# Lifestyles & Discussion > Family, Parenting & Education > Books & Literature >  I've been trying to get through Atlas Shrugged

## kathy88

For weeks. I keep reading books in between. What's the secret to staying focused? It's become almost a personal vendetta now. I must finish it. I took a second degree in English and read so many books. The only one I've never been able to finish is Moby Dick.  That book blew. I don't want to add to that list.

----------


## torchbearer

I got it on audio book. but i'm on the road a lot.

----------


## kathy88

> I got it on audio book. but i'm on the road a lot.


Great idea. I used to be on the road constantly, but new employment keeps me close to home. I do drive two hours every tuesday, though. I'm ordering it.

----------


## Deborah K

ROFLMAO!!!  Kathy you crack me up girl!  Moby Dick "blew"!   LOL!  Reminds me of a bong my dad used to have back in the day....it had a whale on it and a caption that read:  Moby Dick is not a disease.   

LOL.

----------


## sailingaway

I gave up on it, myself.  I wanted to love it, but I didn't.

----------


## phill4paul

Put it next to the crapper. Eventually you'll get through it.

----------


## SewrRatt

I enjoyed it overall, but Rand inserted a virulently anti-religion rant somewhere towards the end that kind of came out of left field. That was irritating.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

Yeah, I share the feelings of some in this thread. I have a copy that I haven't read, it sits there on my bookshelf eyeballing me saying, "read me".

It just seems too long for someone who already understands the principles of liberty, free market, and cronyism. Why bother?

But I know it's done plenty of good for the Liberty movement.

----------


## idiom

I couldn't put it down. However I also read right through the twilight saga in 3 days.

----------


## MozoVote

Plowed through it as required reading in ... not English Lit ... but, a World History class.

----------


## Carehn

> Yeah, I share the feelings of some in this thread. I have a copy that I haven't read, it sits there on my bookshelf eyeballing me saying, "read me".
> 
> It just seems too long for someone who already understands the principles of liberty, free market, and cronyism. Why bother?
> 
> But I know it's done plenty of good for the Liberty movement.


Its a different perspective on the liberty movement . Its good to be part of the quire and have someone preach to you. Its a constant state of growth you need to be in. I was what I would consider fully awake before I read atlas shrugged and it changed me as did rothbard and others. To this day no other person has influenced my life in such a way as Rand. I simply integrated much of her philosophy into the one I already had under construction.

I strongly suggest this book to anyone who hasn't read it. It focuses strictly on the morality of liberty. Not economics or politics as much as it does morality. Thats one thing I think people miss when reading this book. And those that miss it and love the book I cant stand because its like they never really read it. And those that miss it and hate the book I feel hate it because they missed what its really about.

----------


## fletcher

> Great idea. I used to be on the road constantly, but new employment keeps me close to home. I do drive two hours every tuesday, though. I'm ordering it.


I started listening to the audiobook but only made it about halfway.  It's over 60 hours long!

----------


## Brian4Liberty

Try the movies?

----------


## Carehn

> Try the movies?

----------


## Boss

> Try the movies?


Bad idea. Only watch the movies after reading the book. The first movie can't hold a candle to the compelling power of the book.

---

The first 100-150 pages of Atlas Shrugged are _very slow_. However, from pages 150-950, I don't know how you possess the ability to willingly put the book down. Then there's a 200 page speech that slows wayy down again, only for the book to conclude quite nicely.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Put it next to the crapper. Eventually you'll get through it.


I prefer to read it while washing laundry.  Definitely not what I consider a page-turner...but not awful either.

----------


## Boss

As an aside, one huge advantage I had going for me when I read Atlas Shrugged was that I had never heard of Ayn Rand. I had no biases going into the book. That book was a turning point in leading me to libertarianism. Perhaps if one reads the book already having notions of Rand and libertarianism, the books revelatory powers are a bit muted.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Bad idea. Only watch the movies after reading the book. The first movie can't hold a candle to the compelling power of the book.
> 
> ---
> 
> The first 100-150 pages of Atlas Shrugged are _very slow_. However, from pages 150-950, I don't know how you possess the ability to willingly put the book down. Then there's a 200 page speech that slows wayy down again, only for the book to conclude quite nicely.


INDEED!!!  Movies have never been able to live up to the books they are based on.  Cinematographers have never been able to capture narrative properly IMO.

----------


## fr33

> I got it on audio book. but i'm on the road a lot.


Yep the audiobook is much easier. I've read it once and listened to it a few times.

----------


## WilliamShrugged

> I started listening to the audiobook but only made it about halfway.  It's over 60 hours long!


get this version. 10-11 hours. This is a great version. i have listened to it like 6 times.

http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged/dp/B000FDJ3D2

----------


## Aratus

i spent a long weekend in my teens by first reading THE FOUNTAINHEAD and then ATLAS SHRUGGED just so i could boast of it later!

----------


## mad cow

I liked it,but then I loved Moby Dick.No accounting for taste.

----------


## Suzu

I couldn't put it down the first time. Have worn out several copies. Listened to unabridged audiobook twice also. All this over a period of about 45 years.

----------


## PierzStyx

> For weeks. I keep reading books in between. What's the secret to staying focused? It's become almost a personal vendetta now. I must finish it. I took a second degree in English and read so many books. The only one I've never been able to finish is Moby Dick.  That book blew. I don't want to add to that list.


I feel like saying Moby Dick blew is a double entendre. There is the obvious blowjob joke there. (heh heh She blew MY Moby Dick!) But also I think there is a more subtle joke there. After all Moby Dick was a whale, and whales are famous for blowing water out their BLOW holes. So Moby Dick literally blew as well.

----------


## PierzStyx

> Its a different perspective on the liberty movement . Its good to be part of the *quire* and have someone preach to you. Its a constant state of growth you need to be in. I was what I would consider fully awake before I read atlas shrugged and it changed me as did rothbard and others. To this day no other person has influenced my life in such a way as Rand. I simply integrated much of her philosophy into the one I already had under construction.
> 
> I strongly suggest this book to anyone who hasn't read it. It focuses strictly on the morality of liberty. Not economics or politics as much as it does morality. Thats one thing I think people miss when reading this book. And those that miss it and love the book I cant stand because its like they never really read it. And those that miss it and hate the book I feel hate it because they missed what its really about.


I think you meant *choir.*

----------


## PierzStyx

> INDEED!!!  Movies have never been able to live up to the books they are based on.  Cinematographers have never been able to capture narrative properly IMO.


I don't think its that. Its just that movies require a different type of narrative.

----------


## osan

> For weeks. I keep reading books in between. What's the secret to staying focused? It's become almost a personal vendetta now. I must finish it. I took a second degree in English and read so many books. The only one I've never been able to finish is Moby Dick.  That book blew. I don't want to add to that list.


If it is any consolation, it took me about 6 months to get through it.  Rand had great messages but was not always the best at delivery.  A-S could have been written as effectively in about 1/4 to 1/3 the space.  Way too much time spent on imagery and so forth, not to mention the endless repetition of the message.  If you're going to write a political polemic, don't make it an over-long and redundant novel.  Just my worthless opinion, of course.

I liked the messages in the main, but found the sheer volume of the work unnecessary.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

Keep thinking the word "suspense".  Suspense.  Atlas Shrugged definitely has suspense.  Suspense is an artistic thing and a good thing.

