Atlas Shrugged

What's rich? What Kicky said makes perfect sense? Your provocative comment therefore, did not.

Bill, I don't think it was "provocative" in the least.

I think it is absurd to ignore the political aspect of the book and I said as much.

You decide to make it a personal issue whether and if need be you distort my words to make it so.

For example:

I said:

"to say the books is not inherently and intentionally political is willful ignorance."

Then you change it to being about enjoying a political book (not about denying its political nature, which is what I had been commented about) while ignoring the politics and claim I call you willfully ignorant.

I can't be faulted for your reading incomprehension and willingness to distort what I say into a personal slight.

If you think my opinions on the book are "provocative" that's an issue of yours I don't want to get into, and because I suspected anything but adulatory comments about the book would result in something like this I made sure to tell you (even before you ever addressed me here) that I didn't wish to debate this with you.

I should have stuck to my instincts. I reserve the right to think it a shoddy political work, and I don't know why I'm sorry that it bothers you.

Well, I suppose one can read a book without fully considering the content, yes....and enjoy it. I don't know that I would consider Rand's work enjoyable - but hey - taste and all that.

Kinda like reading Gulliver's Travels as a kid's book....hmmmmmm......

I suppose people do it - I can't for the life of me see why one would wish to ignore the main thrust of a book, though.

Seems to me a bit like flying to a foreign country and staying in the plane.....

D, Kicky suggested ignoring the reviews... not the contents of the book. Look again.


Look again. What other purpose could there be? It provoked 2 responses.
It is not absurd for Kicky to suggest that the book can be enjoyed without that consideration. Had you read it, you might know that. Debra asked fans of the book to encourage her to read it. That was clearly Kicky's intention on this thread. That was clearly my intention on this thread. What was yours?

This is getting really silly Bill. That means nearly all postings are "provocative".



You are revising again Bill. I spoke against ignoring, not enjoying.



My intent was to opine on the subject, whether or not it gets your Ayn Rand pajamas bunched.

Unfortunately, the degree to which you get pissy about negative opinions of Atlas Shrugged can't be allowed to influence my opinion on it. But what it can influence is whether or not I'll continue this exchange and I plan to follow my initial instinct and work on being better strangers. <shrugs>

I just took a closer look… and it's your turn to eat some crow. :wink:

I did no such thing... but interestingly enough, I think you just did.

No one said that, but that's not the point here... don't worry, I know.

This is totally false. I asked if you would, and that only if a hypothetical condition had been met. Hardly the same thing, Craven. If the answer is no, say no. And I didn't "change it to being about enjoying a political book" it started out that way.

As you can see, I didn't suffer reading incomprehension... I suspect you misunderstood... or should I accuse you of suffering reading incomprehension? Not very nice is it?

If you don't wish to argue, don't argue. Don't falsely accuse me of making things personal and distorting words when, in fact, you are the one doing it.

Now take a good look at your false charge and retract it along with the accompanying insult, please.

Ps
That really is funny

PPs, you ducked the first question in your last post for obvious reasons, too. :wink: You are the master.

Bill said:

"D, Kicky suggested ignoring the reviews... not the contents of the book. Look again.

Kicky wrote:
Debra, ignore all these politically motivated reviews. The book is about the individual as hero, it doesn't have to be put into a political context to be a good read. I read it, and loved it, and it made me think. Read it. Trust me, it's worthwhile."

Bill also said:

"Dlowan: Kicky didn't deny it was political. He said it could be enjoyed absent that consideration. Do you disagree?"


I was answering your question, Bill - not especially then looking at what Kicky did or didn't say.

I still think that enjoying Atlas Shrugged "absent that (ie political) consideration" is to ignore the meat of its content.

I also, as it happens, suggested that Debra read it for herself - on the basis that it appears to influence a reasonably large number of people.

Yes, it is about "the individual as hero" - but is about that as an illustration of, and an attempt to make attractive and draw people towards, a particular political philosophy.


I do not quite know why this seems to have become a matter for such conflict.

Many books have a didactic or political agenda - or are an exposition of particular world views.

A simple illustration is CS Lewis' Narnia series for children.

As a very weelowan indeed I read and adored them for their magic and wonder.

As I became a little older, I thought it amazing that they so parallelled christian ideas.

Another year or so, and I was aware that they were allegorical in nature and expounded theological ideas.

As it happened, this ruined them for me. It might well not have done so, had I remained absolutely unsceptical about such ideas - and willing to have them (and other ideas and assumptions which I also later found unpalatable) fed to me in this manner.

You love the ideas in the Rand books, clearly. Therefore, the political philosophy which, to my taste, is offered in raw, unpalatable gobbets, slips down easily and smoothly. It seems they do so so smoothly that you are able to ignore their nature if you wish, just as I was so immersed in christian culture when I first read The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, that the christian message in that was invisible to my childish eyes?

I would be unable to "ignore (the) political context" - and I do not think anyone is "putting" it into one - I think it is quite avowedly and unashamably in one - or a political philosophy one.

I do not see this as a problem inherently - nor a reason for any defensiveness or criticism.

I do not happen to believe it is a "good read". I think it awful as a work of art. I also think a number of other political books with whose message I am in far more sympathy (eg Olive Schreiner's "The Tale of an African Farm") are awful as works of art, by the way.

This is a matter of taste. If Kicky found it "a good read" more power to his elbow.

