Movie: "Atlas Shrugged"

[Sixstrings]

All the supposed "literary experts" that fail to see this blindingly obvious concept make me believe that either THEY are the hacks, or that they let their political emotionalism override their brains (or their honesty) when reading/reviewing Rand.

The customer is always right.. if the reader puts a book down because the story isn't engaging them, then the novelist has failed.

[PrestonSturges]

I dunno, did Ayn Rand make much use of symbolism in her characters? Besides her "A=A" rants hardly seem to consistent with the use of symbolism in her fiction.

Who are the "altruists" who take stuff and give it away? If people take something, they keep it. Where are the prisons full of altruits? Even Rand's nemesis the USSR was all about taking from the poor and giving it to the elites.

Rand's characters aren't anything like actual human beings. But they always struck me as more stereotypes than symbolism. Although Rand condemned racism, many of her fans don't seem to have any trouble with ethnic and religious stereotypes or repealing the Civil Rights Act. If you sprinkled in a few ethnic slurs, her writing would be on par with any crappy white supremacist rant that reduces everyone to brutish stereotypes. Similarly, todays Tea Partiers live in a fantasy world where the AFL-CIO exists to spread Sharia law. I can't give them credit for "symbolism," it's more of a paranoid group hysteria that would be used to justify a witch hunt.

[crude_intentions]

That movie just looks like it's going to blow but seeing as I enjoyed the novel i'll probably force myself to watch it anyway. I'm not an objectivist but I have found myself reading alot of her work as of late after reading Atlas Shrugged and the Goddess of the Market Biography.

I've found that most of the people who hate Ayn Rand either misunderstand her positions or misrepresent them. Such as her stance on Altrusim. Here is her defintion of Altrusim
1. Altruism http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

The best BALANCED work I've read on Ayn Rand is Jennifer Burns Goddess of the Market. It's a great in depth "warts and all" look at her life and work.

P.S You can listen to Rand herself articulate her ideas at the Ayn Rand Multimedia Library http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_library

[PrestonSturges]

That movie just looks like it's going to blow but seeing as I enjoyed the novel i'll probably force myself to watch it anyway. I'm not an objectivist but I have found myself reading alot of her work as of late after reading Atlas Shrugged and the Goddess of the Market Biography.

I've found that most of the people who hate Ayn Rand either misunderstand her positions or misrepresent them. Such as her stance on Altrusim. Here is her defintion of Altrusim
1. Altruism http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

That seems consistent with atheist Libertarians, but I've never been able to square the circle regards whatever Rand Paul advocates ("libertarianism" run by a Christian theocracy).

That definition is something of a straw man arguement - a "moral code" implies religion, while actual governing is all about process. Saying that government is a "moral code" brings the whole arguement into the sewer of whether Jews or Muslims can be effective legislators because they don't have the right "moral code," and other distasteful examples come to mind.

[Ludi]

I'm not convinced Rand's definitions of concepts are based on real life. They seem to be ideals, not something observed in reality. See her definitions of "capitalism," for instance.

She did not seem to have much of an idea how actual people behave, think, and feel.

[Cog]

All the supposed "literary experts" that fail to see this blindingly obvious concept make me believe that either THEY are the hacks, or that they let their political emotionalism override their brains (or their honesty) when reading/reviewing Rand.

The customer is always right.. if the reader puts a book down because the story isn't engaging them, then the novelist has failed.

The other option is that you failed as a reader.

[Cog]

I'm not convinced Rand's definitions of concepts are based on real life. They seem to be ideals, not something observed in reality. See her definitions of "capitalism," for instance.

She did not seem to have much of an idea how actual people behave, think, and feel.

Oh I think she grasped very well how people like you think. In my reading of your posts, you absolutely love taking other's money through taxation to pay for the un-deserving and under-achieving. That makes you a mooch and user in my book. Exactly the type of person that Rand wrote about.

But fortunately Ludi, there are enough achievers in the world to let you play your mind masturbation games of income redistribution a while longer.

[nobodypanic]

But at the same time we can all agree that capitalism is an excellent way to stimulate innovation and hard work, and most of the time it's a great way to allocate resources.

i don't agree at all.

So what is your alternative? Redistributionism?