The first time I read it, I was young and I got a bit frustrated with it because I kept asking "when is anything ever going to _happen_?"  The "nothing happening" is "suspense".  It doesn't have non-stop action and sword battles the whole way through.  But there's a big pay-off in the end.  Things really do happen...eventually.  It's just got to set you up for it first.  And that takes a long time.

----------


## BuddyRey

The audiobook made it _very_ easy and enjoyable to take in.  Listening in 8 to 12 hour chunks per day, it only took about a week and a half.  And yes, I did listen to it in 8 to 12 hour chunks...that's how engrossing the story is.  Absolutely loved it!  In fact, I may have to re-listen soon.

----------


## rhelwig

I think it helped me that I read her books in order. First Anthem, then We the Living, then Fountainhead, then Atlas. It allowed me to build up to the longer books.

But I would recommend that for your friends with shorter attention spans, have them watch Ratatouille instead of reading the Fountainhead. Its basically the same story, only better written, shorter, and easier to enjoy. Now if only the Pixar guys would take on an improved version of AS.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I think it helped me that I read her books in order. First Anthem, then We the Living, then Fountainhead, then Atlas. It allowed me to build up to the longer books.


 I think had I done this I would have quit after We the Living.  That book I did not really enjoy.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> For weeks. I keep reading books in between. What's the secret to staying focused? It's become almost a personal vendetta now. I must finish it. I took a second degree in English and read so many books. The only one I've never been able to finish is Moby Dick.  That book blew. I don't want to add to that list.


The secret is to skip pages when it gets tedious.

----------


## Jumbo Shrimp

> I prefer to read it while washing laundry.  Definitely not what I consider a page-turner...but not awful either.


You know the machine washes the clothing without needing to be supervised...

----------


## MozoVote

Tedious is the Grapes of Wrath. Ugh. I simply read every other chapter to get through it.

----------


## kathy88

UGGGHHH I just struggled through 20 more pages. It's like watching paint dry.

----------


## torchbearer

if you want to understand Rand, you can skip the fiction and go with the non-fiction works.
"The Virtue of Selfishness" is a short read, and it is basically a lecture on the ideas of objectivism. if you were to read only one of Rand's works- this should be it.

----------


## sailingaway

> UGGGHHH I just struggled through 20 more pages. It's like watching paint dry.


Why bother?

I think books need to be good enough to read.

----------


## sailingaway

> if you want to understand Rand, you can skip the fiction and go with the non-fiction works.
> "The Virtue of Selfishness" is a short read, and it is basically a lecture on the ideas of objectivism. if you were to read only one of Rand's works- this should be it.


That might be a good idea, and less time consuming if it is awful.... 

Fountainhead was ok, but got kind of L.Ron Hubberd-y at the end.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

I read it maybe 12 years ago from the time I got home from work till I fell asleep every day until done, was so pissed at the way it ended that I almost burned it, but it wasn't mine so I returned it.  Last novel I have ever read since then.

----------


## torchbearer

> That might be a good idea, and less time consuming if it is awful.... 
> 
> Fountainhead was ok, but got kind of L.Ron Hubberd-y at the end.


it is the core of the ideas she is trying to convey with her fiction works like atlas shrugged.
i enjoyed the lecture. audio book works best for me.

----------


## BuddyRey

> Tedious is the Grapes of Wrath. Ugh. I simply read every other chapter to get through it.


Yeah, and if the tediousness isn't bad enough, it's full of socialist, pro-New Deal propaganda.  Then again, that's true of _most_ required reading in schools.

----------


## Aratus

i think she had a love/hate relationship that created an attraction and revulsion 
at a distance concerning the real life person she had based ellsworth toohey on!
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-an...?msg_id=004FMp Myself, i'd wonder if
he was 100% serious or saying things for their shock value, knowing how cults are.

----------


## kathy88

Okay it's getting better, thankfully.

----------


## low preference guy

maybe you don't like her style, and if that's so probably you shouldn't try to force yourself to like it. i wasn't crazy about her style, but i could read her.

----------


## sailingaway

> Okay it's getting better, thankfully.


how far are you into it? I never reached that point. Let me know if it is worth wading through the earlier part, when you are done.

----------


## Carson

Thanks for saving me the grief. 

I sort of liked what I heard about the concept of the book.

I'm thinking *Jaws* was a book that was an easy read. It's an old one but so much more than the movie.

Maybe give yourself a break with something readable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaws_%28novel%29

----------


## MozoVote

The plot stages about piracy returning and sections of the oceans becoming too dangerous for commerce seemed outlandish and "sci-fi" to me at the time I read Atlas Shrugged. But when the real life Somali pirates cropped up, that made me remember the book...

----------


## Okie RP fan

Hahaha, I've encountered a predicament where I always go to the section with _Atlas Shrugged_ and debate buying it or not. I never did and probably never will. I've simply heard too many varied opinions about it. I've read some long books, and I plan on reading _The Lord of the Rings_, but, I don't think I'd have the patience to get through _Atlas Shrugged_ from what I've heard. 

So, I bought Ayn Rand's _Anthem_ instead to get me acquainted with her works.

----------


## thoughtomator

God help anybody who tries to make it all the way through _Atlas Shrugged_ - they're going to need it. Personally I opted to tear three teeth out with my bare hands as the less painful alternative.

----------


## fr33

If you have trouble reading Atlas Shrugged, I still recommend buying the audiobook if you are able to listen while driving/working. Audiobooks are a bit expensive but I don't think you would be disappointed.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> audiobooks are a bit expensive


Search for Atlas Shrugged audiobook torrent.  Problem solved by internet.

----------


## dbill27

the fountainhead is better imo. But Atlas Shrugged is a work of brilliance, Murray Rothbard called it one of the greatest books ever written.

----------


## kathy88

> how far are you into it? I never reached that point. Let me know if it is worth wading through the earlier part, when you are done.


Page 400 something. It is getting better. It goes in spurts. I'm fascinated for 30 pages, then bored to tears for 45. So up and down, but I'm glad I'm doing it. The philosophies are pretty fascinating.

----------


## nelsonwinters

> I got it on audio book. but i'm on the road a lot.


I second this advice.  I would have never gotten through it otherwise.  I picked up the audio version at the library and listened to it in the car every time I went somewhere.  I thought the reader did a good job.

----------


## sailingaway

> Page 400 something. It is getting better. It goes in spurts. I'm fascinated for 30 pages, then bored to tears for 45. So up and down, but I'm glad I'm doing it. The philosophies are pretty fascinating.


Well, I read the Fountainhead.  Let me know when you are done.  I consider it an author's obligation to keep the reader interested, personally.

----------


## kathy88

I did it! AND in time for the release of part 2. I never thought I could do it, but once I got into it (like page 500ish?) It got much easier.

----------


## VoluntaryAmerican

> I did it! AND in time for the release of part 2. I never thought I could do it, but once I got into it (like page 500ish?) It got much easier.


Part 2 comes out tomorrow here, probably going to go see it.

I opted to watch the movie instead of read the book. I enjoyed Part 1.

----------


## Suzu

> I did it! AND in time for the release of part 2. I never thought I could do it, but once I got into it (like page 500ish?) It got much easier.


You'll like it more the 2nd time.

