In the August 30 issue of National Review, Jason Lee Steorts has a good and thoughtful piece on “The Greatly Ghastly Rand.” Ayn Rand, that is—the artless Objectivist harridan who wrote The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and other books cherished by lonely teenage philosophers across the world. Like most of her modern-day critics, Steorts savages Rand’s clumsy prose:
There is so much to be said against Rand as an artist. There is the inept dialogue — characters begin a great many sentences by shouting each other’s names or saying “You know”; the heroes speak, every one of them, in exactly the same voice; the averagely intelligent advance the plot by blurting out their secrets. There is the Girl Scout banality of Atlas Shrugged’s heroine, who seems to have escaped from the young-adult section. There is the preposterous omnicompetence of the heroes, equally at home on the Harvard faculty or in a Vin Diesel movie, and the endless gushing about their exalted feelings, Rand’s attempt to steal with treacle what she has not earned with character development. There is that editorial discipline which gave us John Galt’s speech.
But he also acknowledges that, despite her many literary defects, Rand can still be affecting. While dull in (many) parts, The Fountainhead still offers at least one memorable character in Gail Wynand, the cynical tabloid publisher who tries and fails to live up to the example set by the novel’s humanoid protagonist, modernist architect Howard Roark. Steorts writes about the novel’s final section, in which Wynand ultimately decides to denounce Roark—who is on trial for heroically bombing a public housing complex—in the pages of his Banner:
When [Wynand] does not hold out — when he betrays Roark rather than close his paper — I feel as I do when I dream I have done something unforgivable. When in his final conversation with Roark — whom he feels too guilty ever to see again, even though, as atonement, he has shut down the paper anyway — he commissions the tallest building in New York, a “monument to that spirit which is yours … and could have been mine,” I feel the relief of redemption. There is a passage in which Roark does not know that something he has said has given a passing character “the courage to face a lifetime.” Rand’s hymn to integrity might achieve the same effect.
Steorts haaaaates Atlas Shrugged, though, and it’s worth reading the whole piece to learn why. (Hint: it has something to do with Rand’s “derangedly insecure ego.”)

What a load of propagandic drivel. reality is TRULY the final arbitor, on Ms. Rand's ideas. So far, her ideas seem to resonate more and more every day. Why is that?
#1 Posted by Antony, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 05:20 PM
"What a load" is right. Steorts piece is certainly not worth reading, but for those who have already done so, Robert Tracinski's antidote is quite effective:
http://ronbosoldier.blogspot.com/2010/08/repudiating-whittaker-chambers.html
Recommended for any amount of National Review "Rand gas."
#2 Posted by byafi, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 05:54 PM
I detect a rising threat to the dead left; the attacks on Ayn Rand are increasing in frequency in the last couple of weeks. What's wrong guys, smearing everyone else as RACIST has run its course?
If the prior 2 repliers want ATLAS SHRUGGED window / cling stickers - free - drop me a line: atlasshruggedonmywindow@gmail.com
#3 Posted by egoist, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 08:48 PM
Let's talk about Ayn Rand and how she sees people:
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2005/06/hickman_sick_ma.html
http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2005/06/hickman_postmor.html
The objectivists were the only ones I know of who wrote in protest against providing assistance to the 2004 tsunami victims. Nice bunch of people them.
#4 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Tue 31 Aug 2010 at 09:19 PM
Thimbles, as I recall, the American public poured generous amounts of relief to those in need; okay. Then the American government looted us and poured generous amounts of stolen relief to those in need; not okay. Even if you hate us Objectivists for our egoism, you might at least consider Davy Crocket's not theirs to give lesson.
#5 Posted by egoist, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 05:55 AM
"Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice--which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destru...ction--which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good." Ayn Rand, what she actually wrote.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/AynRandInstitute?ref=ts
#6 Posted by JackDoitCrawford, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 08:13 AM
Ayn Rand's fiction is unique and has a unique effect on here readers-generally positive.
But more than her literature, people should focus on her philosophical achievements. They are easily misunderstood and distorted.
Some examples:
Her theory of concept formation. Measurement omission.
