Support NeoGAF

[Gotchaye]

Pretty crappy book. The Fountainhead works much better as a story, but I still wouldn't call it great literature.

There's plenty of art which is separable from its philosophy. But Rand's work really isn't. The characters are unbelievable because that's what her philosophy says people are like. Maybe it'd sorta work if you took it as parodying Objectivism by showing how weird the world would have to be to make it seem true, but that's still reading philosophy into it. And by that standard, Left Behind is also pretty great.

 

[BearChair]

For me, the problem is not somehow endorsing a philosophy that I do not agree with, it is that in many cases I am funding it.

For example, in the case of Orson Scott Card, it is hard to read his work because he is a very hateful person but at least at one point in his career created great science fiction. If I buy something of his, a portion of that money is going directly to fund a philosophy that I find personally objectionable.

I am not saying that I only experience art from artists with whom I agree, that would be crazy. But I do have personal lines I do not want to cross. I would never buy a new L. Ron Hubbard book because I do not want to fund Scientology.

People like Ayn Rand or H.P Lovecraft (he was a vehement racist) are long dead, though, so I do not have as much anxiety about paying for their work.

 

[Hitokage]

I'm not separating it. I'm simply not making any judgements of value about it. Just because my beliefs are different doesn't mean I can't enjoy something for what it is. You can read it and get immersed in it WITHOUT having to absorb and accept it's philosophy. Just go with it while you're in it. Don't let your prejudices and personal opinions stop you from enjoying it.

Refer to my Twilight comparison, then. The developments of Dagny's romance, particularly the resolution with Hank Rearden, is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Part 1 was a slog. Part 2 was half-decent if not for the continued repetition of speeches and buzzlines. All of Part 3 was fairly stupid.

 

[Gintamen]

It's like eating the tastiest shit sandwich ever... as a story, I think it's quite an accomplishment.

I don't want to eat nor read shit. Shit stays shit no matter what, would I like to read some right-wing propaganda[or w/e topic you disdain] just because it's written beautifully, eh.... no.

 

[ReadingRambo]

It's like being told to enjoy the sound of a fart while ignoring the smell.

 

[besada]

Allow me (and most of the literally community) to respectfully disagree.

The literary community doesn't agree with you, though. It's a poorly written philosophical screed. The only part that's interesting is the philosophy, and interesting like a train wreck.

 

[Hitokage]

The literary community doesn't agree with you, though. It's a poorly written philosophical screed. The only part that's interesting is the philosophy, and interesting like a train wreck.

Yeah, it certainly was intellectually stimulating in a forensic way, piecing together just where things went wrong and what led to observed behavior in Rand followers.

 

[Tim the Wiz]

You know what, it's proving quite hard to find a single review from way back when, be it positive or negative, lol... so I guess you've got me there!

Anyway, here's a rough translation of what my english lit book says about it, if you care:

Like The Grapes Of Wrath, Brave New World, Catcher In The Rye or Lord Of The Flies before it, Atlas Shrugged's initial reception was disastrous. The book was a hit, but just like it's mentioned peers it was mostly rejected as deviant due to the sensitivity (not sure if this is a thing in english, but I'll go with it, lol) of it's subject matter. Rand's style and story telling were well received (personally, I think her writing sucks, but I do agree she is a good story teller) but the book as a whole was mostly rejected by the critics as an ungodly abomination.

The author then procedes to explain (over several paragraphs which I obviously won't translate) how, because of it's persistant popularity, Atlas actually came to be regarded as a modern American classic, although it struggled (ahah!) to find an audience overseas. The modern consensus is that it's a very important piece of fiction in modern english lit and that it is a cherished work by the literary community.

And quoting again: Except, ironically, in it's homeland, where the intense hatred it still provokes can only be matched by the love it's enthusiastic supporters have for it. There, it remains an equally influential, controversial and divise work, much like Rand herself.

I'm not an english lit major, but my flatmate is, and he goes to the same faculty as me so I end up going to alot of lectures because of that, last week they were actually discussing this (late 50s) and when the teacher mentioned Atlas Shrugged as a modern classic, some guy started talking about Bioshock and everything got a bit derailed so he ended up talking about Ayn Rand for a bit longer and said what I'm now regurgitating here. It was why I decided to read it again, even.