----------


## moostraks

This thread had me snorting with laughter (semi sorry for the visual folks). Am trying to get through Atlas on audio and good gravy does my mind wander. She is rambling about minutiae and the main character is hard to become emotionally attached to in any significant manner so as to really want to finish. I have restarted the audio so many times as I find my mind wandering again that I almost feel I should buy the written version so at least my eyes must focus but I have been known to have my mind wander that way as well. Thank goodness it isn't just me. Glad to hear it might pick up my interest if I hold on for a bit.

----------


## TheNung

This thread reminds me of Honor's English when I was a freshman in highschool. I didn't really like or dislike any of the books we covered except one: Tess of the D'Urbervilles by Thomas Hardy. It is the only book I've ever actually hated enough to burn at the end of the semester.

And to think that throughout grade school, high school, and college, I was never given Ayn Rand as a reading assignment. Nor was I given 1984 or anything similar. No. I get Tess of the D'Urbervilles.

----------


## angelatc

> This thread had me snorting with laughter (semi sorry for the visual folks). Am trying to get through Atlas on audio and good gravy does my mind wander. She is rambling about minutiae and the main character is hard to become emotionally attached to in any significant manner so as to really want to finish. I have restarted the audio so many times as I find my mind wandering again that I almost feel I should buy the written version so at least my eyes must focus but I have been known to have my mind wander that way as well. Thank goodness it isn't just me. Glad to hear it might pick up my interest if I hold on for a bit.


I have not read it, but I had to read Tolkein using a special method. I had to use a piece of paper to underline each sentence as I read it and read each paragraph at least twice.

Great story, but these people certainly could have used better editors.

----------


## Teenager For Ron Paul

I read AS as a junior in high school (not for school, just independently) a couple years ago. First 400 pages took weeks to get through but after that I finished the rest in about a week. Good book.

I think people get turned off because they THINK Rand is saying "Helping other people is evil! Keep all your money to yourself and lock yourself up and don't care about anyone else!" and so they think "Oh, so she thinks we shouldn't take care of children or old people. Everyone should just live isolated from everyone else." But she's actually saying that people should only invest themselves in people and things they honestly want to. A mother "sacrificing" for her baby is not contradicting Rand's philosophy. The mother WANTS her child to be happy so she does the things in order to make him/her happy. In fact, in AS, during John Galt's speech, he specifically addresses this. People seem to overlook it and draw wrong conclusions about Rand's philosophy.

On the other hand, government forcefully confiscating money to "help" people is not what Rand wants. This sort of sacrifice goes against what individuals want, and so Rand opposes it.

Ayn Rand's attitude towards selfishness was basically this: everyone is self-interested. Getting things for yourself makes you happy. Doing things for other people may also make you happy. These two things are equal, as long as both make you happy. So we're selfish, but that's not a bad thing at all.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Great story, but these people certainly could have used better editors.


Nay!  It is _suspense!_  The carefully crafted, almost unrelenting suspense is the great art of Atlas Shrugged.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> This thread had me snorting with laughter (semi sorry for the visual folks). Am trying to get through Atlas on audio and good gravy does my mind wander. She is rambling about minutiae and the main character is hard to become emotionally attached to in any significant manner so as to really want to finish. I have restarted the audio so many times as I find my mind wandering again that I almost feel I should buy the written version so at least my eyes must focus but I have been known to have my mind wander that way as well. Thank goodness it isn't just me. Glad to hear it might pick up my interest if I hold on for a bit.


The deliberate flatness/2 dimensionality of the characters is a bother to me as well.  Honestly, the narrative is far better than the dialog.  I'm only ~3/8 through, though.  Looking forward to the good stuff. 

ETA: I suspect the reason Stef Molyneux rambles the way he does is because he's read too much Rand.   lolz

----------


## Ronin Truth

FWIW ....




> *The Abridged Atlas Shrugged
> 
> 
> *02.19.2001 
> 
> "It sure is hard to find good men now-a-days. I wonder what the hell is going on," Dagny smirked to herself as she entered the towering monolith to capitalism that was the headquarters of Taggart Transcontinental. "There are so few men like Hank Rearden, the man who single handedly invented a new greenish tint metal that is far stronger than steel," she said bursting in on her brother. "There are too many like you, Jim," she mocked.
> 
> "Well, if that's the case, you so-not-a-woman-and-I-can't-believe-a-woman-wrote-this, why don't you go redeem yourself by sleeping with him. By being his servile little mistress you'll serve the cause of capitalism far better than you have," Jim mocked.
> 
> ...


http://www.spudworks.com/article/66/2/

----------


## moostraks

Oh my goodness, I am finally at the Galt monologue and this has to be one of the most obnoxious treatments I have received as a reader. As though I am too stupid to have understood the examples put forth throughout this book, I am to be subjected to a 3 hour monologue on self love? I have made it through about an hour's worth before I looked it up to find out how much longer I am to be subjected to being scolded. Three hours!?! Wth?

This book has had brief moments (as in 3 that I can recall pausing long enough to consider decent points) worthy to be considered pearls. Yeah, I get why people call her a blowhard. The contemptuous attitude by which the author approaches weaving a story would have her in out on the rails by anyone who has any self respect. The monologue is the last straw. It is as if I am being beat over the head with an iron skillet over and over and over again....

And as a side note, the audible version, ugh. I think the reader thinks most of the minor characters come from South America. So the Audible reading makes the book even more mind numbing as though that were even possible.

----------


## moostraks

Irony. As I am still sitting here suffering through this monologue this morning and am considering her attack on philosophers and looters, imo, Rand, in her utopia, would be a looter starving on the fringes of a productive society preaching to a rag tag band of narcissists complaining that she is being shunned for her brilliance and not because she sucks at writing. That is to say unless her purpose is to be paid by the word and completely insult the intelligence of the reader that holds on through her rambling, egotistical rants in search for a pearl. My ears are numb and my mind keeps drifting.

----------


## Ronin Truth

http://www.working-minds.com/galtmini.htm

----------


## CaptUSA

> Oh my goodness, I am finally at the Galt monologue and this has to be one of the most obnoxious treatments I have received as a reader. As though I am too stupid to have understood the examples put forth throughout this book, I am to be subjected to a 3 hour monologue on self love? I have made it through about an hour's worth before I looked it up to find out how much longer I am to be subjected to being scolded. Three hours!?! Wth?
> 
> This book has had brief moments (as in 3 that I can recall pausing long enough to consider decent points) worthy to be considered pearls. Yeah, I get why people call her a blowhard. The contemptuous attitude by which the author approaches weaving a story would have her in out on the rails by anyone who has any self respect. The monologue is the last straw. It is as if I am being beat over the head with an iron skillet over and over and over again....
> 
> And as a side note, the audible version, ugh. I think the reader thinks most of the minor characters come from South America. So the Audible reading makes the book even more mind numbing as though that were even possible.


Well, I can't imagine what it's like on audio, but she definitely beats you over the head with her point!  Especially, if you already understand her point - then it just reads like droning.  I guess I always kept in my mind what she was trying to get across to the uninitiated.  It was a little easier to understand why she took so many angles.

By the way, I've always found The Fountainhead to be a more enjoyable read.

----------


## RJB

I tried to get through it twice and gave up.  The last attempt was two years ago. Life is too short to get preached at with bad literature.

Besides being over tedious, the characters are some of the most 1 dimensional characters ever, no depth and very predictable, yet she feels compelled to use over 1000 pages to make it clear how shallow most of them are.  

