That's some mighty tall talk from a drug abusing sociopath.

Of course when she gets to the part both individual rights, she believes that the strong should have the power to subvert the weaker. This is why you keep seeing her name in print.

Since corporations now have the rights of individuals, they are the most powerful individuals on earth. Therefore, according to Ayn Rand you must subvert to their every will.

Is it just me, or does she look like Steve Buschemi in drag?

Ayn Rand? What's that, like, one Rand?

Hey! MICHELLE OBAMA HAS A BIG BUTT!

kronicfeld: Ayn Rand? What's that, like, one Rand?

Zwei Rands are better than Ayn.

kronicfeld: Ayn Rand? What's that, like, one Rand?

you need at least three milli-rands per million liters to affect social change on the macro-scale.

ecmoRandomNumbers: kronicfeld: Ayn Rand? What's that, like, one Rand?

Zwei Rands are better than Ayn.

Doppelt the pleasure. Dreifach the fun.

Every pimply boy discovers Atlas Shrugged and the fascination usually goes away when girls are discovered.

Another thread bashing Ayn Rand. Thanks guys, if you hadn't have brought her name up earlier this year, I would have never read Atlas Shrugged or seen the movie.

The irony is that she was the first to paste liberals as "progressives".

that by and of itself is reason enough to read her book....though I would buy the audio version and listen to it on the ole Ipad/Ipod/Ianything as long as it was made of Rearden Metal.

EnviroDude: Another thread bashing Ayn Rand. Thanks guys, if you hadn't have brought her name up earlier this year, I would have never read Atlas Shrugged or seen the movie.

The irony is that she was the first to paste liberals as "progressives".

that by and of itself is reason enough to read her book....though I would buy the audio version and listen to it on the ole Ipad/Ipod/Ianything as long as it was made of Rearden Metal.

You like rape.

EnviroDude: Another thread bashing Ayn Rand. Thanks guys, if you hadn't have brought her name up earlier this year, I would have never read Atlas Shrugged or seen the movie.

oddly enough, soon as that movie hit DVD release, it was ripped and up on bit torrent within 48 hours. I find that hilarious for reasons I can't adequately express in words.

The irony is that she was the first to paste liberals as "progressives".

yeah, but...Rand is kind of a lunatic. I mean I get what she was trying to say, but she went about it in the most ass backwards way imaginable.

that by and of itself is reason enough to read her book....though I would buy the audio version and listen to it on the ole Ipad/Ipod/Ianything as long as it was made of Rearden Metal.

Rand was desperately in need of a good editor. Atlas Shrugged could have gotten its point across and been 2000 pages shorter.

EnviroDude: Another thread bashing Ayn Rand. Thanks guys, if you hadn't have brought her name up earlier this year, I would have never read Atlas Shrugged or seen the movie.

The irony is that she was the first to paste liberals as "progressives".

that by and of itself is reason enough to read her book....though I would buy the audio version and listen to it on the ole Ipad/Ipod/Ianything as long as it was made of Rearden Metal.

Thanks for the affirmation.

Weaver95: yeah, but...Rand is kind of a lunatic. I mean I get what she was trying to say, but she went about it in the most ass backwards way imaginable

I like the whole "triumph of the individual against adversity" thing she puts in the Fountainhead. Her positions on economics and rape, however, are pretty out there.

Weaver95: Rand was desperately in need of a good editor. Atlas Shrugged could have gotten its point across and been 2000 pages shorter.

If it were 200 pages shorter, it could have been Animal Farm, another socialism busting book that seems to parody the modern progressive movement.

"Some animals are more equal than others" is now the pinnacle of liberalism as they move to protect their own from being removed from office for corruption (ala Mr. Nancy Pelosi and others for insider trading).

My dad is so into Ayn Rand that when I graduated high school I got a copy of Atlas Shrugged. You know, like how some kids get a Bible if their parents are religious.

My basic read was I was a fan of her "don't be afraid to stand up for yourself and believe in yourself" message, but the fact that she clearly did not understand or feel compassion for suffering people was... well let's just say I think she must've been an Aspie in some form. That and the fact that her ideas about women were just plain messed up.

