Ok folks enough is enough.

Turtwig

I've seen tonnes of references to this "Atlas Shrugged" stuff is it worth a read or are you guys just ripping the piss out of it?

rockmongrel

It's awful, just awful. Pretentious, badly written babble.

The Mad Hatter

Oh ye gods, please let's not go down this rat hole again...

robindch

Don't go there. I read a bunch of pages. What I read is inexpressibly and inexcusably crap.

AhSureTisGrand

I've been meaning to read it to see what all the fuss is about, but from what I've heard I don't think I could live with the shame

robindch

Ah, just remembered this post from last year. Go read Anthem, then imagine the same thing, strung out to 1400 pages.

The opening of Macaulay's review of Nares' 'Burleigh and His Times' springs to mind:

Thomas Babington Macaulay wrote:

THE work of Dr. Nares has filled us with astonishment similar to that which Captain Lemuel Gulliver felt when first he landed in Brobdingnag, and saw corn as high as the oaks in the New Forest, thimbles as large as buckets, and wrens of the bulk of turkeys. The whole book, and every component part of it, is on a gigantic scale. The title is as long as an ordinary preface: the prefatory matter would furnish out an ordinary book; and the book contains as much reading as an ordinary library. We cannot sum up the merits of the stupendous mass of paper which lies before us better than by saying that it consists of about two thousand closely printed quarto pages, that it occupies fifteen hundred inches cubic measure, and that it weighs sixty pounds avoirdupois. Such a book might, before the deluge, have been considered as light reading by Hilpa and Shallum. But unhappily the life of man is now three-score years and ten; and we cannot but think it somewhat unfair in Dr. Nares to demand from us so large a portion of so short an existence.

Compared with the labour of reading through these volumes, all other labour, the labour of thieves on the treadmill, of children in factories, of negroes in sugar plantations, is an agreeable recreation. There was, it is said, a criminal in Italy, who was suffered to make his choice between Guicciardini and the galleys. He chose the history. But the war of Pisa was too much for him. He changed his mind, and went to the oar. Guicciardini, though certainly not the most amusing of writers, is a Herodotus or a Froissart, when compared with Dr. Nares, It is not merely in bulk, but in specific gravity also, that these memoirs exceed all other human compositions. On every subject which the Professor discusses, he produces three times as many pages as another man; and one of his pages is as tedious as another man's three. His book is swelled to its vast dimensions by endless repetitions, by episodes which have nothing to do with the main action, by quotations from books which are in every circulating library, and by reflections which, when they happen to be just, are so obvious that they must necessarily occur to the mind of every reader. He employs more words in expounding and defending a truism than any other writer would employ in supporting a paradox. Of the rules of historical perspective, he has not the faintest notion. There is neither foreground nor background in his delineation. The wars of Charles the Fifth in Germany are detailed at almost as much length as in Robertson's life of that prince. The troubles of Scotland are related as fully as in M'Crie's Life of John Knox. It would be most unjust to deny that Dr. Nares is a man of great industry and research; but he is so utterly incompetent to, arrange the materials which he has collected that he might as well have left them in their original repositories.

Neither the facts which Dr. Nares has discovered, nor the arguments which he urges, will, we apprehend, materially alter the opinion generally entertained by judicious readers of history concerning his hero. Lord Burleigh can hardly be called a great man.

I ordered a copy of it once, I think it was the only book I've ever ordered online that went missing in the post. I took that as a sign :pac::pac:
I still intend to read it though

cavedave

I do not think it is very good. Anthem is quite good though if you like dystopias.

Rev Hellfire

I've it sitting on my bookshelf, keep meaning to read it, should really put it next on the list.

With the polar views attributed to it I'm of the opinion that you'll really need to have read it yourself to have an informed view. And possibly more than a bunch of pages

magicbastarder

not sure who is responsible for this quote:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.

edit: i see that made it into the previous thread.

robindch

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

possibly more than a bunch of pages

I'm only using the phrase "bunch of pages" since I'm having difficulty thinking of it as a "book".

Rand's 'Anthem' text is here:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1250/pg1250.txt

And my review of it is here.

