Atlas Winced | Hacker News Reader

Atlas Winced

theatlantic.com

28 pointsmhb33 comments

If you are looking for other reviews, Metacritic (27%):

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/atlas-shrugged-part-i

Rotten Tomatoes (10%):

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/atlas_shrugged_part_i/

Oh come on, the movie wasn't that terrible. I saw it yesterday morning in a completely sold out theater (every showing has been sold out so far, with a line around the theater of people trying to get in).

My "exit polls" (overhearing people talk about it as we all shuffle out) indicate that most people enjoyed it.

Sure it wasn't transformers, it was slow (but somehow not slow enough), and not very nuanced (the dialog the article is talking about), but it was an alright way to spend 105 minutes.

If you're a fan of film, I think you should go see it, if for no reason other than to try and see how the producers are trying to translate the story to film. It's also pretty culturally significant.

Hopefully with enough interest (and money) the second one will be done properly.

There are several things to consider before seeing this movie. First and foremost, it's an ashcan project. The film had to be rushed into production to retain the film rights, so the writers didn't have the time to prune out lines like the one mentioned. Also, Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings are nearly the same length, yet this film is just over half the run time of The Fellowship. Finally, the budget of this film is not nearly what it needed to be, so don't go in expecting to see a visual masterpiece. It's a shame but maybe someday a Peter Jackson level director will give this story the proper treatment it deserves.

Does anyone here actually like Ayn Rand and her writings?

Although you're being condescending, I'll answer you honestly: yes.

The Fountainhead is my favorite piece of fiction, and though Atlas Shrugged isn't it my top 5, I'm a huge fan of her philosophy. So yes.

I love Ayn Rand! Atlas Shrugged had a huge, positive impact on my life, and it's still my favorite novel over a decade after I first read it. I love the way that Rand stylizes her characters because it makes for very clear mental images while reading. It also it creates the framework for all kinds of subtle things that you don't notice the first time through.

A little bit too preachy, but we need the extremist thinkers to keep the Overton window from sliding.

Another honest answer - yes. I read her work only recently and was surprised to find out that she confirmed many of the conclusions I had reached, often quite painfully, myself. She provided the philosophical (theoretical) framework for those conclusions, which further helped me connect the outstanding dots.

She urges people to relentlessly ask the question why, to examine every premise for every important idea that guides our lives, to follow that premise to its roots, to look for contradictions. I put in the effort to do just that with her philosophy, and that effort matched the brainpower I had needed to build some of my most complex programs and models.

I am 30 now, but I really wish to have read her work when I was 20. If I could offer any advice, it is to read her books before you reach 30 and to think deeply about what she has to say until you are convinced (based on your best effort and knowledge to date) that you either agree or disagree with her. This would be much better than taking someone else's word for it.

This is really too bad. I loved the book (in spite of it's heavy-handed preaching) and was always afraid this would happen in transition to the big screen.

I hope the OP isn't posting this simply because it's fun to bash Rand.

I'm a huge fan of the book (though I prefer the Fountainhead), but didn't expect much more from this movie. I haven't seen it yet, but with that cast, and a production team that can't even hire a logo designer (check the stock vector used for the signage logo), I'd expect nothing short of a disappointment.

I didn't get the sense that the article was critical of Rand. It seemed more like it was bashing the movie.

An Atlas Shrugged movie could be awesome. The book conjures such vivid images of grandeur and destruction. It's a shame this trilogy seems like it should be missed.

I agree with you, but I've seen so many reviews use this bad movie as a chance to bash Rand that I was hoping to avoid that here.

This one has had a lot of troubles getting off the ground, and I'm guessing that the film reflects that, which as you say, is sad.

I hope the OP isn't posting this simply because it's fun to bash Rand.

The OP is Jane Galt: http://www.janegalt.net/

Ayn Rand was an admirer of child killer William Hickman, who dismembered a little girl.

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

Ad hominem fallacy this early in the morning?

I don't have to remind you one lapse of judgment doesn't invalidate all of one's ideas.

(and, to be fair, I think Ayn Rand's "wisdom" is highly overrated)

It's not an ad hominem, since I wasn't trying to refute Rand's arguments (such as they are).

It's quite telling, however, that that was the sort of man she idolized.

The author of that article did not really give an honest interpretation of what was written in her diaries (about Hickman).

Care to elaborate?

