The Fountainhead & Atlas shrugged

[french frank]

Do you really think Rand had that little impact ? Apologies for contradicting you but there’s even a wiki entry on her influences . I suspect she has had more impact in the West than any other 20th century fictional author though I’ve never read a word of it. It’s a fascinating list and although many don’t appear well-known many of them are key cultural influencers like Gene Roddenberry creator of Star Trek - a very good example of a series which spreads US values globally. Another influencer is Clarence Thomas . I suspect there are dozens of similar figures in the UK - mainly in politics and think tanks like the IEA and CPS. These bodies have enormous influence .


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ed_by_Ayn_Rand

I bow to your undoubtedly accurate research, though I didn't actually say her ideas had no influence, but that they didn't 'change the real world' - to the extent that socialist ideas might revolutionise society, were they to take hold (and contrary to what some might think, I would not be dismayed if they did). Though I must confess, I did tack her name on to the end of my otherwise irrelevant remarks solely to bring the thread back on topic as best I could

[Joseph K]

That is an interesting point of view, JK. On a theoretical, or philosophical, basis, would you say that getting into power and using it to bring in a package of promised 'green policies' is less valuable than promising a raft of green policies and labelling them a 'Green New Deal' but not having to follow up on the promise because you suffered one of the worst Labour defeats in recent history? Real action or promised action? .

I'm afraid the real action you speak of wouldn't - won't - protect us from environmental catastrophe. If you recall, the Lib Dems also promised many things which they didn't - and won't - have to follow up on.

The 'label' of Green New Deal is there because it signifies that the substantive changes to society needed to deal with environmental catastrophe are necessarily socialist in nature.

[french frank]

I'm afraid the real action you speak of wouldn't - won't - protect us from environmental catastrophe. If you recall, the Lib Dems also promised many things which they didn't - and won't - have to follow up on.

The 'label' of Green New Deal is there because it signifies that the substantive changes to society needed to deal with environmental catastrophe are necessarily socialist in nature.

I can only state my view by saying that what is essential for socialism/Labour may be irrelevant for the moment. The meaning seems sufficiently clear that I will leave the discussion there.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I bow to your undoubtedly accurate research, though I didn't actually say her ideas had no influence, but that they didn't 'change the real world' - to the extent that socialist ideas might revolutionise society, were they to take hold (and contrary to what some might think, I would not be dismayed if they did). Though I must confess, I did tack her name on to the end of my otherwise irrelevant remarks solely to bring the thread back on topic as best I could

It was only a Google search really . But top marks to both of us to getting back on thread. Without getting all conspiratorially Adam Curtis about it (new series out in February) I think she is a key cultural influencer maybe not in the Freud league but up there with Lawrence, Huxley etc. Our world is so shaped by the Bezos’s , Zuckerbergs etc and a lot of them believe all this ultra individualist stuff. Funnily enough with Covid it’s the worker bee, take one for the team , states like China , Taiwan , South Korea that seem to be faring better...

[Katzelmacher]

I’ve read most of Ayn Rand’s writings, including all of her published fiction.

While I would agree that her work is ‘bad’ if considered as literature, it does have the virtue of being readable.

There is an argument to be made that she ‘developed backwards’ as her fiction became increasingly didactic and that, as a result, Atlas Shrugged is the most bonkers book ever published, if not ever written. Hst, I found it very readable, though I was tempted to sit out some of the longeurs (Francisco D’Anconia’s speech about money; John Galt’s ‘statement’ at the end).

The Fountainhead is a superior book. I’ve often wondered whether Rupert Murdoch read it at an impressionable age and decided to model himself on Gail Wynand. If so, he failed miserably. The novel’s most compelling character, though, is the ‘evil socialist’ Ellsworth Toohey.

