Actually, I liked Ayn Rand’s books.

[Cyrano]

I was very young when I read “The Fountainhead,” and “Atlas Shrugged.” At the time, I was incredibly naïve (and totally ignorant) about politics, power, greed, and the uglier aspects of human nature.

Having been a writer for more years than I care to admit, I find (in retrospect) that Ayn Rand is a fairly reasonable novelist. She knew how to construct an interesting story, develop characters, hold the reader’s interest, and build toward an exciting climax. Agree with her, or hate her, she had the self-discipline to construct a story, and she knew how to write books. (Try writing a novel yourself if you think it’s easy.)

None of what I’ve said means that I agree with her philosophy. It took me a while before I realized her world view represented everything I despised, opposed, and spent my life fighting against. She wrote books that glorified greed, selfishness, and whatever anyone wants to call the opposite of empathy.

Ayn Rand was born and grew up in Russia which had to influence her beliefs. It’s too bad she never found a guru to temper her hatreds and biases. It’s too bad she didn’t/couldn’t use her abilities to write about the best in human nature rather than the fictional, impossible “superior” beings that she so admired.

The ability to write well is as much a gift as is the ability to paint, sculpt, compose music, or build a monuments that survive the centuries. Ayn Rand wasted her writing talent by literally spitting on the majority of humanity.

[PassingFair]

1. From the blurb on the back of Jon Stewart's first book:

"This is similar to my works in that anyone who reads it is sure to be an asshole for at least a month afterwards"- Ayn Rand.


:rofl:

[JustAnotherGen]

2. I read both as a young person too

However, as much as I DO love Charles Dicken's 'philosophy' (his Unitarianism shined through) I think she wrote as HE did. As if she was getting charged a half-pence per word. ;-)


I look at someone like E. L. Doctorow or Alice Walker and those two can place more depth and imagery into ONE paragraph than Dickens, Rand, Chaucer, the Bronte Sisters placed in all of their books combined.

[EOTE]

3. She was a horrific novelist.

Immature doesn't even begin to describe her and I'm doing my damnedest to separate the politics from the books themselves. It requires no skill or imagination to create laughably unbelievable protagonists who emulate your philosophy to a T and never have any faults worth mentioning. I really can't imagine any of her books selling worth a damn if it weren't for her insanely ignorant followers looking for a way to justify their shitty existences.

[Scruffy1]

43. Agreed, and repititious too.

[Ozymanithrax]

4. And I like reading Robert Heinlein...

but I don't agree with him.

I find willing suspension of disbelief works wonders when enjoying a good novel.

[Gaedel]

12. Yes

Everybody reads "Stranger in a Strange Land" and swoons over how wonderful an author is Robert Heinlein (do you grok?).

Then they pick up "Glory Road" or "Starship Troopers" and become horrified.

[spinproof]

27. That's the beauty of Heinlein

"Stranger" was written in the late sixties. "Starship" and "Glory" much earlier, circa WW2. Heinlein was, I believe, an admiral in WW2. His early work was very conservative, but as he aged he became much more liberal. Even the "citizenship only after military service" idea was recanted in favor of "citizenship only after any service to society that requires effort and sacrifice". I believe one of the essential elements of "character" is the ability to modify one's firmly held beliefs when appropriate. With a minimum of foot dragging. I feel Heinlein manifested this quality throughout his career.

Heck, "Pay it forward" was Heinlein's idea.

[Ozymanithrax]

41. In 1934, Heinlein was discharged from the Navy due to pulmonary tuberculosis

He reached the rank of Lieutenant, and never served in WWII. Heinlein was more left libertarian than Liberal, but that may even be wrong. A lot of libertarians see him as a sort of Saint, but those beliefs are based mostly on his fiction.

He is a much better writer than Rand, especially if you look at Stranger in a Strange Land. He was not very adept at writing women, and his characters, even the women, tended to be individualists. He had a huge following in the 60's because of his willingness to push the boundaries of sex, and write about women and men who reveled in their sexuality without letting it rule them.

Like Rand, his characters often discussed big ideas. Unlike Rand, he usually pulled it off quite well.

[spinproof]

55. yup, my mistake. Thanks.

[Gaedel]

51. No

Stranger in a Strange Land was first published in 1961.
Glory Road was first published in 1963.