No system is perfect, especially since humans are involved. But if you think that, for example, the workers of the world are going to "unite" and create a utopia, because they want to hold hands and sing songs and make things better for their "fellow man", you (and Marx) are dreaming as much as (for example) the GOP hard right touting that cutting taxes by itself will solve all economic ills in the U.S.

we already have redistributionism. the wealth is redistributed into the hands of the few. that's what we have.

that's right, i'll go w/marx and lenin. loling at anyone thinking lenin was a hippie.

[PrestonSturges]

I'm not convinced Rand's definitions of concepts are based on real life. They seem to be ideals, not something observed in reality. See her definitions of "capitalism," for instance.
She did not seem to have much of an idea how actual people behave, think, and feel.

Oh I think she grasped very well how people like you think. In my reading of your posts, you absolutely love taking other's money through taxation to pay for the un-deserving and under-achieving. That makes you a mooch and user in my book. Exactly the type of person that Rand wrote about.
But fortunately Ludi, there are enough achievers in the world to let you play your mind masturbation games of income redistribution a while longer.

Keep fighting the voices in your head. Never give up! Never surrender!

[Ludi]

Keep fighting the voices in your head. Never give up! Never surrender!

Wow, Cog seems to be really upset at me for not liking Rand. Not sure how he figures I'm a moocher when I advise people to pay as little tax as they can. Maybe he means I'm mooching off those (like him?) who can't figure out how to pay fewer taxes, by like driving on public roads and stuff? And underachieving, too! Yeah, ok.

[Lore]

Keep fighting the voices in your head. Never give up! Never surrender!

Wow, Cog seems to be really upset at me for not liking Rand. Not sure how he figures I'm a moocher when I advise people to pay as little tax as they can. Maybe he means I'm mooching off those (like him?) who can't figure out how to pay fewer taxes, by like driving on public roads and stuff? And underachieving, too! Yeah, ok.

My guess, must have slipped a cog?

[nobodypanic]

[and oh yeah, she's a bad writer too.

Do you have anything specific to back that up, or are you mouthing soundbites by the many leftist idiots who can't stand to read a philosophy different than their own, so they attack the source? (I don't mind intelligent criticism backed by ideas or data, but just empty LAZY criticism about her writing only helps make one of her points).

The most common complaints about Rand's writing in novels like "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" I've seen (seemingly endlessly), but almost always with little meaningful substance are:

1). One dimensional characters

2). Repetition


As one who has actually read much of her work, and related work, and carefully pondered it, I'm convinced that:

1). As to the first complaint, her characters are symbols. Especially the primary characters. They represent ideals. They are shown to CONSISTENTLY represent the concepts the symbols stand for.

Excellence, intelligence, a good work ethic, productivity, morality, and respect are some examples of values of her "good" or "heroic" symbols. Sloth, whining, and stupidity are examples of her "evil" symbols. Tellingly (IMO), greed and/or selfishness are attributes of both types of symbols -- in different contexts, of course.

All the supposed "literary experts" that fail to see this blindingly obvious concept make me believe that either THEY are the hacks, or that they let their political emotionalism override their brains (or their honesty) when reading/reviewing Rand.


2). Sadly, in most of the first world, the ideas of capitalism - of merit, of earning one's way, of building something to benefit the society which raised and protected you and your family -- are so alien and so roundly attacked by such a huge proportion of a society -- that, IMO, Rand needs to repetitively bash the reader over the head with the main ideas to have much of a chance of their getting through -- vs. the noise from those who want something for nothing. So she does - mercilessly.

The critics just fuss about this without even acknowledging the POSSIBILITY that there is a valid reason for it -- even if they disagree with it.

So again, I ask -- do you have any meaningful thoughts of your own on this backed by actual data or passages in her book(s)? Have you actually thoughtfully READ entire books of hers like "Shrugged", or are you just copying endless drivel from "whine-bites" from unhappy reviewers on places like Amazon?

well leaving all that aside, i'd say that her problem is that her writing tries too hard to be profound (i am not making a claim on her ideas in this post, just her writing). and by that i mean that the strain is apparent. one can see her reaching, and it comes across as somewhat second rate, overly dramatic, and pretentious.

i can see where she got that stylistic propensity. just go read some nietzsche. except, in his case, there is no strain: his writing is effortlessly profound; his prose is poetic and dramatic, filled with refined subtlety and depth, things rand lacks. (don't take this to mean i agree with N. i am just admitting his talent in prose and thought).

