Books I Loathed discussion

Absolutely terrible in every possible way.

Did you finish it?

Tom wrote: "Did you finish it?"

I did. It was about 4 days of reading.

Zach wrote: "Tom wrote: "Did you finish it?"

I did. It was about 4 days of reading."

Just curious, but if it was so bad, why did you finish it? It's a very long book.

Because I'm not a quitter, I guess.

There was nothing in it worthwhile?

The frightening dystopia that was sold as "utopia" left you wondering, "What about the disabled or elderly?" I understand the author's loathing of communism, but can she really believe that capitalism can truly save humanity? Obviously, I'm a bleeding heart liberal--though not a communist!! Obviously, there are irreparable flaws in communism, but this book does not convince me that capitalism is its ultimate saving grace.

Just because communism failed doesn't mean capitalism has succeeded. A just-published book, 'A Failure of Capitalism' by Richard Posner details the inherent problems with our capitalist system. As The Sunday NY Times Book Review said, 'Richard A. Posner argues that “the antics of crooks and fools” are not to blame for the financial crisis, but rather flaws in the system itself.' Obama said the recent global financial collapse was because of “the antics of crooks and fools.” Obama is trying to fix the system by bailing out the people who caused the problem and got rich doing it, not the majority of people who are the victims of the combination of very greedy people capitalizing on a seriously flawed system that encourages corruption and takes advantage of the rest of us - the struggline middle class and the working poor.

How is Posner's book, Tom? I was surprised to hear a noted libertarian publish a book critical of capitalism.

I haven't read it yet, but I'm tempted to buy the hardback. You're right that Posner is a noted libertarian and the reviewer made much of that fact.

Here's the link to the review:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/17/boo...

Hope the cute and paste works, if not it's easy to find at nytimes.com under books.

Sorry to be mundane, but I have an Atlas Shrugged comment. I also am not a quitter, and though everyone told me I could just skip the 57 page monologue (where the speaker was SO fascinating that he had everyone glued to their radio sets for 3 1/2 hours or whatever) I couldn't skip anything. Afraid I would miss something crucial or worthwhile.

Anyway, if you can bear Ayn Rand, and you wanna read the book, YOU CAN SKIP THE MONOLOGUE.

Perhaps someone can weigh in, but something about Ayn Rand has always puzzled me. I know she wrote in defense of selfishness and the individual above all else, but consider this:

In The Fountainhead, the architect runs into trouble over houses he builds that are affordable to average families - not mansions for the super rich.

In Atlas Shrugged, she writes about railroads - a form of mass transit - not the automobile or luxury cars for the super rich.

Is there a democratic instinct here somewhere?

In the Fountainhead, she is actually defending individual artistic taste as opposed to artistic taste rigidly defined and enforced by committee.

So why is she always criticized for her defense of the individual?

There is such a thing as democratic elitism - everyone should have equal educational and employment opportunities but some people's opinions are more worthwhile and more valid that other peoples' views because they've taken the time to learn and thought about the subject.

Just because you have the right to express an opinion doesn't make it correct or informed or intelligent.

What bothers me the most (and I am not the scholar you are looking for) is the sense that the true elites really should not be bound by rules of society, since they're better than everyone else. Ayn Rand felt that way about her marriage vows.

She fosters the sense that each individual can decide whether their contribution to society is so fab that they are "above" the law.

I, personally, know a lot of people who think they are, in fact, better than everyone else. I'm glad they are somewhat constrained by law and convention.

I hear what you're saying, but is that what people have drawn (incorrectly?) from her work? Is that what they choose to see in it?

When the architect, Howard Roark (if memory still works as to his name) burns down the houses he designed, he willingly submits to the trial, not even defending himself. He seemed not to care how other people judged him.

Is that really being above the law?

So there seems to be a disconnect between what Rand actually wrote and what others say she wrote - including herself.

Or am I the one misreading her?