Her ethics: "Life as the standard of value," Focus as one of the starting points of ethics.
Psychoepistemology-An area that she hinted at more than developed. It's a psychological theory examining the relationship of the conscious mind and the automatic functions of the subconscious.
Some great Rand Scholars to look into are: Leonard Peikoff, Tibor Machan and Tara Smith. The latter two are noted scholars.
#7 Posted by jmchugh, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 08:52 AM
CulturEsponse blogger Jayemel wrote an excellent response to Steorts's hit piece: http://bit.ly/bCIgrv
If Steorts's article is an example of "good and thoughtful" writing, then it's true what they say about the American education system.
#8 Posted by CulturEsponse, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 08:58 AM
@egoist: There's a lot of looting going on by the government which deserves our disapproval: the saturated military at the expense of education and health, the subsidization of agribusiness who dump their surplus agriculture on global markets for practically free costs, the invade and rebuild model of cultural transformation/resource acquisition, etc..
But in the case of 2004, the assets were already in the field because of the saturated military, the food was already in the field because of subsidized agribusiness, and immediate response was required in order to save the lives that could be saved. Quibbling over "who owns that nearest aircraft carrier" and whether it should "indulge in the charitable actions it was not purposed for" is foolish.
#9 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Wed 1 Sep 2010 at 11:23 PM
"What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" - Ayn Rand
Yeah, I can see why that demented bitch has become the de facto Tea Party mascot. A true sociopath's sociopath.
#10 Posted by Hardrada, CJR on Thu 2 Sep 2010 at 05:22 PM
And yet these are the guys who whine about being exploited by the powerful when it's not them.
"Weak and stupid people deserve to be the newspaper that lines out gilded cages. We elites don't need your moribund morality. We are the dreamers and... hey! What are you doing?"
"Well you just said that weak and stupid people deserve to be the what not and what for drone drone drone.. You didn't pay your taxes and, compared to the government, you are weak. And people who don't pay their taxes when they have more than enough money lying around must be pretty stupid. Nice house you have here."
"No wait! I don't recognize your legitimacy! You have no right..."
"What is good for me is right. Shut up and move on / out loser."
Turns out individuals are fickle when it comes to what's right.
#11 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 01:46 AM
'twixt the Randians and the L. Ron-ites lies America, a great seething mass of potential recruits. If the Moonies don't get there first. Hail Freedom (TM)
#12 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Fri 3 Sep 2010 at 04:50 PM
"So far, her ideas seem to resonate more and more every day. Why is that?"
Because those ideas are so immature and mindlessly egocentric that they resonate with so many people, especially those that make up that first standard deviation below the mean score for intellect.
What more is to have been expected from a '30s vintage Hollywood script writer who landed her earliest assignments having "caught the eye of one Cecille B Demille" in a place and time wherein such phrases masked the true nature of one's initial basis for acceptance by their mentors? And if one is going to measure literary and philosophical accomplishment by popularity then certainly Charlaine Harris has eclipsed anything Ayn Rand might have dreamed of accomplishing.
#13 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sat 4 Sep 2010 at 10:04 AM
It obviously hurts to be so throughly nailed to the wall. Almost 30 years after her death, they're still trying to keep her buried.
Every time they spackle her over with their thin spraypaint, her sales go up.
When some cupcake screams at the top of his lungs, "Burn this book!" her estate -- and those who wouldn't mind another million to read her anew -- should be thanking him.
More press, please.
#14 Posted by Frediano, CJR on Sat 4 Sep 2010 at 10:08 AM
"Almost 30 years after her death, they're still trying to keep her buried." " When some cupcake screams at the top of his lungs, "Burn this book!""
Frediano,
I think you've exhausted all the straw from the fields. The cows may now starve.
To criticize a lack of talent is not to bury the artist, but simply to put a light on the vapidness of the work. That it gets a popular response is no measure of the value of the work other than when measured in commercial terms.
#15 Posted by Jack, CJR on Sun 5 Sep 2010 at 03:08 PM
""What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" - Ayn Rand
Yeah, I can see why that demented bitch has become the de facto Tea Party mascot. A true sociopath's sociopath."
