Atlas Shrugged

[heyrabbit]

I'm really excited about this one. It's the second most influential book in america, second only to the bible (but in complete contrast)

 

Angelina jolie is set to play dagney. I think she's perfect for the role

[shade]

I've never heard of this book. It can't be THAT infuential to americans...unless its about eating a lot.

[sodamntired]

yeah Americans are fat

 

go away now

[S.E. Hardy]

It's an amazing book. I don't think that it and all of the ideas that make is so amazing can possibly fit into a 2 (or even 4) hour Hollywood movie.

I hope it's great, but I can see it going wrong in so many ways...

[HoboFactory]

I've never heard of this book. It can't be THAT infuential to americans...unless its about eating a lot.

Nah, but it is pretty stupid.

[Monkey]

I've never heard of this book. It can't be THAT infuential to americans...unless its about eating a lot.

I have never heard of it either, however that realy does not mean anything

[heyrabbit]

I've never heard of this book. It can't be THAT infuential to americans...unless its about eating a lot.

haha. well it was written before you were born. you might not know it, but the people controlling the quality of your life have read it.

[ourmodernred]

I never liked the book, nor Ayn Rand's books in general. It wasn't that they were poorly written, its that they lacked any emotion. I was never attached to characters, and they were just such one-dimensional representations.

[primetime_deliverance]

I definately preferred the Fountainhead over Atlas Shrugged (at least until the last 100 pages when it becomes quite possibly the slowest moving and uninteresting garbage ever put down on paper).

 

It's still exciting to wonder what kind of apprach they will take with this movie. What will they do with John Galt's speech? (it would probably take about 3 hours to say the entire thing word for word). I'll see it, but more out of sheer curiousity.. kind of the same reason we all went to see Star Wars Episode 3.

[heyrabbit]

I never liked the book, nor Ayn Rand's books in general. It wasn't that they were poorly written, its that they lacked any emotion. I was never attached to characters, and they were just such one-dimensional representations.

Of course you don't like it. The values represented by each piece of art are appreciated only by those who share the same values. That's what makes anybody "like" anything. considering that most of the world does not share Rand's values, it only makes sense that most of the world would hate her book.

 

Rand herself was very in control of her emotions. And since man creates art in his own image, the characters obviously reflect rand's qualities. This is why even the saddest characters in the book appear rational,confident, etc. But the characters do not lack emotion.They experienced emotions for reasons which are uncommon in civilization of today.i.e. you see the book as being bland, rand saw the book as brilliant and full of human emotion.

. She could have written the book to cater to a naturalistic audience, to people who normally appreciate naturalistic art, but that would defeat the entire purpose of the book. It's a romantic novel, not a shitty piece of art. Also, many of the characters were cynically indifferent on purpose. i.e.. "Who is john Galt?".

 

 

With that being said, I do agree that the characterization could have been much better. The characters were generalized symbol figures. In spite of that, the books philosophical content is so substantial that it's easily one of the greatest books ever written - not just because her philosophy is interesting, but because her philosophy is true! and the implications for those who fully grasps her philosophy are civilization-altering.

 

as far as I'm concerned, she was the greatest mind of the 20th century.

Edited September 13, 2007 by heyrabbit

[matrix]

I guess we can kick Albert Einstein right out of the equation.

 

Haha, that sounds kind of funny.

[S.E. Hardy]

Of course you don't like it. The values represented by each piece of art are appreciated only by those who share the same values. That's what makes anybody "like" anything.

That's not true for me. Atlas Shrugged is my sisters' (who is a libertarian) favorite book. And she gave it to me to read, and I thought it was remarkable. The ideas behind that book are truly remarkable. But I do not agree with most of them (I would say all of them, but it has been a few years since I read it and don't remember every little thing). I am a (raging) socialist, and think that most of the evil in the world can be traced to capitalism (and if not directly to, then usually in the vicinity of).

But I still appreciate the book, and it certainly helped me understand my sisters politics better.

[heyrabbit]

I guess we can kick Albert Einstein right out of the equation.

 

Haha, that sounds kind of funny.

lol. einstein doesn't need any more accolades alright? and he slept with his cousin

 

 

SE Hardy. I believe that's because your values are conflicted.

You're also wrong about capitalism. the predominant system of organization in human history has been altruist-collectivist, so capitalism cannot be blamed for that. Look anywhere in the world, the values of socialism are anti-life. Compare that to the societies which are the most free

 

read capitalism: the unknown ideal, and the virtue of selfishness.

[matrix]

Jerry Lee Lewis slept and married his underage cousin, and he was damn bad ass. Incest is always cool.

 

Ah, man, sometimes even I disgust myself.

[shade]

I've never heard of this book. It can't be THAT infuential to americans...unless its about eating a lot.

 

 

lawl...

 

 

alright I finished reading it.

 

 

It is my favourite book now for real

 

 

a movie isn't going to work though

[saturnine]

i made it through 600 or so pages and was like fuck this. influential, my ass. this book is balls. ayn rand is a cunt and i'm glad she's dead.