She isn’t much different to L.Ron Hubbard in that respect. She converted her potboilers into a quasi-religion or therapy for monetary gain. This isn’t problematic but in literary terms she’s hardly George Elliott or Henry James. Granted she isn’t as crass as Anton LaVey (who plagerized most of her ideas in his hack books) but I’d have a lot more respect for her if she’d focused on philosophy and one overarching treatise or manifesto.
I’ve not read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead yet but I don’t read novels for propagandist exposition. I read novels for the eloquence of the prose and little else.
If you want an overarching treatise you probably want Leonard Peikoff’s book, Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
1 Like
20 hours ago, irreligious said:
I’ve not read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead yet but I don’t read novels for propagandist exposition. I read novels for the eloquence of the prose and little else.
Why don’t you read the mass of non-fiction, which is where you should start, and not with the art.
1 Like
22 hours ago, irreligious said:
. . . In literary terms she’s hardly George Elliott or Henry James. Granted she isn’t as crass as Anton LaVey (who plagerized most of her ideas in his hack books) but I’d have a lot more respect for her if she’d focused on philosophy and one overarching treatise or manifesto.
On what basis do you make literary assessments of Rand’s fiction, if as you say downstream, you have not read here fiction? It is true of Rand’s novels that every other page or some philosophic point will be put forth, and some readers do not like that. To me it’s simply another variety of fiction than some of the other fiction I have loved, such as Steinbeck, Lessing, Baldwin, Marquez, Forster, McCullers, or Faulkner. Hugo and Melville seem a little closer to Rand’s sort of novel. I love those two also and Rand’s We the Living / Anthem / The Fountainhead / Atlas Shrugged *
1 Like
11 minutes ago, Boydstun said:
On what basis do you make literary assessments of Rand’s fiction, if as you say downstream, you have not read here fiction? It is true of Rand’s novels that every other page or some philosophic point will be put forth, and some readers do not like that. To me it’s simply another variety of fiction than some of the other fiction I have loved, such as Steinbeck, Lessing, Baldwin, Marquez, Forster, McCullers, or Faulkner. Hugo and Melville seem a little closer to Rand’s sort of novel. I love those two also and Rand’s We the Living / Anthem / The Fountainhead / Atlas Shrugged *
I’m sorry for making such assessments. I’m only going on what intellectuals such as the late Christopher Hitchens have said about Ayn Rand. I just don’t get why a philosopher would waste time with fiction. I have no patience with fiction. Not since I was a teenager when I read George Eliot, Henry James and E. M Forster. I just can’t read fiction anymore. My own life is so empty, I can’t be bothered experiencing a second hand fictional life.
36 minutes ago, irreligious said:
. . . I have no patience with fiction. Not since I was a teenager when I read George Eliot, Henry James and E. M Forster. I just can’t read fiction anymore. My own life is so empty, I can’t be bothered experiencing a second hand fictional life.
My own life is so full and pressed for time. I got to read little fiction in my life because my reading and study time was consumed with non-fiction for some knowledge I needed for my projects. I would love to read more great fiction people have recommended to me. I can only see ever doing that if I came to a point in which I could no longer create philosophy, even though I could still read and basically comprehend. Then I’ll read that delicious fiction I’ve not experienced.
I write some poetry, and there are some samples here. A collection of 29 of my poems will soon be available in an e-book and an audio book. Even among people who like some modern poetry, mine is only right for some. Recently, a reader (and listener) told me when she is blue, my poems lift her up.
I’ve been a bit surprised at how successful Rand was at getting her philosophy attention through writing fiction. She was not a professionally trained philosopher and could not have written papers that have the form suitable for academic journals of philosophy. But she made friends with some gifted young people who were on track to complete Ph.D.'s in Philosophy and who could draw up her philosophy in accessible non-fiction at an intermediate level or at professional level. The former is the book people here keep recommending to you: Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.* The latter is (i) the series of books published by the Ayn Rand Society, which is a group affiliated with the American Philosophical Association and (ii) the book I mentioned to you already: Blackwell’s Companion to Ayn Rand.
Which of Forster’s books did you get to read? I read Howard’s End.
“Only connect” –E.M. Forster
2 Likes
22 minutes ago, Boydstun said:
My own life is so full and pressed for time. I got to read little fiction in my life because my reading and study time was consumed with non-fiction for some knowledge I needed for my projects. I would love to read more great fiction people have recommended to me. I can only see ever doing that if I came to a point in which I could no longer create philosophy, even though I could still read and basically comprehend. Then I’ll read that delicious fiction I’ve not experienced.
I write some poetry, and there are some samples here. A collection of 29 of my poems will soon be available in an e-book and an audio book. Even among people who like some modern poetry, mine is only right for some. Recently, a reader (and listener) told me when she is blue, my poems lift her up.
I’ve been a bit surprised at how successful Rand was at getting her philosophy attention through writing fiction. She was not a professionally trained philosopher and could not have written papers that have the form suitable for academic journals of philosophy. But she made friends with some gifted young people who were on track to complete Ph.D.'s in Philosophy and who could draw up her philosophy in accessible non-fiction at an intermediate level or at professional level. The former is the book people here keep recommending to you: Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.* The latter is (i) the series of books published by the Ayn Rand Society, which is a group affiliated with the American Philosophical Association and (ii) the book I mentioned to you already: Blackwell’s Companion to Ayn Rand.
