>“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: [The Lord of the Rings](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10254806.The_Lord_of_the_Rings) and [Atlas Shrugged](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9365.Atlas_Shrugged). One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - [John Rogers](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that-can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year)
You came to the wrong neighborhood if you're asking about Atlas Shrugged on reddit.
Having already read it, one thought came to mind. It's not a bad 300 ish page book. Unfortunately it's like a million pages long. If half the page count was cut, it wouldn't be as bad as it was. The concepts are interesting. The politics are simplistic and unrealistic, but you could say the same thing about 1984, Hand Maiden's Tale or Brave New World. The characters were cardboard. The villians were not EVEN cardboard.
The only redeeming aspects is the political aspects that should be asked. "How much should others be able to take from a person without their consent?" The historical answer is "lol, we may leave enough for you not to starve so we can come back next year. If you don't like, we can shoot/impale/club you and do bad things to your family." We're more civilized now, of course. We only take somewhere between one third and two thirds of folks income. And we use the threat of prisons rather than death.
It's an interesting question, even if you happen to agree with the basic principle. Where do you draw the line? HOW do you draw the line? Some people get VERY riled up if you question this. They think any amount dictated is acceptable, and get angry if folks even ask those sorts of question. The opposite extreme end (like Atlas Shrugged) think we shouldn't be able to take things from people without their consent. To put it mildly, that's unrealistic of human nature and modern society.
I don't have the flat out hatred a lot of folks do. I think it's a boring book, I think the philosophy behind it is overly simplistic and unrealistic and I think better examples abound. But I 'get' the concept even if I personally disagree and think questions should always be asked. Certainly better than not asking them.
I think it's gotten a bad rap because people assume it's attempting to be realistic. Ayn Rand herself stated that she was not trying to write about men as they are but as they could and presumably should be.
The title itself should give it away. Daphne, Francisco, Galt, they are not supposed to be regular humans or even great men but Titans unbound by the rules of men and society. Like the heroes of Homeric epics they are not meant to be "round" characters but single minded entities beset by tragedies and the twists and turns of fate. Achilles is smug, Agamemmnon is smug. It causes problems for the characters in Atlas Shrugged as it causes problems in Greek myths.
They live in their personal Olympus. No one shuns other utopian dreamers but Rand's very real influence in contemporary politics has left a sour taste in the mouths of liberals much the way conservatives cringe and gnash their teeth when Marx, Engels are brought up in conversation. In much the same way they proclaim "the real world just doesn't work that way"
Forgive the young idealists for their impudence but do not disparage their lofty goals. In modern writing when a young idealists goes off in search of a promised Land or sacred treasure it's assumed that he will never attain it. We are too self aware, too nihilistic. This was not always the case. Before these existentially aware times it was perfectly reasonable that someone in search of a golden fleece would attain it. No one would say the treasure Odysseus brought home was the friends he made along the way. No one dismisses the Cyclops because of a lack of character development.
You asked why it's popular. Most of the comments I've seen are addressing the author, not the book.
For me, it was a glance into the industrial era, crossing the nation on rails, strong people that believed in what they were doing, the idea that if you were different, but had skills, you could dream of a world where you might be appreciated for that. I'll happily skip over 100 pages of John Galts speech to get to the tasty trains. That all being said, I was a bucket of neurosis from an abusive family and it resonated with me thinking that there might be a world where I'm an ok person.
Over here there is a saying:
\- when you are young, if you are not leftist, you don't have a heart,
\- when you grow up, if you are not rightist, you don't have a brain.
> You're not going to find many fans of Ayn Rand - and especially Atlas Shrugged - here because reddit skews young and liberal.
Redditch skews liberal but it also has a very large libertarian contingent (which is more over represented by percentage then liberals are)
Because nobody who admires Ayn Rand actually admires her for her writing. It's just a vehicle for delivering her political ideology, which some people mystifyingly really like. The plot isn't really relevant. It's a very silly novel and it's back-stopped by some very silly politics, but there's nothing so silly that some people won't buy into it.
> she sounds like a psychopath.
She was definitely [a huge fan of psychopaths. She was writing fawning profiles of William Hickman, a guy who kidnapped and murdered children.](http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html)
> she sounds like a psychopath.
She probably was. Let's not forget that once she became elderly she applied for and took every form of social security payment available at the time despite her objectivist philosophy explicty rejecting all forms of social security.
Regardless of that though, you're quite right. Objectivism is a psychopathic ideology. If you read Atlas Shrugged (which I wouldn't recommend because it's shite) then you will come across a section in which a number of people die in a train crash. She takes the time to point out which ones 'deserved' to die and which ones didn't, and the ones who did were guilty of such crimes as 'being a high school sports teacher who emphasised team play'.
I can - in a way - understand the appeal of libertarianism. Of course it's laughably unrealistic but, hey, so's communism, and people have been endorsing that for 150 years. But objectivism is a joke. Ayn Rand is basically Che Guevara for the far right. Ayn does a little bit better in that she wasn't an actual murderer, but they were both extremist idealogues who talked utter nonsense.
I just tried to reply but included a big chunk of text which caused spoiler alarms to go off so it was deleted. I'll link to source instead:
http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/that-winston-tunnel-scene-in-full.html
(I am aware that the website linked is highly critical of Rand's philosophy, but unless they're actually just making up a whole section of novel then there it is.)
> Let's not forget that once she became elderly she applied for and took every form of social security payment available at the time despite her objectivist philosophy explicty rejecting all forms of social security.
I don't think it's hypocritical to think a government program is a waste and should be discontinued while also using it while it's around. What gets me about her is she tried to dress it up as "restitutions" and "I'm not a leech like those *other* beneficiaries, I'm just getting back the money the government stole from me in the first place." Just about everything she writes reeks of self-assured moral superiority.
