Atlas Shrugged III?

[Greg]

What the entire A. S. series amounts to is nothing more than libertarian slasher horror Pr0n. Primary emphasis on the last of those four words.

Yes, we should just give up on trying to open the eyes of younger generations, because they don't know what the Soviet Union was, or care that the author's views were shaped by trying to escape it as a child. It's just a piece of fiction that couldn't possibly introduce a new viewpoint to young readers because it's just a stereotypical dichotomy. We should burn all the copies because Aesop says it's crap, that will teach those Objectivists to not stick their neck out.

Aesop did the long version.

Representing your side *badly* is counterproductive, and, surprise surprise, makes your side look, well, bad. That's a theme that comes up here pretty regularly.

[MarkD]

Having read the book a couple times and seen the first two movies, some comments on what's wrong (both with the book and movies) and what could be done.

First, I re-read it periodically not because I'm a fanboi, but because it often seems to me the people making decisions on our behalf are reading it and using the "bad guys" policies as instructions rather than warning.

In both book and movies, there are things that require suspension of belief. That an engineer could develop a new type of motor that would make gasoline and every other type of motion energy obsolete? Unlikely, but I read enough science fiction that it doesn't bother me. That a railroad executive and steel company executive could RECOGNIZE such a motor on a scrap heap? Eh, not so much.

At one time I'd have thought that no elected officials could be stupid enough to pass the laws found in Atlas Shrugged, but now I'm not so sure.

The biggest problem with the movies (the two I've seen so far) is that they follow the book. The biggest problem with the book is that it needed editing, seriously, the book should have been no more than 2/3 as long as it was, and 1/2 would have been better. It's actually a pretty good story, just badly told.

As has been said before, if you want to tell a story in order to explain/defend/promote your philosophy, it FIRST has to be a good, engaging story. The most glaring example of this I can think of was the story told by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John in the Gospels attributed to them. We're STILL telling that story 2,000 years after the events described happened, and it's a philosophy that billions of people have embraced.

I suspect part of the problem with Shrugged is that Rand didn't REALLY understand Americans, and even the Americans who embrace her writings can only do so as Utopians. As you pretty much HAVE to be do be a (big-L) Libertarian, you have to believe that people will give their own money to fund a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier that won't be completed for 20-25 years and will remain in service long after they're dead. Lacking that understanding, she assumed (or at least pretended) that the people in charge of companies that make things would be the type to fight back against the system rather than working the system for their own benefit (and anyone who's looked into the relationship between the railroads and government knows what I mean).

Actually, I'd very much like to see a movie made out of Anthem, and one of these days I have to grab a copy of Fountainhead.

[Greg]

Actually, I'd very much like to see a movie made out of Anthem, and one of these days I have to grab a copy of Fountainhead.

Please, no. Anthem is the only Rand I've read. It was given to me, and I read it out of curiosity. After I read it, I gave it away. If you know how I feel about books you would begin to understand the, shall we say, low esteem, in which I hold that particular title.

It is truly fucking ridiculously awful.

[MarkD]

Actually, I'd very much like to see a movie made out of Anthem, and one of these days I have to grab a copy of Fountainhead.

Please, no. Anthem is the only Rand I've read. It was given to me, and I read it out of curiosity. After I read it, I gave it away. If you know how I feel about books you would begin to understand the, shall we say, low esteem, in which I hold that particular title.

It is truly fucking ridiculously awful.

Really? I enjoyed it, but then again I kinda like the dystopian-future genre.

[Greg]

Really? I enjoyed it, but then again I kinda like the dystopian-future genre.

I don't mind dystopian scenarios. The setup wasn't too bad even, if a bit cliched. But the execution was so punitive, it was like it was written by an autist (or someone who had never actually interacted with a living human being, whose knowledge of human communication was based on sound-only recordings, or something). And was it meant to be a children's book?

Actually, pretty sure Rand was autistic.

[MarkD]

Really? I enjoyed it, but then again I kinda like the dystopian-future genre.

I don't mind dystopian scenarios. The setup wasn't too bad even, if a bit cliched. But the execution was so punitive, it was like it was written by an autist (or someone who had never actually interacted with a living human being, whose knowledge of human communication was based on sound-only recordings, or something). And was it meant to be a children's book?

Actually, pretty sure Rand was autistic.

I didn't realize it was intended as a children's book.

I thought the stunted vocabulary was because the characters were themselves stunted (i.e. considerably less than human).

I didn't think it was as well-done as The Giver, but I still enjoyed it.

Then again, I spend three hours a day commuting via public transportation, my tolerance is pretty high because most things beat sitting there listening to other people's music/conversations or (horror!) reading the throwaway newspapers.

[Jered]

At one time I'd have thought that no elected officials could be stupid enough to pass the laws found in Atlas Shrugged, but now I'm not so sure.

They passed some similar laws in the Great Depression.

FDR was an evil fascist, and probably the worst president we've ever had.

[randy]

if you want to tell a story in order to explain/defend/promote your philosophy, it FIRST has to be a good, engaging story.

Larry Correia has expounded on this concept in great depth (and very entertainingly IMHO) over on his blog. His battles with members of the SF Authors community who place message/"art" over writing a good story are sometimes epic and always a hoot. You have to search his archives (try keywords "Social Justice Warriors", "SJW", and "Sad Puppies") but I think it would be worth the effort.