"Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/books/review/Kirsch-t.html

by andrewpbrett • 17 years ago

20 37 17 years ago

adriand2• 17 years ago

I purchased and attempted to read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years ago. I failed, because rarely have I ever come across a more tedious, sermonizing, simplistic and unconvincing philosophical treatise poorly disguised as a novel.

She could have distilled her viewpoint into a couple of paragraphs (it doesn't seem particularly subtle or complex), but that would probably have made it too easy to argue with her supporters, who can pointedly ask, "well, have you read it?"

No, I have not. I tried and it was terrible.

For great fiction with a healthy dose of philosophy, I'd recommend reading The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco instead.

xenophanes9• 17 years ago

Your opinions regarding Rand are not a justification to be insulting.

I enjoyed it as a novel, and find significant parts of the philosophy convincing, but I'm not going to fill my comment with insults that apply to you.

What would be better than insults is arguments. You haven't given any argument that someone who likes the book could find convincing. If you don't want to debate that's fine, then don't. But if you choose not to converse in a way that either side could change their mind, then you should at least be nice about it.

JCThoughtscream• 17 years ago

Hardly an insult, really, when the reviews of Atlas Shrugged of its publication period got far deeper into the thesaurus to describe how terrible the writing really is.

Besides, that's his honest reaction to the text. Why throw a fit over somebody else's aversion to the novel?

rauljara• 17 years ago

Rand herself was famous for being insulting and dismissive, which I think is the main reason people react so strongly against her. In the introduction to anthem, she basically states that if you don't agree with her views on capitalism, then you are in favor of gulags and concentration camps. She, herself, leaves no room for middle ground, nuance, or civilized discussion. That isn't an excuse to resort to insults when talking about her, but if you are honestly wondering why people react so emotionally against her, it might have something to do with her assaulting other people's beliefs on such an emotional level.

tptacek4• 17 years ago

The Name Of The Rose is a fabulously underrated hacker book.

ellyagg2• 17 years ago

> tedious, sermonizing, simplistic and unconvincing

Astonishing. You weren't able to finish a long, wordy book describing a philosophy you don't agree with?

> She could have distilled her viewpoint into a couple of paragraphs

Wow, you mean as she did plenty of times, which you can easily find by doing a cursory search?

The idea that you shouldn't support your central thesis with as much evidence as you can muster is faintly preposterous.

I don't find Marx to be subtle or complex. I think his viewpoint can be summed up in one sentence, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Nevertheless, I don't begrudge him writing many giant volumes of "tedious, sermonizing, simplistic, and unconvincing" supporting text.

Atlas Shrugged wasn't supposed to be subtle or reflect complex realities or any other thing you imagine is a requirement for being a great novel. It was written to express Ayn Rand's philosophy and obviously was hugely successful at doing so.

xenophanes9• 17 years ago

As much as I don't like Marx, he's still more complex than that.

You may like to read _The Open Society and Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper. It is a strong critique of Marx (and Plato and Hegel). But it also goes into some detail about what Marx's views are (which is an important part of criticizing them). Marx was wrong, and can be criticized a lot more thoroughly than that brief summary of his views allows.

One thing your summary of Marx misses, for example, is his historicism: his ideas about being able to predict the future of society, in a scientific manner, based on history. This is a bad mistake: it's an attempt to legitimize prophecy and call it science.

bhousel• 17 years ago

If you're going to criticize the book, at least consider the time in which it was written, don't just say "it was bad and tedious and I couldn't get through it". Atlas Shrugged was written in the 40s and 50s as a response to Communism, which was the new cool philosophy at the time. Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism certainly have their flaws, and they're the same as for any other philosophical solution-to-everything that starts with, "if only everyone in the world would.."

There are some ideas in there worth reading, and plenty that today seem dated. Anyway, it's healthy to read things that you disagree with..

Thanks for the suggestion of The Name of the Rose, added it to my wish list.

gaius2• 17 years ago

Yes exactly. It's a product of its time. Many people consider Asimov or Heinlein equally impenetrable. Hell, many people consider Joyce and Proust tedious. And I wouldn't be at all surprised in a few years if Atlas Shrugged is attacked for glorifying smoking and pollution too...

barrkel• 17 years ago

Indeed. I read the book, and was struck by how effective it is as an inoculation against fundamentalist libertarianism.

perkoff• 17 years ago

"But Cerf offered Rand an alternative: if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life."

On the contrary, actually. The idea of artistic integrity is a _very_ central point of her preceding novel, The Fountainhead. The book's main protagonist, Howard Roark, is constantly refusing to compromise with his artistic vision.

xenophanes9• 17 years ago

I think it's even simpler than that. She wanted something (more pages) and she paid for it. There's nothing even slightly uncapitalist about resolving a disagreement by paying to get your way. It's the epitome of capitalism.

andrewpbrett• 17 years ago

Agreed. The conclusions from the reviewer in that section didn't make much sense to me either. I'm also glad to see that some people are actually focusing on the content of the submission instead of the usual politics. There are some interesting tidbits in the review (and no doubt the book as well).

michaelprice• 17 years ago

True, but the amount of money Rorck gave up was minuscule compared to the amount Hank Rearden gave up to keep Readen Metal as product rather than a scientific curiosity. Did the reviewer even read the book?

dgordon• 17 years ago

"Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done. It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre."

I don't agree that recognizing that money is a means to an end and is not to be put before that end disqualifies you from being a genuine capitalist, or that being a capitalist and an intellectual are mutually exclusive. I also don't agree with the subtle denigration of capitalism slipped in with the synonym "lucre."

neilc• 17 years ago

Yeah -- the quoted comment reflects a remarkable ignorance of the intellectual content of Rand's novels.

saturnine• 17 years ago

"... if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life."

Nonsense. She may just as well have concluded that adulterating her work would have made it less potent and thus reduced its impact, resulting in fewer sales.

That the reviewer believes conceding to accept less money in the short term contradicts capitalism betrays his or her understanding of capitalism.

Disclosure: I've never read any of Rand's writings.

gaius2• 17 years ago

Rand's ideas are about maximizing personal freedom, with money only a means to that end. Most of the characters in Atlas Shrugged give up fortunes that they've either earned or inherited when they realize that holding onto them limits their personal freedom. So there is actually no contradiction at all.

fdesmet• 17 years ago

The NYT's book review of a Rand biography seems to be little more than a tedious, sermonizing, simplistic, and unconvincing ad hominem against Rand herself. This is what qualifies as journalism these days?

"Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

Related Stories