What Are You Reading

[jamespowers]

Absolutely. It is waaaaaaaay too long. And badly written.
Don't get me wrong, long books are within my attention span; I could easily read Moby **** again, and enjoyed reading War & Peace, but Atlas Shrugged is a hassle to plod through.
She needed a much better editor.

Ok, now I know what my next book is going to be. If I can read Churchill's WWII history in 6 volumes then I can easily handle this.

 

[LizzieMaine]

It does have one thing to recommend it. My copy is exactly the right size to make up for the broken leg on the old couch on my front porch.

Seriously, though, I challenge *anyone* to read Galt's Big Speech -- all 70 pages of it -- in one sitting, without yawning, looking at your watch, checking your email, wondering what's on TV, or getting up to go to the can.

 

[jamespowers]

It does have one thing to recommend it. My copy is exactly the right size to make up for the broken leg on the old couch on my front porch.

Seriously, though, I challenge *anyone* to read Galt's Big Speech -- all 70 pages of it -- in one sitting, without yawning, looking at your watch, checking your email, wondering what's on TV, or getting up to go to the can.

70 pages? Nothing to it. Read Julius Caesar or Cicero if you want long.

 

[LizzieMaine]

70 pages? Nothing to it. Read Julius Caesar or Cicero if you want long.

Yeah, but they were better writers.

 

[jamespowers]

Yeah, but they were better writers.

Well, speakers in their case.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Meanwhile, it's isn't just lefties whose teeth are set on edge by La Rand's magnum opus. Here's Whittaker Chambers' review, published in the National Review in December 1957...

I can recall no other book in which a tone of overriding arrogance was so implacably sustained. Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal. In addition, the mind which finds this tone natural to it shares other characteristics of its type. 1) It consistently mistakes raw force for strength, and the rawer the force, the more reverent the posture of the mind before it. 2) It supposes itself to be the bringer of a final revelation. Therefore, resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent from revelation so final (because, the author would say, so reasonable) can only be willfully wicked. There are ways of dealing with such wickedness, and, in fact, right reason itself enjoins them. From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: “To a gas chamber–go!”

 

[jamespowers]

Meanwhile, it's isn't just lefties whose teeth are set on edge by La Rand's magnum opus. Here's Whittaker Chambers' review, published in the National Review in December 1957...

Be careful of Chambers as recent files have come out of the FBI about him and Hiss. He was a commie spy---no wonder he hated Rand as she was a Russian defector. The National Review was infiltrated---like A LOT of other organizations. :doh:
Jay David Whittaker Chambers (1901-1961) was an author, reporter and Soviet spy. This release is a reprocessed version of previously released material from the FBI’s main file on Chambers. It spans the years 1949 to 1977.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Chambers left the Party in 1939, and became a militant, anti-communist right-winger for the rest of his life. He was revered by, among others, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. It might have been all a very clever act, and he was actually a deep-cover Red unto the very end, but I kinda doubt it.

 

[jamespowers]

Chambers left the Party in 1939, and became a militant, anti-communist right-winger for the rest of his life. He was revered by, among others, Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. It might have been all a very clever act, and he was actually a deep-cover Red unto the very end, but I kinda doubt it.

He was a commie to the end. Anything he wrote I discount right out of hand just as I would anything written by the Rosenbergs. A lot of people left the party to go underground.

 

[Big J]

I'm more worried by the fact that Alan Greenspan fell into Rand's cluthches, and the influence he had on policy.



There you go James. That image should give you nightmares.

 

[T Jones]

Nothing objectionable to me about it at all. My leanings are libertarian - so no issues here. But as an ardent anti-communist (not arguing a political position, just stating mine, as our inimitable and invaluable Lizzie does hers), I have know objections with Das Kapital as a book to be read and discussed. While this is not the venue for political discussions, I'm comfortable with all ideas being studied, discussed and debated. I was just sincerely curious as to what turned you on to Ayn Rand. And we are in the same boat regarding Massey.

It certainly seems to be pretty objectionable to the left leaning crowd. There's another site which I frequent, that just by the mere mentioning of Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged", the left wing members there go absolutely berserk. I'm actually more interested in reading history and biographies about historical figures than I am about reading fiction. "Atlas Shrugged" was recommended to me by some friends and I've seen it discussed on other forums. My interest in the book is definitely piqued. Conservatives and Libertarians seem to praise the book and the left, no doubt, hate the book. I'm going to read it to see what all the commotion's about.

