I keep running into dystopias more as articles of philosophy than as novels of worth as reading, and most of them seem to have to undermine the basic premise to actually make it a dystopia instead of a regular utopia. Drives me nuts.

As for as having actual value as a book for reading as opposed to "literary merit", Animal Farm was way less intolerable to read than 1984, which was just painful to read.

1984 is basically an authorial tract, yeah; Orwell placed the onus on the concept rather than the story. It's an interesting read, but not a particularly enjoyable one. I'd argue that makes it more effective in some ways (form interacting with content) - yet there were points (Winston reading "Goldstein's" book was the most obvious) when I found myself thinking "God, why didn't you just write an essay on dystopia? Why is the framework of the narrative necessary at all?" I guess I might be biased considering how little I liked the characters, they all seemed like cardboard cut-outs with one defining personality trait. ("I'm the tenacious everyman! You will identify with me!"; "I'm the spirited love interest!"; "I'm eeeevil, and have no interests beyond being eeeevil!")

People dont like rand because she's right about a lot of things.

I agree with Fain on Brave New World vs 1984. Brave New World was an interesting read, but I remember finishing the book and feeling a little disappointed because there were too many problems with the characters and plot. 1984 was a far more cohesive/immersive world in my opinion. I also don't believe it is tied to the world view as it was in the late 1940's, it's power as a novel today is that is still as relevant (speaking as a UK resident) in our current political climate. The doublespeak was imaginative, although the Bezoomy Nadsat of Clockwork Orange certainly stuck in my vocabulary for a malenky bit longer. Very fun.

We was a great book, and I thoroughly enjoyed it, I might even say that I think it is better than 1984.

All of the Kafka novels and stories that I've read so far are great. I recently finished "The Castle" which was an unfinished work at the time of his death. In many ways though, having it unfinished doesn't detract at all from enjoying the manic an absurd interactions of K. with the labyrinthine bureaucracy of the castle! I love the hugely long paragraphs with their endless contradictions offered in an constant stream of apparently irrefutable truths!

Annnnd because she's a boring old bint with little discernible talent.

That is like the exact opposite reason of what actually happens Bali

I think Rand is perfectly talented, although I find her characters a bit flat.

I don't much like her books though, because her perspective is so far away from mine and her view of people is so far away from my view of people. I find Atlas Shrugged so different from my own experience of life that it has a sense of unreality about it, and because it fails so to convince me plot-wise, it fails to convince me philosophically.

This is not, in my experience, a world peopled only by incompetents and graspers, and we do not live in a moral void. When the things that happen in the books happen on the basis of that premise, I find myself saying "No, it wouldn't be like that". Very much worth the read though.

Would you care to expand on that a bit? I.e. what sort of claims does Rand make about people that your experience would contextually deny? Or should I just pick up Atlas Shrugged myself?

You dont know alot about people, then.



When you write a shrugged, we can talk, friendo.

I read 1984 about 4 years ago when I was in my 10th grade English class. The ONLY reason I enjoyed coming to class to read the story was how my teacher taught it: we were immersed in the 1984 universe, with the teacher being Big Brother, 5 students being Outer Party, 1 student being Inner Party, and the rest of us were Proles. We were told that Big Brother would pick a "spy" that would rat us out for doing things against Big Brother (these were arbitrary things, really. I got ratted on for plotting to steal my teacher's purse... When I was out with Mono. Just her sense of humor, I guess). This was to immerse us into a realm where we couldn't trust anyone, because we didn't know who was the spy. Turns out, it was really Big Brother using scare tactics to keep up afraid and in control, just like the book.

Because of that event, I truly enjoyed reading the book because I could get a hands-on feel for how life must be like in the book. The book itself, however, was incredibly hard to read. Run-on sentences everywhere, paragraphs lasting more than 2 pages... What a nightmare to read. Newspeak and doublethink concepts also confused my then-feeble 10th grade mind, but that's mostly because I didn't care to process all of it.

The book is a classic for a reason: it lays out the exact scenario for what happens when the government takes too much power over us. I think everyone should read this story at least once in their life. It will greatly impact the way you view your own government and politics as a whole, and I think it'll drive people to be more active with politics. Probably exactly what George Orwell wanted all along!

I can't really, without picking it up myself. It's been a couple of years since I read it and I can't remember much in the way of detail. It is well worth reading though.

Well, I'd like to say that back but maybe you just didn't read Rand properly.

EDIT: Though I suppose you could say it's worth reading for the same reasons as Descartes or Dan Brown or something.

You want me to write a book peopled by cardboard cutouts that dance in thrall to the authors misguided view of the world?

Oh my god you're a Twilight fan.

Just because he is not a writer does not mean he does not have a point.

So, what, I can't say I dislike something because I can't make it myself? Sure I can.