Rev Hellfire

robindch wrote: »

I'm only using the phrase "bunch of pages" since I'm having difficulty thinking of it as a "book".

So you read the whole thing, that I can accept.
I think though I'll have to read it myself to truly see if its as good or awful as people say.

Dades

Just searched for this on my (shiny new) Kindle - $17.59 for the eBook?? Fook that!

Sure it's only 13 days till A Dance with Dragons.


EDIT: That was actually a companion book. You can't get it on Kindle - weird.

liamw

I wonder is Ayn Rand's idea of Libertarianism similar to Michael Shermer's... I haven't read enough on his.

I have only watched interviews and read snippets of her book but I think one of her core premises is flawed: that humans are inherently selfish and act only out of personal interest. Perhaps I missed it, but she seems to ignore inherent altruism. She also appears to tread quite closely to the Naturalistic Fallacy.

Mr.Triffid

Hi, i'm new to this forum,
I just bought a copy but haven't had the chance to read it, is it any good? I heard it deals with Objectivism, is that true?

Turtwig

Thanks guys, my reading time is incredibly precious as things are so I shall be steering well clear of this.

robindch

Mr.Triffid wrote: »

just bought a copy but haven't had the chance to read it, is it any good? I heard it deals with Objectivism, is that true?

It's true that AS deals with a confused and contradictory notion that Rand refers to as Objectivism. I can't seriously imagine that anybody really thinks that Objectivism itself is true, especially if they've been on the receiving end of some of what it produces.

liamw wrote: »

I think one of her core premises is flawed: that humans are inherently selfish and act only out of personal interest.

It's more prescriptive than that, going so far as to say that people can only be "free" if they behave entirely selfishly. With the follow-on conclusion, that societal good derives purely from people behaving selfishly, and specifically deriding market regulation, central government action (save for the army, just about) etc. Her's is a peculiarly autistic idea of freedom that I can't really sympathize with since I've seen what it produces in countries like Russia where Rand-style free-market banditry is the norm.

Nodin

Malty_T wrote: »

I've seen tonnes of references to this "Atlas Shrugged" stuff is it worth a read or are you guys just ripping the piss out of it?

The following is worth a read.

THE UNLIKELIEST CULT IN HISTORY

BY MICHAEL SHERMER

http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml

strobe

oh dear...

AhSureTisGrand

Hey strobe you said you were once a libertine. Tell us a story

strobe

There was actually an Atlas Shrugged movie (part one of three) released in April in the states. It got panned wholesale by the critics (13% on Rotten Tomatoes {but 89% on the user reviews?} but I think it looks quite good considering the cast and budget that was at it's disposal. The dialogue is supposed to stick pretty close to the novel as well so I'd imagine it is a reasonably faithful adaption in the way that matters.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W07bFa4TzM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-dw

Pygmalion

strobe wrote: »

There was actually an Atlas Shrugged movie (part one of three) released in April in the states. It got panned wholesale by the critics (13% on Rotten Tomatoes {but 89% on the user reviews?} but I think it looks quite good considering the cast and budget that was at it's disposal. The dialogue is supposed to stick pretty close to the novel as well so I'd imagine it is a reasonably faithful adaption in the way that matters.

Terrible reviews by experts.
Favourable reviews by the American public.

Yeah, sounds like it's pretty faithful to Ayn Rand.

Mark Hamill

There was an earlier movie adaption than that: Iron Man 2 :pac: (go to number 4 here)

Turtwig

That cracked article about Robocop is misleading. It describes him as an American Jesus. Anyone who followed Robocop knows the only reason Robocop could exist was because of his roots in Irish Catholicism. Any attempts at replication of the Robocop project ended in failure unless the subject had the moral objection to suicide endowed by upon them by Irish Catholicism. The IRA Jesus?

CerebralCortex

Malty_T wrote: »

That cracked article about Robocop is misleading. It describes him as an American Jesus. Anyone who followed Robocop knows the only reason Robocop could exist was because of his roots in Irish Catholicism. Any attempts at replication of the Robocop project ended in failure unless the subject had the moral objection to suicide endowed by upon them by Irish Catholicism. The IRA Jesus?

