"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

#21

Post by xenophanes » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:17 PM UTC

ellyagg wrote: post #20

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…

As much as I don't like Marx, he's still more complex than that.

You may like to read _The Open Society and Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper. It is a strong critique of Marx (and Plato and Hegel). But it also goes into some detail about what Marx's views are (which is an important part of criticizing them). Marx was wrong, and can be criticized a lot more thoroughly than that brief summary of his views allows.

One thing your summary of Marx misses, for example, is his historicism: his ideas about being able to predict the future of society, in a scientific manner, based on history. This is a bad mistake: it's an attempt to legitimize prophecy and call it science.

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

#22

Post by camccann » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:17 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #13

camccann wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To read any text is to attempt to infer its meaning. This is English, not C.

I was mostly trying to suggest that, just maybe, it'd be a good idea to not turn the whole conversation into one about politics, but apparently that's inevitable. There seem to be a lot of people on HN whose feelings about libertarianism (either for or against) are a core part of their self-image, and that makes discussing anything related perilous.

In the future I think I'll just flag any article that mentions Rand and I encourage others to do the same, regardless of what they think of her ideas.

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

#23

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:19 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…

[deleted]

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

#24

Post by xenophanes » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:22 PM UTC

camccann wrote: post #22

tptacek wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To read any text is to attempt to infer its meaning. This is English, not C. I was mostly trying to suggest that, just maybe , it'd be a good idea to not turn the whole conversation into one about politics, but apparently that's inevitable. There seem to be a lot of people on HN whose feelings about libertarianism (either for or against) are a core part of their self-image, and that makes discussing anything related…

Do you also plan to flag every article mentioning Marx, socialism, Chomsky, environmentalism (for or against), etc, etc?

I don't think flagging is the answer. Just don't read it.

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

#25

Post by gort » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:23 PM UTC

[deleted] wrote: post #23

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…

[deleted]

"bash a book you haven't read"

Because he found it unreadable.

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

#26

Post by ellyagg » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:29 PM UTC

xenophanes wrote: post #21

ellyagg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

As much as I don't like Marx, he's still more complex than that. You may like to read _The Open Society and Its Enemies_ by Karl Popper. It is a strong critique of Marx (and Plato and Hegel). But it also goes into some detail about what Marx's views are (which is an important part of criticizing them). Marx was wrong, and can be criticized a lot more thoroughly than that brief summary of his views allows. One thing y…

Well, no kidding. Which was part of my point. A summary of someone's views is not a substitute for the real thing. This is true for Ayn Rand as well, but folks who hate her don't like to admit this.

(Disclosure: I'm not remotely a Randian. I'm just sick of the bias I see here.)

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

#27

Post by bhousel » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:32 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…

If you're going to criticize the book, at least consider the time in which it was written, don't just say "it was bad and tedious and I couldn't get through it". Atlas Shrugged was written in the 40s and 50s as a response to Communism, which was the new cool philosophy at the time. Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism certainly have their flaws, and they're the same as for any other philosophical solution-to-everything that starts with, "if only everyone in the world would.."

There are some ideas in there worth reading, and plenty that today seem dated. Anyway, it's healthy to read things that you disagree with..

Thanks for the suggestion of The Name of the Rose, added it to my wish list.

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

#28

Post by tptacek » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:32 PM UTC

rauljara wrote: post #18

xenophanes wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

He didn't say anything about her beliefs. He said the book sucked. For all you know, he's a libertarian.

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

#29

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:33 PM UTC

bhousel wrote: post #27

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…

If you're going to criticize the book, at least consider the time in which it was written, don't just say "it was bad and tedious and I couldn't get through it". Atlas Shrugged was written in the 40s and 50s as a response to Communism, which was the new cool philosophy at the time. Objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism certainly have their flaws, and they're the same as for any other philosophical solution-to-ever…

[deleted]

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

#30

Post by xenophanes » Sat, Oct 31, 2009, 7:37 PM UTC

tptacek wrote: post #28

rauljara wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 whe…

He didn't say anything about her beliefs . He said the book sucked. For all you know, he's a libertarian.

I have performed a side-channels attack on the original comment, and have determined it is unintentionally leaking information about the author's political views. It turns out he's not a libertarian.