I find very little merit or pleasure in reading fiction where the author has an underlying agenda which they constantly grind as the novel progresses (I find some of Le Guin's otherwise good novels marred by this trend). Ayn Rand is absolutely the worst offender though, her characters are shallow to the point of ridiculousness, the plot is obvious 100 pages in for the next 500 - but she's going to serve up 'profound world changing philosophy' to you for the next 500 pages anyways. But hey - America's answer to communist ideology!
Objectivist here.<p>(For what it's worth: I don't hate poor people, nor do I think all rich people deserve their wealth, nor do I think the free market is a universal panacea for all ills.<p>What Rand actually says is that there are good people and there are bad people, and the defining characteristic of good people, the essence of virtue is not altruism, but productive work. People rarely mention that there were truck drivers and manual workers in Galt's Gulch, and that half of the villains in the novel are unscrupulous businessmen).<p>Rand didn't actually say that much that's original about economics <i>per se</i>. This leads people on both left and right to dismiss her as a simplistic thinker. This ignores what <i>is</i> original is what she's saying.<p>Unlike many libertarians, she doesn't argue that the free market is good because it leads to good results for society. She says that a capitalist society is good because it's the only society which fully protects individual rights. It's not a coincidence that capitalist societies are more prosperous -- however, when this is used as the <i>justification</i> for capitalism, the logical conclusion is to have a semi-free market where the government tries to manage the economy and optimise different variables (GDP, employment, inflation, etc), i.e. the system in almost every western country today. I'd argue the constant financial crises and ballooning sovereign debt show that this system cannot possibly be sustained.<p>Also: the <i>Journal of Ayn Rand Studies</i> is not respected in official Objectivist circles. It's one of a number of organisations which attempt to water down Rand's message to appeal to more people, but as a result put off both Objectivists and non-Objectivists.
Atlas shrugged and catch 22 are the only two books that I have been unable to finish.<p>In atlas shrugged, Rand takes the most incredibly boring, one-dimensional, unbelievable, cliched, cement-mixed characters and starts beating you over the head with them right out of the gate. I saw her singular point 10 pages into the book, and could not bear the pain of the next 300 of the manifesto.<p>While I can see how the "trader of justice" ideal that is mentioned in the article might appeal to some, it's simply not applicable to real life economic/social governance. Humans aren't spawned directly from market processes, they have parents and friends and communities and their relationships extend beyond the reach of the free market mechanisms.
I got to the third sentence: "Based on an analysis of reality, it is well-informed on economics..."<p>Funny, I remember it as a comedy about petulant capitalists.
I agree with Ayn Rand's theory of economics insofar as it would work great if everyone only ever acted in their own self-interest. But there will always be exploitation if there are people who choose to act in ways that damage themselves, so the theory is impracticable in the real world. There's also no treatment in the book of, for instance, how disabled or ill people should be treated by an economic system where no one is available to provide support.<p>But the book is genuinely a great read; she's a fantastic writer with a powerful and gripping style. I did, however, have to skip a 50 page chapter which was the third monologue speech explaining the details of her theory.
A commie here. I actually liked Atlas a lot. It still inspires me to do work, rather than sit on my ass. For that I recommend it to people. It is great in that.<p>No so much in 'honest - then, and only then - capitalist' part.<p>Long speeches never bothered though - you can always skip them, because you kinda know what they are talking about for 10 pages.
As a student of philosophy and, it seems, having a slightly autistic mentality, she had strong emphasis on the underlying principles - philosophic, economical and social around which she has invented her characters and the plot.<p>The characters and the settings could be criticized (usually by idiots who couldn't see the whole) for being too idealized and artificial but there is not a single major flaw with principles of free market economy (as a self-sustained and self-healing ecosystem), democracy (as an evolved "immune system" of a civilized society against social parasites and cancer-like corruption of authoritarian regimes) the operating selection on the basis of best performance, which is one of the principles behind evolution itself, etc, etc.<p>Ask any decent evolutionary biologist, and he would tell you that diversity, specialization, cooperation, selection on the best performance, fairness (as in a coin toss) and law of big numbers (averages) is what is behind life itself.<p>Verbosity, perhaps, is the only major flaw, but as a work of art it should be placed next to 1984 and Brave New World.
I'm a fan of Rand's ideas, more or less, but come on. Atlas Shrugged has some interesting ideas, which were very novel and taboo in their day (some might say still somewhat taboo). Like all works of fiction though, the author had complete control over the narrative, the world, the characters. As social commentary and criticism of frequently promoted religious and neo-marxist ideas, it has value. As literature, it needed an editor. But as a realistic model for economics?<p>Usually I'm pissed off by the anti-Rand flaming by people who prefer to misrepresent her ideas. But if you are going to play right into the cult of personality Rand worship with stuff like this, then you kind of brought it on yourself.