I'm sorry to sound rude, but I'll take the word of a Welsh english lit doctorate (and the book I just quoted from) on this subject over someone who's probably from the US.

Perhaps this is confusion on your end? It certainly has an interesting place in the canon for the impact its had, but I've never seen anyone argue that it's a classic of modern literature, or a great work. And for good reason.

 

[Dude Abides]

You gave me a page with excerpts (might as well just like the wikipedia page by that logic). On an article highlighting it's negative reception. AND THEY'RE ALL AMERICAN. And I'm the one who's making false claims?

Is your claim that those excerpts are not long enough to conclude whether the full review is negative or positive? Because that would be a very stupid claim.

You said it was contemporaneously praised. I gave you evidence it wasn't. You haven't provided any support for your claim other than a hash of a translation of some intro to literature book without any sourcing. Other non-US posters are saying Rand's works are not highly regarded. Sounds like you bought a line of bullshit from your flatmate and ran with it.

 

[besada]

And how could you not find contemporaneous reviews? Not only do they show up in an obvious google search (DudeAbides and I found the same article containing them with seconds of searching) but they're all over the Wikipedia article.

Brush up on your Google-Fu, son.

 

[Oxigen_Waste]

That's fine. I don't think anyone is saying you're not allowed to. But arguing that "most of the literary community" holds it in high regard is kinda shitty.

I didn't hate it. But it takes place in a Rand-world, not a real-world. It's simply not that good. It has pretensions about being higher than it is, but in the end it falls flat.

The literary community thing is based on what I was told/read in an english lit class/book. I mean, everyone knows the book was initially repudiated, but many great modern classics/masterpieces have been as well. What the guy said (and the book clearly states) is that opinion of the literary community on it has changed over the years and that it's now embraced as a classic. Except in the US, where it's controversy remains as active as ever.

Now, considering nobody except for english lit people actually care about that and that the book has sold very little outside the US, it would make perfect sense that the "general consensus" would be that it sucks, because apart from the US nobody reads it and in the US people are too involved to get past it's subject matter and just enoy it as the work of fiction it is.

However, if it's printed in a book and an English lit doctorate from Oxford (who also happens to be head of the lit department in the whole Uni [which btw is the biggest/best Uni in the country]) says that the literary community outside the US holds the book in somewhat high regard, then guess who I'm gonna believe? The "sullied" americans on an online forum or a prestigious scholar (and a book)?

Wether the book is well regarded due to it's merit or it's importance, I have no clue, but apparently it's well regarded.

but I can tell you that applies to all sorts of unmitigated shit and doesn't really settle things one way or the other. I disagree with Nazism -- but I can see how others might not! I disagree with young Earth creationists -- but I get their zeal!

Different. Let's not compare a religious alternative to a proven scientific fact or a morally and ethically wrong ideology with a morally grey and deviant philosophy. Completely different scales! But I get what you mean. ^^

Refer to my Twilight comparison, then. The developments of Dagny's romance, particularly the resolution with Hank Rearden, is one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Part 1 was a slog. Part 2 was half-decent if not for the continued repetition of speeches and buzzlines. All of Part 3 was fairly stupid.

I actually love part 1 most of all. I love how it starts, the whole anti-Dostoyevsky thing I mentioned. And yes, the ending is the weakes part.

Like I said, I'm not saying it's the best thing ever, but I reckon it's a good book. Not great, but good.

I don't want to eat nor read shit. Shit stays shit no matter what, would I like to read some right-wing propaganda[or w/e topic you disdain] just because it's written beautifully, eh.... no.

As long as it's tasty and you can keep your mind intact and unsullied, it's all good. I did say it was a tasty shit sandwich. The message might be shit according to my values, but they're presented in a tasty and enjoyable way. And that doesn't mean it's a bad book, it just means I don't agree with her, even though I do respect her work.

It's like being told to enjoy the sound of a fart while ignoring the smell.

It's the other way around, actually. If the philosophy was great and the plot sucked it would always be a bad book. If the plot is good but the message sucks it's still enjoyable. So, if the plot is the definitive characteristic of a work, then in fart terms, it would be the smell, as that's what makes or breaks a fart... noise is optional, smell is mandatory!

