I have yet to read any of Ayn Rand’s books but no doubt her novels were a way of illustrating her philosophy. I have skimmed into the philosophy of Objectivism and one positive thing that i can see that it has achieved is destroying the immorality of profit, and that business and profit can even provide for things like healthcare and environmental issues which is seen by many as two things that should and can not mix.
I don’t like the term “we” in the title but whatev.
I consider Rand’s philosophy fairly good but it fails as a universal philosophy just like all other ethical systems inevitably do.
Her novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead are truly amazing works of fiction and should be read by every libertarian. By and large however those who proclaim themselves “objectivists” tend to be extremly close minded argumentative and dronelike, with a few amazing exceptions, for anyone who wants to see the glory in individuality Rand is certianly the best contemporary philosopher
Stick to Atlas Shrugged and possibly the Fountainhead and she is quite good.
Avoid most of her non fictions, they cover the stupid things of Objectivism.
Also, as I recall, she espouses less “Individual Rights, Property Rights, etc” and more “Great Men should be allowed to thrive”, which is slightly different. Also, her views on the military are kinda shaky (If a hypothetical Objectivist took power in the States, Iraq and Afghanistan would have still been invaded and held on to, but Iran would likely have been attacked as well. Furthermore, excessive force to drive out “collectivists” or the equivalent would be fully supported.)
Avoid most of her non fictions, they cover the stupid things of Objectivism.
Actually, two other people and I are discussing Rand’s objective theory of value. On the surface, it seems similar to the subjective theory of value, only she perceives the subjective theory of value to as an assertion that value prescribed to something by an individual is arbitrary, whereas in her own philosophy it is based on objective philosophies. Honestly, it’s more than I care to know (and my understanding of objectivism is extremely shaky, anyways).
I have yet to read her novels also (they’re so long!), although I’ve read a lot about her.
On iTunes University if you search for “freedom the one way out” you’ll find a speech that Murray Rothbard’s wife, JoAnn gave in 1996 titled “The Good Life of Murray N. Rothbard” (he died in 1995). You can also listen to the speech on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbBcInM1-Zg
She describes the “falling out” Rothbard had with Rand and the Objectivists after they accused him of plagiarizing their ideas. The claims were ridiculous. For example, Rand said she thought up the idea that a baby shouldn’t be given a gun because it has no knowledge of how dangerous guns are.
The point is that the speech reveals how intoloerant and close-minded Rand and her Objectivist followers could be. I’ve listened to interviews where Rand bashes the libertarian movement for stealing her ideas.
Another funny thing about Ayn Rand is that she played the role of the “man” in her relationships. Listen to Jeff Riggenbach’s “A History of Ayn Rand” here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OefSq0cd2dQ or on iTunes.
Finally, it is widely known that Rand was an atheist who hated religion and religious people, or at least thought they were stupid. Another reason why I don’t think she was a great person.
All this being said, she was a brilliant thinker and writer who educated millions of people and helped shape the anti-state movement. I am definitely going to read her books.
My wife, who does not enjoy American politics or other subjects outside of fiction, finally read Atlas Shrugged and has now begun asking all types of intro level questions on philosophy and government intervention. So, there is appeal in her novels.
i guess people can pick at rand-ology/ism but the atlas shrugged novel to me is good. especially on audio book.
capitalistic drama…it is different than teh dragony-fantasy, cop stories or clancy stuff. the story sort of holds a place of its own.
economic epics to me make good reading or listening
Her fiction is poor. I’d suggest reading her work if it wasn’t five times longer than it ought to be; skip it.
my opinion on rand? pretty good for a girl.
I came upon objectivism after I was a blue-blooded praxeologist/Rothbardian…so it seemed more than a little flimsy. though I agree with Rand on quite a few things, her rational philosophy seems less like the solid logic of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe but more like a social science grad student’s just-so theories.
I’m currently reading Atlas Shrugged. if she would get past her redundant bullshit the book would be half its length. ‘a man is a moral actor. a moral actor is man. man is a thinking being and his morality stems from his thinking. by thinking man is moral. immorality is a man who refuses to think. evil is immorality. evil men are those who are not moral actors.’ AD INFINITUM. this isn’t a chain of carefully laid logic, it’s just repeating the same shit over and over again. reading the first 150+ pages of Human Action and then having to sit through rand is unbearable.
as far as it as a story, it’s pretty good. if it were my first steps into free market fanaticism, I’d hold it in higher regard than I do…but…I read The Driver first. rand’s work is known for it’s speeches: roark’s courtroom speech, galt’s speech (which is ok), rearden’s courtroom speech (which is quite good). but all of these pale next to Henry Galt’s congressional hearing (just as Atlas Shrugged pales in comparison to The Driver).
it’s a decent tool for the popularization of capitalism and setting the industrialist as the hero that he or she is. but it’s just not that great of a book, just as objectivism isn’t that great of a philosophy.
I love Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead, they’re top 5 favorites of mine.
On the subject of Atlas Shrugged, I liked it but she really overstated things.
John Galt’s Speech is WAY TO DAMN LONG.