The message, I had heard before many times in articles, but for some reason Rand feels she needs to beat me over the head with them constantly.  Really I only need to be told once most of the times.  On a dense day I may need a reminder once but no more than twice 

I also think her message is outdated.  In the 40s and 50s, the government may have been the real threat to businesses.  However, nowadays, corporations are the ones who run the government and put small businesses out of business:  Insurance companies forcing people to buy their over-priced garbage with Obama/Romney/Gingrich Care.  The Military Industrial Complex giving us eternal war for their profit.  The medical model of today... etc.    I know this wasn't Ayn Rand's vision, but I really couldn't stomach her views on lack of morality and profit in view of modern corporatism.

When I quit reading the last time, it was at the part where the main character was enjoying the only good hamburger in a long time.  Of course the good burger could only be made by a former CEO of a mega international corporation.

That was too much.  Too me it reminded me of the way LEOs divide us into wolves, sheepdogs and sheep.  In her view, I felt that she saw the world divided in the same way Wolves (government), sheepdogs (big shot CEOs), and sheep (anyone who does not aspire to be a CEO.)  Sometimes there is a 4the category:  Dogs who aren't sheep, aren't wolves and have absolutely no use for sheepdogs (or wolves or sheep for that matter.)  

I could be way off in my analysis.  I take no offence if anyone disagrees.  I only read about a third of it, but I feel no guilt for having given up on the book.  I know many people smarter than me who gave up on it as well.  There is no shame in finding a better way to enlighten yourself than spending 1000+ pages trudging through that swamp when you can read a 2 page article and get the same info.

----------


## CaptUSA

> I also think her message is outdated.  In the 40s and 50s, the government may have been the real threat to businesses.  However, nowadays, corporations are the ones who run the government and put small businesses out of business:  Insurance companies forcing people to buy their over-priced garbage with Obama/Romney/Gingrich Care.  The Military Industrial Complex giving us eternal war for their profit.  The medical model of today... etc.    I know this wasn't Ayn Rand's vision, but I really couldn't stomach her views on lack of morality and profit in view of modern corporatism.


I may have been with you until you got to this point.  This is completely wrong.  The book goes on and on about the problems with cronyism.  Perhaps you should have continued reading, or at least understood what you were reading up to the point where you quit.  It is very relevant to the system we have in place today - where businesses that provide real value are crowded out by regulations and laws that benefit the well-connected.

Back to an earlier point about the mind wandering...  I think that is by design.  Which is why listening to the book on tape or watching a movie doesn't give you the same experience.  I remember reading Emerson.  Emerson on tape would be completely useless.  Each sentence is a construct in deep philosophical thinking.  Without pausing and allowing the mind to consider the points, the true beauty is missed.

I'm not comparing Rand to Emerson - there is clearly an intellectual gap there - but some of the same elements exist in the way a reader must approach their work.




> I could be way off in my analysis.


Yes.  You are.

----------


## RJB

> Yes.  You are.


That's fine, but a lot of times I'll give an article a few paragraphs to make a pertinent point.  I was generous and gave Ayn a few hundred pages, twice.  I'll read an abridge version next time

----------


## moostraks

> Well, I can't imagine what it's like on audio, but she definitely beats you over the head with her point!  Especially, if you already understand her point - then it just reads like droning.  I guess I always kept in my mind what she was trying to get across to the uninitiated.  It was a little easier to understand why she took so many angles.
> 
> By the way, I've always found The Fountainhead to be a more enjoyable read.


Victory! I finished the monologue!

Good to hear about The Fountainhead as I bought that at the same time but had not started it yet.

Now as for her preaching to the uninitiated, for those who do get it fairly early on, one is left wondering if the person listening to the broadcast did not understand after 30 minutes into the speech, after all they had experienced at this point, would they not be dead weight to the society she was seeking to establish? So what is the purpose of such a long and repetitive rant? As the reader, I am screaming at the character, "let it go!" It is much like the tension she attempts to create with Dagny and her unwillingness to let go of the world she lives in. The plot itself then seems inauthentic and hypocritical when the main character is such a martyr to futility (even when you understand the vision is for something bigger than Galt's utopia).

Meh. I guess I feel a huge sense of disappointment (and self loathing while questioning my own intelligence?) at feeling like a bit of a sucker for choosing to suffer through this much of the book and still not getting what all the hype is about. I cannot stand Dagny. For all her supposed brilliance, I still find her to be a flat character and her martyrdom just comes across whiny to me. Oh well. Guess it just isn't my cup of tea...

----------


## RJB

> I may have been with you until you got to this point.  This is completely wrong.  The book goes on and on about the problems with cronyism. .


One more thing, to be fair to Ayn Rand, I'm most likely judging her not by her opinions, but rather her followers.  The second time I attempted to get through Atlas Shrugged was at the time when the current wars and the bank bailouts were constantly in the headlines ( around 2008) and her most vocal fans in the media were neocons.    

At that time, a libertarian, (maybe Stossel?) made a claim that if private corporations ran the wars based on profit, we would have won by now.  This was at the time Blackwater, Haliburton, etc. were making a killing (in more ways than one) overseas.  Glenn Beck made a statement about it was better to have Goldman Sacs help with the bailouts, because they were a private company...

With this as the backdrop, I developed a more cynical view of her with each page of that book.  I'll take you at your word that I got the wrong impression of her.  I'll also torchbearer's suggestions and look more into her articles, but I'm not touching that book again.

----------


## acptulsa

Reading Rand is like archaeology.  It takes a lot of faith there's something in there to dig all the way down to it.

Frank Herbert she ain't.  Neither is she Douglas Adams...




> ... "I mean, I couldn't help noticing," said Ford, also taking a sip, "the bodies. In the hold."
> 
> "Bodies?" said the Captain in surprise.
> 
> Ford paused and thought to himself. Never take anything for granted, he thought. Could it be that the Captain doesn't know he's got fifteen million dead bodies on his ship?
> 
> The Captain was nodding cheerfully at him. He also appeared to be playing with a rubber duck.
> 
> Ford looked around. Number Two was staring at him in the mirror, but only for an instant: his eyes were constantly on the move. The first officer was just standing there holding the drinks tray and smiling benignly.
> ...

----------


## moostraks

> I may have been with you until you got to this point.  This is completely wrong.  The book goes on and on about the problems with cronyism.  Perhaps you should have continued reading, or at least understood what you were reading up to the point where you quit.  It is very relevant to the system we have in place today - where businesses that provide real value are crowded out by regulations and laws that benefit the well-connected.
> 
> Back to an earlier point about the mind wandering...  I think that is by design.  Which is why listening to the book on tape or watching a movie doesn't give you the same experience.  I remember reading Emerson.  Emerson on tape would be completely useless.  Each sentence is a construct in deep philosophical thinking.  Without pausing and allowing the mind to consider the points, the true beauty is missed.
> 
> I'm not comparing Rand to Emerson - there is clearly an intellectual gap there - but some of the same elements exist in the way a reader must approach their work.
> 
> Yes.  You are.


She touches on the subject of crony capitalism but doesn't explore it to any significant depth initially such that as the reader, I can relate to the impression RJB was getting, especially since her longer discussion on the matter doesn't come until after the section of the book he stopped reading ( and by after I mean well after-like some 20 hours later of reading). In no way would I recommend reading further to get the pearl unless one was dedicated to finish the book for the sake of marking it off as read. 

