How is Ayn Rand Still a Thing?

[Sarpedon]

If making her message more readable was her purpose, why are her books so unreadable?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If making her message more readable was her purpose, why are her books so unreadable?

Because she was an incompetent tool. Trying to do something does not always lead to success in that thing.

 

[Sarpedon]

My theory is that she did it to make money. There are no inconsistencies in my theory.

 

[ksen]

Hey mods, if this needs splitting to its own thread that's cool . . . here goes:

I am perplexed as to why christians vehemently reject Marx and his more egalitarian economic views and wholeheartedly embrace Ayn Rand and her "fuck you, I got mine" economics.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Hey mods, if this needs splitting to its own thread that's cool . . . here goes:

I am perplexed as to why christians vehemently reject Marx and his more egalitarian economic views and wholeheartedly embrace Ayn Rand and her "fuck you, I got mine" economics.

Roe v Wade.

 

[ksen]

How is Nice Squirrel still a thing?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Hey mods, if this needs splitting to its own thread that's cool . . . here goes:

I am perplexed as to why christians vehemently reject Marx and his more egalitarian economic views and wholeheartedly embrace Ayn Rand and her "fuck you, I got mine" economics.

Because fuck you, I got mine.

 

[ksen]

Hey mods, if this needs splitting to its own thread that's cool . . . here goes:

I am perplexed as to why christians vehemently reject Marx and his more egalitarian economic views and wholeheartedly embrace Ayn Rand and her "fuck you, I got mine" economics.

Because fuck you, I got mine.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My theory is that she did it to make money. There are no inconsistencies in my theory.

The OP isn't asking why she did it, but why people still think her novels have anything decent to offer.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

If her books were meant to convey a particular message, why do you suppose she chose to use fiction books? Surely a well written and concise essay, submitted to an economics publication would have served that purpose better than a rather long and tedious novel?

Embedding a message within a fictional story is a good way to convey that message in a more readable and accessible manner to a wider number of people than an academic essay can do. There are examples of this in pretty much every fairy tale ever written, from The Three Little Pigs talking about how working hard brings better results than taking the easy way out to Frozen explaining why women are unfit to rule because bitches be crazy and if you put one in charge, she will flip the fuck out and destroy the kingdom almost immediately.

It is a better way to convey your philosophy to a larger audience. If Ayn Rand had been writing academic essays, none of us today would have any idea about who she was or what she was saying, as opposed to now when many people have a vague idea of who she was and can be 10-15% accurate about discussing what she was trying to say.

A whole 15% accurate? Do you think this thread approaches that high of a level?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Embedding a message within a fictional story is a good way to convey that message in a more readable and accessible manner to a wider number of people than an academic essay can do. There are examples of this in pretty much every fairy tale ever written, from The Three Little Pigs talking about how working hard brings better results than taking the easy way out to Frozen explaining why women are unfit to rule because bitches be crazy and if you put one in charge, she will flip the fuck out and destroy the kingdom almost immediately.

It is a better way to convey your philosophy to a larger audience. If Ayn Rand had been writing academic essays, none of us today would have any idea about who she was or what she was saying, as opposed to now when many people have a vague idea of who she was and can be 10-15% accurate about discussing what she was trying to say.

A whole 15% accurate? Do you think this thread approaches that high of a level?

Mostly that consists of her role as a pioneer in the representation of gay rights in popular literature. The sexual dynamic that she created between Hank Reardon and Francisco d'Anconia was one of the first instances in a modern novel where primary characters were unashamed of their homosexual relationship. Regardless of anything else, we need to give her props for that.

 

[prideandfall]

The OP isn't asking why she did it, but why people still think her novels have anything decent to offer.

IMO there's a number of reasonably decent ideas percolating through her works - well, at least atlas shrugged which is the only one i've read - but like so many philosophical works throughout the ages (re: ever) some interesting notions are usually turned into very stupid conclusions.

