47 thoughts on “For Those Who Want A Flavor”

  3. Ha ha, rickl. You noticed the release date, then? April 15? Pity the 1040s aren’t actually due until the 18th this year.

  5. hmm.. that scene spoke to me. I’m reminded of a thread on arocket discussing how to be more productive by the zealous control of who has access to your time. Getting things done without even the support of friends or family is another common theme of the entrepreneur.

    As for it being boring – yes, well, I listen to space podcasts, so…

    I wonder how this scene will seem in context.. a good director will ensure that by this time in the film we’re rooting for the protagonist and see his actions as inclusive and his wife’s actions as unsupportive. If not, then I fear for the rest of the film.

  6. Ha ha, rickl. You noticed the release date, then? April 15? Pity the 1040s aren’t actually due until the 18th this year.

    Actually, it might have been better if it came out a few years ago. It could have served as a warning.

  7. Some of the rah-rah commenters on the page worry me somewhat. It seems that to some of the die-hards, any criticism of the movie or the book means the critic is automatically a “communist”, a “socialist” or some other label. I thought the book could have been good if Ayn Rand had had a decent editor that could get her to nail her points in half the words. Not that I’m an Objectivist by any means, because I don’t want anyone, and I mean anyone, telling me what to do with what I earn. If I choose to tithe to my church, I don’t give a crap if that goes against what Objectivism means to the die-hards. I don’t live my life for them, either.

  8. One of my favorite scenes from the book.

    Rearden presents a trinket from the first pour, something which could well be a prized exhibit in a museum 1000 years from now and his wife rejects it as a piece of “sewer pipe”. Thus illustrating the ignorance of the elitists while simultaneously setting up Rearden’s relationship with Dagny.

    Hopefully, they’ve cut out my least favorite scenes, the interminably long speeches which belonged in a book on philosophy, not a novel.

  9. Captain Nerd, part of the problem is that she did have an editor – twelve of them, including Alan Greenspan. If she had only had one editor it probably would have been a much shorter and better book. As it stands, Atlas Shrugged is the number two bestseller behind only the Bible. It has sold over 100 thousand copies per year for decades, but in 2008 sold 200 thousand and in 2009 half a million copies were purchased.

    Carl wrote: You noticed the release date, then? April 15? Pity the 1040s aren’t actually due until the 18th this year.

    That is going to be an interesting week.

  11. (Full disclosure: I haven’t seen the trailers and probably won’t because I want my memories of the book to remain unaffected by someone else’s vision of it.)

    Actually my favorite scene regarding the bracelet is when Dagny trades her diamond tennis bracelet to the wife for it, in front of a crowd at a party (or something, it’s been years). Anyway, she manages to make the wife look like a shallow shrew. I thought when Rand stuck to these sort of scenes between characters (using their interactions to reveal something about them) she was at her best. It was when she would choose to isolate a single character (as if putting them up on the stage) and have them declaim at length that her story became flat. I frankly used to skip the really long speeches. Especially the big Galt one which even Fidel Castro in his speech-marathon heyday would have edited. I always think of the long, unreadable speeches her characters get into as one of the unfortunate effects of someone with artistic talent being exposed to communism. Even when you reject it and escape, the scars remain.

    One more thing: one especially clunky bit in the book was the name Ayn Rand had Hank Rearden come up with for his new alloy: “Rearden Metal.” Ker-plunk! Why not have him do what others have done before him, and metallize his name and call it “reardenium”?

  13. The question is how many of those copies purchased in the last few years were actually read. I went thru a Rand phase in high school, along with Solzhenitsyn, but these days I can’t tolerate either writer, for different reasons.
    As far as Solzhenitsyn is concerned, I no longer have the interest in the Soviet Union that I did while in school.
    Rand’s worship of unbridled capitalism, her disdain for Christianity, the strange cultists of the Objectivist movement, the lectures that went on forever, and her very messy personal life have turned me completely off.
    I consider myself something of a libertarian, but OTOH I am appalled at many business practices. I think that there has to be some balance in terms of relations between business and regulatory bodies. I agree that the balance has tipped way too far in favor of regulators.
    As for the movie, I will wait and see what the early reviews say about it.

  14. Don says ” I will wait and see what the early reviews say about it”

    I don’t rely on what anyone else’s opinion is (reviewer) to help me make up my own mind. I read Atlas Shrugged. I liked it. I will see the movie, and only after I have seen it, will I make up my mind about it. I read Rand, Heinlein, Asimov , Bradbury and quite a few other authors.