I dislike the attitude she takes that the only people of worth to make a simple item of quality are those who apparently can run a corporation and that a simple minded person is insignificant in all pursuits. It seemed unrealistic and unnatural to believe that the brilliant engineer makes something fabulous in a completely unrelated field is the best person to make a burger, even if she makes the point that the job is beneath his skill set. Those type of folks are the exception and not the rule in my experience. 

And the portions I have pulled up to read online did make me realize I was tuning out some of the details because of the difference of concentration when using an Audible book. I am more of a visual learner in the first place so not a big surprise. However, if a book lacks depth in the characters personality, such that I fail to feel some sense of sympathy or connection, I will read it and find myself having to circle back and reread. The monologue would have likely set me over the edge if I were reading it rather than listening.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

Tried and never got through it.

The other one that was like that was this phone book called War and Peace.

-t

----------


## RJB

> She touches on the subject of crony capitalism but doesn't explore it to any significant depth initially such that as the reader, I can relate to the impression RJB was getting, especially since her longer discussion on the matter doesn't come until after the section of the book he stopped reading ( and by after I mean well after-like some 20 hours later of reading).


Also the only ones involved in crony capitalism in the book were the failed CEOs who were seeking government help to help others.  It implied that those who were truly driven by only profit and not morality, didn't seek government help--  That's just not the case in today's reality.

BTW, I'm mostly posting to ease the guilt of fellow libertarians who never finished the book.  For years, I felt like I committed some odd mortal sin against the liberty movement by not finishing the book.  Free yourselves from guilt my brothers and sisters!

----------


## willwash

> I enjoyed it overall, but Rand inserted a virulently anti-religion rant somewhere towards the end that kind of came out of left field. That was irritating.


Yes, Christian altruism is precisely identical to communist tyranny according to Rand.  Lots of good stuff in that book, but that's absurd.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> For weeks. I keep reading books in between. What's the secret to staying focused? It's become almost a personal vendetta now. I must finish it. I took a second degree in English and read so many books. The only one I've never been able to finish is Moby Dick.  That book blew. I don't want to add to that list.


Hey now.  I happen to be directly related to Herman Melville.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Bad idea. Only watch the movies after reading the book. The first movie can't hold a candle to the compelling power of the book.
> 
> ---
> 
> The first 100-150 pages of Atlas Shrugged are _very slow_. However, from pages 150-950, I don't know how you possess the ability to willingly put the book down. Then there's a 200 page speech that slows wayy down again, only for the book to conclude quite nicely.


I didn't even know how long it was. 

If I read any other book that took 150 pages to get started then was good, then again lolled off for 200 pages, I would think it was a piece of crap.  I make no exception for Ayn Rand, but then again, I haven't read the book.  I think there are probably some people trying to make it sound more interesting than it really is.  If I went through that many pages of crap to get to a "quite nice" ending, I fail to see how I could conceive of calling it anything other than crap.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Tedious is the Grapes of Wrath. Ugh. I simply read every other chapter to get through it.


Why would you try?  I had to read that in high school and for most of us in the class, it was simply unbearable.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Page 400 something. It is getting better. It goes in spurts. I'm fascinated for 30 pages, then bored to tears for 45. So up and down, but I'm glad I'm doing it. The philosophies are pretty fascinating.


I really don't understand the concept that you have to suffer to enjoy yourself.  Maybe it's just me.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nay!  It is _suspense!_  The carefully crafted, almost unrelenting suspense is the great art of Atlas Shrugged.


To each his own.  Some of us still appreciate the fine art of balancing suspense with action.  There is a point at which suspense just turns into _suspension_, or waiting for something to happen.  I believe it's the author's responsibility to balance the two.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> To each his own.  Some of us still appreciate the fine art of balancing suspense with action.  There is a point at which suspense just turns into _suspension_, or waiting for something to happen.  I believe it's the author's responsibility to balance the two.


Some of us _read_ books before forming strong opinions about them!  Zing!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Some of us _read_ books before forming strong opinions about them!  Zing!


Fair enough, but I'm just trying to come to grips with the way some people are rationalizing suffering through bad literature to get a point they already have.  From what some people are describing, it's like they're forcing themselves to read something that they absolutely disdain.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

To each his own!  But I really like Atlas Shrugged, and lots of other people do, too.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Some of us _read_ books before forming strong opinions about them!  Zing!


Great fiction, as Dr Ingermason points out in his books and lectures, evokes an emotional response from the reader.  A writer who can't engage the reader this way is either mediocre or purposely bad to make an artistic statement of some sort.  I'm not sure which _Atlas_ is.  Zing!

----------


## acptulsa

> Fair enough, but I'm just trying to come to grips with the way some people are rationalizing suffering through bad literature to get a point they already have.  From what some people are describing, it's like they're forcing themselves to read something that they absolutely disdain.


Curiosity killed the cat.

It can be more irksome to be left out of a conversation that a whole bunch of people around you are having.

Reading it can take a torturous month, but being able to say you've read it lasts the rest of your life.

And there are such things as masochists in the human race, too.

You're not going to try to deny anyone the right to do so 'for their own good', are you...?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> Great fiction, as Dr Ingermason points out in his books and lectures, evokes an emotional response from the reader.  A writer who can't engage the reader this way is either mediocre or purposely bad to make an artistic statement of some sort.  I'm not sure which _Atlas_ is.  Zing!


Who are you trying to "zing"?  

I have read lots of opinions on this thread.  And they are all perfectly valid, including yours!, because you read it. Hey, you read it, you didn't like it; what's wrong with that?  I'm not going to sit here and say "well, you _should_ have liked it!" any more than you would say to me that I shouldn't have.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Curiosity killed the cat.
> 
> It can be more irksome to be left out of a conversation that a whole bunch of people around you are having.
> 
> Reading it can take a torturous month, but being able to say you've read it lasts the rest of your life.
> 
> And there are such things as masochists in the human race, too.
> 
> You're not going to try to deny anyone the right to do so 'for their own good', are you...?


Who said anything about rights?

----------


## RJB

Is there a psychologist on the forum?

Maybe we can have a secret section for those who call ourselves libertarian or libertarian leaning people and have overriding guilt from either having never finished or finished but totally disliked Atlas Shrugged for what ever reason.  We can learn to feel better about ourselves and be empowered to be libertarian despite not having tortured ourselves needlessly through an endless book of bad writing or was insulted when we realized we could never make a good burger without having been a CEO.

We are all worthy...  (Best hippy therapist voice.)

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Is there a psychologist on the forum?
> 
> Maybe we can have a secret section for those who call ourselves libertarian or libertarian leaning people and have overriding guilt from either having never finished or finished but totally disliked Atlas Shrugged for what ever reason.  We can learn to feel better about ourselves and be empowered to be libertarian despite not having tortured ourselves needlessly through an endless book of bad writing or was insulted when we realized we could never make a good burger without having been a CEO.
> 
> We are all worthy...  (Best hippy therapist voice.)


LMAO!!

----------


## otherone

> I really don't understand the concept that you have to suffer to enjoy yourself.


Then you DO understand Rand!

----------


## moostraks

> Curiosity killed the cat.
> 
> It can be more irksome to be left out of a conversation that a whole bunch of people around you are having.
> 
> Reading it can take a torturous month, but being able to say you've read it lasts the rest of your life.
> 
> And there are such things as masochists in the human race, too.
> 
> You're not going to try to deny anyone the right to do so 'for their own good', are you...?