The author ignores that Rand would have quite limited access to information on the whole story, for a start. But more importantly he deliberately downplays the fiction/adaptation angle. Rand was fascinated by what she glimpsed in the news story (namely the 'I am like the state; what's good for me is right' quote, and the mob-mentality of the public reaction), because it gave her some ideas for a work of fiction, regardless of the facts of this particular case. Writers don't have to be accountable for what strange things inspire them, just what they actually publish. Prescott leaves the exhonerating quote to the very end (padding the rest of the article out with random references to Neitsche and snippets of unrelated dialogue grabbed without context):

------------ "I am afraid that I idealize Hickman and that he might not be this at all. In fact, he probably isn't. But it does not make any difference. If he isn't, he could be, and that's enough. There is a lot that is purposely, senselessly horrible about him. But that does not interest me..." ------------

She freely admits that her impressions of the case are probably wrong, but it rightfully doesn't matter to her because she's just planning how to create a work of fiction based on some ideas it brought to mind, not publish an editorial on the Hickman trial. When you untangle the whole business, that's all you're left with: a novelist who privately took inspiration from a strange/shocking event, but did nothing to sanction or glorify it in the resulting fiction. Not particularly unusual: look at all the characters, tyrants etc., that Shakespeare put in his plays while finding profound truths about humanity. I'd say the whole thing would be analogous to me turning on the news, listening to something Col. Gidaffi was saying in defiance of the hypocritical NATO alliance, and then (without having the luxury or desire to research Gidaffi's own integrity), being inspired to write a story about a benign dictator who brought prosperity to the land, loosely basing him on Gidaffi's mannerisms.

So really there's nothing to it, and that article would have died a quiet death, EXCEPT for this passage:

"The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."

Now that is a horrible thing for Rand to say - most people have worse sins than child murder?? But this is where Michael Prescott has 'done the dirty' - the sentence I italicized was, if you read the whole passage from the diary, not referring specifically to this murder case, but to the general instances of mob indignation (eg. could be tax evasion cases, MP expense fiddling, bankers bonuses, Monica Lewinsky, Fred Goodwin, the BP ceo, public figures making un-PC remarks, etc). Which is not an altogether unfair observation, in my experience. Mass self-righteousness is seldom pretty.

"The author ignores that Rand would have quite limited access to information on the whole story, for a start."

She may not have had the whole story, but how much of the story did she need?

Hickman's entire claim to fame was the cold blooded murder of a little girl. What nuances could Rand have been missing that could have mislead her on that point?

Here's what the author of the original article had to say about Rand's knowledge of the case:

   The gory details of Hickman's crime were indeed reported in the newspapers
   of the day. (They didn't call 'em the Roaring Twenties for nothin'.) Nearly
   all the info I presented was taken from contemporaneous newspaper accounts.
   Rand followed the case closely enough to know the day-by-day events of the
   trial, so she surely knew what Hickman had done. She just didn't care. She
   mentions not one word about Hickman's 12-year-old victim in all the hundreds
   of words she penned about the case.

   If you've read Rand's journals, you know that she did present her ethical
   positions in detail, even when writing for herself.

   Objectivists typically bend themselves into pretzel-like shapes to avoid
   acknowledging Rand's obvious psychological problems. The facts are, Rand
   knew exactly what Hickman had done and admired him anyway. Make of this what
   you will.

(The above quote is from one of the comments to this article:

http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/20... )

"Rand was fascinated by what she glimpsed in the news story (namely the 'I am like the state; what's good for me is right' quote, and the mob-mentality of the public reaction), because it gave her some ideas for a work of fiction, regardless of the facts of this particular case."

Even if that was all that fascinated her about Hickman (doubtful), it's quite interesting what conclusions she drew from his words: not that that kind of attitude could lead egomaniacs like Hickman to senseless murder but rather that they are ideals to be emulated and praised.

"But this is where Michael Prescott has 'done the dirty' - the sentence I italicized was, if you read the whole passage from the diary, not referring specifically to this murder case"

Are you kidding me? The section she wrote it in is titled "The Hickman Case", and it's clear she is talking about that case in particular from beginning to end. The entire section reinforces what she said in that quote. She said it and meant it about the Hickman case. There's no doubt about that.

Read for yourself:

http://books.google.com/books?id=2Gkx0STfl5kC

Just search for the phrase "Hickman Case" (including the quotes).

Tycho's point still stands. From what I can tell, you're just trolling. Get a new hobby!

We still do not know what information Rand had when she wrote what. The whole point is something made an impression on her and then she explored that emotional response to come up with ideas for a story. If you want to judge her on her emotional response, you at least need to be sure what she was responding to: for instance, I might have an emotional response to Saddam Hussein grandstanding in the crimes against humanity trial if I saw that on television, one quite different if the tv spot had simply featured images of his chemical attacks or torture victims.