 

[arkirk]

"Her novels are stories of rapey heroes who complain about how nobody appreciates their genius."

http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/last-week-tonight-asks-how-ayn-rand-still

I read all her books when I was in college in1964. I took awhile for her message to sink in, what with all the descriptions of the characters. It was narcissism on steroids...something a young person with a fresh hot load of hormones should avoid at all costs. The books were popular in the very right wing little town where I lived...with the young people all scared of communism.

The embedded message was "if you're SPECIAL, it's okay to be a pig headed asshole. When people fully mature, they put away the things of childhood...like Ayn Rand. The woman seemed to have a lot of inordinate fears and they were fully developed due to her obvious hyperthyroidism.

 

[braces_for_impact]

If her books were meant to convey a particular message, why do you suppose she chose to use fiction books? Surely a well written and concise essay, submitted to an economics publication would have served that purpose better than a rather long and tedious novel?

Embedding a message within a fictional story is a good way to convey that message in a more readable and accessible manner to a wider number of people than an academic essay can do. There are examples of this in pretty much every fairy tale ever written, from The Three Little Pigs talking about how working hard brings better results than taking the easy way out to Frozen explaining why women are unfit to rule because bitches be crazy and if you put one in charge, she will flip the fuck out and destroy the kingdom almost immediately.

It is a better way to convey your philosophy to a larger audience. If Ayn Rand had been writing academic essays, none of us today would have any idea about who she was or what she was saying, as opposed to now when many people have a vague idea of who she was and can be 10-15% accurate about discussing what she was trying to say.

This is true...if it's not so boring you end up watching flies fuck instead.

 

[ksen]

Atlas Shrugged is just one long aspie splurge.

 

[untermensche]

Atlas Shrugged is just one long aspie splurge.

She was on to something.

Humanity sometimes makes progress due to the work of individuals.

But under capitalism these individuals don't necessarily climb to the top.

Under capitalism many times their work is owned by others and they get a fraction of it's value.

Under capitalism the people who's ideas lead to progress are many times merely the tools of capitalists.

 

[Ford]

...with the young people all scared of communism.

Which of course brings us back around to the question of how is Ayn Rand still a thing?

(Yeah, I've got both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged on my bookshelf next to a couple compilations of her essays.)

Basically, when she was young communism was mean to her, and she lived the rest of her life trying to get revenge by promoting a philosophy (to use the term very loosely) that was the polar opposite of what she thought communism was all about. Of course, communism is kinda dead, so...

I did enjoy her take down of original sin in John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged, but it didn't really need to be wrapped in a thousand page novel about trains.

(p.s. that last remark is sarcastic, I know there's more to the book than trains. There are also selfish assholes in it)

 

[Sheshbazzar]

I concur with Ford's observations. Her writings reflective of her strong personal animus against communism and collectivism, appealed to Cold-War era 'patriotism' and the worst kind of dog eat dog capitalism.
Really a 'As long as I get mine, fuck the poor, the disadvantaged, and anyone and everyone that is beneath me' philosophy.
No wonder then that she is 'still a thing' to todays greedy self-centered xtian Conservatives that would starve an orphan to death or throw their own mother under a bus to save themselves from having to pay out a buck in support these, in their warped minds, worthless drags on their capitalistic society. Jesus wept.

 

[untermensche]

I concur with Ford's observations. Her writings reflective of her strong personal animus against communism and collectivism, appealed to Cold-War era 'patriotism' and the worst kind of dog eat dog capitalism.
Really a 'As long as I get mine, fuck the poor, the disadvantaged, and anyone and everyone that is beneath me' philosophy.
No wonder then that she is 'still a thing' to todays greedy self-centered xtian Conservatives that would starve an orphan to death or throw their own mother under a bus to save themselves from having to pay out a buck in support these, in their warped minds, worthless drags on their capitalistic society. Jesus wept.

What she was exposed to was Leninism and Stalinism.

And this she labeled collectivism.

But these were totalitarian systems that gave lip service to socialism which is a democratic system.

 

[Ford]

What she was exposed to was Leninism and Stalinism.

And this she labeled collectivism.

Well on at least some level Leninism and Stalinism are to collectivism what Objectivism and Libertarianism are to capitalism.