So, it's more like being told to enjoy the smell of a fart while ignoring the sound. If you're into farts, I guess.

 

[Hitokage]

Being a book of notoriety and importance is not the same as being a literary classic.

 

[gcubed]

the entire literary community consists of one english literature book the OP read... fantastic basis for a conversation

 

[LuchaShaq]

Rand was never a talented or even competent author.


Hitler was literally a better author.

 

[akira28]

the deja vu is disorienting. I need to sit dow

 

[Hitokage]

However, if it's printed in a book and an English lit doctorate from Oxford (who also happens to be head of the lit department in the whole Uni [which btw is the biggest/best Uni in the country]) says that the literary community outside the US holds the book in somewhat high regard, then guess who I'm gonna believe? The "sullied" americans on an online forum or a prestigious scholar (and a book)?

This appeal to authority isn't even necessary. There are literary journals you can search through and read on your own.

 

[WanderingWind]

the entire literary community consists of one english literature book the OP read... fantastic basis for a conversation

But his freshman college professor said! He's an expert and you're just a "sullied" American on an online forum!

 

[Oxigen_Waste]

And how could you not find contemporaneous reviews? Not only do they show up in an obvious google search (DudeAbides and I found the same article containing them with seconds of searching) but they're all over the Wikipedia article.

Brush up on your Google-Fu, son.

What? No they're not, all the wiki page and the link Dude posted have are excerpts! Which are horrible misrepresentations of what I'm trying to show you because if the bottom line was that the reviewer din't like because of the hateful self indulgence, than that's what get's "excerpted"! Nobody is going to use the excerpt where a reviewer said the story was good if the final conclusion of that same review is that it's bad because of the message.

Even harder is finding a non-american serious literary review, lol.

Is your claim that those excerpts are not long enough to conclude whether the full review is negative or positive? Because that would be a very stupid claim.

You said it was contemporaneously praised. I gave you evidence it wasn't. You haven't provided any support for your claim other than a hash of a translation of some intro to literature book without any sourcing. Other non-US posters are saying Rand's works are not highly regarded. Sounds like you bought a line of bullshit from your flatmate and ran with it.

What? oO Dude, go read my posts again.

Common misconception. Google it. Her style of writing and the story were actually very praised, the negative reception was centered on the message (which is exactly what I'm trying to get at here... you shouldn't ever dismiss a work because you disagree with it's message). It was a matter of political philosophy, with reviewers either denouncing the book for being pro-atheism (right wing) or for being pro-greed (left wing, when it still existed in the US). Every negative criticism you see is always about the hateful message or the godlessness. Basically, people were quick to dismiss the book as soon as they noticed Rand was playing by her set of rules. However, her writing and the story actually got some praise even in those negative reviews.

I said her writing and story telling were praised. And of course excerpts are a terrible misrepresentation! If most reviews were negative they're obviously not gonna use the part where the reviewers said the plot was good when that's only a small fraction of the review. Excerpts represent the general feel of a review. If that was negative (as it mostly was) they obviously wouldn't be using the parts where they actually praised her writing, would they? Excerpts are unreliable!

Being a book of notoriety and importance is not the same as being a literary classic.

Like I said, why (wether it is for being influential or good) it's well regarded I don't know. I just know it is, apparently. Lol.

If they're studying it in english lit majors, it must mean something.

the entire literary community consists of one english literature book the OP read... fantastic basis for a conversation

Well, if it's what both an english doctorate scholar and the textbook he uses says vs the opinion of some americans on an american online forum, I'll take the first one, thank you. Especially considering how much they emphasized how differently the book was perceived outside of the US.

the entire literary community consists of one english literature book the OP read... fantastic basis for a conversation

Well, if it's what both an english doctorate scholar and the textbook he uses says vs the opinion of some americans on an american online forum, I'll take the first one, thank you. Especially considering how much they emphasized how differently the book was perceived outside of the US.

But his freshman college professor said! He's an expert and you're just a "sullied" American on an online forum!

Are you gonna come after every post I make now just because I hurt your Whovian feelings, dum dum?

