ziggy

Really? I've read all of her novels and sure her politics and philosophy get in the way of the story sometimes - i.e. that awful chapter in "Atlus Shrugged," "John Galt Speaks" - but why is it trashy? What's trashy about it? I have a B.S. in Literature so, I'm at least semi-qualified to judge good stuff from trash, and I don't think Rand is trash - though I may hesitate to call her literature either. I think people discount her mainly because her philosphy seems unthinkable to most people - but I think that the writing is good.

Josh-da-man

I used the word "trashy" to describe Atlas Shrugged.

And, I'm going to spoil some things in the novel, and I'm not going to use tags because it's a fifty year old book, and anyone here that could possibly be interested in it will likely have read it.

First, it reads almost like a Danielle Steele or Jackie Collins type of book. Very soap opera-ish. You have stilted, idealized characters, eye-rolling romance, and heavy doses of melodrama with neither humor nor irony. Characters are either born "good" or "bad" with no inbetween, and no chance of redemption.

Poor characterization. There are exactly three characters in the book: "heroes" who are mouthpieces for Rand's personal ideology (note that I did not use the word philosophy), straw man "villains" for her to tear down, and three cautionary "everymen" that pay a dire price for not being "great." Eddie, Cheryl, and Tony could not be heroic figures under Rand's logic because they died in the book. Ayn Rand would not kill her heroes because she didn't believe in letting heroes die.

There's also some weird sexual stuff thrown into the mix. We have Dagney Taggert, a resilient, strong-willed woman, who, during the course of the novel, is raped -- and that arguement can definitely be made -- by the three male "heroes." One of the leads, John Galt, is an apparent middle-aged virgin who stalks Dagney Taggert for several years before sexually forcing himself on her. I findthe scene in the tunnels where he raves and rants about watching her go to work very disturbing.

There's also a fairly strong undercurrent of misogyny running through the plot. All of the women (not counting the bit players) with the exception of Dagney -- who readily sexually submits to men she believes to be more powerful than she -- and Cheryl -- who commits suicide -- are villains or scenery decorations.

The latter third of the book also becomes a weird hodge-podge of b-movie science fiction devices -- death rays, Romulan cloaking devices, torture chambers, disintegration fields, and perpetual motion machines -- and pulp spy thriller heroics.

The story also has some apparent problems. The plot hinges too heavily on coincidence and happenstance. I had trouble buying all of the byzantine connections between the characters and their intertwined pasts. It seemed more out of convenience or lazy writing than any kind of naturalistic plotting.

I also believe that Rand's slavish devotion to her ideology interfered with her ability to tell the story. But, without that ideology, she likely wouldn't have written the book. Bit of a paradox, but it won't keep me up nights. Oddly enough, I was initially dreading the HUGE "John Galt Speaks" chapter, but was actually quite surprised how quickly it went by. I did skim over a few things, but after reading 800 pages of that book, I had a pretty good idea what Mr. Galt would be saying.

I certainly wouldn't catergorize objectivism as "unthinkable." It's not that difficult to fathom -- and a lot people who've never heard of her would likely agree with her on a lot of things. I can find things in objecitivism and Rand's beliefs to both admire and despise.

It's a good bad book -- in an Ed Wood sort of way. It's certainly decent fodder for armchair philosophers, but I'm not surprised that she's not taken seriously in academia. But it's neither great literature nor philosophy.

Darren H

I object to Rand, first and foremost, because I think objectivism is amoral and borderline fascistic. Of course, I'd be more willing to forgive those weaknesses if she were able to present her ideas with some grace. I object to the ideas of many of my favorite artists, but I return to them again and again because they speak to me on some aesthetic level. I respect that.

Fortunately, those of us who loudly criticize Rand on formal grounds have ample evidence. Watch the Gary Cooper film adaptation of The Fountainhead. Listen to the jumbled mess of her ideology actually being spoken. It's campy fun, but I could never take any of it seriously.

By the way, I really enjoyed the recent movie about Rand's life. I think it was made for Showtime and stars Helen Mirren and Eric Stoltz.

Josh-da-man

If you hate Ayn Rand, then you should really read The Ayn Rand Cult by Jeff Walker. Fascinating reading.

Oh, and I haven't seen The Passion of Ayn Rand yet, but I have to say Helen Mirren the perfect casting choice for Rand.

ziggy

I think that the characters are the way they are a specific example of the philosophy - or ideology - I think Rand was trying to make the characters extremes of good and bad because that is basically how she saw things, that underneath things people are either good or bad and that the surface quimbling that muddies things up is essentially unimportant - ultimately you're working for us or your wrong. - which certainly smacks of fascism, but then again most people were thinking that that was a pretty good idea at one time. And I'll add that fascism is just a political philosophy no different than communism or democracy; it's just that some philosophies work better, for more people, than others do. I'll agree to that wierd sexual stuff, though I think that that is supposed to be an illustation of her view of what the relationships between man and woman should be - but it just doesn't work for me. Though I don't remember Galt raping Dagny, are you sure you're not thinking of Roark raping Dominique in the Fountainhead?

Darren H

I agree completely. Add that to my list of reasons that I don't like Rand.