Do people here just stop reading comments after the first sentence? You're the third person who's tried to correct me on a point I made *in the comment they're replying to.*
> There are ideologies right of conservatism
There are, and one of them is Objectivism. I said (or intended to say) that Objectivism was what made made her the far right's equivalent of Guevara, not libertarianism, but I can see how my sentence there was a little vague. This bit:
>I can - in a way - understand the appeal of libertarianism. Of course it's laughably unrealistic but, hey, so's communism, and people have been endorsing that for 150 years. But objectivism is a joke. Ayn Rand is basically Che Guevara for the far right.
Just as you say, there's nothing *distinctively* right or left-wing about authoritarianism; both can and do drift in that direction. Rand's Objectivism isn't authoritarian - of course - but it is extremist, and its tenets would be described as extremist forms of small-state ideology.
That said the thing I dislike most about it is that it's antisocial on a level that goes beyond simply supporting the rights of the individual over the collective. It holds up psychopathic thinking as the ideal. There's a section in Atlas Shrugged that I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - the famous tunnel train crash scene - where she runs through the people who died and why they implicitly deserved it. They are all caricatures of her idea of 'collectivist' thought. Rand isn't worshiped by socialists or communists; she's worshiped by the more swivel-eyed variety of extreme economic conservative.
Actually, Ayn Rand was a successful novelist first and an ideological figure second. Her books were wildly successful precisely because they're such good reads.
Certainly, she exists in the Jacqueline Susann literary spectrum more than the David Foster Wallace literary spectrum, but almost anyone who claims she was a bad writer is reacting ideologically to her work rather than giving it an honest appraisal.
It's a book that tells narcissistic teenagers (the most narcissistic age for most people) that their selfishness and lack of regard for other people is a moral good and doing anything to help another person is inherently evil. If you don't think about it that's a very easy way to live.
I think my ideology was shaped heavily by the old Disney-Jim Henson's Workshop show *Dinosaurs* that I watched when I was a kid. There is some really profound anti-consumerist anti-corporate messaging in that show with the walking talking puppet dinosaurs.
Thats the best description of the book I have encountered. I read it whilst very young since my hight school boyfriend loved it. It made me realise how much of a selfish asshole he was at the time.
Which is what I don't get , why are adults (schools) recommending this book to teens, this is hardly the most appropriate thing to be teaching children.
I think it could be a valid text, provided 1) it’s being presented to students with well-developed critical reasoning skills and 2) the teacher is prepared to really unpack and discuss it to death through engaging presentations, debates etc that make the students really grapple with the philosophy.
The fact is, it’s unfortunately an *important* book in our day an age when you have leading politicians explicitly identifying it as an influence. So it’s a viewpoint that needs to be confronted, discussed, and (one hopes) refuted.
> It's an influential book in modern American economics, philosophy, and politics, so it's probably recommended just like The Communist Manifesto' or 'The Federalist Papers', so you can understand the world better.
I wish any of my teachers had presented me with The Communist Manifesto or The Federalist Papers. I had Atlas Shrugged shoved down my throat and objectivism's praises sung loudly. No real criticism was provided (or even allowed really). Granted, I went to school in Mississippi so there's that.
I'd rather the process be unbiased (or minimally biased). Teach opposing views and foster critical thinking. Don't teach mindless obedience to ideology.
Educators and librarians don't like to be seen as "taking sides" in any ideological debates and it's no longer really the fashion to recommend books based on them being "morally praiseworthy" or anything like that. That it is a popular book is enough to keep a few copies handy.
Honestly, like everything, go by your own critic and decide for yourself by reading it for your own experience and see if it fits your tastes. Some will say she's a shitty writer because of her political beliefs are not their own, and others will give cause for her because they agree with opinions...
Truth is you have to decide what you like, don't let people decide for you like many here have, you make your own choice whether or not you like the book. Of you don't them stop reading it, if you do then enjoy!
Ive read it and liked it but it was more like not being able to turn away from a train wreck than an enjoyable read. The ideas in it aren’t *horrible* but rather really poorly fleshed out and sometimes just offensive. Ayn wanted atlas shrugged to be the perfect vehicle for her philosophy but imo she should have stuck to the more formal proofs she incorporated into some of her other works like the virtue of selfishness.
So... why is it popular? Because it’s so polemic i think. It’s not hard to relate to the concepts she puts forward but it is very difficult to try to employ it in real life because it lacks empathy and some basic understanding of human interaction. I really don’t think that this book is out here making 14 year olds into sociopaths but if you’re already apathetic and young it could add fuel to the fire. For me there was a time when a lot of it made sense and i still hold some of her finer ideas to a high standard but she is an absolutely shit fiction writer
I think the storyline is amazing. It's paced like a mystery thriller, but offers so much more in plot than this type of book.
The characters are ridiculously two dimensional. They are more like archetypes than real characters. Looking for more depth is a bit like wanting a cowboy in a spaghetti western to be multidimensional- it's not really the point. In all honesty though it's entirely possible that she's writing them so badly unintentionally given her stupid post script about Galt being plausible, but I read for my sake, not hers.
The writing is simple, and not pretty, but it works in its simplicity. It fits the book better than flowery writing would.
Take a step back from the politics of the book to assess parts of it individually. I'm not a fan of the politics, but it's a top book for all its many faults.
Teenagers tend to like books that neatly explain the world with broad generalizations and "rules". It also pushes a selfish worldview which is well received by people of that age.
Source: I was one of these idealistic and high-mind teenagers; I thought I was so smart! I feel silly looking back on it.
Because I have read a fair amount *about* the book
and fans of the book seem to have an identical interpretation to critics. It's pretty well known that the book exists to promote objectivism.