"Even if that was all that fascinated her about Hickman (doubtful), it's quite interesting what conclusions she drew from his words: not that that kind of attitude could lead egomaniacs like Hickman to senseless murder but rather that they are ideals to be emulated and praised."

It's less interesting when you consider that other parts of her philosophy include a total rejection of violence.

"Are you kidding me? The section she wrote it in is titled "The Hickman Case", and it's clear she is talking about that case in particular from beginning to end. The entire section reinforces what she said in that quote. She said it and meant it about the Hickman case. There's no doubt about that."

Maybe you misunderstood what I wrote... but I strongly disagree. Here's the whole paragraph:

  The first thing that impresses me about the case

^ so she starts off addressing a specific event

  is the ferocious rage of the whole society against one man.

^ and then picks out a more general phenomenon present in this case

  No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the "virtuous"

  indignation and mass-hatred of the "majority." One always feels the stuffy,

  bloodthirsty emotion of a mob in any great public feeling of a large 

  number of humans. It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and 

  crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud

  and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society.

^ And then describes the general phenomenon as she has observed from other instances. Then she goes back to talking about Hickman. Prescott omitted the middle sentence of the last section above to make it sound worse, which I think is very dishonest

"It's less interesting when you consider that other parts of her philosophy include a total rejection of violence."

That's kind of ironic, if not outright hypocritical considering that outrage against violence is exactly what she's railing against in this journal entry.

She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there.

"And then describes the general phenomenon as she has observed from other instances."

First, it's not clear whether the last sentence you quote (the one you agree is dispicable were Rand referring to the Hickman case) is directly referring to the Hickman case or to the subject of the previous sentence, the "mob in any great public feeling". She doesn't mention the Hickman case by name in that sentence, nor does she explicitly mention she's talking about subject of the previous sentence.

But even were we to grant that she wasn't talking about the Hickman case directly, but was only talking about "a mob", she'd still be talking about the Hickman case indirectly; since it's obvious the mob she mentions is a general phenomena of which she saw the Hickman case as a particular example of.

So either way, she's talking about the Hickman case. Directly or indirectly.

In fact, the rest of the journal entry makes it crystal clear what Rand says in that sentence is indeed what she feels towards the spectators and prosecutors of the Hickman: "It is repulsive to see all those beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal, proud and secure in their number, yelling furiously in defense of society."

Read the rest of the "Hickman Case" section from her journal and you'll see that very sentiment expressed by Rand towards the spectators and prosectors of the Hickman case. You can virtually see the scorn and contempt dripping from Rand's lips, not at some abstract and general example of "a mob", but precisely at those people who were outraged by what Hickman had done.

She certainly didn't waste much time rejecting Hickman's violence there.

This is getting a bit silly, I mean, why would she? It's her private diary which she's using to plan works of fiction. She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence.

Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally.

Thirdly, she does indeed have many (other) negative things to say about the mob in this specific instance, but they are reasonable criticisms. For instance the enthusiasm of the newstand boys crying 'they're going to hang him!' It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground.

Basically she saw this case, saw the public reaction, and detected something in that reaction which wasn't motivated merely by the crime itself, but the criminal's open defiance of the social order. It inspired her to write a story about someone who also cared nothing for the social order, who wanted his own success above all alse, but was not a phoney or a hypocrit in any way, or a danger to others, and committed a crime for which he was widely hated: not because of the crime itself, but because he refused to acknowledge its wrongfulness. The initial story was never written but you can see the same pattern in The Fountainhead when Roark blows up the housing complex then goes on trial. Rand was not interested in Hickman, but in a parallel to the Hickman story that shared some of the same elements.

There were, of course, many, many other murders which Rand wasn't interested in whatsoever.

"She doesn't need to explain to herself that she doesn't condone violence."

Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder?

"Secondly, the contention is that Rand thought most people had 'worse sins' than child murder. One could conceivably interpret her sentence to mean that, but I think the only reason anyone has is because Michael Prescott ellipted the quotation in his article. It is vastly more likey that Rand was still speaking generally, and it reads that way more naturally."

Even if we take her statement to apply more generally towards "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" is it really any more excusable? She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder.

"It's when mass-approval crosses the line into unhealthy mass-relishment of a situation. And people coming out of the woodwork to associate themselves with the moral highground."

And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime?

Then why did she explain to herself that she condemned the "mob" who was outraged by Hickman's murder?

The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it.

She'd presumably feel the same contempt not only towards those people who expressed outrage at Hickman's murder, but at similar outrage expressed against any murder.

She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response. Here the public response to Hickman wasn't hypocritical (except for his wife-murdering cellmate), but there were other things she didn't like about it. Let's note that most murders actually don't provoke a mass outrage - people are just quietly glad when the murderer is caught/sentenced. Mind you, Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable.