'Demented bitch' is an ad-hominem argument fallacy. Have you noticed how many Rand-haters commit this and several other fallacies in their weak attempts to denounce Rand?
The above quote is NOT what Ayn Rand said. Rather, it is what Kira, from We the Living said to Andrei. This quote was in the first edition of We the Living, but omitted from the second edition. The comment represents a concretization of Neitzche's ethical philosophy. It doesn't represent anything having to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism.
If the Rand-haters wish to use the tactic of quoting out-of-context quotes from Rand's novels, be they from their heroes or villains, they may do so. But a note of warning: by doing this, you are only giving Rand-supporters an opportunity to explain those quotes, to put them in context, and encourage already curious readers to read the books in which the quotes appear.
When this happens--when a new reader pics up a copy of an Ayn Rand novel--the world is re-created in our image, and we win.
I therefore welcome any hater or opponent of Ayn Rand's philosophy to post out of context quotes from Ayn Rand's novels so that I may explain them to new readers. Go ahead and couple those quotes with personal attacks, to demonstrate the already-known principle that most people who attack Ayn Rand do so out of fear, hatred, negativity, but most of all, out of mis-understanding.
#16 Posted by Galt, John, CJR on Sat 25 Sep 2010 at 02:34 AM
"There's a lot of looting going on by the government which deserves our disapproval: the saturated military at the expense of education and health, the subsidization of agribusiness who dump their surplus agriculture on global markets for practically free costs, the invade and rebuild model of cultural transformation/resource acquisition, etc.."
The implication here is that the collection of taxes for the purpose of providing money to the military for our national security, comes at the EXPENSE of other governmental programs or areas of political focus, which the author of this post gives examples of.
But the concept of 'looting', in this context, is what Ayn Rand referred to as a 'stolen concept'. Before proceeding with this post, please read the Ayn Rand Lexicon (which, by the way, is an excellent resource as a quick-glance into Ayn Rand's views on any one of a number of philosophical or political issues) entry on stolen concept:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/stolen_concept--fallacy_of.html
In this case, the concept of looting is stolen, because to loot means to steal. But we do know that taxation, when done legally and with the consent of the governed, can be a legitimate form of funding for a democratic government. But the purpose of government is to secure the individual rights of her citizens. It is not the purpose of government to educate it citizens, provide for their health care, or to provide funding or assistance to any particular industry.
Industries, in a free society, are free to pursue their profit. People are free to choose their own health care provider, and to either educate their children themselves, or to choose a school they can afford.
To imply that the military, which is a legitimate function of any government (that is, any government which has not lost its right to its own military by virtue of misusing their military for purposes outside the boundaries of self-defense), is 'looting' other government programs which are not legitimate functions of government is to mis-use and misunderstand the concept of both looting (i.e. theft) and taxation (which, ironically, in today's society, most often does constitute looting).
Conclusion: the author of that post I quoted should check their premises
#17 Posted by Galt, John, CJR on Sat 25 Sep 2010 at 02:43 AM
The author of the "blurb" which points to the Steorts article, claims that Ayn Rand is an "artless harridan" and that her books are cherished by "lonely teenage philosophers". What a way to start a blurb, eh?
First commit an ad-hominem attack on the author in question, and then attack her readership.
Perhaps this blurb-writer (whose skills apparently don't extend beyond the ability to point to other blurb-writers who are better at committing said fallacies and attacks than he is), has nothing better to do in life than to read internet articles about the author he gave up on after he grew out of his teenage years. Perhaps this blurb-writer himself is the lonely one. Just a thought
#18 Posted by Galt, John, CJR on Sat 25 Sep 2010 at 02:48 AM
One comment-posted made this observation about Ayn Rand's book sales, which numbered one MILLION copies of Atlas Shrugged in 2009. "That it gets a popular response is no measure of the value of the work other than when measured in commercial terms. "
What this constitutes is a complete separation of the concept of 'value' from the concept of 'commercial'. But to measure something in 'commercial terms', as the poster says, is essentially to place a value on it--to evaluate its value to potential consumers. To measure the popularity of a product, you evaluate how much it sold--i.e., how much of a VALUE it was to a consumer.