/ forget Atlas Shrugged, have you read the rape scene in The Fountainhead? I mean damn

Shostie: Weaver95: yeah, but...Rand is kind of a lunatic. I mean I get what she was trying to say, but she went about it in the most ass backwards way imaginable

I like the whole "triumph of the individual against adversity" thing she puts in the Fountainhead. Her positions on economics and rape, however, are pretty out there.

I just wish the Republicans actually believed in the concept of 'individual' over 'corporation'. that would give me hope for the future. turns out the GOP is just as collectivist as the marxists - they just changed 'the government' to 'the corporations'.

Weaver95: Rand was desperately in need of a good editor. Atlas Shrugged could have gotten its point across and been 2000 pages shorter.

Apparently when it got to that 100 page "speech" about individualism she refused to let her editor touch it, saying "would you edit the Bible?"

That probably explains a lot.

EnviroDude: Weaver95: Rand was desperately in need of a good editor. Atlas Shrugged could have gotten its point across and been 2000 pages shorter.

If it were 200 pages shorter, it could have been Animal Farm, another socialism busting book that seems to parody the modern progressive movement.

"Some animals are more equal than others" is now the pinnacle of liberalism as they move to protect their own from being removed from office for corruption (ala Mr. Nancy Pelosi and others for insider trading).

no, really - blathering on for as long as she did in Atlas Shrugged didn't help her story any. In fact, it really hurt her overall plot. being overly wordy and excessive can be just as bad a thing as not descriptive enough. A good editor could have cut out the crappy non-essential bits and kept Rand focused on her main story.

Andromeda: Weaver95: Rand was desperately in need of a good editor. Atlas Shrugged could have gotten its point across and been 2000 pages shorter.

Apparently when it got to that 100 page "speech" about individualism she refused to let her editor touch it, saying "would you edit the Bible?"

That probably explains a lot.

i've had a couple/few drinks with people who do some editing on the side and almost all of them would probably have said 'yes - I would edit the bible. now STFU and cut out 2000 pages'.

good editors can sometimes be heavy handed pricks.

She sounds foreign.

EnviroDude: /Ianything as long as it was made of Rearden Metal.

Most of the premise of the book involves some firm inventing unobtanium. Take away the concept of "we invented this super-material (somehow)!!1" from the book and they have jack-sh*t.

Think about it. Should we be applying a philosophy based on an ill-conceived plot device from a work of fiction to reality?

Oh, wait, you probably think we should follow the Bible, too.

sinschild: 2wolves: Every pimply boy discovers Atlas Shrugged and the fascination usually goes away when girls are discovered.

Sometimes it takes considerably longer. Took having children to change my mind.

Yep. Much personal sacrifice when a proto-human enters your life.

Weaver95: I just wish the Republicans actually believed in the concept of 'individual' over 'corporation'. that would give me hope for the future. turns out the GOP is just as collectivist as the marxists - they just changed 'the government' to 'the corporations'.

If there was money in Marxism, Sarah Palin would be quoting Chairman Mao. So yeah, I think you're right.

kxs401: Weaver95: no, really - blathering on for as long as she did in Atlas Shrugged didn't help her story any. In fact, it really hurt her overall plot. being overly wordy and excessive can be just as bad a thing as not descriptive enough. A good editor could have cut out the crappy non-essential bits and kept Rand focused on her main story.

I'm not an author, but I don't think starting with a message and then reverse-engineering a plot, characters, and dialogue (or "plot" "characters" and "dialogue") to fit that message is the way you get great art.

no, that's not all that uncommon a way to go about building a story. take an idea and working backwards into a story has been done before (terry pratchett and/or Umberto Eco do that). same as taking a character (or group of characters) and putting them into a scenario and building the story from there also happens from time to time (Stephen King does that a LOT actually). So rand wasn't being original when she took her ideas and build Atlas Shrugged around them.