“BLAH BLAH LOOTERS BLAH BLAH” (10 pages)
WHEN
“BLAH BLAH FREEDOM BLAH BLAH” (20 pages)
WILL
“BLAH BLAH OBJECTIVE VALUE BLAH BLAH”(30 pages)
THIS
“BLAH BLAH GOVERNMENT STUFF BLAH BLAH” (40 pages)
FUCKING
“BLAH BLAH ROBIN HOOD BLAH BLAH” (50 pages)
SPEECH
“BLAH BLAH REALITY IS REAL BLAH BLAH”(60 pages)
END
“BLAH BLAH FIGHT THE LOOTERS BLAH BLAH” (70 pages)
GOD
“BLAH BLAH MYSTICS OF MIND AND RELIGION BLAH BLAH” (80 pages)
DAMN
“BLAH BLAH MYSTICS OF MUSCLE AND SOCIALISM BLAH BLAH” (90 pages)
IT
“BLAH BLAH PRODUCERS AND GREAT MEN BLAH BLAH” (100 pages)
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
“BLAH BLAH SUPPORT OBJECTIVISTS TODAY BLAH BLAH” (110 pages!!)
brain explodes
Seriously though, that speech IS TOO GOD DAMN LONG. She repeats the same stuff OVER and OVER and OVER. She could have EASILY made it 10 or at least 20 pages if she didn’t just reword stuff and say it again. Anyway, how the hell did John Galt say that whole speech without pausing for breath or fainting due to a lack of air? When you say it out loud, it is something like 5 hours long. Does he have Godly lungs?
Liked the parts where the characters were not speeching, lecturing, or hammering down points. Ayn Rand did a great job of actually saying what those sort of people say while tearing it down. Though I did like the Hank Rearden Trial speech and the D’Ancona Party speech.
I have to say that Garet Garett’s The Driver is a much more readable introduction to the capitalist ideal and concept of a great man. His writing style is incredibly nuanced and descriptive and you really get to know (and like) Henry Galt the man and railroad industrialist. In short, it’s an enjoyable read that evokes 1920s New York.
Contrast to Rand’s Atlas Shrugged which is purely a vehicle for Objectivism with some fictional story tacked on. The philosophic element is delivered with all the grace of a hammer hitting you in the face repeatedly, in my opinion. That’s not to say that her philosophy is bad from a libertarian perspective, but her style has less literary merit than The Driver.
Rand was not a fan of anarchy, and hence not a fan of AnCap. She believed in limited government.
Rand should’ve stopped making novels after We The Living, which I think is more of an earnest literary effort (unconicidentally also somewhat auto-biographical).
Everything afterwards that was called “a novel” was really just Objectivist soapboxing (although the movie version proves there is a good story in Fountainhead). It’s partially hilarious to read her advice in her twin books on writing fiction & non-fiction, but she brings up good points ocassionally when she doesn’t go off into self-righteous tangents.
I would respect AS as source material if they ever made a HBO mini-series a’la John Adams out of it. Chances are they would be competent enough to get the story out of the philisophical abyss, while retaining the relevant portions of Rand’s Objectivist influence in the writing.
She was a fan of voluntary government… whatever that is.
I’ve read one of her guides to writing and she has relatively good advice with a side-order of ‘angry preaching’, heh.
However I’m not convinced that her works could be translated into modern TV dramas without the studio’s temptation to present the good parts of her philosophy into a screed against individualism et al. Just look at what the game Bioshock did…
And I’ll also add (to the other posters) that not all libertarians are of the anarcho-capitalist persuasion. Mises himself was not – should that invalidate everything he subsequently achieved?
Can those who rate Rand’s novels please post your top 5 fiction works so I can get a handle on what type of the books you like in general?
“I would respect AS as source material if they ever made a HBO mini-series a’la John Adams out of it. Chances are they would be competent enough to get the story out of the philisophical abyss, while retaining the relevant portions of Rand’s Objectivist influence in the writing.”
‘AS’ would make a great HBO mini-series! Some friends and I were talking about this earlier this week and trying to think of the best actors to fit the roles.
If you’re already a libertarian, you don’t need to bother reading Atlas Shrugged. You won’t find any new groundbreaking ideas, just an entertaining story.
Although she was an extremely gifted storyteller, what Rand was not good at was integrating the story with her moralizing (and moralize she does). Think of C.S. Lewis, for example, how skillfully he was able to weave the story and the moral together, relying heavily on symbolism to make his point. Rand, on the other hand, comes across as awkward, relying mostly on characters speeches for the moral. The previously mentioned John Galt speech is a perfect example.
“Hello, this is John Galt speaking, and I am going to give a 4 hour long speech so boring that your eyes will glaze over…..” Seriously, if you are already familiar with Objectivism, you can skip that entire speech and not miss anything!
“John Galt’s Speech is WAY TO DAMN LONG.”
QFT!!!
I remember finding out how many pages it was and calculating it out once and it was something like out of a 1200 page book, if you were to randomly select 12 pages then one of them would be Galt’s speech. Seriously, ONE TWELTH OF A BOOK LONGER THAN THE SIZE OF THE BIBLE IS A SINGLE SPEECH!!!
Whenever I talk to anyone about Atlas Shrugged my first piece of advice is, if they ever meet any of the characters, to RUN. Run as fast as you can upon sight unless you want your decaying corpse to be found on the ground next to where you died of starvation after listening to one of their 2 week monolouges.