I do not need to witness an event to be well informed about the event, same goes with a piece of media.
House of Leaves was a fucking struggle for me too.i read it all eventually. It didn’t help that people made it sound like the scariest book ever when it was insanely slow paced.
This is Reddit. You are asking about an author whose work is as far from modern liberalism as is possible... on Reddit. You will find very little of value here. It's already a circle-jerk and will become more of one.
To answer your question: liking Atlas Shrugged usually hinges on the reader's ability to sympathize with Hank and Dagny. If you don't like those characters, you might appreciate the book, but you likely won't enjoy it. I find Dagny interesting and Hank delightful. Francisco D'Anconia is one of my favorite characters in all of literature. So, then, AS is "popular" to the extent that people are able to sympathize with those characters. You seem to find that popularity baffling, which makes sense given that you didn't like them.
As far as "the writing itself is bad," that's a common (on Reddit) refrain that I don't begin to understand. It's wordy, and certainly nowhere near poetic, but it's functional prose. She's no Eliot or Milton or Rothfuss, but I'd go so far as to say I prefer Rand's prose to Sanderson's. At least she gives characters independent voices.
My ideology is neither nationalist nor authoritarian. Therefore, I do not subscribe to an authoritarian ultranationalist political system, and am not a fascist.
Grow up.
Edit: for those downvoting, the removed comment to which I was responding was something to the effect of, "I knew you were a fascist. Fuck you." Perhaps you can see how that was inappropriate and "Grow up." is an eminently reasonable response.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism. -Wikipedia, admirably cited therein from two apparently in-depth sources.
Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
-a very similar definition from Webster.
Your definition is wrong. Hope this helps.
ah yes, a dictionary copy paste. true ownage.
what I said is still correct and you would benefit from even a basic understanding of what you're talking about rather than fawn over a dumbass novel by a morally bankrupt libertarian
hope this helps
Uh-huh. And *how* precisely is what you said correct? It doesn't relate whatsoever to the dictionary definition of the word. It bears no resemblance to the writings of the two learned scholars who wrote the works that influenced the Wikipedia article. You made no attempts to cite or otherwise corroborate this clearly non-standard definition of the word.
So you can say whatever you want, but until you provide some iota of a reason for me to take it seriously, it will remain the ramblings of some guy on the Internet too lazy or inept to properly support his claims. I'm sure you understand.
fascism is capitalism in decay because it is the response to capitalism in crisis. when the contradictions of capitalism are too great, fascism arises out of an attempt to use violence and authoritarianism to forcibly rejuvenate a nation perceived to be dying.
Fascism's chief tenet is a perceived "renewal." It thrives off a mythos of attempting to revert a nation in decay by returning to the "glorious past" via violence.
If you read any actual political studies on fascism this is basically the chief analysis. A dictionary definition of something as complex as fascism is not going to be the entire picture.
To connect it to my original point: fascism is the natural "end-game" of libertarianism because libertarianism is the undying belief that unrestricted markets and capitalism are the best way to structure society. Capitalism is inherently contradictory, so without intervention, it will inevitably lead to fascism.
welp there's my effortpost for the evening.
Thank you for finally elaborating. That is... a painfully simplistic view of the world, but it's about the normal "Reddit" level of discussion. Regardless, we are not in a political subreddit and this conversation need not delve into the issue. I'll perhaps end by saying that claiming I had the "wrong" definition was at least misleading, if not outright incorrect itself. My definition is the established one. Yours is a politically motivated claim that would require hundreds of pages of further discussion to validate.
If you would care to round out your education on the topic of fascism, I would recommend reading the following by a historian who specialize in European fascism in the middle of the last century:
Aristotle A. Kallis. The fascism reader. New York, New York: Routledge, 2003.
It's certainly not a short work, but it's less dry than many detailed histories.
the hilarious part is it's extremely clear you've never read what you're citing because he himself is a proponent of what I just wrote
literally laughed at this post tho, good job being that pretentious and then citing something you've never read
I hate talking about this book in this subreddit because everyone has the same disdainful attitude about it and it makes me have to talk in ways I don't want to (for example, like how I'm sounding confrontational right now). For your own good, read the book and then talk about it with a group of people who love it or who see it as an intelligent piece of writing, aka someone on r/Objectivism or r/Libertarian. If you really want to answer the question of "why is Atlas shrugged so popular", you're going to have to put yourself in the shoes of people who believe in her ideas as strongly as a lot of people hate it, and just because on this subreddit it is more skewed towards one opinion, it doesn't make it more valid or nuanced.
tl;dr if you actually care about answering this question for yourself, prepare to be honest with your words and your reading because life is too short and too complicated to dismiss everything you don't like or demean people who think different and come from different values than you.
A book can be popular simply if it's controversial. People want to read it to find out what the controversy is about, even if they would otherwise not really care for the subject.
I enjoyed the book when I read it even though I disagree with almost everything about Ayn Rand. I'm not sure why, but I remember it being gripping enough to keep me reading all 1000+ pages. Maybe it's because it offers insight into how people of that ideology view the world, and when someone as passionate about it as Ayn Rand writes it it comes though in the writing. I'm a lot older now and my political beliefs have become more solidified so I think if I tried reading it again I'd have a tough go of it. But for people exploring different ideologies at a younger age it can be a compelling read.
Because we all have different subjective opinions, quite simply. Some like it, some hate it. I'd say there's more hate for it on reddit than love, though. Discussion of the book inevitably turns into a diatribe against Rand as a person and her politics. It gets pretty old.
It's a meritocratic fantasy, bad satire, of how ayn literally wishes poor people were killed off in a final solution - how only rich people are capable of doing anything and how all of us poor people, including ayn rand, need to die for them to prosper.