Since I only lack 5 hours of the book, you better believe I am gonna finish it. masochistic is thinking I might glean something by giving the monologue a shot at a later point in time. Mine was definitely a case of curiosity killed the cat. Some folks really seem to love the book and it sounded like my type of storyline. I just failed to connect to the characters. The main character was too frustrating for me to relate to and reminded me of Robinson Crusoe. I have not finished that book yet but intend to by Spring.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Then you DO understand Rand!


Touche...

And I didn't even need to read the book... amazing.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Great fiction, as Dr Ingermason points out in his books and lectures, evokes an emotional response from the reader.  A writer who can't engage the reader this way is either mediocre or purposely bad to make an artistic statement of some sort.  I'm not sure which _Atlas_ is.  Zing!


Meh. The adjudgement of fiction as being "great" on the basis of its evocation of "an emotional response from the reader" is fairly useless. There are simply too many examples of "popular" fiction (with no pretensions to "greatness") that pack an emotional wallop - and, conversely, too many instances of "great" fiction that don't - in order for such overly-simplistic _dicta_ to be usefully true, even as a generalization.

As for _Atlas Shrugged_: I have read it four or five times, and emotionally, I am still deeply & profoundly moved by at least three things in it - and in order not to "spoil" them for those who haven't read it yet but might, I'll just identify those things as involving (1) Tony "the Wet Nurse," (2) Cheryl Taggart, and (3) the things Hank Rearden had to say to Dagny Taggart after her appearance on Bertram Scudder's radio show.

The fact that others may read _AS_ and be left emotionally unmoved by it just goes to show how utterly subjective a standard of "emotional evocation" really is ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Meh. *The adjudgement of fiction as being "great" on the basis of its evocation of "an emotional response from the reader" is fairly useless.* There are simply too many examples of "popular" fiction (with no pretensions to "greatness") that pack an emotional wallop - and, conversely, too many instances of "great" fiction that don't - in order for such overly-simplistic _dicta_ to be usefully true, even as a generalization.
> 
> As for _Atlas Shrugged_: I have read it four or five times, and emotionally, I am still deeply & profoundly moved by at least three things in it - and in order not to "spoil" them for those who haven't read it yet but might, I'll just identify those things as involving (1) Tony "the Wet Nurse," (2) Cheryl Taggart, and (3) the things Hank Rearden had to say to Dagny Taggart after her appearance on Bertram Scudder's radio show.
> 
> *The fact that others may read AS and be left emotionally unmoved by it just goes to show how utterly subjective a standard of "emotional evocation" really is ..*.


It is subjective, but not useless.  That is precisely the reason people read fiction!    Movies and performance arts are the same way.  We don't normally go to the theater _hoping_ for wooden dialogue, shoddy plots, and 2 dimensional characters.  That's for the realm of non-fiction.  If the audience feels no reason to care about the characters, they will just put the book down.

----------


## acptulsa

> It is subjective, but not useless.  That is precisely the reason people read fiction!


Gee, I could swear I remember reading fiction for other reasons.  Like when I read a John Erlichman novel out of sheer curiosity, and to see if he let anything semi-historical slip.  And the things I read because my teacher told us to.




> Movies and performance arts are the same way.  We don't normally go to the theater _hoping_ for wooden dialogue, shoddy plots, and 2 dimensional characters.


Then how did Steven Segal become a millionaire?  And Sylvester Stallone, for that matter?  And Raymond Chandler, when you come right down to it...




> That's for the realm of non-fiction.


You haven't read some of the outstanding accounts of history that I have read.  A plot doesn't have to be a lie to be engaging, and people don't have to be made up out of whole cloth to be very human.




> If the audience feels no reason to care about the characters, they will just put the book down.


Unless they think the characters they don't care for are about to get murdered in a most gruesome fashion, of course.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It is subjective, but not useless.  That is precisely the reason people read fiction!


Bull$#@!. "Emotional evocativeness" is merely one of many reasons people might read fiction. It is not even close to being a necessary one - let alone the only one. For one example, as a fan of "hard" science fiction, I greatly enjoy stories that exercise "scientific" acumen in elaborate and imaginatively speculative fictional settings - and to hell with characterizations and their "emotional evocativeness!" For another example, fiction may also be enjoyed for the sake of aesthetic appreciation of skillful prose composition, regardless of any "emotional evocativeness" (or lack thereof) of its characterizations or other elements. (Hell, some fiction doesn't even _have_ "characters" ...)

And in any case, none of this has anything to do with what I was talking about. Your original claim - the claim to which I was responding - had nothing to do with "why people read fiction." It had to do with "what is great fiction." I was addressing the attempt to distinguish "great" fiction on the basis of its "emotional evocativeness." That many people may read works of fiction primarily or even exclusively  for the sake of their "emotional evocativeness" is irrelevant to the  question of whether any of those works are actually "great" or not. What I tried to point out (but which you appear to have ignored) is the salient and incontrovertible fact that "trashy" or "popular" fiction can be quite "emotionally evocative," but is not therefore considered to be "great." And THAT is precisely why "emotional evocativeness" is indeed useless as a standard for judging a work's "greatness" (whatever that might actually mean) or lack thereof. QED.




> Movies and performance arts are the same way.  We don't normally go to the theater _hoping_ for wooden dialogue, shoddy plots, and 2 dimensional characters.


The ascription of "woodenness" to dialogue, of "shoddiness" to plots, and of "two-dimensionality" to characters is itself often subjective. Besides which, while people may not be _hoping_ for those things, it does not follow that those factors are the only criteria by which such works can be judged and found (un)meritorious. For example, I absolutely love me some H.P. Lovecraft, and he can be found guilty of all the flaws you mentioned at one time or another (sometimes all of them in the same story). I don't adore Lovecraft for his scintillating dialogue or emotionally "deep" characters - he hasn't got any. I adore him for the delightfully and deliciously eldritch _weirdness_ of his stories - the characters be damned! (And in Lovecraft, they usually are ...)




> That's for the realm of non-fiction.


 "Wooden dialogue, shoddy plots, and 2 dimensional characters" are "for the realm of non-fiction?" 

That makes no sense whatsoever ...

For one thing, non-fiction does not typically partake of dialogue, plots or characters. Those are generally the accoutrements of fiction.

For another thing, even when they do occur in non-fiction (such as for biography or "true crime" or the like), such "woodenness," "shoddines" and/or "two-dimensionality" ought to be every bit as deleterious as they are alleged to be for fiction. Why should they be less so for non-fiction? That just doesn't make any sense ...




> If the audience feels no reason to care about the characters, they will just put the book down.


Again, bull$#@!. Audiences are NOT homogeneous. As already noted, there are MANY motivations for reading fiction OTHER than "caring about the characters." Of interest in this respect is the essay "The Little Tin God of Characterization" by Isaac Asimov - an incredibly popular and prolific author who was well-known for the shallowness and "two-dimensionality" of his characters (which was deliberate and intentional - emotionally "deep" characterizations would only "get in the way" of the kinds of stories he wanted to tell and his readers wanted to read).

I do not "care about the characters" in Asimov or Rand - yet I do not, as you have predicted I should, "just put the book[s] down". That is NOT why I read them. I read (and greatly enjoy) them for their invigorating and thought-provoking ideas and the larger speculative settings in which those ideas are presented. And if the size of the readership for the works of Asimov and Rand are any indication, a very large chunk of "the audience" agrees with me. These facts pretty much blow a gaping hole in your thesis ...