I remember that **** in Robocop 2, there was quite a funny sequency of failed Robocops blowing their brains out.

sponsoredwalk

strobe wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-dw

Oh my god, you have to weep for humanity sometimes... Is that scene
in the book?

MagicMarker

Dades wrote: »

Just searched for this on my (shiny new) Kindle - $17.59 for the eBook?? Fook that!

Sure it's only 13 days till A Dance with Dragons.


EDIT: That was actually a companion book. You can't get it on Kindle - weird.

*cough*

Download Calibre, convert PDF to MOBI and there you have it!

strobe

Pygmalion wrote: »

Terrible reviews by experts.
Favourable reviews by the American public.

Yeah, sounds like it's pretty faithful to Ayn Rand.

Not all of the American public gave a favourable review.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j56IiLqZ9U

strobe

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

Hey strobe you said you were once a libertine. Tell us a story

... picking that scab is more of a long undecipherable whiskey addled 4:00am on a Saturday morning thing man. But I'll take it under consideration.

sponsoredwalk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76km8vtYKUA

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

I'd like to read it to see what I was up against, but I seen a copy of it once and I'd say the only use I'd get out of it would be anchoring a small ship.

recedite

The ghost of Ayn Rand, the PIGGS and some dead tigers;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2j3BhL47c

The Mad Hatter

strobe wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8MVFoiw-dw

"Selected scene." I'm not sure what's worse - the dialogue or its delivery. That is, it would seem, the cream of the crap.

bnt

I've read it - the whole thing, last year. It's a big read. I think people take it far too seriously. It's unrealistic in that the model it presents hinges on the concept of the rational actor: someone who is morally upright, has all the information he/she needs, and the intelligence to make the correct decisions.

Given all that, it would make sense to be "selfish" because it's enlightened selfishness - not simply the "me first" attitude that we think of when we hear the word. It would not preclude co-operating with other people to everyone's benefit, or "investing in people". In the book, the "bad guys" are also selfish, in a hypocritical Soviet way: lining their own pockets while making all the right noises about "the people", telling the people to make altruistic sacrifices in the name of an illusory "common good".

The rationale behind the "strike" is not simply to make a point: it is to accelerate a process that they feel to be inevitable - the collapse of the socialist society - get through the crisis" quickly rather then slowly, and prepare for a quick reconstruction after it's all over.

This is the bit that journalists in particular don't get: the transparent rational selfishness of Galt & co. vs. the self-serving hypocrisy of the "leaders", who are (by the end) hell-bent on killing the geese who laid the golden eggs, rather than allow the geese to use them to run the economy. But the book is still a proposal for a model society; one that I don't think is possible, simply because we aren't the "rational actors" we need to be - whether individually or collectively.

I can accept that it might anger some people, as long as it's enlightened anger that stems from an understanding of what the book is saying, and - just as important - not saying. It does not tell you to go out and be blindly selfish, or screw over your fellow man. It does not say "pull up the gangplank, Jack, I'm alright". The protagonists go on "strike" for a reason, to achieve something they believe to be right for the world in the long run - not simply out of selfishness. That's what I took from the book. Which doesn't make me a Randroid by a long shot, since I think the Objectivist model has some fundamental flaws.

strobe

It's not meant to be a literary masterpiece.

It's meant to make a point, like when Jesus talked about that thing that happened that one time.

Parable... and sh1t.

Turtwig

strobe wrote: »

It's not meant to be a literary masterpiece.

It's meant to make a point, like when Jesus talked about that thing that happened that one time.

Parable...

Get it... Why don't you get it?

Wrong thread strobe, irreligious countries and sh1t.:D

pH

bnt wrote: »

This is the bit that journalists in particular don't get: the transparent rational selfishness of Galt & co. vs. the self-serving hypocrisy of the "leaders", who are (by the end) hell-bent on killing the geese who laid the golden eggs, rather than allow the geese to use them to run the economy. But the book is still a proposal for a model society; one that I don't think is possible, simply because we aren't the "rational actors" we need to be - whether individually or collectively.