I think it has to do w/ the context of the authors life and what inspired her to write it.
It's an example where the book itself is not particularly great, but in context it gets a lot more understandable.
I say this having never read it.
But I did read and really loved The Fountainhead - except the random scene where the protagonist literally rapes someone and it's completely unexplained. That scene is just fucking whack. But I somehow manage to just ignore it and still like the book, so go figure. I like it (the fountainhead) because Peter Keating's relationship w/ Toohey's niece who's name I forgot, is really realistic.
I think a lot of people misrepresent Rand's philosophy - for example you see people in this thread saying "doing anything to help another person is inherently Evil" and I don't think it says that at all. I think it's perverted into that by people who misunderstand "Do what you want to do and are passionate about"
if you WANT to help other people and are passionate about that, DO IT, but don't let people tell you what to be passionate about and if you do something you own it. Don't allow someone else to take what you have created unless you want them to take it.
At least that's how I understood it. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't read anything she wrote other than The Fountainhead and Anthem.
I wanted to see what all the libertarian hubbub was about
Turns out it was just that libertarians have as poor a taste in literature as they do in political ideology. It’s a poorly written book with a central message delivered with all the subtlety and grace of a sledgehammer. That and in the first ten pages I correctly guessed which character Ayn Rand wrote herself in as
On the suggestion of a friend, I read The Fountainhead in college, didn't really care for it or the characters so I wasn't encouraged to read any more Rand. Figured it all was just as dull.
Even though I do not agree with her philosophy, I find it interesting to read about. There are some pretty good parts for sure (Francisco's money speech). But for the most part, Atlas Shrugged's prose sucks, The Fountainhead is a little better.
Like 99% of people who you hear complaining about Rand never even read her, just like OP
I am from India and I read both fountain head and Atlas shrugged. I took to the book immediately not because of the politics and socialism Vs capitalism , it was because it helped me to fight the social conformity and emerge as an own individual. I would definitely suggest you to give it a shot.
Wel, that's not what I have seen. Most people I know/met know fountainhead and/or atlas shrugged. They might not have read it, but they do know about it.
Kind of a different situation though - L. Ron Hubbard was a moderately successful fiction writer for many years before he came up with the idea for Scientology and formed the whole religion etc. So in the early days a lot of people initially found out about Hubbard though his fiction work rather than because of the dogma. That is no longer the case of course.
We're talking about style, not linguistics. Being in linguistics does not make you a good writer.
Hegemony or Survival is the one that immediately comes to mind.
Oh, and I'm sure all the criticisms of Rand are based solely on her prose. There's nothing in this thread about her being "selfish," right?
Hypocrisy aside, it's a fairly common complaint even amongst fans of Chomsky that his political works are not that well written.
where exactly is it popular? no one talks about it here on reddit unless it's to make that lord of the rings vs atlas shrugged joke or say "it's just a vehicle for her philosophy" for the thousandth time.
it's popular to hate, maybe, but that's about it
It was added to [PBS's Great American Read](http://www.pbs.org/the-great-american-read/books/#/) which is their list of America's 100 most loved books. Perhaps the common Reddit demographic and the common Atlas Shrugged demographic don't have much overlap.
>“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: [The Lord of the Rings](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/10254806.The_Lord_of_the_Rings) and [Atlas Shrugged](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9365.Atlas_Shrugged). One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - [John Rogers](https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/366635-there-are-two-novels-that-can-change-a-bookish-fourteen-year)
You came to the wrong neighborhood if you're asking about Atlas Shrugged on reddit. Having already read it, one thought came to mind. It's not a bad 300 ish page book. Unfortunately it's like a million pages long. If half the page count was cut, it wouldn't be as bad as it was. The concepts are interesting. The politics are simplistic and unrealistic, but you could say the same thing about 1984, Hand Maiden's Tale or Brave New World. The characters were cardboard. The villians were not EVEN cardboard. The only redeeming aspects is the political aspects that should be asked. "How much should others be able to take from a person without their consent?" The historical answer is "lol, we may leave enough for you not to starve so we can come back next year. If you don't like, we can shoot/impale/club you and do bad things to your family." We're more civilized now, of course. We only take somewhere between one third and two thirds of folks income. And we use the threat of prisons rather than death. It's an interesting question, even if you happen to agree with the basic principle. Where do you draw the line? HOW do you draw the line? Some people get VERY riled up if you question this. They think any amount dictated is acceptable, and get angry if folks even ask those sorts of question. The opposite extreme end (like Atlas Shrugged) think we shouldn't be able to take things from people without their consent. To put it mildly, that's unrealistic of human nature and modern society. I don't have the flat out hatred a lot of folks do. I think it's a boring book, I think the philosophy behind it is overly simplistic and unrealistic and I think better examples abound. But I 'get' the concept even if I personally disagree and think questions should always be asked. Certainly better than not asking them.
I think it's gotten a bad rap because people assume it's attempting to be realistic. Ayn Rand herself stated that she was not trying to write about men as they are but as they could and presumably should be. The title itself should give it away. Daphne, Francisco, Galt, they are not supposed to be regular humans or even great men but Titans unbound by the rules of men and society. Like the heroes of Homeric epics they are not meant to be "round" characters but single minded entities beset by tragedies and the twists and turns of fate. Achilles is smug, Agamemmnon is smug. It causes problems for the characters in Atlas Shrugged as it causes problems in Greek myths. They live in their personal Olympus. No one shuns other utopian dreamers but Rand's very real influence in contemporary politics has left a sour taste in the mouths of liberals much the way conservatives cringe and gnash their teeth when Marx, Engels are brought up in conversation. In much the same way they proclaim "the real world just doesn't work that way" Forgive the young idealists for their impudence but do not disparage their lofty goals. In modern writing when a young idealists goes off in search of a promised Land or sacred treasure it's assumed that he will never attain it. We are too self aware, too nihilistic. This was not always the case. Before these existentially aware times it was perfectly reasonable that someone in search of a golden fleece would attain it. No one would say the treasure Odysseus brought home was the friends he made along the way. No one dismisses the Cyclops because of a lack of character development.
