Some thoughts on Atlas Shurgged

[Hoss]

Finished the book last week. Some thoughts...

1. The book is about extremes and stereotypes. The characters all fit into neat groupings and behave based on that grouping. Producers are good, moochers and looters are bad. There doesn't seem to be much a grey area.

2. The heroes are all perfect - Godlike. Which is implied in the title. And now that I think about it, there is definitely an Olympian feel to the valley and its inhabitants.

3. The absence of race relations in very striking. Any book written in the 1950's having to do with worth, wealth, personal value and productivity in the United States with out that topic is missing a big part of the pie.

4. What happens to folk who have little if limited worth as producers in this world? The disabled, mentally handicapped, infirm, orphans?

5. The ideas feel great on paper but as I read the book I was very aware that these weren't people, they were figments of an imagination. I never felt as if Rand the characters became real people - they were like marionette’s in a young girl’s game. The most honest characters to me were James' wife (Cherryl) and Eddie Willers.

6. This made me doubt her conclusions. Was I reading about some sort of reverse Utopia?

7. As brilliant as her thinking is, the book eventually felt naive and simplistic.

8. I took alot out of the book about my own way of seeing work, wealth and productivity. I would recommend this book as a way of examining oneself but I would be wary of recommending that someone adopt a world view from it.

9. A good friend of mine kept recommending this book to me as an answer to my liberal politics. Instead of actually having a discussion, I might just ask him to read the Jungle as my rebuttal. That would almost be a neat game - a philosophical discussion that is had not with talks but just by trading the readings of books.

[sun tzu]

It was an engrossing, thought-provoking read.
But, I couldn't help but notice...After reading the book, I was left wondering for a while if the philosophy in it was right. Rand is pretty convincing.
Then, after a while, I concluded it was crap.
Rand seems to have had two main points:
1) The universe is logical
2) Selfishness is good, because selflessness makes no sense.
Now, while I agree with 1), 2) is...well, a big load of it. In Atlas Shrugged, any act of generosity is inherently evil, because it takes away from you something you deserve and gives it to someone who doesn't deserve it. Forgiveness is bad, because being sorry doesn't make up for what you did. Anything that isn't aimed at making you happier is a waste of time, effort and ressources, and inherently wrong.
While the book did consider honesty to be a virtue, I don't think a world where everyone lived by that philosophy would be a nice place to live. Rand seemed to completely dismiss how people's selfish desires put them at odds (like the guy in the valley who notes how Rearder will probably put him out of business, and doesn't mind in the least as he figures Rearden will give him a job; or, more to the point, how this other guy says he doesn't mind how his girlfriend chooses another guy, because "no man's interest is threatened by another's).
So, all things considered...insanity.

[Agent Helix]

Rand's philosophies don't work in any real world context.

[Rampaging Rabbit]

Ayn Rand was bonkers, and the book is really badly written.

Also I actually agree that selfishness is good, and sensible. But that in no way goes against solidarity, sympathy or charity. Giving and sharing can be just as selfish keeping everything.

Oh and the economics of her society are completely barmy...

[Buzz Dixon]

Rand's books were extreme reactions to the Communism she saw first hand in her native Russia. When you recognize she is speaking against the logical extremes of Marxism, the books make a lot more sense.

That being said, the problem the human race faces is an inability to maintain a common sense balance. To encourage altruism, to encourage charity, to be willing to volunteer time, effort, and money to help those who are in genuine need, that's good. To create an attitude of entitlement where people are not encouraged to support themselves but rather to expect all their basic needs to be met by society, that's bad.

Welfare workers in Amish country are among the most frustrated in the nation, 'cuz the Amish just won't accept food stamps and welfare no matter how bad off they are. If they can't support themselves they will reluctantly turn to the charity of the Amish community, but they just will not accept government handouts. Contrast that with those who have grown up under several generations of welfare and lack any motivation to find a real job (and if you think this is a code for race, guess again; my experience with such people was among the predominantly white Appalachians I grew up with).

And speaking of race, I don't think Rand was trying to write a realistic book, rather a polemic against a certain type of philosophy. I don't think race ever entered her mind when it came to valuing human beings (culture, yes; race, no). If she had thought about race, particularly in America, she would have doubtlessly cited how labor unions were formed in part in many areas to keep African-Americans out of good paying jobs and reserve them for whites only.

In my mind, a better read by Rand is THE FOUNTAINHEAD, he thinly fictionalized version of Frank Lloyd Wright. That's a more human book, being a high-falutin' bodice-ripper at heart, and the melodrama serves the philosophy well (though again, Rand tends to go on and on long after she's scored her point). The movie with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal pops up periodically on TCM; it's a delicious piece of camp and very entertaining though not in the way Rand intended.

[JeffreyWKramer]

One of the groups that most loved Rand's writing was white, Apartheid-era South Africa.

I think that really says most of what needs to be said about Rand's writing and ideas.

