LoBagola Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 Recently, and by chance, I've met 4 separate, unconnected people who've read Ayn Rand. Three did not have a philosophy background or much of an interest in it. One did, and has an interest in history/linguistics. ALL of them, when asked what they thought of her work (specifically, Atlas Shrugged) said it was "too long", and they thought "she could have said what she needed in a much shorter book." I tried to probe further, but I didn't get anywhere, and it wasn't something I was going to insist on being answered. So as someone who's still studying Rand's work, I find this strange. I read Atlas Shrugged twice, and there are many parts I can say where I don't think I understand them with the full clarity. Others I vaguely understand, and some not at all. So I find it confusing that someone who's not well versed in philosophy or takes up no issue with her ideas explicitly would say "she could have made it much shorter and said the same thing." Or the same for her essays. Has anyone else noticed this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repairman Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 My first guess would be, because Americans are becoming less literate. They want to wait until the movie comes out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) If someone does not want or perhaps need true understanding or perhaps does not like the message ... of course they will ask you to say it in less words. I have been reading book after book and listening to lecture after lecture.... I'm still learning and integrating, and concretizing Objectivism... in that sense the "book" could be labeled as too short. It was not in vogue at the time (not nearly as much as now) but perhaps a trilogy of books or a series of 6 would have covered the O'st landscape more thoroughly. It could have followed Frisco, and Galt in their youth, followed the aftermath of AS. Then again that would have been a completely different work of art, a totally different "story", albeit with the same philosophical underpinnings. Would Rand have been able to pull that off..? I think so, and I would have been a big fan of the series! Edited May 11, 2014 by StrictlyLogical Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Baratheon Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 Her writing and characters seemed flat to me - I'm sure you've heard that criticism as well - which is what made the book feel long. I've read the whole Song of Ice and Fire series, and those books actually felt short because the writing and characters were so excellent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 I really loved all Rand's fiction, and never felt the ideology was trumping the fiction-writing. To me, the longer the better, but not because I wanted to understand the philosophy better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 11, 2014 Report Share Posted May 11, 2014 (edited) There is another thread about this, but alas, I can't find it! My first read through aged ~20, I found Atlas repetitive "philosophically," but not the plot. Second read through aged ~30, I was just happy to listen to every word. I thought it went along smoothly and had a nice arc and climax. Edited May 11, 2014 by JASKN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 The standard novel-length is said to be 350-400 pages--based upon average reading skills and attention sopan over days. Moreover, in the past, longer novels came out as serials, later to be pasted together as a singularity. the best two examples are War and Peace and Anna karenia. Atlas want to be an epic, but fails in scope, as it's primarily about only one particular issue, as important as it might be. For example, no one can ever imagine giving a speechas long as Galt's... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 12, 2014 Report Share Posted May 12, 2014 "Fails... as it's primarily about only one particular issue." This is laughable on its face for anyone who's read the book, but two questions: 1. It "tries"? *Rand* didn't try to do that -- she's said publicly she tried to show her ideal man. 2. What would this one particular issue be? The role of reason in individuals, and the consequences both of adhering to and ignoring that? That's... not epic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank harley Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 "Fails... as it's primarily about only one particular issue." This is laughable on its face for anyone who's read the book, but two questions: 1. It "tries"? *Rand* didn't try to do that -- she's said publicly she tried to show her ideal man. 2. What would this one particular issue be? The role of reason in individuals, and the consequences both of adhering to and ignoring that? That's... not epic? What's laughable is that you seem not to know much of literature. 'Epic' refers to the taking apart and examining of the entirety of a society, from top to bottom. Think of Les miserablesd, fif not tolstoy, as given. Atlas is about the rise of Galt and his justification for capitalism. Agreeing does not make for 'epic'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JASKN Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I think we may be talking about two different books...? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_1 Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 'Epic' refers to the taking apart and examining of the entirety of a society, from top to bottom.... Atlas is about the rise of Galt and his justification for capitalism. Agreeing does not make for 'epic'. Wrong. Webster says, epic: a long narrative poem in elevated style recounting the deeds of a legendary or historical hero. B: a work of art (as a novel or drama) that resembles or suggests an epic. In the true sense of the word, Atlas Shrugged is an epic novel. Distorting the language does not advance your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FeatherFall Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I think we may be talking about two different books...? I think the same. Atlas fits his own definition of epic. I'm not sure what he's on about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted May 13, 2014 Report Share Posted May 13, 2014 I had never heard of Rand, just ran out of Dirk Pitt and was still in the mood to read and AS was on the bookshelf. When I finished , it was "holy shit!, who is this guy, and where can I get more?!" JASKN 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I think they say that because it is incredibly long. And there isn't a single page of it that you can really skip, either; so not only is it much longer than most books but it's also much denser than other books. It's all spectacular stuff; I didn't find anything 'flat' and I never felt like stopping halfway. It's just that there are so many things happening across so many different levels, over so very many pages, that it takes some mental rigor simply to follow along. Some people enjoy stretching their brains out; some people don't. I don't think Rand cared to appeal to the latter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 I think I've mentioned this elsewhere on this forum, Harrison, the first several reads I did of Atlas Shrugged, I essentially skimmed over Galt's radio address. It seemed superfluous to the story at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 (edited) It seemed superfluous to the story at the time. Yep. When I read Galt's speech I actually stopped reading the story altogether for a few weeks and just read the speech over and over again, trying to really understand it; when I finally finished his speech I had to go all the way back again to remember what in Galt's name was going on. Philosophically a work of genius. Artistically, I really would not have put that there, at least in that way. --- Edit: Touche! But alright, Galt's speech is what; fifty pages long? If we subtract that from the rest of the pages, which really can't be skipped, it's still colossal. Edited May 24, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted May 24, 2014 Report Share Posted May 24, 2014 Whereas the last time I re-read the book, I found myself re-reading Galt's speech. Harrison Danneskjold 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.