This appeal to authority isn't even necessary. There are literary journals you can search through and read on your own.

PM me some links, if you can. I'll read them whenever I can.


__

I gotta go now guys, work time, I'll come back in 10 hours, lol.

 

[WanderingWind]

Are you gonna come after every post I make now just because I hurt your Whovian feelings, dum dum?

...I don't even know who you are. But you're not proving to be very bright ITT.

 

[G.O.O.]

Some works of art are hardly more than just their philosophy imo. If not all of them.

It's the only part of the work that goes beyond individual taste. Which is why I probably couldn't read Rand, and why I had to stop quite early in the Dark Knight returns. I don't care how good writing this is supposed to be.

 

[Hitokage]

PM me some links, if you can. I'll read them whenever I can.

You need to actually go to a library here.

 

[Oxigen_Waste]

...I don't even know who you are. But you're not proving to be very bright ITT.

Ok... I'm gonna believe you here, in a show of good faith. I made the "people watch doctor who ironically, right?" thread, remember? We got into a heated little argument, you, me and some other guy can't remember who.

And since you posted on both this and my socialism thread with similar witty and incendiary remarks I actually thought you were pestering me, for a second, considering you posted similar stuff in my last 3 OT threads. Nevermind.

You need to actually go to a library here.

Ah... that's gonna be a problem, then. The libaries in Portugal are... limited, to say the least. I doubt I'll find something like that there. =/

---

And now I'll be late just because I had to come here for one last peek. Fuck. lol

 

[Dude Abides]

What? oO Dude, go read my posts again.

Why? They're more of a slog than Atlas Shrugged. If you dispute something I've said, please just state it.

 

[dream]

If they're studying it in english lit majors, it must mean something.

A work being on an English syllabus isn't necessarily indicative of the novel's quality, though. It could be there as a curiosity, or a cultural artifact, or some sort of response to other works.

 

[BertramCooper]

<3 Chronicles of Narnia

I love The Chronicles of Narnia, and I've never understood why people get so offended by it.

Yes, it's quite clearly stuffed with Christian allegory, but it's not like it promotes any of the controversial or potentially offensive parts of Christian dogma. And people who claim it's sexist because

Spoiler

Susan supposedly goes to Hell at the end

clearly misinterpreted the ending and also chose to overlook the numerous intelligent, resourceful female characters throughout the books.

If there's anything to be offended by, it's the handful of old timey racist overtones, which weren't exactly uncommon for the time.

 

[Gintamen]

If they're studying it in english lit majors, it must mean something.

Well, if it's what both an english doctorate scholar and the textbook he uses says vs the opinion of some americans on an american online forum, I'll take the first one, thank you. Especially considering how much they emphasized how differently the book was perceived outside of the US.

Just because people study it doesn't make it a good work. Many like it, many hate it, is there an inbetween?
This forum is international, just like you are not from america, so are many other forum users. Maybe it's disliked even more outside of america?

Ah... that's gonna be a problem, then. The libaries in Portugal are... limited, to say the least. I doubt I'll find something like that there. =/

That's not an execuse though. You not being capable of reading some doesn't stop them from existing. Tried some journals/newspaper from around it's release date to find some reviews?

 

[CornBurrito]

You have to give the Bible some credit, dude... it's a very very old book, considering it's age I wouldn't say it's boring at all! It's a 3500 year old book, you can't judge it by modern standards!

Except you can judge it by modern standards. I'm doing it right now.

It is a boring as fuck book. Shitty characters, long list of genealogies, outdated and dry language.

 

[Metrotab]

I've always wanted to read Atlas Shrugged, not because of objectivism, but because I find the basic concept of the story quite interesting. A revolution of the intelligentsia in a world of corporate governance! Sounds awesome to me.

 

[WanderingWind]

Ok... I'm gonna believe you here, in a show of good faith. I made the "people watch doctor who ironically, right?" thread, remember? We got into a heated little argument, you, me and some other guy can't remember who.

And since you posted on both this and my socialism thread with similar witty and incendiary remarks I actually thought you were pestering me, for a second, considering you posted similar stuff in my last 3 OT threads. Nevermind.

