Comment by kderbyma | Hacker News Reader

Comment by kderbyma | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Most people who have a dislike for Atlas Shrugged have a poor understanding due to having only engorged themselves on satire about the book, poor rendered assumptions about the nature of the messages written by enraged people who take offense at what I can only assume stems from seeing themselves as part of the groups which Rand disparages (collectivism) and frankly tend to have never read the book in its entirety let alone anything else written by her to have a sense of the ongoing themes and an improvement to her writing style.

the book inspires the idea of individual potential....which if you have no personal desire to achieve tends to enrage and put one on the defence, but for those who have a spark of fire they get inspired.

I like the book, and would love to have an honest discourse on its flaws that is equally willing to acknowledge the depths of its actual arguments and the strengths of propositions when taken into account the underlying presumptions that are at the heart of the novel. It is a novel after all and not an academic treatise which many liken it to because of the marketing.

I read the book when I was still a right-libertarian, and I credit it with playing a significant part in pushing me left into Anarchism. Thus, I'd say I fall pretty firmly in the camp of "I have read the entirety of Atlas Shrugged and severely disagree with it".

And I have to disagree with the "not an academic treatise" take: the book is a statement of philosophy first, and a story in a distant second. Most character's actions serve to either portray the "right" behavior of the Objectivist Ubermenche, or act a strawman foil to the heroes of the story. Frankly, the most surprising thing is that Rand doesn't stick to easy slam-dunk wins against her strawman "collectivists": she portrays the kinds of monstrous actions that her philosophy encourages, and then celebrates them. Franscisco D'Antonia's bombing of his own mine when he inevitably lost the fight against labor, the reverse-Robin Hood character's outright theft for the benefit of those who really don't need it, heck, the bizarrely rapey sexual encounters between Dagny and Rearden are all portrayed in a unquestionably positive light, and that's probably why so few people who don't already agree with the underlying philosophy finish the book: it's seriously alienating to see evil unambiguously praised.

Atlas Shrugged does not simply "inspire" individualism: It demonizes anything less than overtly selfish behavior, to the point of praising characters for acting against their own interests simply out of spite towards those who fail to live up to the Ubermenche ideal. Contrast that with individualist anarchist writers like Max Stirner, who's philosophy follows something like "Liberation begins with the self, but we can work better together": The former is destructive, where even self-interest takes a back seat to the rejection of cooperation, whereas the latter truely puts self-interest first, acknowledging that cooperation often grants greater benefit to ourselves as well.

As a novel, it's low-effort, monotonous wish fulfillment accented by the occasional romance or absurd moment. As a philosophical statement, it's a lackluster re-framing of the least favorable parts of Nietzche with the overt "Woman only get into academia if they're sterile" sexism being replaced with a more subtle "Women should be more like men" form. The book has few redeeming qualities, and can only really be enjoyed by a reader who already agrees with the premise.

I feel like you are completely missing the point of the protagonists self sacrifice.....

you claim it is selfish to show the world that they are at an unhealthy level of entitlement and ignorance and that to continue with the status quo is to invite a future of degradation and despotism that would shield all innovation from seeing daylight.

You claim that they are selfish in their acts but fa to acknowledge their reasons their outcomes or their resolve to not become serfs of the collectivists....it says do not be a slave just because you are good at something....it says stand up, realise your worth, don't cheapen yourself, but if people will not respect you and will not value your efforts with some compensation (whether that be recognition, money, respect, debt, etc) but some form of value should be given....the smallest people are not expected to give anything more than relative efforts ...

If the characters were "self-sacrificing" in their actions, they were, by definition, acting against their own self interest, in conflict with every long-winded ideological monologue in the book. Skipping directly to the "fuck off into the mountains to pass gold around in their utopian rich person land" would have been more in their own interest.

No, their actions were taken out of self-interested spite. It was not enough to leave society, they needed to harm it on the way out.

You forget that this basically was anarchism at the time:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_egoism

I already referenced Stirner, who is well placed in both the Egoist and Anarchist traditions. Ayn Rand, on the other hand, cannot be placed within the Anarchist tradition, as she is unabashedly pro-Capitalism. Like, not "a necessary evil" pro-Capitalism, "an unequivocal moral good" pro-Capitalism. And Capitalism, being defined as a hierarchy based on control of capital, is entirely mutually exclusive with Anarchism, the rejection of hierarchy.

I’ve read about 2/3rds of it. It’s a terribly written book - too drawn out and on the nose and the “message” is obvious since chapter two or so. It’s like one of those idiotic self help books where if you read first couple chapters you’ve read the whole thing

Same thing with Fountainhead which i read whole

I agree it has flaws and needed an editor.

The book is about 30-40% too long, and does repeat the ideas, but if you ignore that aspect which is fair given many books suffer from that which are popular and well loved. The biggest flaw is the repetition and the final monologue is 5x too long.

it is much better when you see the fountainhead. which is very similar themes, but has a lot less of those writing problems.

Also...it is a novel...so the message part isn't the whole point.

There is a plot...

Yeas but a special kind of novel - more of a manifesto. Compare it with something like 1984 which is similar kind of manifesto-book but a much more captivating read.

I haven't read 1984 yet to my chagrin

My experience is that 99% of the people who hate Atlas Shrugged never read the book, they just heard that the people they hate like it, so they hate it.

I don't even really understand why people map it onto politics in the way they do. It seems to me fundamentally a story about people trying to accomplish something big, innovative and disruptive but being stymied by the various forces who resist or fear change, whether because they're profiting from the status quo or they're lazy or ignorant or entitled or whatever.

Like one of the central set of "bad guys" are the rival owners of other railroad companies, who are trying to maintain their monopoly/cartel. Another set of "bad guys" are the privileged family members who expect to have wealth and power by birthright. I don't see why a person who had left or far left political views wouldn't resonate with the protagonists struggles against these various entrenched, privileged rent seekers.

My experience is 90% of the people who like AS never read it. Same for libertarians, don’t even know what I’m talking about if I mention Road to Serfdom.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com