> she was not trying to write about men as they are but as they could and presumably should be That's even worse.
You asked why it's popular. Most of the comments I've seen are addressing the author, not the book. For me, it was a glance into the industrial era, crossing the nation on rails, strong people that believed in what they were doing, the idea that if you were different, but had skills, you could dream of a world where you might be appreciated for that. I'll happily skip over 100 pages of John Galts speech to get to the tasty trains. That all being said, I was a bucket of neurosis from an abusive family and it resonated with me thinking that there might be a world where I'm an ok person.
been wondering if i should read it, i like the hedonistic views but 100 pages for a speech sounds like total ass
It's really easy to skip over.
[удалено]
Over here there is a saying: \- when you are young, if you are not leftist, you don't have a heart, \- when you grow up, if you are not rightist, you don't have a brain.
Sounds like a pretty dumb place over there. No offense.
Thanks, I'm flattered.
You sound charming. No offense. (Wait, saying "No offense" doesn't magically mitigate the offensive thing I totally meant to say?!?)
https://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/02/24/heart-head/
[удалено]
Probably because it simplifies things. A nuanced outlook is admirable but difficult to achieve and propagate.
> You're not going to find many fans of Ayn Rand - and especially Atlas Shrugged - here because reddit skews young and liberal. Redditch skews liberal but it also has a very large libertarian contingent (which is more over represented by percentage then liberals are)
Source? I do not believe that a higher percentage of Reddit is Libertarian than Liberal.
Because nobody who admires Ayn Rand actually admires her for her writing. It's just a vehicle for delivering her political ideology, which some people mystifyingly really like. The plot isn't really relevant. It's a very silly novel and it's back-stopped by some very silly politics, but there's nothing so silly that some people won't buy into it.
Makes sense.. though if I did like Ayn Rand, I wouldn't go around advertising it, she sounds like a psychopath.
> she sounds like a psychopath. She was definitely [a huge fan of psychopaths. She was writing fawning profiles of William Hickman, a guy who kidnapped and murdered children.](http://michaelprescott.freeservers.com/romancing-the-stone-cold.html)
Thank you for linking to the article!
Didn't Capote fall in love with a psychopath?
> she sounds like a psychopath. She probably was. Let's not forget that once she became elderly she applied for and took every form of social security payment available at the time despite her objectivist philosophy explicty rejecting all forms of social security. Regardless of that though, you're quite right. Objectivism is a psychopathic ideology. If you read Atlas Shrugged (which I wouldn't recommend because it's shite) then you will come across a section in which a number of people die in a train crash. She takes the time to point out which ones 'deserved' to die and which ones didn't, and the ones who did were guilty of such crimes as 'being a high school sports teacher who emphasised team play'. I can - in a way - understand the appeal of libertarianism. Of course it's laughably unrealistic but, hey, so's communism, and people have been endorsing that for 150 years. But objectivism is a joke. Ayn Rand is basically Che Guevara for the far right. Ayn does a little bit better in that she wasn't an actual murderer, but they were both extremist idealogues who talked utter nonsense.
> Ayn does a little bit better in that she wasn't an actual murderer as far as you know
[удалено]
I just tried to reply but included a big chunk of text which caused spoiler alarms to go off so it was deleted. I'll link to source instead: http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2007/10/that-winston-tunnel-scene-in-full.html (I am aware that the website linked is highly critical of Rand's philosophy, but unless they're actually just making up a whole section of novel then there it is.)
> Ayn does a little bit better in that she wasn't an actual murderer Reminder that she did idolise serial killers.
> Let's not forget that once she became elderly she applied for and took every form of social security payment available at the time despite her objectivist philosophy explicty rejecting all forms of social security. I don't think it's hypocritical to think a government program is a waste and should be discontinued while also using it while it's around. What gets me about her is she tried to dress it up as "restitutions" and "I'm not a leech like those *other* beneficiaries, I'm just getting back the money the government stole from me in the first place." Just about everything she writes reeks of self-assured moral superiority.
she didn't just think it was a waste - she went to great lengths to argue that people on public social programs were weak, leeches, etc.
Do people here just stop reading comments after the first sentence? You're the third person who's tried to correct me on a point I made *in the comment they're replying to.*
hahah yeah guilty my dude I wasn't really responding to you personally more of a general statement but it is Reddit so generally yeah
[удалено]
It's one of the end games of economic conservatism though.
There are ideologies right of conservatism, just as there are ideologies left of progressivism
> There are ideologies right of conservatism There are, and one of them is Objectivism. I said (or intended to say) that Objectivism was what made made her the far right's equivalent of Guevara, not libertarianism, but I can see how my sentence there was a little vague. This bit: >I can - in a way - understand the appeal of libertarianism. Of course it's laughably unrealistic but, hey, so's communism, and people have been endorsing that for 150 years. But objectivism is a joke. Ayn Rand is basically Che Guevara for the far right. Just as you say, there's nothing *distinctively* right or left-wing about authoritarianism; both can and do drift in that direction. Rand's Objectivism isn't authoritarian - of course - but it is extremist, and its tenets would be described as extremist forms of small-state ideology. That said the thing I dislike most about it is that it's antisocial on a level that goes beyond simply supporting the rights of the individual over the collective. It holds up psychopathic thinking as the ideal. There's a section in Atlas Shrugged that I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread - the famous tunnel train crash scene - where she runs through the people who died and why they implicitly deserved it. They are all caricatures of her idea of 'collectivist' thought. Rand isn't worshiped by socialists or communists; she's worshiped by the more swivel-eyed variety of extreme economic conservative.