    I do find it interesting. The public reaction to a book versus a movie version. More than half the time, it seems that the big screen is more of a draw than we think it will be. If you are an avid reader, many times a movie just doesn’t get it all in or correct. If you are more of a movie buff, it seems that the words on a page, can’t compare to the intriguing special FX.

  15. I will miss Francisco’s (“The Most Interesting Man in the World”…) money speech, for I think it’s the best of all the soapboxes. However, I don’t see how one could make AS sans Galt speech in some form — everything in the book leads up to it. It would be like making a movie about Jesus Christ and skipping over the resurrection.

  16. Galt’s speech, from the one time I forced myself to read through it, was just the reiteration of all the other character’s speeches. I suppose it could serve as a condensed version of the book for people who don’t like all that character and plot stuff.

  17. I read the book just over ten years ago I think. It was part of the award when I was chosen as contractor of the year at Bradford & Galt, who was my employer then. I also skipped the chapter “John Galt speaks”.

  18. Well, I was actually talking about Galt’s speech as it relates to the plot. It could be a short “You’re all clear kid – now let’s blow this thing and go home!” and it would serve the same purpose.

  19. The reason Atlas Shrugged is selling again is that the Administration consistently sounds like a pack of Rand villains. I suspect there will be a whole new audience for the movie who have never heard of Rand and will just think, “Huh, they made a movie about the Obama administration. Pretty realistic.”

  20. My favorite was the 20th Century Motor Factory story. I feel more than most other things in the book, this channeled real experience for Rand. It was relatively short as a story too.

  22. My favorite scene of the book was that of the drunken engineer/driver of the train, trying to take a coal powered engine through a long mountain tunnel. But the blame for the tragedy that ensues does not fall on the engineer alone–each of the passengers is exposed as an enabler of tragedy that engulfs them. It was quite moving.

    I guess I’ll have to wait until Atlas Shrugged Part II or II see that one, if they even screen it. I’m not sure how it could be done, but I’d love to see the filmmakers try.

  23. If I – as a ninth grader oh so many years ago – could trim 2/3 of “The Raven” to get within the time constraints for a UIL speech competition and keep the most relevant verses, I’m sure Hollywood grownups (who really understand the novel) can do something similar with Galt’s speeches.

  24. ” As it stands, Atlas Shrugged is the number two bestseller behind only the Bible.”

    Actually, I think Lord of the Rings holds that position.

  25. As a philosopher, Ayn Rand was a joke, and Atlas Shrugged is a ridiculous novel. Christianity is in no way compatible with Ayn Rand’s soi-disant objectivism, which is in many ways both antichristian and anticonservative. That being said, I will enjoy this movie. Seeing the piss being taken out of the socially-conscious, self-righteous liberal scum that run this country is entertaining in itself.

  28. I found that scene rather powerful and unpleasant to watch – I wanted to run away. I read Atlas Shrugged a couple of times in my youth (admittedly I skipped the soliloquy the first time round), so I may be a little more sensitive to it than most. I suspect it will be a rather traumatic movie to watch.

    Rand’s Objectivism bothers me – it is not relevant to the message, not really compatible with science and infers an overly polemic personality which is uncomfortable with uncertainty. Although Rand did get serious popular traction, where no one else did, perhaps because of this simplistic black and white representation of reality.

    But Rand’s philosophy is a useful starting point, it is basically fundamental evolutionary theory absent the evolutionary rationale of group altruism. It kind of says that without the test of reality you end up creating the human equivalent of Chihuahuas, poodles and rag doll pussy cats – and that this is a very immoral thing to do with severe long term consequences. Depart too far from survival of the fittest and no one survives – the system falls apart. This was something that really needed to be said.

    But to go to the next stage beyond Rand one really needs to incorporate group altruism into the model. Libertarianism does not just apply at the individual level, it also applies at the group, community, state and country level, and this has to be allowed for. Some degree of collectivism is acceptable so long as survival of the fittest still ultimately applies. Entitlement is allowable (if so chosen by the group) if it is capped at a sustainable level.

    Rand also seemed somewhat supportive of business monopolies – that the objective of business was to find a natural monopoly to exploit (like Reardon steel and Galt’s technological advances). While innovation should be well rewarded, ultimately such monopolies (the equivalent of mono-cultures) need to be diffused if society is to move forward. Then again, I am not sure anyone has found a good solution to this problem. It is questionable whether the patent system is a net win to society and there is still effectively no good way to reward R&D (the fruits of which might be easily copied) in proportion to its productivity.

  29. As a philosopher, Ayn Rand was a joke

    A grown man — supposedly — who makes his living drawing cartoons for tweens and making funny voices in flims says this?