Which of Forster’s books did you get to read? I read Howard’s End.
“Only connect” –E.M. Forster
I’ll read your poems at my leisure and I hope your e-book is warmly received. A Room with a View and Maurice are my favourite novels by Forster though I read all six of his novels as a youth.
You make a good point. Ayn Rand wasn’t formally trained in philosophy and I doubt Objectivism was taken very seriously in academia during her lifetime. I’m not sure if it is now to be honest.
23 hours ago, irreligious said:
Granted she isn’t as crass as Anton LaVey (who plagerized most of her ideas in his hack books)
How do you know? Pretty sure you never read her nonfiction either. She could be worse for all you know. But making speculations without having read anything isn’t going to give you an answer.
You can read any of the introductions to her fiction. She will tell you herself why she writes fiction.
13 minutes ago, Eiuol said:
How do you know? Pretty sure you never read her nonfiction either. She could be worse for all you know. But making speculations without having read anything isn’t going to give you an answer.
You can read any of the introductions to her fiction. She will tell you herself why she writes fiction.
Okay, I admit I have a bit of a grudge against Ayn Rand because she wants to remove welfare and make vulnerable people destitute. There I said it!
I’m more of an individualist than anyone here but Ayn Rand would denigrate me because I’m welfare dependent. Ayn Rand is a bit of a thug. I bet she’s enamoured with thuggish men who thrive in society and tailor such a society where other thugs like themselves can also flourish. Like most women she loves thugs.
1 hour ago, irreligious said:
Okay, I admit I have a bit of a grudge against Ayn Rand because she wants to remove welfare and make vulnerable people destitute. There I said it!
I’m more of an individualist than anyone here but Ayn Rand would denigrate me because I’m welfare dependent. Ayn Rand is a bit of a thug. I bet she’s enamoured with thuggish men who thrive in society and tailor such a society where other thugs like themselves can also flourish. Like most women she loves thugs.
None of this is even remotely true and if you would actually read her you would see that instantly. Please do that then come back and apologize after you realize every word in your post is the opposite of the truth except for elimination of the welfare state because under capitalism every would rise and friends, family, and private charity is what morally provides for the cases where it’s not possible for certain individuals. But remember welfare can only be funded by theft and is extremely immoral and illegal.
Here is one of the things Ayn Rand has in common with her character John Galt.
John Galt wanted to invent a motor. He accomplished a revolution in physics to do it. He didn’t publish the physics. He just went on inventing his motor. However, he later taught a course in physics.
Ayn Rand wanted to write a novel (Atlas Shrugged). She accomplished a revolution in philosophy to do it. She didn’t publish the philosophy. She just went on writing her novel. However, she later published some nonfiction about her philosophy.
1 Like
1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:
Here is one of the things Ayn Rand has in common with her character John Galt.
John Galt wanted to invent a motor. He accomplished a revolution in physics to do it. He didn’t publish the physics. He just went on inventing his motor. However, he later taught a course in physics.
Ayn Rand wanted to write a novel (Atlas Shrugged). She accomplished a revolution in philosophy to do it. She didn’t publish the philosophy. She just went on writing her novel. However, she later published some nonfiction about her philosophy.
She published a massive amount of non-fiction after writing her novels. Many times the number of the art she created first.
On 7/1/2024 at 5:30 PM, irreligious said:
Okay, I admit I have a bit of a grudge against Ayn Rand because she wants to remove welfare and make vulnerable people destitute. There I said it!
I’m more of an individualist than anyone here but Ayn Rand would denigrate me because I’m welfare dependent. Ayn Rand is a bit of a thug. I bet she’s enamoured with thuggish men who thrive in society and tailor such a society where other thugs like themselves can also flourish. Like most women she loves thugs.
Yes, you did say it, but I am curious. I can understand having a grudge, but would that not demand that she actually wants to remove welfare and ‘make vulnerable people destitute’?
You say that you are more of an individualist than ‘anyone here’ but would an individualist not believe that all individuals should take care of themselves? Is welfare the answer or should individuals unite and help those that deserve it? Rand is against the coercive system that supports welfare, and not charity that is a voluntary choice. She acknowledges that every individual has a right to help others if they so choose, but only to those they determine are legitimate, and the extent they are willing to help, with no pressure or intimidation from any other individuals.
How exactly would she make vulnerable people destitute? Did you read or hear her say such a thing? what did she intend to ‘do’? I would be very interested in your citing where and when she said such a thing. I cannot think of a time that she did.
An ad-hominem attack against Rand as a ‘thug’ is a horrible reflection upon yourself. I feel sorry for you and for the fact that you are welfare dependent. Would you rather be taken care of by specific individuals that want to help you, or some nameless governmental bureaucracy that confiscates wealth from innocent but successful citizens to be distributed randomly to those that profess need whether they deserve it or not? Where do we find legitimacy in that?
Do ‘most’ women really love ‘thugs’? I find the comment highly inappropriate and bigoted, and I am not even talking about degrading women.
1 Like
After listening to Roger Waters, Owen Jones, and so on - and reading this from one more Welfare Brit who’s proud of it - prompts me to give up my UK citizenship.