Atlas Shrugged Day

[Pilchardman]

Well said; couldn't agree more.

[Mandryka]

I don't suppose Simon will reel from shock when I say that I find Rand's "philosophy" utterly repugnant (her belief that strong women like to be mastered by even stronger men is only less revolting than some others because it is so transparently risible) but there are many writers with ideas I disagree with (Hemingway, Lawrence) whose work I can appreciate.

Sorry, Mandryka, but I have tried to read Atlas Shrugged (and The Fountainhead a couple of times and haven't been able to get beyond the hundredth page. This is not (just) because of the "philosophy" but because of the poor quality of the prose: turgid and leaden-footed, utterly lacking in humour and so scornful of sentimentality that it avoids any glimmer of Human generosity almost as an article of faith. And the affected, B movie dialogue, with characters declaring sanctimonious platitudes at each other. (Have you ever tried reading some of these speeches out loud? Don't try it if you're in the slightest bit asthmatic!)

For integration of philosophy and literature (as opposed to just "fiction") there are so many other writers with a gift for language that leaves Rand stuck at the starting post, and hundreds of other books since 1945 that deserve greater accolades than hers.

Well, we're obviously in totally opposing positions here, so - on the whole - argument won't do us much good.

I must take issue with your point about Rand's lack of humour, though - if you'd managed to get beyond page 100 of The Fountainhead (a more approachable work than A.S.), you'd have encountered a very funny satire on 'left wing art', centred on the idiot 'playwright' Gus and his lauded by leftist intellecutals play, No Skin Off My Nose (in an editorial, Ellsworth Toohey decries the 'bourgeois censoriousness' that has boudlerised the title). Laugh out loud funny to me, though some people - I suppose - might feel got at.

Yes, Rand's work does lack sentimentality (as she did herself - this was a woman who could cast lifelong friends into outer darkness at the drop of a hat) but I actually find that refreshing - sentimentality is never, imo, a good thing, in life or art.

As to Chomsky.....I can only wonder at a 'libertarian socialist' who has chosen to live in a country where 'socialism', either liberatarian or otherwise, has never had, and never will have, a chance to be anything more than a fringe cult. You're right that thinking people will rarely be able to endorse the actions of their governments - but isn't Chomsky's position analogous to that of a democratic socialist who chooses to live under a military dictatorship? As i say, I fear he enjoys his isolation and his role as a 'troublemaker' a bit too much. As someone else said, he should stick to linguistics, which he knows something about, and leave politics alone.

[Chris Newman]

As to Chomsky.....I can only wonder at a 'libertarian socialist' who has chosen to live in a country where 'socialism', either liberatarian or otherwise, has never had, and never will have, a chance to be anything more than a fringe cult. You're right that thinking people will rarely be able to endorse the actions of their governments - but isn't Chomsky's position analogous to that of a democratic socialist who chooses to live under a military dictatorship? As i say, I fear he enjoys his isolation and his role as a 'troublemaker' a bit too much. As someone else said, he should stick to linguistics, which he knows something about, and leave politics alone.

Life would be very boring if we all hunkered down in our dugouts. After all, chats and spats are one of the best lubricants of an interesting life. There is also the hope that most thinking people carry the hope that maybe they will change opinions. If we give up on that then we really do become isolated as our values become worthless.

Mind you, nobody has yet remotely interested me in the book in question. I am quite happy to continue reading a book about Leoš Janáček and the poems of Geoffrey Chaucer and George Mackay Brown. They appear to have given far more to the world than book titles that defy usual grammatical sense.

[Simon]

Life would be very boring if we all hunkered down in our dugouts. After all, chats and spats are one of the best lubricants of an interesting life. There is also the hope that most thinking people carry the hope that maybe they will change opinions. If we give up on that then we really do become isolated as our values become worthless.

Mind you, nobody has yet remotely interested me in the book in question. I am quite happy to continue reading a book about Leoš Janáček and the poems of Geoffrey Chaucer and George Mackay Brown. They appear to have given far more to the world than book titles that defy usual grammatical sense.

It would be boring indeed - and this thread has largely been one that has exhibited the way these boards should (IMO) operate at their best: diverse opinions, clearly stated, without infantile bickering and offensive comment. We are, or should be, adult enough to disagree with some respect for other, divergent, views, if such views are rationally expressed. (Let's hope that rent-a-mob doesn't roll up and spoil it!) Thanks to Mandryka for starting the thread and others who have offered their views.

Unlike Chris, I have now become interested in the book, and shall try and get it from the library. I'm generally centre-right and conservative, with a distrust of the new until it has proved better than the old. Any satire on the pretentiousness of any art, left-wing or whatever, will please me greatly! But I'm also in some ways a sentimentalist. So I expect that the book, for me, reading it, will attract both admiration and discontent! No bad thing, perhaps.

That said, if it really is badly-written, I too probably won't get too far...

bws to all,

Simon

[Mandryka]

Pilchardman's assertion that Rand is a 'bad' writer opens a different can of worms - ie, what constitutes 'bad' writing? I'd argue that bad writing can be defined by sloppy sentence construction, poorly constructed plots, characters that are merely the author's glove puppets and alter their actions/motivations to suit the plot. I don't think any of these charges can be laid at Miss Rand's door.