But the book I’d recommend above the others is Rand’s first work, We The Living. This tends to get short shrift but it’s actually the best thing she ever wrote, mainly because she was writing about something she had actually experienced, ie the ‘Red Terror’ of post-revolutionary Russia. Very moving in places, and desperately sad - and, again, excellent villains in the form of the loathsome Pavel Syerov and the noxious Comrade Sonia. Rand was very good at depicting evil; her ‘heroic’ characters are hopelessly abstract.

Of the short fiction, I’d recommend ‘The Simplest Thing In The World’, a truthful account of the demands real creative artists make on themselves.

The film The Passion Of Ayn Rand is also worth a look. Helen Mirren (physically flattering casting) plays A.R.and Peter Fonda plays her somewhat tragic husband, Frank. A.R.doesn’t come well out of it, but what else could you expect?

[Katzelmacher]

We are again getting a little away from Ayn Rand, but on austerity:

"Someone had better call a doctor, because it’s clear the Labour Party are suffering from a bad case of collective amnesia.

In 2010, when Labour were in government, they were planning devastating austerity cuts that the then chancellor Alistair Darling was very clear would be even “tougher and deeper” than Margaret Thatcher in the 80s. Labour might have forgotten that – the rest of us haven’t."

Fortunately (for them), they didn't get elected so didn't have to implement their cuts or deal with the ensuing economic problems.



The Liberal Democrats in the coalition had previously introduced a number of green policies which were carefully discarded when they were kicked out after the coalition. But unfortunately (for them), Labour didn't win the election, so weren't able to actually do more than put it in their manifesto as a sign of their earnest intentions in the matter

It all seems like a long time ago now (and, I suppose, it was) but my vivid memory of the 2010 election was that Labour didn’t actually want to win it. The received wisdom at the time was that whoever won in 2010 as ‘almost certain’ to lose in 2015, because of the ‘vicious’ nature of the cuts that both major parties were reconciled to. As a Tory government finds it easier to make cuts than a Labour government, this gave them an obvious advantage.

The Liberal Democrats were foolish to enter a coalition with the Tories when a straightforward confidence and supply arrangement would’ve suited them better (and allowed them to keep their hands relatively clean). The argument made by some (Simon Hughes was one of them) that a Tory minority government elected in 2010 would’ve called another election within a year and been re-elected ‘with a massive majority’ doesn’t really hold water. The Tories know how to devour and excrete smaller coalition partners - it’s in their race memory - and that it was duly happened. Sadly, Nick Clegg and co allowed their keenness to be ‘in government’ (if not exactly in power) to cloud their knowledge of history (that’s assuming they had any). The result was the tragic decade 2010-2020 and the abject future that Britain now faces.

[Ein Heldenleben]

I’ve read most of Ayn Rand’s writings, including all of her published fiction.

While I would agree that her work is ‘bad’ if considered as literature, it does have the virtue of being readable.

There is an argument to be made that she ‘developed backwards’ as her fiction became increasingly didactic and that, as a result, Atlas Shrugged is the most bonkers book ever published, if not ever written. Hst, I found it very readable, though I was tempted to sit out some of the longeurs (Francisco D’Anconia’s speech about money; John Galt’s ‘statement’ at the end).

The Fountainhead is a superior book. I’ve often wondered whether Rupert Murdoch read it at an impressionable age and decided to model himself on Gail Wynand. If so, he failed miserably. The novel’s most compelling character, though, is the ‘evil socialist’ Ellsworth Toohey.

But the book I’d recommend above the others is Rand’s first work, We The Living. This tends to get short shrift but it’s actually the best thing she ever wrote, mainly because she was writing about something she had actually experienced, ie the ‘Red Terror’ of post-revolutionary Russia. Very moving in places, and desperately sad - and, again, excellent villains in the form of the loathsome Pavel Syerov and the noxious Comrade Sonia. Rand was very good at depicting evil; her ‘heroic’ characters are hopelessly abstract.

Of the short fiction, I’d recommend ‘The Simplest Thing In The World’, a truthful account of the demands real creative artists make on themselves.