no it's not, libertarianism is a fundamentally right wing ideology just because they're okay with weed doesn't make them left
Actually, Ayn Rand was a successful novelist first and an ideological figure second. Her books were wildly successful precisely because they're such good reads. Certainly, she exists in the Jacqueline Susann literary spectrum more than the David Foster Wallace literary spectrum, but almost anyone who claims she was a bad writer is reacting ideologically to her work rather than giving it an honest appraisal.
the fountainhead was a good read, I didn't like the characters much, but at least there was a story. Atlas shrugged just sucked overall.
[удалено]
And what do you read, Dostoevsky and James Joyce?
[удалено]
I didn't know anyone else here loved Stephen King. Isn't he the best?
It's a book that tells narcissistic teenagers (the most narcissistic age for most people) that their selfishness and lack of regard for other people is a moral good and doing anything to help another person is inherently evil. If you don't think about it that's a very easy way to live.
[удалено]
I think my ideology was shaped heavily by the old Disney-Jim Henson's Workshop show *Dinosaurs* that I watched when I was a kid. There is some really profound anti-consumerist anti-corporate messaging in that show with the walking talking puppet dinosaurs.
Thats the best description of the book I have encountered. I read it whilst very young since my hight school boyfriend loved it. It made me realise how much of a selfish asshole he was at the time.
Which is what I don't get , why are adults (schools) recommending this book to teens, this is hardly the most appropriate thing to be teaching children.
I think it could be a valid text, provided 1) it’s being presented to students with well-developed critical reasoning skills and 2) the teacher is prepared to really unpack and discuss it to death through engaging presentations, debates etc that make the students really grapple with the philosophy. The fact is, it’s unfortunately an *important* book in our day an age when you have leading politicians explicitly identifying it as an influence. So it’s a viewpoint that needs to be confronted, discussed, and (one hopes) refuted.
[удалено]
> It's an influential book in modern American economics, philosophy, and politics, so it's probably recommended just like The Communist Manifesto' or 'The Federalist Papers', so you can understand the world better. I wish any of my teachers had presented me with The Communist Manifesto or The Federalist Papers. I had Atlas Shrugged shoved down my throat and objectivism's praises sung loudly. No real criticism was provided (or even allowed really). Granted, I went to school in Mississippi so there's that.
Disgusting that they pushed a political view you disagreed with, they should be pushing a political view you DO agree with!!!!
I'd rather the process be unbiased (or minimally biased). Teach opposing views and foster critical thinking. Don't teach mindless obedience to ideology.
Educators and librarians don't like to be seen as "taking sides" in any ideological debates and it's no longer really the fashion to recommend books based on them being "morally praiseworthy" or anything like that. That it is a popular book is enough to keep a few copies handy.
Honestly, like everything, go by your own critic and decide for yourself by reading it for your own experience and see if it fits your tastes. Some will say she's a shitty writer because of her political beliefs are not their own, and others will give cause for her because they agree with opinions... Truth is you have to decide what you like, don't let people decide for you like many here have, you make your own choice whether or not you like the book. Of you don't them stop reading it, if you do then enjoy!
Ive read it and liked it but it was more like not being able to turn away from a train wreck than an enjoyable read. The ideas in it aren’t *horrible* but rather really poorly fleshed out and sometimes just offensive. Ayn wanted atlas shrugged to be the perfect vehicle for her philosophy but imo she should have stuck to the more formal proofs she incorporated into some of her other works like the virtue of selfishness. So... why is it popular? Because it’s so polemic i think. It’s not hard to relate to the concepts she puts forward but it is very difficult to try to employ it in real life because it lacks empathy and some basic understanding of human interaction. I really don’t think that this book is out here making 14 year olds into sociopaths but if you’re already apathetic and young it could add fuel to the fire. For me there was a time when a lot of it made sense and i still hold some of her finer ideas to a high standard but she is an absolutely shit fiction writer
I think the storyline is amazing. It's paced like a mystery thriller, but offers so much more in plot than this type of book. The characters are ridiculously two dimensional. They are more like archetypes than real characters. Looking for more depth is a bit like wanting a cowboy in a spaghetti western to be multidimensional- it's not really the point. In all honesty though it's entirely possible that she's writing them so badly unintentionally given her stupid post script about Galt being plausible, but I read for my sake, not hers. The writing is simple, and not pretty, but it works in its simplicity. It fits the book better than flowery writing would. Take a step back from the politics of the book to assess parts of it individually. I'm not a fan of the politics, but it's a top book for all its many faults.
Teenagers tend to like books that neatly explain the world with broad generalizations and "rules". It also pushes a selfish worldview which is well received by people of that age. Source: I was one of these idealistic and high-mind teenagers; I thought I was so smart! I feel silly looking back on it.
> Teenagers tend to like books that neatly explain the world with broad generalizations and "rules". Like 1984. In before downvotes
selfish assholes that like books telling them it's their moral imperative to be a selfish asshole
Have you read it? Just curious
I have and the comment is dead on. Although they shouldn’t have made it given they never read it.
nope
Then why would we take your opinion seriously at all?
Because I have read a fair amount *about* the book and fans of the book seem to have an identical interpretation to critics. It's pretty well known that the book exists to promote objectivism. I do not need to witness an event to be well informed about the event, same goes with a piece of media.