And that "unhealthy mass-relishment" is more worthy of contempt and reproach than Hickman's own crime?

Again you are forgetting this is a private diary for planning fiction, not an newspaper editorial on a public affair. 'Worthy' has got nothing to do with it. Murders happen all the time. Many books are written about them already. It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it. This was a murder case with a difference, and Rand wanted to explore that difference. The question is not 'what is just and fair in this story,' but 'what is interesting in this story?'

"The outrage of the mob was what she was studying to write her fiction. She is detailing the characteristics and behaviours which she wants to portray - violence/murder was not going to be a part of her story, so she didn't write about it."

True. But you can see she had a strong emotional response to the circumstances of the Hickman case. She was really outraged, and ranted about her outrage for pages upon pages upon pages.

But her outrage was focused not on Hickman or on the murder he committed, but on those people who were outraged at what Hickman had done.

That's what's strange about her reaction. She doesn't seem to be concerned in the least by what Hickman had done. In fact, she idolizes him, and even writes a story in which she turns him in to a hero.

And it's not like there weren't plenty of cases of miscarriages of justice in the 20's that she could have been outraged at. Plenty of cases where she could have chosen to idolize and emulate someone who really was heroic.

Instead in her journal entry she writes of a child murderer being a hero. You don't find her choice of heroes to be even a bit strange?

"She's not alluding to other murders, but to lesser 'crimes' that provoke a more hypocritical mass-response."

What makes you think that? By her own words, she's referring to: "a mob in any great public feeling of a large number of humans" That includes public outrage at murders, mass murders, torture, etc.

The fact that she alluded to such mobs in relation to the Hickman case proves that she wasn't talking about mobs that form only in response to "lesser" crimes, but rather those of which the public outrage caused by the Hickman case is an example (ie. murder cases).

"Rand's early years probably weren't that far removed from the groutesque spectacle of public executions in front of actual mobs, which I suspect most people now find despicable."

If she had written about her outrage at the lynching of an innocent black man, I think most people today would agree with her and indeed find such an event despicable.

But Hickman was not lynched by a mob (he even got what appears to be a pretty fair trial, especially by the standards of the day), he was not innocent, and he wasn't a member of any persecuted minority. Furthermore, his crime was itself of a particularly despicable sort.

The only way Rand could have chosen a worse person to idolize was if she'd chosen a mass murderer or serial killer. In fact, Hickman wasn't really all that far from a serial killer, as there are some indications he'd killed before.

"It's not like this would be the first murder ever and that was Rand's response to it."

But it was a particularly gruesome murder of a child. You'd think that Rand herself would have been outraged by it. Instead she idolized the perpetrator and had nothing but contempt for those that would dare disparage him.

Why do you keep saying she 'idolized' him? She didn't, she idealized him, which is different. She's drawn to the case because she really liked his statement, 'I'm like the state, what's good for me is right.' From there she plans a story about a character based on his positive traits, but free from his negative ones, his 'degeneracy.'

She writes about the mob because the mob will be the antagonist in her story. She doesn't think the member of the mob in this case had 'worse sins' than murder in their own lives (I mean you could interpret it that way, but it's a stretch, plus is uncharacteristically stupid, plus is something Rand would have actually explained if that's what she meant - she's always crystal clear about explaining her beliefs), but nevertheless it's the same 'mob-mentality' at work as found elsewhere. A lynch mob is different, I'm talking about the crowds of people who turned up to see public executions, basically making justice a form of entertainment masquerading as moral superiority. The worst cases would be witch-trials or execution for 'treason', or counterfeiters, or show-trials in Russia. The modern instances would probably be the Enron or Royal Bank of Scotland inquiries, where although there was guilt, one has to say 'give me a fucking break' when all these former-colleagues or regulators line up to wash their hands and denounce the scapegoat. Then you have the 'celebrity speaks out of turn' stories, where people act like nothing they ever say in private is just as bad. All cases have different details, but the argument is that the mob-mentality is somewhat consistent throughout.

Once again this is a private diary for planning fiction. It's not 'Ayn Rand's Memoirs, Chapter 6: What I thought of William Hickman.' Or 'Ayn Rand: My Heroes.' Rand is in the process of forumulating a philosophy that eschews collectivism and along comes a prominent news story where she gets a chance to study the mob-mentality in reaction to someone who is not a collectivist whatsoever. Murders are very common, but ones which become huge public spectacles are not. It is not sufficient to ask 'why is the public so outraged?' The question becomes 'why is the public so outraged about this instance, but not others?'

Reply on news.ycombinator.com