Replies

The reason for its toxicity as a political philosophy, is that it is based on Ms. Rand's Objectivism -- and for that, a bit of rudimentary reasoning reveals it to be a fundamentally irrational philosophy.

You can at least argue the point, though - not very successfully, of course, but you can formulate something resembling an argument in its favor. Not a particularly good argument, but an argument nonetheless.

What is inarguable, IMO, is Rand's execrable writing "style". The dialogue is stilted, stiff, and unnatural - rigor mortis sets in within the first 50 pages or so. The plot manages to be simultaneously leaden, yet ludicrous, as Rand v e r y s l o w l y introduces a series of increasingly improbable and ridiculous plot points over the course of 1100 pages. The characters have all the depth and dimension of paper cutouts, where cartoonish heroes resembling extremely vanilla versions of Mighty Mouse battle with exceptionally banal villains, who spend most of the book rubbing their hands in glee and twirling their handlebar moustaches in the very best Snidely Whiplash tradition.

And, best of all, it all culminates in a truly absurd ending, where the protagonists retire to the Elysian fields of Galt's Gulch, complete, we assume, with a full cadre of Epsilon-Minuses to handle the nitty-gritty details of daily life. Because, let's be honest - you can't even imagine Dagny taking a dump, let alone wielding a plumber's helper, can you? No, I think not. Hell, you can't imagine any of those clowns doing anything so plebeian as, say, their own laundry, but somehow they're going to emerge and run the world. Right.

Literary value: nil.

Hell, you can't imagine any of those clowns doing anything so plebeian as, say, their own laundry, but somehow they're going to emerge and run the world. Right.

Not true.

Many of the characters took menial jobs to survive while out on 'strike'

Also, in the Fountainhead, Rouke is working as a construction worker when he cannot get work as an architect.

The plot manages to be simultaneously leaden, yet ludicrous, as Rand v e r y s l o w l y introduces a series of increasingly improbable and ridiculous plot points over the course of 1100 pages. The characters have all the depth and dimension of paper cutouts, where cartoonish heroes resembling extremely vanilla versions of Mighty Mouse battle with exceptionally banal villains, who spend most of the book rubbing their hands in glee and twirling their handlebar moustaches in the very best Snidely Whiplash tradition.

For a moment there I was sure you were describing the screenplay for the first Star Wars movie.

Yes, Rand wrote in stilted style and in "Atlas..." the characters were characatures, but since it was intended as a vehicle to lay out philosophical issues, I can forgive her, just as I forgive Lucas for the Saturday Matinee quality of the characters in "Star Wars." Both are about good and evil, and both paint them in starkly black and white terms, literally so in "Star Wars." Neither are masterpieces in a purely literary sense, but both had an immense influence on American society.

where cartoonish heroes resembling extremely vanilla versions of Mighty Mouse .... Because, let's be honest - you can't even imagine Dagny taking a dump, let alone wielding a plumber's helper, can you?

Bwahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!! Good golly, general, you truly have a unique and wonderful way of getting straight to the point!