[spinproof]

54. I stand corrected. Starship troopers [i]was[/i] much earlier, though.

[spinproof]

56. ...and further corrected.

While I have read most of heinlein's work, I am obviously unclear as to order of publication. I blame his "future history", dammit. That timeline is completely unrelated to the publication dates of the stories themselves. That's my story anyway, and I'm stickin' to it! ;-)

[myrna minx]

5. I'll leave it to Telly Savalas, who said it best...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=4973593#4975243

Ella turned towards the window, folded her arms, and said, "Kent, I cannot understand why you read that drivel. If there's anything worse than a bad political philosopher, it's a bad political philosopher who writes bad novels to present her flawed ideas. It's bad enough when she writes nonfiction works that foist assertions and conjecture on the reader and tries to pass it off as 'reason', but when she tries to dress it up in a fictional work with one-dimensional characters and a cheesy plot, it's downright putrid. I'd go so far as to say that her writings dishonor the thousands of years of evolution required for humans to develop language skills.

"The worst element of her 'writing' is how utterly ridiculous the dialogue is. In real life people converse with one another, they don't take turns delivering speeches to one another. If she'd ever spent anytime actually interacting with another human being who wasn't clinically insane, she'd know this and it would be reflected in her writing.

"Furthermore, don't you think she could go to more effort to be a bit more terse? I mean, Jesus Christ, I've seen bumperstickers that are more nuanced than one of her novels, so I don't see why she can't be more succinct in the exposition of her cheap little 'ideas'. Does it really take an 800 page novel to say "guvmint bad, capitalism good"?

"Face it, Kent. She's a second-rate hack that makes Jackie Collins look like Dostoevsky. Put that shit down and do something a bit more intellectually engaging. For instance, there's a Dukes of Hazzard marathon on the country network. Try watching that instead."

Kent set the book on the table and glanced up at Ella.

"Ella," he said, "I see your collectivist friends have poisoned your mind with these bizarre ideas about word economy and multi-dimensional characters. Such things are only devices to enslave the Individualist. Every word the Individualist says is a gift to the universe, so the universe benefits the more he speaks. Hence all this silliness about being brief when trying to make a point does not apply to the Individualist.

"Let's be clear, Ella, that when I say the Individualist gives a gift to the world by expressing his thoughts, it is not altruism that motivates the giving of this gift. No. No. No. Altruism is an evil sentiment that only results in atrocities like child labor laws and homeless people being fed. Thus the Individualist is ego-driven. By satisfying my own desires and showing complete contempt for the needs of others, I make the laissez-faire capitalist system work as it should and the benefits rain down on everyone. Although many economists prefer to use the term 'trickle down.'

"For instance, when I enriched your life last week by giving you a 45 minute lecture on the necessity of abolishing the capital gains tax, I didn't do it because I wanted to please you. Rather I did it because I love the sound of my own voice. The fact that you were enlightened by my observations is only secondary. Nevertheless it demonstrates my point about how being selfish is superior to being altruistic. Had I been altruistic and payed heed to you wish for me to...what was that phrase you used repeatedly? 'Shut the fuck up', I believe it was? Well, had I done that, then you'd have spent the rest of your life unaware of the great thoughts that course through my mind on an hourly basis.

"Yes, Ella. It amazes me how unwilling the collectivist mind is to accept the truth. Why wasn't it just last week when you were claiming that society should chain down the Individual by using some of his resources to aid victims of Hurricane Katrina? After I was able to overcome my feeling of horror and disgust that you would suggest denying the Individual his Freedom, I successfully rebutted your point by observing that A equals A, therefore it logically follows that the so called victims should fend for themselves and not depend on the altruism of collectivists. Rather than daring to challenge this impenetrable logic, you simply dismissed my comments by calling me an asshole. Were I a petty collectivist, I might have taken offense at that remark. However, I am a noble Individual and know that your hurtful words were motivated by your envy of my superior intellect. For it is individuals such as I who propel society forward.

"Um...the Individual's freedom should be regarded as...um...Egoism is the one true...um...er...what was it we were talking about, Ella?"

[The Magistrate]

6. A Thing Of Beauty, That, Ma'am

Always a pleasure to read it.