The ONE book I have actually read all the way through that I would consider badly written is Theodore Dreiser's An American Tragedy (which later formed the basis for the film, A Place In The Sun). Shocking that such a book should still be regarded (by some) as a classic.

[vinteuil]

I'd argue that bad writing can be defined by sloppy sentence construction, poorly constructed plots, characters that are merely the author's glove puppets and alter their actions/motivations to suit the plot. .

I don't think your definition quite works. One of my favourite novels, Tristram Shandy, would meet all your criteria of 'bad writing' - and yet bad writing - emphatically - it is not!

[Mandryka]

I don't think your definition quite works. One of my favourite novels, Tristram Shandy, would meet all your criteria of 'bad writing' - and yet bad writing - emphatically - it is not!

Have to admit that Sterne/Shandy defeated me, which is why I didn't namecheck it - I haven't read it all the way through, so can't really comment. I'd imagine my dislike of the book springs from the same source as your affection for it! :)

In her book The Romantic Manifesto, Rand gives her views on literature and namechecks what she considers to be 'bad novels': one is the aforementioned American Tragedy, the other is - Thomas Mann's Magic Mountain.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

"sentimentality is never, imo, a good thing, in life or art

... my opinion, too: but I think Rand makes the mistake of confusing generosity of spirit and human warmth with sentimentality.

As for the "satire on 'left wing art'", I cannot comment as I didn't read it. But isn't this rather a clichéd target? (Lawrence did it in Women in Love, Huxley in Attic Hay, even Dorothy Sayers in Murder Must Advertise).

You are quite right; there is little point "arguing", and I had no intention of "rubbishing" your choice of book, or your promotion of it: merely to comment on why I (and perhaps others) cannot share your enthusiasm.

Best Wishes.

[Mandryka]

"sentimentality is never, imo, a good thing, in life or art

... my opinion, too: but I think Rand makes the mistake of confusing generosity of spirit and human warmth with sentimentality.

As for the "satire on 'left wing art'", I cannot comment as I didn't read it. But isn't this rather a clichéd target? (Lawrence did it in Women in Love, Huxley in Attic Hay, even Dorothy Sayers in Murder Must Advertise).

You are quite right; there is little point "arguing", and I had no intention of "rubbishing" your choice of book, or your promotion of it: merely to comment on why I (and perhaps others) cannot share your enthusiasm.

Best Wishes.

No, never thought you were 'rubbishing' my choice of book: even had you been, I wouldn't have been offended (well, not much...) :)

You do have what I'll concede is a point when you suggest A. R. sometimes confused sentimentality with human warmth and generosity of spirit - it's probably fair to say you won't find too many obvious examples of the latter two in her works (though there are, I'd argue, some). I think Rand, as an arch logician, distrusted those qualities, which is why you will find so little evidence of them in her work (or in her life - the various biographies make interesting, if rather scary, reading).

Hst, human warmth and generosity of spirit tend to be qualities associated with great English novels - and I've noticed that English readers are sometimes 'put off' certain foreign classics because those qualities aren't so readily apparent. Personally, this doesn't bother me:the majority of classic French literature, for instance, seems to depict mean and vicious people being mean and vicious in mean and vicious situations (the novels of Victor Hugo, Rand's hero, being the most obvious exception). And surely only an English reader/critic could criticise a novel for being 'lacking in humour' (as George Orwell once remarked, 'a sense of humour is the besetting sin of English novelists' (sic)).

The Foutainhead was written in the 30s/40s, at which time Huxley, Sayers and Lawrence were contemporary writers, so Rand was not 'late past the gate' with her own satire. More recently, I've read a parody of the kind of play that get put on at the Royal Court in Rose Tremain's The Road Home.

[vinteuil]

the novels of Victor Hugo, Rand's hero...

"Victor Hugo - France's National Bore", as the late great Richard Cobb put it...

[Mandryka]

"Victor Hugo - France's National Bore", as the late great Richard Cobb put it...

He was probably the most pompous man ever to draw breath (an awe-inspiring feat when you consider the competion). The story of his writing to Bismarck, requesting an end to the siege of Paris 'because several of my relatives are resident within the city and they are becoming fearfully hungry....' is probably apocryphal, but I could believe it to be true.

[amateur51]

He was probably the most pompous man ever to draw breath (an awe-inspiring feat when you consider the competion).

I trust that Bernard Montgomery, 1st Viscount Montgomery of El Alamain KG, GCB, DSO, PC and Order of the Elephant (Denmark) is on your short-list mandryka

[Pilchardman]

Pilchardman's assertion that Rand is a 'bad' writer opens a different can of worms - ie, what constitutes 'bad' writing? I'd argue that bad writing can be defined by sloppy sentence construction, poorly constructed plots, characters that are merely the author's glove puppets and alter their actions/motivations to suit the plot. I don't think any of these charges can be laid at Miss Rand's door.