    Listen, friend, when the flames of two revolutions wash over you and your family, bringing genuine starvation at times, and you survive a brutal civil war, then flee your homeland to carve out a new life in a place where they don’t speak your language and at a time when women are generally thought to belong in the nursery or kitchen — and you manage to put in front of people a relatively bleak philosophy — no benevolent Sky Father to reward the just and punish the unjust by and by, no evil conspiracy of Them to blame for all your life’s misfortunes — and nevertheless convey it sufficiently intriguingly that half a century later several hundred thousand folks a year are still shelling out their own hard-earned money (not union dues, not taxes, not even tax-subsidized money) to buy a copy of your turgid prose — well, let’s talk then, shall we?

    I would be the last to consider Objectivism any kind of final philosophical word, and certainly aspects of her personal life I find repellent. But the woman had an ability to think cleanly, remorselessly logically, and express difficult but important truths in admirably plain and uncompromising speech that is exceedingly rare. Considering how many shibboleths of the parasite culture she demolishes, and the endless smearing to which its troglodytic serfs therefore subject her, she deserves high honor for her enduring influence, which helps and inspires those of us endeavoring to rise above the primate muck of ritual poo-flinging, lackluster cuckoldry and joyless copulation.

  30. Pete, you wrote:

    Rand also seemed somewhat supportive of business monopolies – that the objective of business was to find a natural monopoly to exploit (like Reardon steel and Galt’s technological advances). While innovation should be well rewarded, ultimately such monopolies (the equivalent of mono-cultures) need to be diffused if society is to move forward.

    Competition. Reardon had a monopoly (not in the least a natural monopoly, mind you) in the novel because no one else bothered to challenge his business. Under those circumstances I see a monopoly as being a justifiable reward.

    But the political context of monopoly seems to me to be a strand of Ayn Rand’s web. Society had created a vast morass of incompetent and groveling businesses. Any surviving good businesses would be monopolies solely because they would be the only risk takers and high performers in their field. And the presence of these monopolies would be the rationalization to destroy them. This in turn would put society on the final track to dissolution.

    Ayn Rand showed much scorn for state sanctioned monopolies and oligopolies. These are show infesting the world, growing more powerful, corrupt, and irresolute as Atlas Shrugged progresses.

    As to your final comment why should Rearden’s monopoly be diffused? There literally was no one else who could make the metal, the entire world had been hamstrung. The only thing preserving his monopoly was simply that the “looters” in charge hadn’t yet figured out how to divvy the spoils (and it takes some time to present the takeover palatably to the masses).

    I imagine Ayn Rand would be angered by your language and ideas, perhaps justifiably. Recall that all these rationalizations to take stuff are couched in the language of group altruism. Her point was that what modern society thinks of as group altruism isn’t. Being a libertarian doesn’t keep you from practicing real group altruism either. My view is that group altruism is already in the libertarian model, you just don’t recognize it.

    Moving on, you mention “natural monopolies”. Why obsess over the monopoly of Rearden, when you ignore the parasitic monopolies and oligopolies that compose most of the world of Atlas Shrugged? At this point, she might well use her overused term, “evil” to describe your language. The Rearden “monopoly” happens to be among the last things that keep the society together. Yet you want to destroy that for what? So that a half dozen companies can take those secrets and do nothing with them, because they don’t have a clue how to make Rearden metal, even when the instructions are right in front of them.

    The circumstances are contrived (it is fiction after all), but remember, Ayn Rand deliberately challenges our preconceptions here. You don’t have to buy into the belief system. But there is nuance here that you miss.

  31. Carl needs a nice cup of tea and a sit-down.

    I was never really into the novel’s “politics,” which were exaggerated into a very black and white scenario (deliberately — it wasn’t meant to be a realistic novel as Rand herself declared). It was important to me for personal reasons: I first read it during a time in my life when I’d finally had it up to here with basically being told I needed to subsume my personality and become a robot servant to please the other people in my life. I give this novel some of the credit for helping me find the courage to break out of my patterns of being everyone’s little gofer and getting my own life.

    But that’s as far as it went. I could definitely see problems in applying her Objectivist philosophy to the real world. And as for other areas, Ayn Rand’s views on stuff like sex was crazycakes. I also like old buildings and old-fashioned architecture.

  32. Moving on, you mention “natural monopolies”. Why obsess over the monopoly of Rearden, when you ignore the parasitic monopolies and oligopolies that compose most of the world of Atlas Shrugged?

    Yes getting rid of the parasitic monopolies is the major first step (and I assumed a given), however in extreme situations natural monopolies can still pose an interesting question.