[Ludi]

I run across a lot of people who love Rand. People who don't, don't tend to mention her much except in response to comments from people who do.

I've read Atlas Shrugged and some bits of her essays. I don't think I'll be converting over to her ways of thinking any time in my life if I haven't already been convinced she's right. Apparently she couldn't even completely convince herself of her own philosophy (see link above to discussion of her accepting SS).

[Outcast_Searcher]

I run across a lot of people who love Rand. People who don't, don't tend to mention her much except in response to comments from people who do.

I've read Atlas Shrugged and some bits of her essays. I don't think I'll be converting over to her ways of thinking any time in my life if I haven't already been convinced she's right. Apparently she couldn't even completely convince herself of her own philosophy (see link above to discussion of her accepting SS).

I certainly don't think Rand is perfect - not even close. I just think she has a point of view that has a lot more merit than most of her detractors make the intellectual effort to make a reasonable argument (or rant) against.

If you are going to say someone's life work is invalidated by some decision, mistake, or change of mind when they're old, you're pretty much going to invalidate everyone. Pretty unreasonable in my book.

Examples:

1). Einstein and quantum theory -- just because he threw up his hands on that and said (roughly) "God doesn't play dice" certainly doesn't invalidate his incredible contributions to physics.

2). Martin Luther King is reputed to have gotten discouraged and said some less than savory things about certain aspects of humanity in his latter years. Does this make all his contributions toward racial equality and human dignity worthless?

3). Ayn Rand took Social Security, which (in her words) she paid taxes for "at the point of a gun" (i.e. under government coercion). So why shouldn't she take the income from this, which she had a right to, under the system of redistribution you so adore? If she had gotten out of paying her SS taxes and then taken SS, that would be another matter.

4). Ayn Rand, who repeatedly said that romantic love should be freely given, and never by coercion. Yet, she chased and threatened Nathaniel Branden (another philosopher and writer) in later years when he spurned her. Pretty much the opposite of what she espoused in her major novels. Embarrassing for her. Guess what? She's human.


Pointing out that someone is a human being, complete with flaws, mocking those flaws, and then trying to pretend like THAT is a valid argument against an intellectual's life work or ideas is so low and silly that it should be embarrassing to those who try that game.

[careinke]

I rented the movie on Amazon yesterday. I was not aware they changed the venue to 2016, but not displeased with the poetic license. Despite the change of time, the movie was still true to the book. The movie had sort of an art deco feel to it. Overall, I liked it.

[Outcast_Searcher]

Who are the "altruists" who take stuff and give it away? If people take something, they keep it.

If you leftists are really stupid enough to (honestly) ask that question, then no wonder we are in trouble. The "altruists" are the government, armed with voters like you (roughly half who pay no income tax) who think it's fine to redistribute OTHER people's earnings via their whims -- and act like they have the moral high ground while doing it.

If you can't see that from the context of novels like "Shrugged
" and "Fountainhead" (if you actually bothered to read them), then perhaps you should leave the conversation to the adults, who actually SUPPORT the country through their productivity.

[gollum]

Who are the "altruists" who take stuff and give it away? If people take something, they keep it.

If you leftists are really stupid enough to (honestly) ask that question, then no wonder we are in trouble. The "altruists" are the government, armed with voters like you (roughly half who pay no income tax) who think it's fine to redistribute OTHER people's earnings via their whims -- and act like they have the moral high ground while doing it.

If you can't see that from the context of novels like "Shrugged
" and "Fountainhead" (if you actually bothered to read them), then perhaps you should leave the conversation to the adults, who actually SUPPORT the country through their productivity.

Sorry to burst your bubble but not all "productive" people like Rand or her beliefs. On a peak oil note I think selfish greed may work well in an ever expanding economic world, but in a world of ever shrinking resources where people will indeed go hungry and cold greed and flashing ones wealth may not be a good strategy for continued survival.

[Cog]

Trying to save everyone is not a survival strategy either.

[gollum]

Trying to save everyone is not a survival strategy either.

I agree, but in reading experiences from people who have been through economic collapse and war the "lone wolf" strategy is a definate loser.

[careinke]

Trying to save everyone is not a survival strategy either.

I agree, but in reading experiences from people who have been through economic collapse and war the "lone wolf" strategy is a definate loser.

For me, family and close friends are the answer. Tribal societies will be the final answer, in a resource depleting world.