The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics

www.caseyfahy.com ^ | April 30, 2002 | James S. Valliant

[marcusantonius1]

'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics' is a detailed essay discussing the Branden's books that evaluate Rand. I am not a scholar, and I did not write this long essay, but I gained greats amounts of new knowledge from reading the essay. James S. Valliant wrote the 'The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics'.

Mr. Valliant presents an exhaustively researched work that will be of interest to Objectivists and all of those interested in separating the fact from the fiction about the life of Ayn Rand as represented by her leading critical biographers, the Brandens.

All interested readers can find the essay at: http://www.caseyfahy.com

[Clint N. Suhks]

Ahh...Ayn Rand, the mother of all Liberaltarianism.

[boris]

I understand that it has been established that Atlas Shrugged was partially plagiarized from an obscure novel entitled The Plunger. I don't know the author, and have lost the article that made this claim.

--Boris

[weikel]

Actually we objectivist hate the Raimondo/Rockwell pacifist libertarians.

[Harrison Bergeron]

Oh good, an "Everybody who hates Ayn Rand is a communist dupe" thread.

Atlas Shrugged is an important work w/r/t illustrating the criminal stupidity of socialism. But as a work of fiction, it couldn't win a high school writing competition. The love scenes read as if they were written by a nineteen year old virgin, and the science fiction aspect of the novel reads as if it came from the mind of a twelve year old. Oh, and then it is about 600 pages too long.

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[motzman]

But as a work of fiction, it couldn't win a high school writing competition.

Says you.

[Mr. Bird]

I am currently trudging through Atlas Shrugged. I realized at about page 400 that you can usually skip the long paragraphs lacking dialogue, because they are typically just crappy reiterations of the overall theme. That said, I am finding it an OK read....

[Harrison Bergeron]

Heh heh heh... and about a million others. Rand's philosophies can be faulted no more or no less than those of any other anti-communist zealot - but as a "Writer," she is roundly panned, even by conservative authors.

"A=A" indeed. That she tries to pass this off as deep says it all.

[Harrison Bergeron]

I agree. Good plot, good theme, good lessons, but crappily presented.

[Old Fud]

Possibly "The Driver", by Garet Garrett (1922)? I dunno, but the themes, names (John Galt, Henry M. Galt), and key phrases are very similar. I haven't read "The Driver", so I may be blowin' smoke.

[WyldKard]

Oh please....Ayn Rand may have been a meglomaniac and a bad writer, but you read the following and dare to tell me the woman was a liberal:

“’Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?’ said Dr. Ferris. ‘We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against- then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted- and you create a nation of law-breakers- and then you cash in on the guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.”

Never was there a more anti-Liberal, anti-Socialist around...

[Aquinasfan]

"A=A" indeed. That she tries to pass this off as deep says it all.

After A=A it was all downhill. I wonder if she even read Aristotle. If she did, she didn't get it.

[Harrison Bergeron]

""Indeed, her project can be seen as a revolt against "deep," against obscurantism. "

Sheer conjecture. Rand railed against anti-intellectualism - that should let the air out of any arguments that her writing style was intentionally sophmoric.

[Teacher317]

Do you have a problem with simple truths? Authoritarianism is wrong. Pushing it on people 'for their own good' is wrong. Taking the product of a person's labor to give to another who does nothing to earn it is wrong. Bureaucrats are incompetent morons who advance a very dangerous agenda with stunning efficiency. The main themes don't need to be 'deep' to be important.

(That being said, it IS too long, the love scenes are pathetic, and the repetition gets really tiring... but it is STILL a great work that should be required reading for all liberals!)

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Do you have a problem with simple truths?"

Not at all. I opined purely on Rand's writing skills. As a teacher, you should at least have a grip on the differences between noteworthy literary talent and adequate writing skills.

"Authoritarianism is wrong."

Any "ism" can be taken to an ugly extreme. Objectivism is no exception.

[Harrison Bergeron]

I agree that AS should be required reading. But its length, monotonous pace and sophmoric subplots (human relationships were obviously not Rand's forte) generally give liberals more than enough excuses to avoid tackling it. That's the real tragedy w/r/t to the literary quality of the novel.

[GSWarrior]

. I don't know the author, and have lost the article that made this claim.

I think it was a book by Garret Garrett.

[beckett]

Valliant (is that just a ludicrous pen-name?) is kissing step-and-fetchit Leonard Piekoff's backside in the first few paragraphs of his critique of the Brandens. You don't really think that this guy should be taken seriously, do you?

Rand was a deeply flawed moral absolutist ("To be anti-smoking is to be anti-life!"). She was not a philosopher and never wrote a single text of philosophy, with the exception of a one "introductory" work which has been ignored by academic philosophers. Her contributions to field of philosophy are nil.

Rand articulated certain ideas well, and her overall outlook on politics and economics is wholly defensible, but, please, enough already. She wrote a few books which will last, mostly because they feed adolescent fantasies so effectively, but her "philosophy" has become more and more inconsequential with each passing year. Sometimes when the academy rejects a thinker, there is good reason. That is certainly the case with Ayn Rand.