Funnily enough, those are all charges I'd lay against Rand, along with: turgid, clumsy prose; unbelievable situations; and a general overarching disjointedness. Now, I know that I find her philosophy repugnant, but I have read books by authors whose message I disagree with, but whose writing I admire, and if this was the case here I'd say so: "horrible philosophy, but well-written". Sadly for her admirers, this just isn't possible. Her fiction is barely readable, in my opinion.

[Mandryka]

Well, I'll take hope from the fact that you say she is 'barely readable'...which implies that, given practice, you might just find her readable one day.

In the aforementioned Romantic Manifesto, Rand defends herself against the charge of unbelievability frequently levelled not just at herself, but at all 'Romantic' fiction: 'This situations may not be your life, but they should be your life; the characters may not be your neighbours, but they should be your neighbours.'

There are a number of authors I find unreadable whom I wouldn't actually describe as 'bad': Jane Austen for one (just fills me with disgust, for some reason) and Henry James for another (there is what I can only describe as an 'effeminacy' about his prose style that I find hugely resistible.).

[handsomefortune]

(her belief that strong women like to be mastered by even stronger men is only less revolting than some others because it is so transparently risible)

yes, ferneyhoughgeliebte, if you think of european womens' politics of the same era, or her US contemporaries, rand is hopelessly out of step.

there's quite a bit of evidence that rand was emotionally stunted. however, to be kind, generous, and humane, we might attribute this lack, to her troubled, poverty stricken childhood, and youth in russia. rand's attempt at hollywood fame which surely made her vulnerable to the rough justice, prejudices of the film industry. also, rand's addiction to amphetamines, liberally prescribed, to US women in particular. but crucially, in reacting to her russian past, rand might be perceived to 'cut out her own heart, to spite russia', as compared to other ex jewish, russian emigre contemporaries, now living in the US/europe, post 1917.

rand's own personal example, as a typically unsentimental 'objectivist' is pretty much trounced by her various affairs, invariably with the partners of women friends, also interested in objectivism. rand's husband must have been a patient soul! rand's lies, and secret affair, in particular, suggests that she simply couldn't practise what she preached intellectually. however, when rand is eventually rejected by her friend's (ex) partner, fellow objectivist (nathaniel brand), rand apparently drifts into a lonely depression, and dies soon after, a forgotten nobody.

at this point, (early 80s), there is little interest in 'atlas shrugged', or 'the fountain head' both long forgotten, considered passe. especially as compared with a burgeoning tv sci fi genre.

to put rand into context, 'bladerunner' is far more relevant to the times; earlier, 'the twilight zone' an example of what other exjews were capable of creating, in response to postwar and coldwar paranoia experienced by the average tv viewer.

unfortunately, rand seemingly totally misjudged the significance of hollywood film orgs, as compared to the wider reach, greater influence of domestic tv viewing. rand's earlier 'assault' towards her own hollywood fame, presumably exposed her to a notorious history and culture of mysogeny (racism, homophobia etc) and cinema was probably the wrong direction to take.

immediately after rand's death, rand's intellectual legacy was pounced on by her supporters, which include future head of US federal reserve, alan greenspan. rand couldn't have had a more important, influencial friend, and posthemus mentor. despite rand being virtually unknown by new generations, 'the rand institute' was established in the early 80s. by 1987 greenspan is esconced as head of all US finance by reagan, a post greenspan held until 2006, immediately prior to the global meltdown.

the 'hi jacking' of rand's least credible intellectual ideas quickly follows the establishment of the institute. the main theme of the institute, is arguably the sentimentalisation of unregulated financial economies, via rand's fiction. as though this really is the key to 'individual freedom', or sustainable longterm.

this thread title, 'atlas shrugged day' is merely a current US promotional strategy, presumably by the institute, which aims to gain the support of new generations, for free market economies, as its sole objective. other promos revolve around publishing and distributing 'atlas shrugged' free, just as the bible is subject to bursts of free circulation, to gain new followers.

though surely the institute faces tough times on this score, as global recession bites, post the free market meltdown? peoples' tastes in sci fi literature seem wholey irrelevent, in comparison to how to pay the next mortgage installment, and generally keep afloat.

in this sense, 'atlas shrugged day' is perhaps a particularly myopic, cynical and callous promotional strategy by the institute. ifrand had any power over things in 2011, she might well feel it a better strategy for the institute to keep a low profile? otherwise, they risk her name being permanently linked with global economic collapse indefinitely. still, it's a great foil for greenspan and cronies, who craftily distance themselves from the market chaos, they've created, by using rand's fiction as promotion of 'free markets', while simultaneously maintaining and protecting personal annonymity themselves.

"sentimentality is never, imo, a good thing, in life or art

a theory that arguably often looks all but threadbare in 2011 .....courtesy of the angst and brutality of contemporaries such as lars von trier etc though still very much applies to cheesy hollywood movies, ones that rand might once have loved to have been 'queen' of, profited personally from, ironically. theories such as 'strong women like to be mastered by even stronger men' is presumably a hang over from holllywood plots and characterisation? also an (unconvincing) excuse for betraying your 'conventional, sentimental' husband, repeatedly trying his trust, patience, and loyalty.