Comments on: Atlas Shrugged

By: Matthew j

Matthew j — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 00:22:31 +0000

Enjoyed the post, and I won’t comment at length, but you asked for a character that held their own without being the giant like d’anconia or Rearden, and I wanted to point out that Eddie Willers is very much that sort of person, and im sure there are others, but we do get narrative from eddie’s point of view. cheers!

By: kowsik

kowsik — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 17:50:00 +0000

Have you read “We, the living”? It was one of her first books, and it was about the fate of aristocrats after the Russian Revolution. It’s a small book, and one of those where she does not go off on long, frequent ideological speeches. I read Atlas Shrugged in my BTech, never read Fountainhead.

By: tinkoo

tinkoo — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:20:31 +0000

You are not alone in not being able to connect to Fountainhead. Many Indian readers that pick it up before Atlas Shrugged feel unable to connect. I’ve gone through it.

When I picked up Atlas, I had forgotten I had read her other book. After Atlas, suddenly, Fountainhead made sense.

Also, if you get into her non-fiction, you will very likely come back disappointed, or at least disenchanted.

Another very readable book by her is Anthem. If you are in B’by, you should be able to pick it up from roadside vendors.

By: Diwaker Gupta

Diwaker Gupta — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 05:24:51 +0000

*@ergo*: thanks for that thoughtful response! You almost sound like an Ayn Rand spokesperson :-) I actually read Fountainhead a long time back, but I think I wasn’t mentally ready for that book then.

Your points about the Romantic style of writing are very well taken. However, such a style of writing might not be accessible to all audiences. I know several people who gave up on Fountainhead/Atlas Shrugged because it just felt too unrealistic, too perfect, too extreme — even for a work of fiction.

Nice blog you got there!

By: Ergo

Ergo — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 03:55:32 +0000

Hello,

Good to know you have found Atlas Shrugged inspiring and uplifgting. I hope you continue your interest and study in the Ayn Rand’s philosophy.

Regarding her portrayal of perfect and heroic characters, Rand wrote in the tradition of Romanticism, and modified that school of art with her own emphasis on realism and human volition. Thus, for Rand, selectivity is paramount in art. According to her, just as you would not create a beautiful painting or a very beautiful woman with perfect features but with a pimple on her forehead, so you would not project the mundane, the gritty, the routine nature of reality in romantic art. Art is being highly selective with what you *choose* to depict: do you descend into the depictions of man’s daily life with routine descriptions like “he went to the toilet, brushed his teeth, took a shower” etc., or do you exercise selectivity in your projections.

Thus, for Rand, to depict heroic men in the romanticism who are intended to be vehicles of her philosophy, it would be inappropriate for her to muddle her characters and their ideals and their philosophy with inconsistencies, aberrations, or trivialities–things that you and I might consider more “real.”

Finally, as a side point, emulating her character’s philosophy in your own life does not imply that you emulate their personality traits. Fictional characters are required to have distinct personalities like real people do. But we all have different personalities and should not try to be someone we are not. We may share common ideological principles with each other but we cannot imitate each other’s personality. That is a recipe for losing your own sense of identity. John Galt and Dagny and Rearden and D’Anconia are characters with different personalities but common principles. Extrapolat the ideas and the principles from them, not imitate their mannerisms.

Wish you the best! :)