing" is: whatever 'style' it incorporates, it motivates most people to re-read the same book again...and discover more than they read the 1st time. --- Fashionable 'literary' standards nwst.

Michael M: You never finished Atlas Shrugged? C'mon!

LLAP
J:D

Post 36

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:03pm

Michael,

For me, the biggest factor was the lack of connection (other than intellectually) I made with the characters. Galt gets tortured? Eh, don't really care how it turns out, but what is Rand going to say about the outcome? Who does Dagny choose? I don't really care, but it's interesting to know why she chose who she chose. Those things are all important of course, but when it comes to a novel, what happens should be important too. When I read AS I see Rand sacrificing the 'what' for the 'why.' To me, both are necessary for the piece to qualify as great.

Sarah

Post 37

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:09pm

Sarah,

Sorry. I didn't understand.

(btw - By coincidence, the article I am working on right now happens to include the John Galt torture scene as seen from a very interesting angle.)

Michael

Post 38

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:13pm

Michael,

Now I'm confused. Are you saying you now understand what I'm saying in post 36 or that you didn't understand what I just said in post 36?

Sarah

Post 39

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 1:31pm