[FSogol]

7. A classic. Remember: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life

"The Lord of the Rings" and "Atlas Shrugged." One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

[closeupready]

18. LOL - yep.

:rofl: :hi:

[Codeine]

22. I love that one.

:D

[blondeatlast]

8. Havent' seen Telly lately.

Hope s/he's okay; one of DU's wittiest.

[verges]

9. Wonderful!! nt

[Johonny]

19. +1

[Codeine]

24. OK, now THAT was fucking brilliant.

Seriously, that was amazing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. There is a reason why they are part of the sci fi canon in the US

I know this really is ranking to people. I have read a few of her short stories. From the craft perspective they are very good.

[haele]

39. But IMO, she couldn't write a full novel to save her life -

Which is understandable - lots of people can craft good short stories - especially people that tend to write stories directed primarily towards beating the reader with a moral or philosophy stick rather than entertaining the reader with bits of philosophy while exploring characters in a situation.
Me, I can actually get a storyline up to about 50 pages before the story reaches it's apogee and starts heading into a bog of hopelessly muddled, overthought and philosophical plot trying to survive past it's expiration date. My writing is like milk, not like wine...

I've also read Rand's short stories, they really are not too bad in a comic-book style; she can storyboard fine enough for a sitting.

But oye, her big books - you can see why she quit writing screenplays.

Haele

[arcane1]

11. I have to disagree with you there

"Atlas" was one of my worst-ever reading experiences. I confess that I skipped over at least 3/4 of that damned radio broadcast because it was so freakin BORING, and seemed to just repeat itself over and over and over and over...
:boring: :boring:

[closeupready]

13. That's totally fine, as long as you understand that her philosophy was toxic,

in reality. She was a Hollywood screenwriter before they kicked her out, and she started writing books. I mean, that experience has got to hone anyone's writing talent, but it doesn't mean their views about the world and how it works are correct.

[Codeine]

14. She was a god-awful novelist,

and I don't have to have written a novel to know this; merely reading a few good novels will demonstrate her complete and total inability to portray a believable character or create dialog that doesn't read like Dr. Exposition is lecturing the reader.

[HuckleB]

17. +1

[cali]

15. but she didn't develop characters. they were cardboard and two dimensional

she just wasn't particularly talented- anymore than Marie Corelli was.

[HuckleB]

16. That's one opinion.

In my opinion, her "hatreds and biases" are the only reason anyone knows of her existence. Her writing is juvenile confusion and disorganization at best. If she had not written to push her beliefs, no one would know her name today, and no one would put themselves through the torture of reading her horrific prose.

[Vickers]

20. I've read thousands of books, but The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged

are easily 7 of the worst books I've read.

[Codeine]

25. . . .

:spray: :rofl:

Man, this thread is generating some brilliance!!

[Iggo]

31. lol...NICE.

:rofl:

[Cyrano]

21. Did anyone bother to really read my OP.

I stated I was very young when I read her books. I also stated that once I got a brain, I realized that she was writing shit. Being very young and dumb is a disease that almost everyone goes through and survives.

So how about giving me (just a little) break in your replies and admit that you too were once young and dumb.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. huh?

"Having been a writer for more years than I care to admit, I find (in retrospect) that Ayn Rand is a fairly reasonable novelist. She knew how to construct an interesting story, develop characters, hold the reader’s interest, and build toward an exciting climax. Agree with her, or hate her, she had the self-discipline to construct a story, and she knew how to write books. (Try writing a novel yourself if you think it’s easy.)"

No, no, no, no, no.

[Cyrano]

35. Thank you for your in-depth response. What it lacks in concept, it's

certainly an echo of a political party whose motto is no, no, no, no, no.

Perhaps you'd care to be more verbose and specific?

[Warren Stupidity]

46. perhaps you ought to read your own op

and thank you very much for calling me a republican.

[Johonny]

45. That pretty much sums it up

Very few people seem to agree she is a fairly reasonable novelist. Basically every thing the writer admires are things most people find lacking in her books. Makes you think you wouldn't enjoy the novels they write as well. If you think she was fairly reasonable at writing, they're probably not generating the type of books DUers appear to want to read.

So yes people read what he wrote and few agree she was a "fairly reasonable novelist".

[ProfessorGAC]

29. I Read It

And i replied with a humorous reply. I too think they're crap, and i read them when i was young too.