Unfortunately, not enough people are constrained by law. Especially people who recently ran our country.

As for social conventions, I don't have a problem with smashing the conventions when they are wrong ... like sexism, racism or homophobia or any form of discrimination.

Marriage vows?

Waiting your turn in line? Being polite to people that are stupider than you are? (I'm not sure, either, what Ayn Rand thought as opposed to what I think she thought. As I said, I am not really the person you were looking for. But maybe that person will rise to the bait).

I can't comment on The Fountainhead, as I haven't read it, but I can't perceive any inklings of democracy anywhere in Atlas Shrugged. Rand laid out her vision of social organization in Galt's speech, and it boils down to a handful of engineering geniuses who are also astute businessmen supported by a compliant workforce satisfied with whatever their leaders deem is fair. I know this isn't a new criticism, but it's one the book lends itself to. Consider that a minor character (Andrew Stockton) longs for the day Hank Rearden comes to Galt's Gulch and puts his foundry out of business; Stockton comments that he'd be honored to be a part of Rearden's glorious enterprise, even if it meant doing janitorial work. Really? I'm supposed to be that awed by someone who's good at making money?

I guess I'm glad that I read The Fountainhead before reading Atlas Shrugged. Now if I can just get my money back. Thanks, guys, for the warning. You doused my curiousity. There are too many good books and too little time to waste on bad books.

You are all expressing yourselves and opinions about Ayn Rand so much more eloquently than I. I just thought she wrote with the attitude that it is o.k. to be a snooty, self-important snob and I think she is wrong.

Some people may be eloquent, but you are more clear.

Thanks - very kind of you to say so.

Marge wrote: "I've read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead twice. Objectivism brought clarity to my life and I would never turn back. I'm proud of the way I have lived my life, and hope that I have lived one ..."

Would you care to share what exactly it is about Objectivism that brought clarity to your life and helped you?

I hated this book but finished reading it because it was before I had seen the light of just quitting. What I particularly disliked was the idea I had that Ayn Rand had a philosophy and her book was merely a vessel for the transmission of ideas. Granted there are other authors who also employ fiction to get their particular philosophy across, but For goodness' sake do it well!!!

I agree with Tom in message 23: Marge, where are you? I, too try to live a life of honor, integrity and principle (occasionally stooping to bash authors far more talented than myself; see also "A Widow For One Year"). How is it that Objectivism helped you, Marge?

I actually enjoyed Atlas. It took me forever to read, and parts of it were terrible, but I liked the characters, and some of the ideas she had in it were awesome. Of course some of them were completely insane, but others were good, and I think that made it worth reading. Besides, it's interesting to get a different viewpoint on things, right?

I loved this book, it was definitely a long read, but I found every section enjoyable (Even John Galt's speech which was VERY long).

I appreciated the new perspective she showed through the story, as I have been very anti-capitalism in recent years. I just finished it and feel like I have a better understanding of capitalism.

I read(and loved)"Atlas Shrugged" 40 years ago...when I was young and looking for "Answers"...and she certainly provided them...but her reading of philosophers(especially Kant and Nietzsche)is so shallow and uninformed and her economic analysis is so very limited that I only re-read her now as an excercise in nostalgia or as a Romantic version of Capitalism not available to human beings...

John Galt's speech was way too long. 70 uninterrupted pages...
I agree though, her reading of Nietzsche is very shallow, and her economic policies don't quite take reality into account. It's an interesting idealistic view, but not something I'd actually want to live.

This book is just worthless on every level it operates at. It’s artistically inept, philosophically facile and morally repugnant. Quite what sort of people can take this book seriously, let alone find inspiration or a framework around which to model their life, is a mystery to me. But I know they’re out there, and it doesn’t help me sleep any easier at night.

There is so much discussion about this book that I actually look semi-forward to reading it. Your criticisms and praises alike have sparked my curiosity on many levels. Thanks for the good stuff, everyone.