Right, but here's the problem, the book seems to ignore the old-style robber baron/exploitative factory owner, replacing them with new-style "rationally selfish" people, while retaining, and damning the opposition to the former (ie the unions, socialism etc).

It's this contrast that seems wrong to me.

cavedave

What good libertarian fiction is there though?
Robert A. Heinlein
Neal Stephenson
Vernor Vinge
Robert Anton Wilson

Are all good in my opinion. Anything less Sci-fi though?

there are plenty of dystopias that show the perils of the other side. We, 1984, Pictures of the Socialistic Future. But good fiction that actually makes positive claims about a society with little government?

CerebralCortex

cavedave wrote: »

What good libertarian fiction is there though?
Robert A. Heinlein
Neal Stephenson
Vernor Vinge
Robert Anton Wilson

Are all good in my opinion. Anything less Sci-fi though?

there are plenty of dystopias that show the perils of the other side. We, 1984, Pictures of the Socialistic Future. But good fiction that actually makes positive claims about a society with little government?

I haven't read any of his stuff. Does Charles Stross have anything?

cavedave

The only Stross I have read is 'Halting State'. Which is not particularly libertarian.

Robert A. Heinlein- The moon is a harsh mistress

Neal Stephenson- Cryptominicon (which is very good) and the diamond age are both pretty libertarian.


Not fiction but a good libertarian book is 'Parliament of Whores' by P.J. O'Rourke. Even if you dislike his politics he is a great man for the one liners

legspin

cavedave wrote: »

Not fiction but a good libertarian book is 'Parliament of Whores' by P.J. O'Rourke. Even if you dislike his politics he is a great man for the one liners

Pretty much all of his books are filled with excellent one-liners. I don't agree with his politics but I find all his writings to be engaging and funny. His motoring journalism I find particularly enjoyable.

Morag

“Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.”

Rev Hellfire

Sharrow wrote: »

“Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.”

Magicbastarder said it better when they said :

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

cavedave wrote: »

What good libertarian fiction is there though?

Here might a be a good place to start.

Nodin

cavedave wrote: »

What good libertarian fiction is there though?

Bioshock.

cavedave

I am not sure Hayek could be described as great fiction. would recommend reading "the use of knowledge in society" but it is not fiction.

Most satire has a certain libertarian slant. South Park for example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HC3xwlfcFM

Thank you for smoking is not really libertarian either but it is at least fairly cynical about politicans motives.

recedite

pH wrote: »

Right, but here's the problem, the book seems to ignore the old-style robber baron/exploitative factory owner, replacing them with new-style "rationally selfish" people, while retaining, and damning the opposition to the former (ie the unions, socialism etc).

That's not a problem, taking you out of your comfort zone.
Sounds like the book succeeded in its mission.

bnt

pH wrote: »

Right, but here's the problem, the book seems to ignore the old-style robber baron/exploitative factory owner, replacing them with new-style "rationally selfish" people, while retaining, and damning the opposition to the former (ie the unions, socialism etc).

It's this contrast that seems wrong to me.

OK, that's related to what I meant when I called it a "model" - it's theoretical, not historically realistic. However, calling someone a "robber baron" doesn't mean he or she is one. Slapping that label on someone is an attack, and in the book such tactics are used a lot as part of the smear campaign against the industrialists.

Have a look at the Wikipedia article on robber barons, at some of the names on the list; while some were dodgy (Astor, Rockefeller), see if you agree that e.g. Leland Stanford or Andrew Carnegie were "robber barons". They made a lot of money, and the public didn't always understand how they did it ... and then they gave it all away of their own volition. My point is that the "robber baron" label is populist and subjective.

recedite

We have had a few robber barons ourselves recently in the banking/ developer area. Then you have someone like Sean Quinn, a hero and a major employer around Cavan. An honest hardworking genius, sucked in and spat out by Anglo Irish bank.
But what if his gambling had paid off instead of losing so spectacularly?
Would he then be just another robber baron?
The point is, in real life you get the whole spectrum, not just one stereotype or the other.