Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Why do Ayn Rand's book suck?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
It all sucks: as a writer, as a philosopher, and apparently even as a human being (according to a recent bio).
My teenager is struggling through The Fountainhead and had all the same reactions I did. The characters are cardboard. The books are 400 pages too long. Rand hits you over the head with her message until you're too stunned to think for yourself. Apparently Paul Ryan and a lot of tea baggers had the same unfortunate experience and are now too stunned to think for themselves, either. Did I miss anything? |
Anonymous
| Because she treats an economic principle like it is a moral philosophy. And her characters are unbelievable caricatures. There is no redeemable quality in her antagonists. And the protagonists have no faults whatsoever. They are just tools to demonstrate the superiority of her economic beliefs. That's why they don't seem real. They aren't, they are comic book heroes and antiheroes. |
Anonymous
|
Because her writing lacks any nuance or depth, and because, at its heart, philosophy (though it encompasses aesthetics) is not, in itself, art.
I'm always appalled by the people espousing her views in adulthood. I mean, I can get that a 16 or 17-year-old would be enamored of such a simplistic view of the world (I say this as someone who won the national Atlas Shrugged essay contest in high school, because at the time I was immature and stupid, and it seemed like she had all the answers), but for any adult to perceive her view of the world as anything but childishly simple and grossly wrong is frightening. Even though the philosophical underpinnings of her writings are all supposed to be based on economics and rationality, she eschews many complex subjects that have a great impact on economies at both micro and macro levels (negative externalities, psychological issues, asymmetry of information, etc). Not only that, but she refuses to believe in any sort of subjectivity (PPs are spot-on calling her protagonists infallible "heroes" who always act appropriately because they know A is A), which is ludicrous when you consider that even the most exacting empirical science takes into account observer error, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, difficult-to-comprehend (let alone measure) relativistic effects, etc. To say that I think there are many, many politicians who lack any knowledge any of these concepts would be a huge understatement. So I guess it's not too big of a surprise they love simplistic world views like Rand's. Thing is, though...there are a TON of "conservatives" who loooove Ayn Rand and are ultra-religious. Um, guys? Ayn Rand thought religion is one of the worst things in human society -- one of the only things worse than communism (she really hated Christianity, and thought it was a breeding ground for communism!). I mean, far be it from me to expect integrity of thought from her adherents (heck, even Rand didn't follow her own writings), but it's hilariously ironic, nonetheless! |
Anonymous
|
I agree with 22:52. In some cases, a work of fiction really is the best way to present a philosophy, These tend to be cases, however, where there's nuance and question--where the philosopher/theorist sees & is willing to name the holes in the philosophy. In Rand's case, she seems not to have seen any problems in her beliefs, which makes for dull-as-dirt stories.
(I will say that I think it's fitting that The Fountainhead is so often assigned to teenagers, because I think it embodies some of the innate solipsism of that stage in life.) |
Anonymous
| It's like the literary equivalent of communist worker art. Idealized but not real. |
Anonymous
| I don't know because I was so bored and I now read her books at night in lieu of an Ambien. |
Anonymous
|
(I say this as someone who won the national Atlas Shrugged essay contest in high school, because at the time I was immature and stupid, and it seemed like she had all the answers)
You still are immature and stupid. |
Anonymous
|
"I'm always appalled by the people espousing her views in adulthood. I mean, I can get that a 16 or 17-year-old would be enamored of such a simplistic view of the world (I say this as someone who won the national Atlas Shrugged essay contest in high school)"
Tee hee. |
Anonymous
Oh my, what was that contest like? |
Anonymous
|
"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."
- Republished by Paul Krugman, don't know the original author (does anyone?) |
Anonymous
Uh oh, the Randians have found this thread! |
Anonymous
Yes, and it was such a witty rejoinder, too! It's funny how Randians read this stuff and think "it all makes sense now!" Well of course it does, it is fiction. If they only knew how she defined femininity as "hero worship" of a man, and how that meant that a woman could never be President. How backward! |
Anonymous
The comment was directed at "I say this as someone who won the national Atlas Shrugged essay contest in high school" .... The irony dripeth. |
Anonymous
| She's a pretty disturbing person. In fact, she modeled one of her heroes on a serial killer, because she admired the way the killer didn't care about other people or about society: http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/ |
Anonymous
| It appears that liberals, who believe the works of al (sex poodle) gore are high-minded an intelligent are writing long winded posts about some book they think is stupid. Better check it out, must have a lot of truth in it. |