Atlas Shrugged Day

[handsomefortune]

To blame the state of the world today on Ayn Rand (as some TV documentary maker whose name eludes me did, recently) is just plain stupid.

fwiw, the documentary maker's name is adam curtis mandryka.

the documentary name that you are referencing is a quote from a US 60s counter culture activist's poem: 'all watched over by machines of loving grace', (the film is available on curtis's blog, and utube).

in what sense does curtis only blame ayn rand, in your opinion?

incidentally, this wasn't my impression of the same film, and your comment does not reflect curtis's usual eclectic docu style: gathering together strands of history, unexpected convergence of theories, of a given era.

perhaps curtis might be more fairly accused of taking rand out of context though?

[Mandryka]

I think you're right that Curtis misrepresented Rand in the docu:I know several people walked away from it, thinking Ayn Rand (whom they'd never before heard of) was to blame for the global recession.

Yep, there are some extremely dodgy types going round espousing the Objectivist gospel....and, like so many gospels, it can be put to whatever use some people want.

Must correct you on the point about homophobia/racism, though: Objectivism is against both of those. Even though Rand herself found homosexuality 'disgusting', she was never in favour of its prohibition.

As a personality, Rand is hard to defend, I'd agree: the self-serving behaviour, re: Barbara and Nathaniel Branden, her treatment of her husband, the high-handed way of dealing with friends and former friends all paint an unflattering picture. A film, The Passion Of Ayn Rand, has been made from Barbara Branden's book (Helen Mirren in the title role) and it's worth seeing.

However, as it often does, the work rises above the flaws of its creator: I don't think Rand had been 'forgotten' by the time of her death and she was certainly far from uninfluential (with Greenspan at the FR, as you say). That she died a lonely and embittered woman is probably close to the truth, though.

[Pilchardman]

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.).

:D I've read both Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I've no intention of repeating the feat. I said 'barely readable', by which I meant only just.

Jane Austin certainly isn't bad; she's a consummate stylist. It must be her sensibilities you find hard to stomach. ;)

As for Henry James, I have to admit I've only read his short stories, and his literary criticism - the Art of Fiction - so I can't say what I think of his novels. His short stories are meticulously constructed, and his human observation and narrative technique compelling. I'm not at all sure what you mean by effeminate, and why in any case that would necessarily be a bad thing. We clearly have very different tastes, but then I suppose that should come as no surprise to either.

One thing that perhaps I should admit is that I certainly could not write a novel in Russian, and that Rand was writing in her second language.

[Chris Newman]

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.).

Careful, mate. The central character of James's The American shares my name. Not many of us people appear in books before we are born. Imagine you are in the Louvre. A suave young man watches a young lady copying a Murillo and makes her an offer for her picture:

" And where will you allow us to send it to you? Your address?"

"My address? Oh yes!" And the gentleman drew a card from his pocket-book and wrote something upon it. Then hesitating a moment he said, "If I don't like it when it it's finished, you know, I shall not be obliged to take it."

The young lady seemed as good a guesser as himself. "Oh, I am very sure that monsieur is not capricious," she said with a roguish smile.

"Capricious?" And at this monsieur began to laugh. "Oh no, I'm not capricious. I am very faithful. I am very constant. Comprenez?"

"Monsieur is constant; I understand perfectly. It's a rare virtue. To recompense you, you shall have your picture on the first possible day; next week--as soon as it is dry. I will take the card of monsieur." And she took it and read his name: "Christopher Newman." Then she tried to repeat it aloud, and laughed at her bad accent. "Your English names are so droll!"

"Droll?" said Mr. Newman, laughing too. "Did you ever hear of Christopher Columbus?"

[John Skelton]

THE Forum for Ayn Rand Fans

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=3266&pid=114698&st=140&#entry114698

http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=13385

[french frank]

"On Oct. 10 and 11, Airelle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protestors in New York’s Zuccotti Park… 65 percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement - no matter the cost. By a large margin (77 percent to 22 percent), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58 percent oppose raising taxes for everybody… Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn’t represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believe in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence.”

Bounders!

[amateur51]

I'm not at all sure what you mean by effeminate, and why in any case that would necessarily be a bad thing.

Precisely!

[amateur51]

I

Must correct you on the point about homophobia/racism, though: Objectivism is against both of those. Even though Rand herself found homosexuality 'disgusting', she was never in favour of its prohibition.

Oh well that's alright then. So glad you cleared that up, Mandryka. Very decent of her. :vomit:

[Mandryka]

Oh well that's alright then. So glad you cleared that up, Mandryka. Very decent of her. :vomit:

I think you might know certain homosexuals who find heterosexuality 'disgusting' but, like Rand, are not in favour of its prohibition.

And to understand the historical context, this is America in the censorious 40/50s we're talking about: Rand was taking a very 'liberal' line.

[amateur51]

I think you might know certain homosexuals who find heterosexuality 'disgusting' but, like Rand, are not in favour of its prohibition.

And to understand the historical context, this is America in the censorious 40/50s we're talking about: Rand was taking a very 'liberal' line.

Erm I wasn't able to vomit in the 1940s, being born only in 1951.

So I vomited from a contemporary perspective