----------


## rhelwig

To paraphrase the quote: great minds enjoy fiction about ideas, average minds enjoy stories about events, and small minds enjoy character development. :-)

I enjoyed AS although the speech was too long for my preferences. But before I read AS I had read, in order, Anthem, We The Living, and The Fountainhead. I think that better prepared me for AS.

Also, if you want a much better written version of the Fountainhead, just watch the Pixar movie Ratatouille.

----------


## RJB

But great ideas are brought about by great characters through history.  Look at the passions that the Founding Fathers had for liberty.  Great characters always have desire, ideas that burns in their hearts for something.  Then there is the obstacle is stopping them.  A good story is based on how a good character achieves what they want despite seemingly overwhelming factors.  Would we be free from England now without Washington, Jefferson, Paine, Henry, etc.  Exploring their weaknesses and strengths behind the men is one thing that makes history exciting.

The reason why I disliked reading Atlas Shrugged stems from:

With seemingly shallow characters, the motivation is lacking and it comes across as fake or propaganda because the author forces a person not to do their intentions but rather to force through an idea that may be false.  Daphne Taggart's brother is a great example--  He is a weakling in the same ways as all the other antagonists in the story (convenient for Rand).  His desire is supposedly altruistic to have government run things and not for his own profit but for the betterment of society.  I didn't believe that.  In real life, altruism may be used as an excuse, but the real root for crony capitalism is greed, not altruism.

On the other hand the protagonists are all virtuously greedy to demonstrate how evil and dangerous love and self sacrifice is to society.  The protagonist all share the same strengths.  And in their greed, they do the greatest benefits to the society.  Indeed "Love one another as I have loved you." is not just quaint but a malicious evil.  From what I gathered from her writings, Haliburton profiting off of the war should have ended the war by now.

With the contrived characters, I found the story unbelievable and it reminded me of  people saying that communism works in theory but not in real life.  From what I've seen in real life, it's not classical altruism, but greed that leads to crony capitalism.





> To paraphrase the quote: great minds enjoy fiction about ideas, average minds enjoy stories about events, and small minds enjoy character development. :-)
> 
> I enjoyed AS although the speech was too long for my preferences. But before I read AS I had read, in order, Anthem, We The Living, and The Fountainhead. I think that better prepared me for AS.
> 
> Also, if you want a much better written version of the Fountainhead, just watch the Pixar movie Ratatouille.

----------


## RJB

Speaking of ideas.  It is precisely why I disliked her characters.  The virtues of the story also go against the classical archetypes.  Dagne's preaching that dying for someone else is wrong really goes against the traditional heroes.

Especially in the West:
In religion, Jesus lives his life in virtue and dies for the salvation of all.
In literature, Romeo and Juliet live for each other and die for love.
In philosophy, Socrates lived for seeking knowledge and wisdom and dies for truth.
However in Ayn Randian's world, people die for nothing and live for glorious money.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> To paraphrase the quote:* great minds enjoy fiction about ideas, average minds enjoy stories about events, and small minds enjoy character development. :-)*
> 
> I enjoyed AS although the speech was too long for my preferences. But before I read AS I had read, in order, Anthem, We The Living, and The Fountainhead. I think that better prepared me for AS.
> 
> Also, if you want a much better written version of the Fountainhead, just watch the Pixar movie Ratatouille.


Why do those have to be mutally exclusive?  How much of the literary canon of enduring classics (i.e. the sort of stuff you'd find in collections like Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books)has no or poor character development?  (or perhaps that is internet sarcasm that is escaping my detector?)

----------


## acptulsa

> Why do those have to be mutally exclusive?  How much of the literary canon of enduring classics (i.e. the sort of stuff you'd find in collections like Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books)has no or poor character development?  (or perhaps that is internet sarcasm that is escaping my detector?)


Books from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica's Great Books List?

I thought you were talking about books significant numbers of people actually read...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Books from the Encyclopaedia Brittanica's Great Books List?
> 
> I thought you were talking about books significant numbers of people actually read...


FYI, Significant numbers of people have in fact read War And Peace, The Brothers Karamazov, (both in the Great Books collection) and so forth.  And note I said "the sort of stuff", not exclusively what EB publishes.  "The Master And Margarita", "Yevgeny Onegin", and "Huckleberry Finn" are also considered literary classics-and very readable.

----------


## acptulsa

> FYI, Significant numbers of people have in fact read War And Peace...


Huge numbers have read the first chapter or two.  Myself included.

A soap opera?  This thing weighs twelve pounds and it's just a soap opera?  Oh, hell no.

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> His desire is supposedly altruistic to have government run things and not for his own profit but for the betterment of society.  I didn't believe that.  In real life, altruism may be used as an excuse, but the real root for crony capitalism is greed, not altruism.


You should meet some of these people and listen to them and you'd think differently, I believe.  There are many business leaders today, especially in tech, whose primary motivation is to change the world, not to make a buck.  These people truly believe in "socially responsible" business models, "green" technology, etc., etc., etc.  Mistaken, fine, but insincere they are not.

----------


## acptulsa

> You should meet some of these people and listen to them and you'd think differently, I believe.  There are many business leaders today, especially in tech, whose primary motivation is to change the world, not to make a buck.  These people truly believe in "socially responsible" business models, "green" technology, etc., etc., etc.  Mistaken, fine, but insincere they are not.


I believe you missed his point.

He was trying to _contrast_ capitalism, which can be altruistic, and crony capitalism (or corporatism, or fascism), in which an army of mercenaries (called government) is brought in to ensure the pesky competition doesn't cut into any more profits.

----------


## RJB

> You should meet some of these people and listen to them and you'd think differently, I believe.  There are many business leaders today, especially in tech, whose primary motivation is to change the world, not to make a buck.  These people truly believe in "socially responsible" business models, "green" technology, etc., etc., etc.  Mistaken, fine, but insincere they are not.


I understand the point you are making, but:

Is Haliburton in the war to bring our troops home and to keep us safe or to make a buck?
Did the insurance companies force through Obamacare because they care for the health of others or do they want to make a buck?
Does Al Gore like carbon credits to save the world or to make a buck?
Does the Fed (Greenspan, Ayn's student) take care of the banking industry for the sake of all or to make a buck?

----------


## otherone

> I understand the point you are making, but:
> 
> Is Haliburton in the war to bring our troops home and to keep us safe or to make a buck?
> Did the insurance companies force through Obamacare because they care for the health of others or do they want to make a buck?
> Does Al Gore like carbon credits to save the world or to make a buck?
> Does the Fed (Greenspan, Ayn's student) take care of the banking industry for the sake of all or to make a buck?


Yeah.  These enterprises EXPLOIT the concept of ALTRUISM.
THIS IS RAND'S POINT.
If the individual is taught that his Rights and interests are SECONDARY, then who's needs are PRIMARY?

----------


## moostraks

> Yeah.  These enterprises EXPLOIT the concept of ALTRUISM.
> THIS IS RAND'S POINT.
> If the individual is taught that his Rights and interests are SECONDARY, then who's needs are PRIMARY?


Maybe the book wouldn't suck so bad if I wasn't already aware of the premise she is trying to promote? So instead it is just a dull book with flat characters which just reiterates something I am well aware of and takes a hell of a long time getting there.