When an item sells well (for example, a PS3 or an Xbox 360), it's said to be a valuable item. It has value to its buyers. The same is true of intellectual works. If Atlas Shrugged sells a MILLION copies (an unHEARD-of amount of books!), over 50 YEARS AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED, that means that the ideas contained in this book, are of IMMENSE VALUE to the American people.
If the ideas were not of value, then no one would by the book--because books are filled with ideas, are they not? The fact that Atlas Shrugged remains so popular is a testament to the value that Americans and people all over the world place on the ideas of Ayn Rand.
Don't EVER let anyone tell you that there is a difference between commercial value and the concept of moral value. Value is a contextual concept. And it can be applied to ethics, politics, and commercial decision-making. The American people have spoken with their pocket-books and resoundingly said "We Value Ayn Rand's Ideas".
#19 Posted by Galt, John, CJR on Sat 25 Sep 2010 at 02:55 AM
Should I?
A hell, why not.
"In this case, the concept of looting is stolen, because to loot means to steal. But we do know that taxation, when done legally and with the consent of the governed, can be a legitimate form of funding for a democratic government. But the purpose of government is to secure the individual rights of her citizens. It is not the purpose of government to educate it citizens, provide for their health care, or to provide funding or assistance to any particular industry."
The purpose of government depends on the style of government, you cannot say that the purpose of a dictatorship is to secure the rights of its citizens. Therefore, you need to specify the type of government and then describe its role, lest you make the old tool mistake in which one believes every tool is used to strike nails on the head.
I'm going to assume the type of government you're describing is a small government democracy that allows a free market economy. If we go with that, then we have to understand that the citizens have a participatory role in the democratic process. Citizens elect and influence their representatives in a democracy and, unless those citizens are educated to a basic degree, ideally more, they either cannot participate in their democracy or their participation is detrimental to the democracy. Democracy suffers as the general population it's draws upon becomes less educated and less fit to govern.
Note the contrast between education and indoctrination. Education is an open exploration of the world, indoctrination is a closed misrepresentation of it. Democratic governments should make available education to all of it's citizens because an educated citizen base is one where every member can express their reasonable say in how things should be done. Governments who don't want a participatory citizen base will make politics expertise dependent and complicated, leaving its citizens under educated and marginalized.
That's not a proper democracy. That's America.
"One comment-posted made this observation about Ayn Rand's book sales, which numbered one MILLION copies of Atlas Shrugged in 2009. "That it gets a popular response is no measure of the value of the work other than when measured in commercial terms. "
What this constitutes is a complete separation of the concept of 'value' from the concept of 'commercial'. But to measure something in 'commercial terms', as the poster says, is essentially to place a value on it--to evaluate its value to potential consumers. To measure the popularity of a product, you evaluate how much it sold--i.e., how much of a VALUE it was to a consumer.
When an item sells well (for example, a PS3 or an Xbox 360), it's said to be a valuable item. It has value to its buyers. The same is true of intellectual works. If Atlas Shrugged sells a MILLION copies (an unHEARD-of amount of books!), over 50 YEARS AFTER IT WAS PUBLISHED, that means that the ideas contained in this book, are of IMMENSE VALUE to the American people."
First off, price is only one way to measure value and it isn't always the best. The monetary value generated by Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life" was miniscule, it bombed at the theaters, but the value of it is in the crafting of the story, showing the impact of one life and its tiny acts, tiny acts of grace conducted amongst genuine characters and the relationships between them. That movie was art, powerful art.
The problem many feel with Ayn Rand literature is that she she doesn't tell a story, she gives a lecture within the context of a story. I read some of Atlas, the Galt character lectured through the radio for, if memory serves me right, 30 pages?
You don't do that to your readers. You don't insert 30 pages of sermon into a novel's narrative. That's bad writing!
This is art.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R
#20 Posted by Thimbles, CJR on Sat 25 Sep 2010 at 12:36 PM