I find the notion of a book being about "the individual as hero" being able to be read without its political philosophy context quite incomprehensible - but I now find the idea of reading the Narnia books without their theological message being obvious quite incomprehensible also - I did not always find the message so obvious, though. So it goes. I think Rand's book seeks to influence one's political philosophy whether one is aware of it doing so or not. So be it.

Good luck to Debra if she reads the thing - I do not deny that it makes one think.

As a novel, Atlas Shrugged tends to be preachy, and it does go on and on. For those of you who want the gist of Rand's politics and philosophy, I would suggest, "For the New Intellectual- The Philosophy of Ayn Rand". In it, she makes various points, and then illustrates them through passages in her various works.

Good to see you Phoenix! :wink:

Dlowan: Atlas Shrugged had a profoundly positive effect on me. So when someone opens a thread to request encouragement to read it, being the kind soul that I am, and believing only positive things can come from the experience, I naturally try to provide that encouragement. It would appear I unfairly included you, in my defense of it. My bad, sorry about that.

I suspect I probably learned at least little tidbits from pretty much everything I've ever read, which is quite a bit. Most people would agree that Dostoevsky's 'Crime and Punishment' for instance, was a very thought-provoking book and a significant number would tell you they identified with Raskolnikov on some level... which is somewhat fantastic considering who he was and what he did. I did. While I would never place Ayn Rand's writing talents in same school, let alone class, as Dostoevsky; I would nonetheless report Atlas Shrugged was more thought-provoking and that I identified more with several of her characters than any Dostoevsky ever created. And you better believe I will take as offensive anyone's attempt to say that is because I'm less sophisticated. That is a groundless charge that serves only to denigrate a particular group of people. One I proudly admit to being part of. (hmmm, that sounds familiar :smile: )

People take from books only what they believe and remember and no more. I learned from reading the Bible, though I don't believe in God. I learned from reading Dianetics, though I don't believe in "Clears" (Clear = L. Ron Hubbard's supposed superhuman result of Dianetic therapy).

I find it childish to suggest that someone with a liking for any particular philosophy or source of it, is stupid, idiotic, a pseudo-intellectual, or suggesting that they are more likely to be influenced if they, themselves are less sophisticated. This method of discourse usually seems to be looked down upon around here.
Examples: Democrats are stupid, republicans are idiotic, only a pseudo-intellectual would doubt the existence of God, and the Bible is influential especially on the less sophisticated.- I've noticed that usually around here; this type of "my opinion is better than yours" statement is frowned upon, along with the speaker.

Enter Atlas Shrugged. Some of the very people who are frequently doing the frowning, decide it's time to behave in a fashion consistent with those they usually frown upon. And, INHO, the less knowledgeable they are about the "extra-value-added-opinion" they are sharing, the sillier they look for doing so. This would be true of any subject it seems, but Atlas shrugged.

Debra_law asked for the fans of Atlas shrugged to encourage her to read it. Most of the people who've chimed in here have tried to do so, including you. Purposely provoking those who showed up to do so is, in my opinion, a childish thing to do. Not unlike interrupting theists who have met to discuss the Bible, for the purpose of telling them they're foolish. What ever happened to Frank anyway?

Debra: I repeat Kicky's sentiment; pay no attention to this distraction. Read the book and decide for yourself if you like it. There is good reason for the hoo-ha. :wink:

Note to self: Start reading on SUNDAY
My honey and his father are leaving town early Sunday morning. The nephews have been staying with us this summer and it's time to take the boys home. They have an extensive itinerary and will be gone for a week.

Other than my commitment to take my nephews to their ball games, I will be all on my own for a week. I can dive into the book and get it read without much interruption.

As I was reading through these posts for encouragement, I spied the mention of sex and individual heroism. I like those things. I'm feeling motivated to read the book and I'll report back!

Too cool. Looking forward to your book report!

I had never heard of Ayn Rand until I went off to college in '74. In Freshman English we had to read "The Fountainhead". I was immediately hooked. A little later I read "Atlas Shrugged" on my own.

After all the dust had settled, I find that I strongly agree with about half of what Rand had to say, and strongly disagree with the other half.

Atlas Shrugged might be a bit too much to chew on initially. I agree with Ebrown that The Fountainhead might be a better book to start with. Also, there was a movie made of The Fountainhead (with Gary Cooper, I believe) that would be an easy introduction.

There were times I felt that Ayn Rand could almost be called an addictive drug. For younger readers, it's easy to get overwhelmed with her thinking. I'm very glad I've read her works, but they should be taken in moderation and in perspective.

Jim- I would not reccommend the movie of "The Fountainhead" as a good introduction to Rand's work. I found it to be a stilted, crashing, bore. The book is much much better!

The difference between the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, to my mind, is the scope. Atlas Shrugged takes on a whole society and it's values, and The Fountainhead is more of a tale of one person's struggle.

Jim- I know exactly what you mean. I became familiar with Rand in the early 1960's. I read her books, and attended her lecture series on "The Principles of Objectivism". Yes, it could be addictive, and as with any movement, you have your contingent of "true believers", who hang on to every word, and incorporate every thought, hook, line and sinker.

I suppose that for the first few years, I was one of "those", but what the hell, I was just a kid. Over the years though, my stance on Rand's philosophy has softened, but I still believe that basically, she had the right idea.

kickycan- Atlas Shrugged is Rand's entire philosophy, presented in the format of a novel.