I remember the threads, but not everybody in them. So, no, nobody is stalking you or anything.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

oh yeah what a wonderful exciting writer

fake edit: god damn it galtse.cx's domain expired, okay imagine the hundred straight pages of a dude shouting blowhard nonsense at people

 

[dream]

Someone once told me that there are bits of the Bible that are actually fun to read if you view them through the lens of magical realism.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

How much you enjoy something &#8800; how good you think it is. Impartiality is a big part of judgement.

I don't think impartiality is possible in these entirely subjective matters. Your taste (or what you perceive to be others' taste) is the only thing you can judge things by. When it comes to literary quality, the only non-personal thing you can judge it by is its popularity, which is merely subsituting your taste with the masses'.

 

[CharminUltra]

Eh, I read Atlas Shrugged during high school waaaay before I even knew what it represented and I still thought it was an average to below average read. I will forever remember it (I doubt I'll ever read it again) as a dull story full of hateful characters doing perplexingly illogical things.

That said, I thought AS was a bit more entertaining than The Fountainhead.

 

[Oxigen_Waste]

That's not an execuse though. You not being capable of reading some doesn't stop them from existing. Tried some journals/newspaper from around it's release date to find some reviews?

Anything before 1974 doesn't exist in this country, basically. Dictatorship and all that jazz.

I remember the threads, but not everybody in them. So, no, nobody is stalking you or anything.

Yeah I realized, sorry. I just felt a bit persecuted for a second there. It's all good, though, we're Whobuddies now.

edit: hate writing on my phone, multiquotes are such a mess...

 

[CornBurrito]

I love The Chronicles of Narnia, and I've never understood why people get so offended by it.

Yes, it's quite clearly stuffed with Christian allegory, but it's not like it promotes any of the controversial or potentially offensive parts of Christian dogma. And people who claim it's sexist because

Spoiler

Susan supposedly goes to Hell at the end

clearly misinterpreted the ending and also chose to overlook the numerous intelligent, resourceful female characters throughout the books.

If there's anything to be offended by, it's the handful of old timey racist overtones, which weren't exactly uncommon for the time.

Yeah I never got it much either. When I was a kid I was raised Jewish and didn't know much at all about Christianity. I remember reading TCoN and I had no idea it was basically a Jesus allegory. It isn't exactly a brainwashing book that will turn people into fundamentalist Christians.

Anyway OP, I thought Anthem was pretty great. Except for the bit of "Ego" at the end. The forbidden word was clearly "I." Ego made no sense as the forbidden word. But Atlas Shrugged was awful.

 

[ronito]

I love The Chronicles of Narnia, and I've never understood why people get so offended by it.

Yes, it's quite clearly stuffed with Christian allegory, but it's not like it promotes any of the controversial or potentially offensive parts of Christian dogma. And people who claim it's sexist because

Spoiler

Susan supposedly goes to Hell at the end

clearly misinterpreted the ending and also chose to overlook the numerous intelligent, resourceful female characters throughout the books.

If there's anything to be offended by, it's the handful of old timey racist overtones, which weren't exactly uncommon for the time.

I liked the first three books (in story order) of the Chronicles of Narnia after that it just sorta was more of the same/uninteresting. I certainly wasn't offended by it but I can see how someone that wasn't christian would think the last 3 books weren't very good.

 

[Juicy Bob]

Atlas Shrugged - A Review

 

[Narag]

This appeal to authority isn't even necessary. There are literary journals you can search through and read on your own.

He did this before when the action in the Bourne movies was spoken poorly of and repeatedly referred to a trade mag's praise as to why people were wrong for disliking it. I just assume schtick at this point.

 

[FLEABttn]

I've always wanted to read Atlas Shrugged, not because of objectivism, but because I find the basic concept of the story quite interesting. A revolution of the intelligentsia in a world of corporate governance! Sounds awesome to me.

It's not corporate governance, it's communist-ish governance, sort of.

 

[Oxigen_Waste]

He did this before when the action in the Bourne movies was spoken poorly of and repeatedly referred to a trade mag's praise as to why people were wrong for disliking it. I just assume schtick at this point.