[Matthew E]

One of the groups that most loved Rand's writing was white, Apartheid-era South Africa.

I think that really says most of what needs to be said about Rand's writing and ideas.

I like Rand's writing and ideas. Not all of it, start to finish, but the great majority.

I don't say so to start an argument about it--boy, do I ever not want to start an argument about it!--but just to show the flag a bit.

Rand and people who take her seriously get harshed on a lot on the web (and presumably elsewhere). Sometimes it's fair, sometimes it's within bounds but unduly vitriolic or dismissive, sometimes it's way off base. I'd just like to clear a little space for the notion that someone can have Rand as an influence and at the same time be a reasonable guy. As opposed to, you know, a pro-apartheider or something.

That's all.

[Buzz Dixon]

...and Hitler was a vegetarian, so I guess that tells us all we need to know about vegetarians, right?

(To all my vegetarian/vegan friends, as well as my meat eating Nazi associates, it's a joke!:p )

(But it makes my point...;))

[Hombre]

It does make your point, I think.

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged or looked into Rand's philosophy too much, because I never cared for pre-packaged philosophies. I did read the Fountainhead, at a point in my life when I didn't even know what the Internet was, and couldn't even begin to guess the vitriol it had been met with. I had never heard of it or its author, except for a comment in one of Hunter Thompson's youthful letters, and was intrigued enough to read the novel which I had lying around.

I wasn't a believer in trickle down economics at any point before during or after reading it, same as I remained a progressive liberal who believed in the value of unions or the need for a welfare state. The person that loved that book like few others was the same that liked Roger & Me or hearing Springsteen or Woody Guthrie give voice through their songs to the people with no home, no job, no peace, no rest.

To me, the Fountainhead was a narrative of ideas and feelings that sought to express the importance of the freedom of the individual, how everything becomes meaningless when that freedom is taken away in the name of something that is placed above it, be it the totalitarian state, organized religion or the conventions and imposed conformity of society. And it was done at a time when both fascism and communism were an actual, frightening reality, the year 1943. I think other people expressed very similar feelings, and can find echoes of that cry of rebellion against an institutionalization that robs life of its soul and negates the possibility of achieving transcendence and happiness in this life in the work of authors as diverse as George Orwell or Ken Kesey.

There is no doubt that taking Rand's philosophies or books as a step by step guide of policy is a recipe for disaster, but I do think they contain some important inspiring principles to be tempered by a full and educated understanding of reality that comes from as many diverse sources as possible.

To make an extreme analogy, I don't like a whole lot of what is done and said in the name of Jesus Christ. But I can read the Gospel and appreciate the good values and ideas, which represent a common heritage of mankind, that can be found there. I don't believe in sin per se, but I can think of very little ideas as relevant through the ages, as the idea of being merciful and not judgmental, or as Jesus said Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...

I think the bottom line is, Rand believed that there were some basic evolutionary drives that had spurred man's progress through the years, and believed in the importance of using man's rationality to use wisely man's peculiar capabilities and intellectual resources. Those were also the principles of Enlightenment, I believe. Not doing so, and suppress those drives, would result in not being able to manage the consequences of mankind's collective actions, a social de-evolution and the collapse of our Planet.

Did she have all the answers? Hell, no. It's up to us to take the best and leave the rest, with her as with everybody else. But she stood up for what she believed in, and through her gift for what, in my limited assessment, was compelling, intelligent and passionate prose, tried to make a difference for the better as she saw it, no matter how unpopular that stance was bound to become.

[saintjon]

R. Scott Bakker did such a deft job of ripping Rand to shreds over on sffworld I don't think I could ever take her seriously at this point.

[Alex]

I just want to jump in and say i agree with a lot of what you say Hoss, and to say if you put the jungle on the same table as atlas shruged, the two books would light on fire.
I actually had to read Atlas again after i read The Jungle for the first time, because it made me feel dirty.
As to the characters not being realistic or human, they aren't, not even close. Some people think it's a strength, some a weakness, and i suppose it depends on what you want from the book. It isn't a novel, as much as it's a story version of her philosphy.
I will say, if you had a big problem with the characters in this one, Fountainhead may not be much better for you. (no offense to Buzz)
Fountainhead is a better novel, but Roark is an even more maddening character, because he exsists around actual humans. (aside from Toohey, who becomes a caricature of a caricature.)

[Buzz Dixon]

And bringing this all back to comics, in this Sunday's ZITS Pierce explains to Jeremy why he likes Ayn Rand:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/zits.asp?date=20061203

[JeffreyWKramer]

And bringing this all back to comics, in this Sunday's ZITS Pierce explains to Jeremy why he likes Ayn Rand:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/zits.asp?date=20061203

Head rest is certainly one of the better uses to which one can put Rand's books.

Other good choices include material for fires, doorstops, birdcage lining and something to throw at noisy cats.

[Alex]

Other good choices include material for fires,

Burning books huh?
See? Only Nazi's hate the book!