I never thought the philosophy was anything to admire. Too simple and highly self-absorbed, even for a young know-it-all such as i was at the time.

So, we agree. Don't take it so personally.
GAC

[Dappleganger]

49. Highly-absorbed, exactly.

It's too difficult to get past her ego to see any merit in the books.

[Codeine]

34. Actually, you said she was a good novelist.

Anybody who has read a good novel or understands a bit of literary criticism knows she Could Not Write For Shit. Every character was a cartoon, every sentence a convoluted mess, every sex scene a living nightmare, and every bit of dialog an expositional lecture or harangue.

Her obscene philosophy disregarded, she simply did not measure up as a writer. Heinlein might have been a fascist prick, but at least the man could write.

[Ozymanithrax]

42. I read both books in my teens, and loved them...

I was also an avid fan of Hammer Horror movies and believed in UFO's. Of those early loves, only the old Hammer Horror movies continue to hold a place in my affections.

Most of us change our tastes in literature and other things as we grow older.

[w8liftinglady]

47. in the late 70's,i was a randian objectivist.

I read rand's novels and nonfiction.It was before I had to encounter "real life"

I understand exactly what you're saying.

[ProfessorGAC]

23. Oh, You're The One!

I thought nobody did. No wait. Since i read a couple too, i thought nobody should.
GAC

[Canuckistanian]

28. I actually started reading "For the New Intellectual" when I was 13

I found it very interesting. She writes in a very accessible style.

But I knew next to nothing about politics at the time, and I don't think I ever got past the second chapter.

[drmeow]

30. John Scalzi on Ayn Rand

I enjoy Atlas Shrugged quite a bit, and will re-read it every couple of years when I feel in the mood. It has a propulsively potboilery pace so long as Ayn Rand’s not having one of her characters gout forth screeds in a sock-puppety fashion. Even when she does, after the first reading of the book, you can go, “oh, yeah, screed,” and then just sort of skim forward and get to the parts with the train rides and motor boats and the rough sex and the collapse of civilization as Ayn Rand imagines it, which is all good clean fun. Her characters are cardboard but they’re consistent — the good guys are really good in the way Rand defines “good,” and everyone else save Eddie Willers and the picturesquely doomed Cherryl Brooks are obnoxious shitheels, so you don’t really have to worry about ambiguity getting in the way of your zooming through the pages.

http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/10/01/what-i-think-about-atlas-shrugged/

[MatthewStLouis]

32. I liked The Fountainhead...

I always took it as praise for individualism. Who wouldn't want to live a life devoted to their own personal excellence? Of course, conservatives have hijacked that principle and turned it into a bogus argument for unfettered capitalism. We don't live in the conservative fairy world where all you have to do to be successful, is to work hard. We live in the real world, which is rigged in favor of the powerful and the wealthy...

[pipi_k]

33. I read "We The Living" a few years ago and...

got so incredibly depressed.

I tend to really get involved in what I read and actually found myself living the misery of the main character and her family.

[thelordofhell]

36. Burn, Atlas Shrugged, Burn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B4pgo9Db6w

[slay]

37. They are great... FOR ME TO POOP ON!

[Codeine]

38. Triumph!

I miss that little bastard!

[Erose999]

40. Truer words never spoken. When society crumbles on itself because of its embrace of Randian greed

every outhouse will have a copy of Atlas Shrugged.

[Ignis]

53. Win.

*golfclap*

[Odin2005]

44. Her characters are boring caricatures and stereotypes.

[Bigmack]

48. DUer WCGreen said it best...

"I have always said that Ayn Rand is taken as an Author with something to say to young men who have yet to have their first non-self inflicted orgasm..."

I stole that one fair and square and use it whenever I can.

[VOX]

50. And Mussolini got the trains to run on time. and Hitler built good roads...

I hear you, Cyrano, and get where you're coming from, but I just can't be that generous. (You won't find Leni Riefenstahl on my great film auteurs list either.) When creative powers are used to achieve very negative ends, the bad outweighs the good -- to the extent that it's eclipsed altogether.

[JuniperLea]

52. I loved those novels!

Love, love, loved them! Read them more than once in fact... and I have The Fountainhead in my current stack awaiting a reread.

I read The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings trilogy many times too.

I don't think any of the books I've mentioned here should be followed as a way to live, or govern, however. They are called "novels" for a reason.