"Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography • Hacker News Board

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#11

Post by saturnine » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 6:50 PM UTC

"... if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life."

Nonsense. She may just as well have concluded that adulterating her work would have made it less potent and thus reduced its impact, resulting in fewer sales.

That the reviewer believes conceding to accept less money in the short term contradicts capitalism betrays his or her understanding of capitalism.

Disclosure: I've never read any of Rand's writings.

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#12

Post by tptacek » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 6:52 PM UTC

adriand wrote: post #2

I purchased and attempted to read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years ago. I failed, because rarely have I ever come across a more tedious, sermonizing, simplistic and unconvincing philosophical treatise poorly disguised as a novel. She could have distilled her viewpoint into a couple of paragraphs (it doesn't seem particularly subtle or complex), but that would probably have made it too easy to argue with her supporter…

The Name Of The Rose is a fabulously underrated hacker book.

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#13

Post by tptacek » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 6:53 PM UTC

camccann wrote: post #8

JCThoughtscream wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly an insult, really, when the reviews of Atlas Shrugged of its publication period got far deeper into the thesaurus to describe how terrible the writing really is. Besides, that's his honest reaction to the text. Why throw a fit over somebody else's aversion to the novel?

Why throw a fit over somebody else's aversion to the novel? Because it's often assumed that anyone who complains about the writing actually dislikes the politics and is bashing the writing as a disingenuous cover for that; and that anyone who claims to have enjoyed her novels for their own sake is actually promoting the politics and only talking the novels up to serve that end. In short, debating the quality of Ayn R…

Respond to what he wrote, not to what you've inferred him to have thought.

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#14

Post by ednapiranha » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 6:53 PM UTC

I have a difficult time respecting Objectivism when I come from the camp of Phenomenology, having a bias on the importance of consciousness as part of understanding reality. In short, I think Ayn Rand is a crazy bitch.

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#15

Post by xenophanes » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 6:55 PM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #7

JCThoughtscream wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hardly an insult, really, when the reviews of Atlas Shrugged of its publication period got far deeper into the thesaurus to describe how terrible the writing really is. Besides, that's his honest reaction to the text. Why throw a fit over somebody else's aversion to the novel?

Because we're going to become socialists if he doesn't like it!!11!

What was YC come to when !!11! comments are being upvoted?

Somewhat ambiguously pro-socialist as well. YC used to be Rand-friendly, and had a capitalist slant since the start. Has the population changed? Or is it just the hostile original link coloring who comes here?

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#16

Post by neilc » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 6:55 PM UTC

dgordon wrote: post #5

"Giving up her royalties to preserve her vision is something that no genuine capitalist, and few popular novelists, would have done. It is the act of an intellectual, of someone who believes that ideas matter more than lucre." I don't agree that recognizing that money is a means to an end and is not to be put before that end disqualifies you from being a genuine capitalist, or that being a capitalist and an intellect…

Yeah -- the quoted comment reflects a remarkable ignorance of the intellectual content of Rand's novels.

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#17

Post by DanielBMarkham » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:00 PM UTC

xenophanes wrote: post #15

jrockway wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because we're going to become socialists if he doesn't like it!!11!

What was YC come to when !!11! comments are being upvoted? Somewhat ambiguously pro-socialist as well. YC used to be Rand-friendly, and had a capitalist slant since the start. Has the population changed? Or is it just the hostile original link coloring who comes here?

I think the population has changed dramatically -- very slowly perhaps, but it definitely seems different than it was a couple of years ago.

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#18

Post by rauljara » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:06 PM UTC

xenophanes wrote: post #3

adriand wrote: post #2

I purchased and attempted to read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years ago. I failed, because rarely have I ever come across a more tedious, sermonizing, simplistic and unconvincing philosophical treatise poorly disguised as a novel. She could have distilled her viewpoint into a couple of paragraphs (it doesn't seem particularly subtle or complex), but that would probably have made it too easy to argue with her supporter…

Your opinions regarding Rand are not a justification to be insulting. I enjoyed it as a novel, and find significant parts of the philosophy convincing, but I'm not going to fill my comment with insults that apply to you. What would be better than insults is arguments. You haven't given any argument that someone who likes the book could find convincing. If you don't want to debate that's fine, then don't. But if you c…

Rand herself was famous for being insulting and dismissive, which I think is the main reason people react so strongly against her. In the introduction to anthem, she basically states that if you don't agree with her views on capitalism, then you are in favor of gulags and concentration camps. She, herself, leaves no room for middle ground, nuance, or civilized discussion. That isn't an excuse to resort to insults when talking about her, but if you are honestly wondering why people react so emotionally against her, it might have something to do with her assaulting other people's beliefs on such an emotional level.

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#19

Post by andrewpbrett » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:08 PM UTC

xenophanes wrote: post #10

perkoff wrote: post #4

"But Cerf offered Rand an alternative: if she gave up 7 cents per copy in royalties, she could have the extra paper needed to print Galt’s oration. That she agreed is a sign of the great contradiction that haunts her writing and especially her life." On the contrary, actually. The idea of artistic integrity is a _very_ central point of her preceding novel, The Fountainhead. The book's main protagonist, Howard Roark,…

I think it's even simpler than that. She wanted something (more pages) and she paid for it. There's nothing even slightly uncapitalist about resolving a disagreement by paying to get your way. It's the epitome of capitalism.

Agreed. The conclusions from the reviewer in that section didn't make much sense to me either. I'm also glad to see that some people are actually focusing on the content of the submission instead of the usual politics. There are some interesting tidbits in the review (and no doubt the book as well).

Re: "Ayn Rand's Revenge" - NYTimes Book Review of new Rand biography

#20

Post by ellyagg » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:09 PM UTC

adriand wrote: post #2

I purchased and attempted to read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years ago. I failed, because rarely have I ever come across a more tedious, sermonizing, simplistic and unconvincing philosophical treatise poorly disguised as a novel. She could have distilled her viewpoint into a couple of paragraphs (it doesn't seem particularly subtle or complex), but that would probably have made it too easy to argue with her supporter…

> tedious, sermonizing, simplistic and unconvincing

Astonishing. You weren't able to finish a long, wordy book describing a philosophy you don't agree with?

> She could have distilled her viewpoint into a couple of paragraphs

Wow, you mean as she did plenty of times, which you can easily find by doing a cursory search?

The idea that you shouldn't support your central thesis with as much evidence as you can muster is faintly preposterous.

I don't find Marx to be subtle or complex. I think his viewpoint can be summed up in one sentence, "From each according to ability, to each according to need." Nevertheless, I don't begrudge him writing many giant volumes of "tedious, sermonizing, simplistic, and unconvincing" supporting text.

Atlas Shrugged wasn't supposed to be subtle or reflect complex realities or any other thing you imagine is a requirement for being a great novel. It was written to express Ayn Rand's philosophy and obviously was hugely successful at doing so.