You do not just write a book and expect everyone to agree with you, that would be stupid. The readers may not be writers, but they are readers.

Besides, if he thinks the book is horrible, why the hell should he want to write to be "worthy" of it?

I actually am a writer (albeit an unpublished one so far) but I appreciate the defence

Okay then.

Just because he did not write Atlas Shrugged or whatever does not mean he does not have a point

You're such a lemmiwinks. Rearden was a cardboard cutout? Come on now. Anyway, the point of the novel was not to make superbly realistic characters, but to layout a philosophy through artistic means. The fact that you're accusing me of being a twilight fan for liking and defending rand just proves some of the rabid, blind hatred that exists for her. Instead of addressing the philosophy in an upfront manner most people, like you, would rather join the bandwagon of rand-hate and throw out casual insults like "her characters are so one dimensional" or, "her sex scenes are absolutely ridiculous", or "her philosophy is completely impractical". By doing so entirely missing the point.



I knew he was, thats what he's doing in school. It was more of a personal challenge to Jack. I honestly dont think he thinks its horrible, I just think he's taking the popular opinion "just cuz".

Nope. If it was a textbook, or a nonfiction book, then yes, you'd be correct. It's not, though. It's a novel. Those criticisms are entirely valid when applied to a novel. If you're bad at writing novels, don't make your point with one. One would assume the point of putting your philosophy in such terms is that you can draw in people that are reading the book for entertainment, and show them another point of view. Or at least to entertain people who are looking for your philosphy. If it fails to be a good book on its own merits, then you fail to effectively convey your point.

Now, I haven't actually read the book. Maybe it's awesome. But it doesn't look that interesting, and neither does the philosophy. If it WAS interesting to me, I might be turned on to the philosophy, but she's failed to draw me in long enough to deliver that to me.

Rearden was completely a cardboard cutout! None of Rand's characters possess any immutable characteristics or personality, they just do whatever will best illustrate Rand's own beliefs. The actions of her characters are divorced from even the tenuous black-and-white morality of her books world. Rearden's a particularly good example of this, in fact, considering he cheats on his wife and is portrayed as justified in doing so, while his wife cheats on him and is painted as a villainous slattern. I go further, in fact: Rearden's essentially a caricature of the protagonist in a Victorian romance novel. Read Gaskell's North and South and compare him to John Thornton. "I'm a self made man! I pulled myself up by my coattails! I have no discernible flaws save for the ones that will endear me to the audience!" That's textbook bad writing irrespective of the points she intended to illustrate.


Yes, I understand that the point of the novel was to present Rand's philosophy to the reader (and I would argue in that regard it's an unmitigated success) but I'm bashing its utter lack of artistic merit. It's just not a compelling book! I don't understand why she tried to illustrate her philosophy via prose at all when she was such a poor writer of fiction. Why not just write a goddamn pamphlet? The reason I'm not addressing the philosophy is because I can't objectively say it's wrong, only that I disagree with it. The philosophical aspect of Objectivism is as debatable as any other philosophy, and obviously on the political side of things everybody's entitled to their differing ideologies. (Though as a socialist, myself, I disagree with her there too: I have an awful lot to say about her absurd pseudo-conservative claptrap. I'll say this much, the idea that charity of any description is harmful to individuals is patently absurd.) You're assuming that I'm missing the point of the book just because I disagree with it, man. I'm not bashing it because I didn't understand it, or because it's fashionable to do so. Quite the opposite: it's fashionable to bash it because it's so eminently bashable.

Facepalm.jpg



Compare rand's method to what fiction writers usually do. The usual point is to entertain, fascinate, or "make you think a little". You cant sit here and say the book isn't unique or compelling in any way. Binty? Maybe. Old? Dead. But boring? Naw.

Didn't she cheat on him just to try to hurt him, while he "cheated" on her with Dagny, somebody he genuinely loved? I can't rememeber, its been like two years. Rearden has innumerable flaws, he's totally cold and a horribly boring conversationalist. Compare him to Fransisco and the difference is light and day.



I thought it was compelling. Its new. When you read it, you dont enter the normal world of fiction writing. Its entirely different from a normal reading experience. Isn't that something? Isn't that worth admiring? Sure, some parts are a total eye-roll-factory, but I'm from the school of reading that makes it OK to forgive a writer if the big picture is worth examining. I think people bash it because it brings up some uncomfortable ideas. Ideas are often flat-out rejected on grounds of cognitive dissonance because they are just too uncomfortable to think about. Rand is a terrible writer, that must be it! Thats why, 50 years later, atlas shrugged is still one of the most talked about and controversial books in the world. Puh-lease.

Anyway, this debate is so been there, done that. Lets call it a day and have a pint shall we?