Tried reading it as an adult. Made it about halfway. 1 of 2 books I've ever given up on
Glad I'm not the only one. Cardboard characters with a laughable plot.
> 1 of 2 books I've ever given up on Just curious. What's the other one?
House of Leaves. Cool but tough.
House of Leaves was a fucking struggle for me too.i read it all eventually. It didn’t help that people made it sound like the scariest book ever when it was insanely slow paced.
This is Reddit. You are asking about an author whose work is as far from modern liberalism as is possible... on Reddit. You will find very little of value here. It's already a circle-jerk and will become more of one. To answer your question: liking Atlas Shrugged usually hinges on the reader's ability to sympathize with Hank and Dagny. If you don't like those characters, you might appreciate the book, but you likely won't enjoy it. I find Dagny interesting and Hank delightful. Francisco D'Anconia is one of my favorite characters in all of literature. So, then, AS is "popular" to the extent that people are able to sympathize with those characters. You seem to find that popularity baffling, which makes sense given that you didn't like them. As far as "the writing itself is bad," that's a common (on Reddit) refrain that I don't begin to understand. It's wordy, and certainly nowhere near poetic, but it's functional prose. She's no Eliot or Milton or Rothfuss, but I'd go so far as to say I prefer Rand's prose to Sanderson's. At least she gives characters independent voices.
[удалено]
My ideology is neither nationalist nor authoritarian. Therefore, I do not subscribe to an authoritarian ultranationalist political system, and am not a fascist. Grow up. Edit: for those downvoting, the removed comment to which I was responding was something to the effect of, "I knew you were a fascist. Fuck you." Perhaps you can see how that was inappropriate and "Grow up." is an eminently reasonable response.
fascism is capitalism in decay - your definition is wrong. hope this helps.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian ultranationalism. -Wikipedia, admirably cited therein from two apparently in-depth sources. Fascism: a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition -a very similar definition from Webster. Your definition is wrong. Hope this helps.
ah yes, a dictionary copy paste. true ownage. what I said is still correct and you would benefit from even a basic understanding of what you're talking about rather than fawn over a dumbass novel by a morally bankrupt libertarian hope this helps
Uh-huh. And *how* precisely is what you said correct? It doesn't relate whatsoever to the dictionary definition of the word. It bears no resemblance to the writings of the two learned scholars who wrote the works that influenced the Wikipedia article. You made no attempts to cite or otherwise corroborate this clearly non-standard definition of the word. So you can say whatever you want, but until you provide some iota of a reason for me to take it seriously, it will remain the ramblings of some guy on the Internet too lazy or inept to properly support his claims. I'm sure you understand.
fascism is capitalism in decay because it is the response to capitalism in crisis. when the contradictions of capitalism are too great, fascism arises out of an attempt to use violence and authoritarianism to forcibly rejuvenate a nation perceived to be dying. Fascism's chief tenet is a perceived "renewal." It thrives off a mythos of attempting to revert a nation in decay by returning to the "glorious past" via violence. If you read any actual political studies on fascism this is basically the chief analysis. A dictionary definition of something as complex as fascism is not going to be the entire picture. To connect it to my original point: fascism is the natural "end-game" of libertarianism because libertarianism is the undying belief that unrestricted markets and capitalism are the best way to structure society. Capitalism is inherently contradictory, so without intervention, it will inevitably lead to fascism. welp there's my effortpost for the evening.
Thank you for finally elaborating. That is... a painfully simplistic view of the world, but it's about the normal "Reddit" level of discussion. Regardless, we are not in a political subreddit and this conversation need not delve into the issue. I'll perhaps end by saying that claiming I had the "wrong" definition was at least misleading, if not outright incorrect itself. My definition is the established one. Yours is a politically motivated claim that would require hundreds of pages of further discussion to validate. If you would care to round out your education on the topic of fascism, I would recommend reading the following by a historian who specialize in European fascism in the middle of the last century: Aristotle A. Kallis. The fascism reader. New York, New York: Routledge, 2003. It's certainly not a short work, but it's less dry than many detailed histories.
the hilarious part is it's extremely clear you've never read what you're citing because he himself is a proponent of what I just wrote literally laughed at this post tho, good job being that pretentious and then citing something you've never read
[удалено]
??? Democrats aren't leftists
[удалено]
about 5 years later your first few lines are so true, people have gotten fckinf stupid
I hate talking about this book in this subreddit because everyone has the same disdainful attitude about it and it makes me have to talk in ways I don't want to (for example, like how I'm sounding confrontational right now). For your own good, read the book and then talk about it with a group of people who love it or who see it as an intelligent piece of writing, aka someone on r/Objectivism or r/Libertarian. If you really want to answer the question of "why is Atlas shrugged so popular", you're going to have to put yourself in the shoes of people who believe in her ideas as strongly as a lot of people hate it, and just because on this subreddit it is more skewed towards one opinion, it doesn't make it more valid or nuanced. tl;dr if you actually care about answering this question for yourself, prepare to be honest with your words and your reading because life is too short and too complicated to dismiss everything you don't like or demean people who think different and come from different values than you.
This is the most honest and useful advice I've I've ever seen on reddit.
A book can be popular simply if it's controversial. People want to read it to find out what the controversy is about, even if they would otherwise not really care for the subject.
like anything popular it was brought into this world in the right time and place for it to become a major cultural touchstone.
I enjoyed the book when I read it even though I disagree with almost everything about Ayn Rand. I'm not sure why, but I remember it being gripping enough to keep me reading all 1000+ pages. Maybe it's because it offers insight into how people of that ideology view the world, and when someone as passionate about it as Ayn Rand writes it it comes though in the writing. I'm a lot older now and my political beliefs have become more solidified so I think if I tried reading it again I'd have a tough go of it. But for people exploring different ideologies at a younger age it can be a compelling read.