Ayn Rand was a hypocrite.

She went around the states, promoting sink or swim capitalism all while collecting Social Security and Medicade from the same system that she shat upon.

I can see how Rand's philosophy could put you off, but to call Atlas Shrugged inept must signify an ulterior motive. From the description of New York City at the beginning, clear through to the end, her prose is brilliant, even poetic at times.

I think to blind yourself to the book's ineptitude is what requires the ulterior motive.

Chris wrote: "I think to blind yourself to the book's ineptitude is what requires the ulterior motive."

Blind myself? Listen, bub, I'll put my ability to judge prose up against yours any time.

Chris wrote: "This book is just worthless on every level it operates at. It’s artistically inept, philosophically facile and morally repugnant. Quite what sort of people can take this book seriously, let alone find inspiration or a framework around which to model their life, is a mystery to me. But I know they’re out there, and it doesn’t help me sleep any easier at night. "

I completely agree with you. This was one of the worst written books I've ever attempted to read, and the Fountainhead was almost as bad. I've read well over 1000 books, and those two are in my bottom five. Her prose is clunky, her characters are terrible, and the plot was poorly developed. She only cared about promoting her reprehensible philosophy, and it showed. Since much of her philosophy is at odds with reality, how anyone can take her ideas seriously is beyond me. She was just a cult leader, and she deserves about the same level of respect as that creepy person who got followers to commit mass suicide when a comet passed.

I'm sure Rand would have been delighted to know her opus magnum had teenybopper appeal.

Chris wrote: "I'm sure Rand would have been delighted to know her opus magnum had teenybopper appeal."

Oh, brilliant. Now you're insulting people for being young. I judge the worth of your opinions from this.

I would have considered that closer to playful condescension rather than insulting.

Chris wrote: "I would have considered that closer to playful condescension rather than insulting."

It was direct name-calling. That isn't playful. That's bullying.

John wrote: "It was direct name-calling. That isn't playful. That's bullying."

You're an idiot.

See, that was direct name calling, teenybopper is not name calling.

You're clearly not interested in conversation, so I'll leave you to yourself.

Folks, let's please keep it civil on here-- we may disagree on which books are loathsome or what exactly constitutes loathsomeness, but we're united by our love of reading and our need to vent when we feel we've encountered a bad book! Let's keep that unity in mind when we post.

I read Rand as a teenager (The Fountainhead) and it really appealed to my own sense of isolation, alienation, angst over phoniness in society, etc (I was in a real Catcher in the Rye phase, haha!). As I grow older and observe people in my life making sacrifices and truly acting altruistically, I'm less and less interested in the vision of self she offers, at least in that book. It's be interesting to re-read Rand now (I'm almost 30) and see how it feels this time around.

I cannot believe that this ridiculous book spawned Rand societies and philosophy clubs all over America. Not only is it a candidate for the Worst Written Book Ever, it had none of the nuances mature readers expect from an adult book. It's all an exaggeration of human behavior, as if the author was an alien from another planet and had had humans described to her and decided to write a book based on those third-hand descriptions. Even Communism didn't have SUCH a complete one-dimensional, shallow, brain-dead view of humanity. This is a book by someone who was missing a few skills at being a functional human being, and put the blame for her lack of social understanding on people instead of going into therapy. This woman had absolutely no awareness of any human as a living being except herself, and she obviously had extreme limitations on her ability to perceive people as having basic survival instincts, or feelings of love, altruism, or of kindness. To her, we aren't flesh and blood beings of complexity and variety, but we are each walking billboards of a single idea ideologues, a Platonic purity of one thought, a single brain cell. How anyone can think people generally walk off cliffs because they are too lazy to work is beyond me.

April the Cheshire Meow wrote: "I cannot believe that this ridiculous book spawned Rand societies and philosophy clubs all over America. Not only is it a candidate for the Worst Written Book Ever, it had none of the nuances matu..."
I do so agree with you!!!