 

[Big J]

It certainly seems to be pretty objectionable to the left leaning crowd. There's another site which I frequent, that just by the mere mentioning of Ayn Rand and "Atlas Shrugged", the left wing members there go absolutely berserk. I'm actually more interested in reading history and biographies about historical figures than I am about reading fiction. "Atlas Shrugged" was recommended to me by some friends and I've seen it discussed on other forums. My interest in the book is definitely piqued. Conservatives and Libertarians seem to praise the book and the left, no doubt, hate the book. I'm going to read it to see what all the commotion's about.

I understand your desire to read it and see for yourself, but maybe you'd be better served reading a synopsis somewhere? The long hours you spend reading Atlas Shrugged you'll never get back!
lollollol

 

[Fading Fast]

To T. Jones, after you read "Atlas Shrugged," there are several very good biographies out there on Rand, but it definitely pays to read some of her works first.

More broadly, I enjoyed "The Fountainhead" as a novel, not because it was the best written novel ever, but once I accepted that she was intentionally writing an exaggerated view of people, ideas, villains, heroes and I just went with it, it was a fun read. Even though I love the architecture she denounced in the book - the pre-war, classical-inspired architecture - I still appreciated how she used architecture as a playing field for her ideological battles.

I have no doubt that my libertarian leaning allowed me to enjoy it more than others - more writers are liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning, so it is nice once in awhile to read a book and not to have to read through all the liberal ideology that I don't agree with - but I think "The Fountainhead" is a good read, for some, if you don't approach it as literature. I put her in the same group as Nelson Demille - a good writer of page turners, not a literary giant. To others he's an unreadable hack and, if that is your view, I respect it. There are some "page turner" writers who are very successful that I can't stand.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I understand your desire to read it and see for yourself, but maybe you'd be better served reading a synopsis somewhere? The long hours you spend reading Atlas Shrugged you'll never get back!
lollollol

I don't regret having read it, simply because a book that's had the influence it's had ought to be known and understood. But I was very, very glad when it was over.

 

[Fading Fast]

I don't regret having read it, simply because a book that's had the influence it's had ought to be known and understood. But I was very, very glad when it was over.

Did you also read "The Fountainhead" and / or "We the Living?"

 

[LizzieMaine]

I did read "The Fountainhead," after the first time I saw the movie, to try and figure out if I'd really seen what I thought I did, but the *** stuff in the book really put me off. "He did it as an act of scorn -- not of love, but as defilement." This from a character we're supposed to see as the highest of moral paragons. I'm no prude, but I do have a line, and that absolutely crossed it. I want no part of Rand's idea of "morality."

I haven't read "We The Living," although the reviews at the time make it sound like the most mainstream of her books. Some critics at the time suggested that it owed a good part of its sales success to the fact that it was advertised on the back of the dust jacket of "Gone With The Wind," which came out at the same time.

 

[Fading Fast]

I did read "The Fountainhead," after the first time I saw the movie, to try and figure out if I'd really seen what I thought I did, but the *** stuff in the book really put me off. "He did it as an act of scorn -- not of love, but as defilement." This from a character we're supposed to see as the highest of moral paragons. I'm no prude, but I do have a line, and that absolutely crossed it. I want no part of Rand's idea of "morality."

I haven't read "We The Living," although the reviews at the time make it sound like the most mainstream of her books.

It has to be +/- 30 years since I read "We the Living," but it was a bit different in feel from "AS" and "TFH" - more traditional story that ideology wrapped inside a novel format (but still plenty of her philosophy). I think (from my distant memory of a biography I read of her) that it has some autobiographical elements related to her time growing up in Russia.

Are you interested in reading "Go Set a Watchman," the Harper Lee book coming out?

 

[LizzieMaine]

I'll probably take a look at it, but I fear people may be expecting another masterpiece, which it likely won't be -- when authors put books aside, it's generally for a reason.

 

[Fading Fast]

I'll probably take a look at it, but I fear people may be expecting another masterpiece, which it likely won't be -- when authors put books aside, it's generally for a reason.

I had a similar thought. Kinda like when musicians release the "un-released" tracks from old albums - they usually weren't released in the first place for a reason. That said, sometimes history offers up a surprise moment - so the optimist in me wants to believe. In addition to reading "To Kill a Mockingbird" recently, I just watched the movie. Once again, even though a very good movie, it doesn't hold a candle to the book.

 

[hatguy1]

I have no doubt that my libertarian leaning allowed me to enjoy it more than others - more writers are liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning, so it is nice once in awhile to read a book and not to have to read through all the liberal ideology that I don't agree with....

I have a friend who said he became solid Libertarian once he read "Atlas Shrugged." Another said he changed from liberal to conservative after reading it. Both are among those in my circle that constantly urge me to read it.