Rand's mistake (IMHO anyways) is a very basic one a lot of writers make - and I include myself in this catagory by the way - she assumed that EVERYTHING she wrote was critical to her story. her idea was perfect, therefor everything in the story was, by definition, perfect. the problem is that when you start from your idea and work backwards, you have to adjust things as you go or the story stops working. if you can't be flexible enough to move things around a bit then you risk your story falling apart around you. Rand assumed her idea(s) were inviolate and couldn't be changed and her story suffered for it.

She could have made it work though. breaking it down into smaller stories or an anthology of short stories/novellas all centered on a common theme (for example). But that would have required a flexibility of thought and humility that I think Rand severely lacked.

Weaver95: kxs401: Weaver95: no, really - blathering on for as long as she did in Atlas Shrugged didn't help her story any. In fact, it really hurt her overall plot. being overly wordy and excessive can be just as bad a thing as not descriptive enough. A good editor could have cut out the crappy non-essential bits and kept Rand focused on her main story.

I'm not an author, but I don't think starting with a message and then reverse-engineering a plot, characters, and dialogue (or "plot" "characters" and "dialogue") to fit that message is the way you get great art.

no, that's not all that uncommon a way to go about building a story. take an idea and working backwards into a story has been done before (terry pratchett and/or Umberto Eco do that). same as taking a character (or group of characters) and putting them into a scenario and building the story from there also happens from time to time (Stephen King does that a LOT actually). So rand wasn't being original when she took her ideas and build Atlas Shrugged around them.

Rand's mistake (IMHO anyways) is a very basic one a lot of writers make - and I include myself in this catagory by the way - she assumed that EVERYTHING she wrote was critical to her story. her idea was perfect, therefor everything in the story was, by definition, perfect. the problem is that when you start from your idea and work backwards, you have to adjust things as you go or the story stops working. if you can't be flexible enough to move things around a bit then you risk your story falling apart around you. Rand assumed her idea(s) were inviolate and couldn't be changed and her story suffered for it.

She could have made it work though. breaking it down into smaller stories or an anthology of short stories/novellas all centered on a common theme (for example). But that would have required a flexibility of thought and humility that I think Rand severely lacked.

The vast majority of science fiction is based on one OMG COOL idea then filled in with conflict and plot.

Sid_6.7: EnviroDude: /Ianything as long as it was made of Rearden Metal.

Most of the premise of the book involves some firm inventing unobtanium. Take away the concept of "we invented this super-material (somehow)!!1" from the book and they have jack-sh*t.

Think about it. Should we be applying a philosophy based on an ill-conceived plot device from a work of fiction to reality?

Oh, wait, you probably think we should follow the Bible, too.

In my opinion, you have it all wrong. While others might think of it as a philosopy, I do no. I see it more of a "life lesson" of an out of control government trying to make life better for the lawmakers (like the democrats do) and their friends (like the democrats do) at the expense of others (like the democrats do). Except, when she wrote the book, she wasn't writing about the democrats, she was writing about the European socialists/marxists/communists. But they are now what the democrats are. So when you see a democrat politician take over a company (like GM) and fire the board of directors and keep the union workers in place, when you see the government rewrite the laws to protect the Volt (now under recall for fires), when you see the government outlaw certain procedures to protect their special interest groups, you see Atlas Shrugged.


I can't say I would have read it as a book (I did the audio book when I was running up and down the roads). But it is applicable to today's political state. That is why the left fears it. Others that have not read it, simply parrot what they read and regurgitate it as their own independent thoughts.

It really isn't that complex.

There is no God but Ayn Rand and John Galt is her Prophet.

2wolves: The vast majority of science fiction is based on one OMG COOL idea then filled in with conflict and plot.

I mean I could see how Rand *could* have done it. she could have reworked her stories over into something a bit easier to read AND made her stories more believable. But Rand was obsessed with her ideas remaining unchanged/unfiltered. She didn't want to bend her ideas to make them fit into her stories, and that's why her fiction suffered.

Someone, quick, find that article about her gushing with admiration over the world's most perfect objectivist- a psychopathic kidnapper and child-murderer on death row.

Oh, wait, here it is.