Sight & Sound is the ultimate authority in the world of cinema. They have been for a while. They're not "a trade mag". Their polls represent the opinion of everyone who matters in the industry. The end of the decade issue had an article about action films as well and Ultimatum was one of the standouts. I happen to agree, btw. I'm very very sorry if they're not online, would you like a muffin to make up for lost time?

Edit - Btw... people didn't dislike it. You and a bunch of others did. Were you the Avengers fanboy?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Sight & Sound is the ultimate authority in the world of cinema. They have been for a while. They're not "a trade mag". Their polls represent the opinion of everyone who matters in the industry. The end of the decade issue had an article about action films as well and Ultimatum was one of the standouts. I happen to agree, btw. I'm very very sorry if they're not online, would you like a muffin to make up for lost time?

Posting another appeal to authority does little to fix the first one.

 

[besada]

Speaking of appeals to authority, oxigen_waste, could you tell us the name of your English lit book, as well as the professor in question?

 

[BigAT]

This thread is doing little to dissuade my belief that people that loudly proclaim their love for Atlas Shrugged are bad human beings.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I think people can distiguish between talent and content pretty easily. "Birth of a Nation" is considered a classic while having a horrible message, for instance.

I think Rand just isn't that good.

 

[MDSVeritas]

I've always enjoyed art that strives not so much to make a point, but to tell a story and simply allow the viewer to think and care. I don't think all art is based in philosophy as some people suggest, and movies like Lost In Translation, books like Perks of Being a Wallflower, or games like Heavy Rain. These games are, in my opinion, artistic in their ability to allow the viewers to associate and feel with the characters and be intrigued about the story, and transmit some inherently human experiences and emotions, and if the authors and creators of these are trying to proselytize readers, I wouldn't know of it.

I don't think books trying to suggest a possible philosophy are necessarily worse (At times it seems these types of books are considered by most people to be more artistic), but there's certainly is more potential for the annoying feeling of someone trying to convince you of something while you're trying to enjoy a story.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Examples of my own:

I like Batman despite the fact that most of the time he's portrayed as a right-wing fascist vigilante.

I like The Incredibles a lot despite finding at least parts of the underlying message distasteful.

I like movies and music by people whose personal behavior or politics is abhorrent.

 

[Oxigen_Waste]

Posting another appeal to authority does little to fix the first one.

Unlike the first one, which I understand is highly dubious in nature (but ultimately the only reason I had to say what I did, since I had no idea of it's popularity prior to that class), this one is 100% valid since there is a consensus. The experts agree.

Speaking of appeals to authority, oxigen_waste, could you tell us the name of your English lit book, as well as the professor in question?

Having trouble understanding wether or not this is a serious request, but... sure. As soon as I'm home.

This thread is doing little to dissuade my belief that people that loudly proclaim their love for Atlas Shrugged are bad human beings.

I don't love it. Nor have I proclamed it loudly... it ain't even in the thread title.

By the way, who I am on the internet &#8800; who I am in reality. But go ahead and hate me, I guess.

I think people can distiguish between talent and content pretty easily. "Birth of a Nation" is considered a classic while having a horrible message, for instance.

I think Rand just isn't that good.

Completely off topic here, but even though I get why Birth of A Nation was important I never really got why it's so acclaimed. Especially when you compare it to Intolerance!

 

[cashman]

The actual plot was far from the worst part of the story .... but it wasn't very good either.

 

[besada]

Having trouble understanding wether or not this is a serious request, but... sure. As soon as I'm home.

Completely serious request. You've asserted this repeatedly as your only evidence that AS is thought of as quality literature, and yet have in no way given enough information to confirm that the book exists or says what you claim it says. I'm simply asking you to provide an opportunity for us to see what you're claiming to see.

I happen to have read any numbers of reviews of AS, both from U.S. and foreign writers, none of which were particularly friendly to the prose. Even many libertarian reviewers make a note of how bad the writing is, so I'm curious to see a dissenting opinion on the quality of the writing. What you translated talks about the importance of the book, rather than the quality of the writing, and since this is a discussion about works of art divorced from their philosophies, I'd like to see a review that holds it up as an example of good writing.

 

[Fenderputty]

I wouldn't read Rand because I don't want to put money in her pocket. Simple.

Though I do agree with your premise. I've read numerious book with religious undertons that I love. The Passage being one of them.