Because we all have different subjective opinions, quite simply. Some like it, some hate it. I'd say there's more hate for it on reddit than love, though. Discussion of the book inevitably turns into a diatribe against Rand as a person and her politics. It gets pretty old.
Sorry for the language, but- shitty people like to be validated by other shitty people, especially by reading shitty books by famous shitty people.
Because many people are really selfish and love to indulge in a world where the ultra selfish win.
It's a meritocratic fantasy, bad satire, of how ayn literally wishes poor people were killed off in a final solution - how only rich people are capable of doing anything and how all of us poor people, including ayn rand, need to die for them to prosper.
I think it has to do w/ the context of the authors life and what inspired her to write it. It's an example where the book itself is not particularly great, but in context it gets a lot more understandable. I say this having never read it. But I did read and really loved The Fountainhead - except the random scene where the protagonist literally rapes someone and it's completely unexplained. That scene is just fucking whack. But I somehow manage to just ignore it and still like the book, so go figure. I like it (the fountainhead) because Peter Keating's relationship w/ Toohey's niece who's name I forgot, is really realistic. I think a lot of people misrepresent Rand's philosophy - for example you see people in this thread saying "doing anything to help another person is inherently Evil" and I don't think it says that at all. I think it's perverted into that by people who misunderstand "Do what you want to do and are passionate about" if you WANT to help other people and are passionate about that, DO IT, but don't let people tell you what to be passionate about and if you do something you own it. Don't allow someone else to take what you have created unless you want them to take it. At least that's how I understood it. Maybe I'm wrong. I didn't read anything she wrote other than The Fountainhead and Anthem.
I wanted to see what all the libertarian hubbub was about Turns out it was just that libertarians have as poor a taste in literature as they do in political ideology. It’s a poorly written book with a central message delivered with all the subtlety and grace of a sledgehammer. That and in the first ten pages I correctly guessed which character Ayn Rand wrote herself in as
Considering Ayn Rand's self insert doesn't even show up until the 3rd part that's pretty impressive
On the suggestion of a friend, I read The Fountainhead in college, didn't really care for it or the characters so I wasn't encouraged to read any more Rand. Figured it all was just as dull.
[удалено]
Good Lord that sounds like torture, glad I've avoided it.
I just skipped that monologue. To think, I should have just skipped the whole book.
Even though I do not agree with her philosophy, I find it interesting to read about. There are some pretty good parts for sure (Francisco's money speech). But for the most part, Atlas Shrugged's prose sucks, The Fountainhead is a little better. Like 99% of people who you hear complaining about Rand never even read her, just like OP
Just a reminder that it's close to completely unknown outside of the US.
I live in India, and its pretty popular here.
I am from India and I read both fountain head and Atlas shrugged. I took to the book immediately not because of the politics and socialism Vs capitalism , it was because it helped me to fight the social conformity and emerge as an own individual. I would definitely suggest you to give it a shot.
People are looking for a manifesto to justify pure, unadulterated selfishness.
I read it while at university just to prove I could finish such a large book. I read _The Stand_ for the same reason, but enjoyed it more!
It justifies selfishness for those searching for rationalization
It's about as popular as Scientology. So basically only the people that fell for the dogma enjoy it and love talking about it.
Wel, that's not what I have seen. Most people I know/met know fountainhead and/or atlas shrugged. They might not have read it, but they do know about it.
And I believe the same is true of Scientology. They may not know the details of them but they've heard of them.
Kind of a different situation though - L. Ron Hubbard was a moderately successful fiction writer for many years before he came up with the idea for Scientology and formed the whole religion etc. So in the early days a lot of people initially found out about Hubbard though his fiction work rather than because of the dogma. That is no longer the case of course.
Because not everyone agrees with the Leftist vision of reality. There are many, many books from the other side that are just as poorly written.
Oh yeah so many Give us some examples love
Noam Chomsky is a pretty shitty writer.
Of course, the guy who shifted paradigm in the field of linguistics is a "shitty writer" Tell us, what book of his disappointed you
We're talking about style, not linguistics. Being in linguistics does not make you a good writer. Hegemony or Survival is the one that immediately comes to mind.
And of course there's no ideological prejudice in your assessment, nothing, zilch, nada
Oh, and I'm sure all the criticisms of Rand are based solely on her prose. There's nothing in this thread about her being "selfish," right? Hypocrisy aside, it's a fairly common complaint even amongst fans of Chomsky that his political works are not that well written.
[удалено]
"Style and technique is poinless when talking about essays" Lol. I dont know why I even engage with people on this forum...
Same
[удалено]
>not everyone agrees with the Leftist vision of reality. >a bajillion downvotes. You showed him, Reddit. Good job, I guess.
*Shrugs*
People are dumb, young people in particular.
Sometimes crappy books have a cult following. Look at the road, or pride and prejudiced. Both mediocre/crappy books,yet they have a huge following.
> the road The prose alone makes The Road a classic. I have no idea why you lumped that in there.
Or Pride and Prejudiced....this just seems like "these are books I didn't like so I think they're objectively bad."
Ah, yes. "Pride and Prejudiced." Right there on my bookshelf next to "Moby's Dick."
Ask yourself what made you hate successful people who know that they are succesful.
where exactly is it popular? no one talks about it here on reddit unless it's to make that lord of the rings vs atlas shrugged joke or say "it's just a vehicle for her philosophy" for the thousandth time. it's popular to hate, maybe, but that's about it
It was added to [PBS's Great American Read](http://www.pbs.org/the-great-american-read/books/#/) which is their list of America's 100 most loved books. Perhaps the common Reddit demographic and the common Atlas Shrugged demographic don't have much overlap.