The film The Passion Of Ayn Rand is also worth a look. Helen Mirren (physically flattering casting) plays A.R.and Peter Fonda plays her somewhat tragic husband, Frank. A.R.doesn’t come well out of it, but what else could you expect?

Welcome Katzelmacher and thanks for what must be the most informed opening post ever. Maximum respect for having read most of the entire oeuvre.

[eighthobstruction]

Welcome Katzelmacher and thanks for what must be the most informed opening post ever. Maximum respect for having read most of the entire oeuvre.

....and a Fassbinder fan too ???....welcome

[french frank]

I’ve read most of Ayn Rand’s writings, including all of her published fiction.

Echoing the welcome of others and thanks for this informative post. All I can add in our defence (having read nothing of AR) is that it was a commonplace back in my day that whereas 'we' students of literature immersed ourselves in the texts but read no critical works, Oxford students immersed themselves in the criticism but didn't bother with the texts. Slanderous, no doubt.

On your political post (having submitted to a self-denying ordinance), I will say no more than that I agree with you, while imputing no motives to actions. It was a poor decision by the few, but whereas bigger parties can be rehabilitated following their misdeeds, LDs have too many opponents, combined from both sides of the political spectrum, to ever be allowed to escape opprobrium.

[vinteuil]

... it was a commonplace back in my day that whereas 'we' students of literature immersed ourselves in the texts but read no critical works, Oxford students immersed themselves in the criticism but didn't bother with the texts. Slanderous, no doubt.

.

... how weird! When I were an Oxford undergraduate the done thing was to sneer at those who read 'secondary' (or 'tertiary') texts / criticism : the ideal was to rely solely on the original (faute de mieux facsimile) folio or quarto Shakspere - how we sniggered at those who referred to their Arden editions...

.

[french frank]

... how weird! When I were an Oxford undergraduate the done thing was to sneer at those who read 'secondary' (or 'tertiary') texts / criticism : the ideal was to rely solely on the original (faute de mieux facsimile) folio or quarto Shakspere - how we sniggered at those who referred to their Arden editions...

.

Such is callow youth, monsieur I'm sure you look back on it differently now!

[Ein Heldenleben]

... how weird! When I were an Oxford undergraduate the done thing was to sneer at those who read 'secondary' (or 'tertiary') texts / criticism : the ideal was to rely solely on the original (faute de mieux facsimile) folio or quarto Shakspere - how we sniggered at those who referred to their Arden editions...

.

Don’t know why because the Arden editions give most of the textual variants and usually have a well-argued section on how the editors have established the main text .

[vinteuil]

Don’t know why because the Arden editions give most of the textual variants and usually have a well-argued section on how the editors have established the main text .

... (of course - and furtively we all used the Arden when no-one was looking. But it was the 'done thing' (or 'affectation' as any sane observer might say) only to refer to primary texts. Hence my surprize at FF's slander!)

.

[Ein Heldenleben]

... (of course - and furtively we all used the Arden when no-one was looking. But it was the 'done thing' (or 'affectation' as any sane observer might say) only to refer to primary texts. Hence my surprize at FF's slander!)

.

I used to spend so many hours bored in Eng lit A level lessons reading those footnotes . If people only knew how much the tezt has been emended . Makes Bruckner look like it was written in tablets of stone ....

[Serial_Apologist]

I can only state my view by saying that what is essential for socialism/Labour may be irrelevant for the moment. The meaning seems sufficiently clear that I will leave the discussion there.

The Green New Deal appears to be a grassroots international initiative - which has to be a good start; it is not - or was not - specific to Labour's aims in 2010, whether Labour hoped to win the General Election or not. How relevant or practicable it might be, and under what circumstances, can be coolly assessed by looking at the GND's prospectus:

http://www.greennewdealuk.org/what-is-the-green-new-deal/

http://neweconomics.org/uploads/files/8f737ea195fe56db2f_xbm6ihwb1.pdf