----------


## moostraks

> To paraphrase the quote: great minds enjoy fiction about ideas, average minds enjoy stories about events, and small minds enjoy character development. :-)...


Says the "writer" who has an idea to share but no skill at weaving a story  if someone wants to share an idea and sucks at character development then don't waste my time making it fiction. Cut the crap and share the idea. For goodness sake don't make it the size of the NYC phone book and make me endure 3 hours alone of one character beating me over the head with the theory being promoted because you think I am a complete moron...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why do those have to be mutally exclusive?  How much of the literary canon of enduring classics (i.e. the sort of stuff you'd find in collections like Encyclopedia Britannica's Great Books)has no or poor character development?  (or perhaps that is internet sarcasm that is escaping my detector?)


Either way, you make a good point.  All 3 categories can fit into one, so it doesn't necessarily mean a story about an idea without any substance and shallow characters is enjoyable.  Quite the opposite, I would argue.  Rand's problem is that she tried to write a story about an idea but her story was poorly developed and her characters were shallow.  If someone doesn't enjoy a story about an idea that lacks all other facets of a good work of fiction, does that mean their mind is not great?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> I understand the point you are making, but:
> 
> Is Haliburton in the war to bring our troops home and to keep us safe or to make a buck?
> Did the insurance companies force through Obamacare because they care for the health of others or do they want to make a buck?
> Does Al Gore like carbon credits to save the world or to make a buck?
> Does the Fed (Greenspan, Ayn's student) take care of the banking industry for the sake of all or to make a buck?


I think that Al Gore, for one, may very well believe in all the environmental doomsdayism he is crusading about.  So there's one, at least out of those four.  You seemed to be asserting that it is not realistic to have a character like Jim Taggart -- that portraying a character who is a businessman with altruistic/humanitarian ideals and motives and who believes in statism is just impossible to believe, not in the realm of reality, because in the real world there aren't any people like that.

I was just contradicting that assertion that I perceived with my own: there really do exist many people, including many businessmen, who have truly bought into various ideologies and are doing what they do and running their businesses in accordance with those values in order to help improve the world.  "Green Business."  "Sustainability."  "Social Entrepreneurship."

And there's an element of truth and rightness in that.  You _should_ be living your life and running your business according to your principles.  That's why Francisco and John majored in physics _and_ philosophy.  There _should_ be an underlying reason.  You and your company _should_ have an agenda.  You and your company _should_ be trying to dent the Universe.  People joke, but your grocery store _should_ have a philosophy and a mission.  It's just that many of the values and beliefs currently in vogue happen to be rubbish.

Altruism is one of those values.

People are complex.  Not all the bad guys in the world are insincere.  Not all are purely mercurial.  Crafting a bad guy like Jim Taggart who is sincere and humanitarian and who in any other book would probably be considered good-hearted is a good thing, not bad.  Having multi-dimensional characters that make you think is a good thing.  So many are complaining the characters are too shallow; perhaps really they are too deep for you.

----------


## otherone

> So many are complaining the characters are too shallow; perhaps really they are too deep for you.


...or simply not Christian enough.

IRT "Altruism", this is what Rand was against:

----------


## moostraks

> People are complex.  Not all the bad guys in the world are insincere.  Not all are purely mercurial.  Crafting a bad guy like Jim Taggart who is sincere and humanitarian and who in any other book would probably be considered good-hearted is a good thing, not bad.  Having multi-dimensional characters that make you think is a good thing.  So many are complaining the characters are too shallow; perhaps really they are too deep for you.


*Spoiler alert*

























Jim Taggart slapped the crap out of his wife because she did not worship him and drove her to suicide after he had an affair with the wife of a man he resented in some pathetic effort to grab a piece of Rearden's manliness (intelligence and creative genius) which his wife respected. He only married his wife because he wanted someone who would not outshine him and he thought she would mindlessly buy his hero status that he farmed off to her regarding the railroad, which she initially did. Good hearted? He was a completely narcissistic cad and a womanizer. And he wasn't a humanitarian. He didn't care. He went through the motions of life. Like most of the antagonists in the story he was rudderless. He had a career and no purpose except to be a player at both manipulating the system and women for personal gain.

Now, I have been mulling over Rand's choice of flat characters and think it was completely intentional for the purpose of the book. Most of the characters are flat, thoughtless, colorless but that is the point she is trying to make yet even her heroes and heroine lack much luster. It  makes the book difficult to get into when a person is looking for a soul within the protagonist to connect to since it is fiction. But after mulling over it, I think she played off the book the way she did to make a point. Maybe I am giving her too much credit? I guess I will have to read The Fountainhead to compare.

And as for Gore, someone capable of chastising others for their choices should have been well capable of walking the talk rather than looking into green energy credits when he was being criticized for his hypocrisy. 




> Al Gore has spoken: The world must embrace a "carbon-neutral lifestyle." To do otherwise, he says, will result in a cataclysmic catastrophe. "Humanity is sitting on a ticking time bomb," warns the website for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. "We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."...
> 
> But according to public records, there is no evidence that Gore has signed up to use green energy in either of his large residences. When contacted Wednesday, Gore's office confirmed as much but said the Gores were looking into making the switch at both homes. Talk about inconvenient truths.
> 
> 
> Living carbon-neutral apparently doesn't mean living oil-stock free. Nor does it necessarily mean giving up a mining royalty either.
> 
> Humanity might be "sitting on a ticking time bomb," but Gore's home in Carthage is sitting on a zinc mine. Gore receives $20,000 a year in royalties from Pasminco Zinc, which operates a zinc concession on his property. Tennessee has cited the company for adding large quantities of barium, iron and zinc to the nearby Caney Fork River.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/...re-green_x.htm

Or there is this article by a former supporter turned critic:




> ...Gore has vilified fossil fuel usage for decades. In his new book, he writes Virtually every news and political commentary program on television is sponsored in part by oil, coal and gas companies  not just during campaign seasons, but all the time, year in and year out  with messages designed to soothe and reassure the audience that everything is fine, the global environment is not threatened.
> 
> But what did Gore turn around and do? He sold his Current TV network to Al Jazeera for $500 million. Gore reportedly pocketed $100 million, and in another widely reported story he is alleged to have pushed to get the transaction completed before higher tax rates kicked in on January 1 of this year.
> 
> So whats the problem? The problem is that Al Jazeera is funded by Qatar, which receives the bulk of its wealth from fossil fuels...
> 
> Al Gores activism has been a money maker on a tremendous scale. He has made a mint selling indulgences  er, I mean carbon offsets  and in some cases even sold them to himself in order to claim that his (very high) carbon footprint was neutral. So while hes busy taking the high road telling people what to do, he himself not only goes and profits off of that (creates network, sells it) but his profit comes from the very same people/industry he built his reputation on by vilifying and imploring people to avoid...


http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-Ge...sil-Fuels.html

If you believe what you say then your actions are consistent with your words. You don't scramble to cover bases later on or brush of criticism because it is from the little people, and what do they know. Gore has a list of reasons why he is excused from behavior he ridicules others over. Gore, like Jim Taggart, is no humanitarian.

----------


## Southron

I didn't have too much trouble getting through Atlas Shrugged.  It was so unlike anything else I had read that it kept me interested.  I can't say that I agree with Ayn Rand on much of anything, though.

----------


## TommyJeff

The OP (years ago) talked about not being able to keep focus, I was the opposite and couldn't put it down. I read it three times.   Is anyone else in this camp?

----------