It's a bit of a read. All you need to know is this line: "In her journal circa 1928 Rand quoted the statement, "What is good for me is right," a credo attributed to a prominent figure of the day, William Edward Hickman. Her response was enthusiastic. "The best and strongest expression of a real man's psychology I have heard," she exulted. (Quoted in Ryan, citing Journals of Ayn Rand, pp. 21-22.) ~~ ...William Edward Hickman was one of the most famous men in America in 1928. But he came by his fame in a way that perhaps should have given pause to Ayn Rand before she decided that he was a "real man" worthy of enshrinement in her pantheon of fictional heroes.

You see, Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.

Oh, and that's merely the first time she explicitly defends him. This wasn't some one-off ill-informed gaffe.

Weaver95: and that's why her fiction suffered

Also because her ideas and stories are utter shiat and completely nonsensical.

Why would I want to listen to some lady who lived off welfare?

Ed Finnerty: Why would I want to listen to some lady who lived off welfare?

We should ask Oprah.

GAT_00: Weaver95: and that's why her fiction suffered

Also because her ideas and stories are utter shiat and completely nonsensical.

I'd disagree, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that Rand *could* have written better stories...but she'd have needed an editor who wasn't afraid of her AND Rand herself would have to have been able to accept critical review of her writing and learn from her mistakes.

Good news, Fark: She hates the church too.

Ender's: Good news, Fark: She hates the church too.

Rand despised libertarians too.

Weaver95: My point is that Rand *could* have written better stories

Well, yes, if the goal was to write fiction instead of science fiction.



/what Ayn Rand's perfect world actually looks like

Weaver95: Ender's: Good news, Fark: She hates the church too.

Rand despised libertarians too.

She didn't like anyone who didn't lick her wordy taint.

GAT_00: Weaver95: My point is that Rand *could* have written better stories

Well, yes, if the goal was to write fiction instead of science fiction.



that's another point - Rand kind of lost focus. If Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be fiction, then she should have rewritten it until her story worked. but she treated it as if the story was her version of the bible - nothing could be changed because it was the Word of God and she was the prophet (profit?) of the Lord God Himself.

if you're going to write fiction - then write fiction. if you're going to write a philosphy textbook then write a gotdamn text book. don't mix the two up and expect it to work itself out by the final chapter.

EnviroDude: While others might think of it as a philosopy, I do no. I see it more of a "life lesson"

Talk about semantics.

2wolves: Weaver95: Ender's: Good news, Fark: She hates the church too.

Rand despised libertarians too.

She didn't like anyone who didn't lick her wordy taint.

yeah, from what I gather about how Ayn Rand picked her inner circle she didn't exactly surround herself with people who could stand up to her.

Weaver95: yeah, from what I gather about how Ayn Rand picked her inner circle she didn't exactly surround herself with people who could stand up to her.

More surrounded herself with folks who might bone her. NTTAWWT.

Weaver95: If Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be fiction, then she should have rewritten it until her story worked.

It is not possible to make that story be ficiton.

GAT_00: Weaver95: If Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be fiction, then she should have rewritten it until her story worked.

It is not possible to make that story be ficiton.

So... fantasy?

GAT_00: Weaver95: If Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be fiction, then she should have rewritten it until her story worked.

It is not possible to make that story be ficiton.

no, it would have worked very well as fiction. more spy thriller than sci-fi but I can see it working. her basic story formula isn't all THAT different from other things already out there on the library shelves. what would have made her story unique is how and why John Galt did things the way he did.

Weaver95: GAT_00: Weaver95: If Atlas Shrugged was supposed to be fiction, then she should have rewritten it until her story worked.

It is not possible to make that story be ficiton.

no, it would have worked very well as fiction. more spy thriller than sci-fi but I can see it working. her basic story formula isn't all THAT different from other things already out there on the library shelves. what would have made her story unique is how and why John Galt did things the way he did.

You know, he's not Robin Hood or Jason Bourne or James Bond. Well, maybe he's a Chinese spy stealing American ideas. But I'd say he's more Tony Hayward

R.A.Danny: Ed Finnerty: Why would I want to listen to some lady who lived off welfare?

We should ask Oprah.

Are you suggesting Oprah is going to spend the end of her life sucking on the entitlement teat?

I know very little about Ayn Rand, but have noticed that everyone who seems to like her are douchebags.