    Say someone comes up with a secret sauce for cheap fusion that no one can copy, and they use this monopoly on cheap fusion to effectively takeover the world and create a private business government that no democratic government can match. Would this be ethical?

    As to group altruism, is it always true that a state based solely on individuals will out perform one with some degree of collective behavior? Ants, bees and termites are all evolutionarily successful models where individual freedom is suppressed. Who is to say that the same is not also to some extent true for humans in some times or in some places?

    I am inclined to think that individuals are the ultimate source and judge of morality, however if human societies with some degree of top down collective behavior proved more successful than bottom up human societies based entirely on individuals in the petri dish that is Earth, would that not infer that that was the superior model?

    This is part of what I mean by extending the concept of libertarianism beyond the individual and also applying it to the behavior between groups, communities, states and countries (ensure open competition between communities, groups, states and countries). Ultimately, evolution not Ayn Rand gets to decide what the optimal degree of collectivist behavior is.

  33. People bring up Ayn Rands personal life a lot in their critiques of her. From what I can tell most of Rand’s supposed nasty reputation comes from outright enemies like National Review and 2 people who wrote books after Rand was safely dead, and their hangers-on. Conservatives don’t have an incentive to defend her because of her stance on religion, libertarians would love you to read Atlas but don’t want to let you know she despised them or why, and I don’t even need to go into the left. And if an Objectivist defends Ayn Rand’s personal life, some of whom were friends and actually knew her, they are labeled sycophants. Might as well decide whether or not you find someone or their ideas interesting by picking up the Star tabloid.

  39. “People bring up Ayn Rands personal life a lot in their critiques of her.”

    Well, Ayn Rand thought her personal life was of paramount importance to her philosophy; enough so that she had no qualms about basically ordering a man to have an affair with her (and what does his spineless acquiescence say about the effects of Objectivism on people?). And she didn’t leave her views on sex and what should constitute the proper sort of relations between men and women out of her concerns. I don’t know why we have to treat her with kid gloves when she didn’t treat anyone else that way.

  40. Andrea: How do you know that? Were you in the room? There’s 4 people, in the world, who know what happened with the Brandens and 2 of them are dead. Again, 2 people who got the boot and definitely have a grudge to pick somehow becomes the fount of truth about Ayn Rand’s character. Taking issue what Rand’s said her views were on the relationship between men and women is fine. But you might as well look up your horoscope in the back while pursing the rest of the celebrity gossip.

  44. Say someone comes up with a secret sauce for cheap fusion that no one can copy, and they use this monopoly on cheap fusion to effectively takeover the world and create a private business government that no democratic government can match. Would this be ethical?

    I don’t know. The initial conditions indicate something deeply wrong with the democratic societies (maybe the technological edge comes from absence of regulatory obstacles and/or the societies are unable to innovate). So if a business has so much of an advantage that the rest of the world can’t touch it, it may well be ethical to recognize the business government in exchange for access to the technology.

    As to group altruism, is it always true that a state based solely on individuals will out perform one with some degree of collective behavior? Ants, bees and termites are all evolutionarily successful models where individual freedom is suppressed. Who is to say that the same is not also to some extent true for humans in some times or in some places?

    A society based on individuals can implement group behavior. A state with considerable collective behavior might not be able to do the reverse.

    Finally, we need to keep in mind that evolution doesn’t always work towards improvement or cooperation. Defection from group cooperation can be a very effective strategy as long as everyone isn’t doing it. The staggering variety of parasites in nature indicates that evolution is not as straightforward as it might seem.

    In general, I say we don’t merely want a society that can survive, but also a society that we would be proud to leave to our descendants.

  45. Sorry, B. Lewis. I’ll try to use shorter words next time. I forgot you’re in film, where a sentence that requires more than one comma has to be sent out for translation, and Whoopi Goldberg is considered practically a modern Plato.

  46. Actually, Pete, I find not just your initial conditions a little hard to swallow — the logic is tenuous, too. The idea that someone with a brilliant and uncopyable idea for an invention could “take over the world” seems a little like an Underpants Gnome Theory of world conquest:

    (1) Brilliant invention!

    (2) ???

    (3) Enslave the world!

    What I would expect to happen if someone invented a clever fusion device is that, if it were as one might suspect, impossible for the fellow to implement a network of fusion power stations girdling the globe his lone self, he would hire a bunch of engineers to do it for him. Since he’s selling something wonderful — cheap power — he would get huge amounts of business and could pay handsome wages. He would, of course, take the most handsome wage for himself, but perhaps not enough so that he could swim about in his gold coins, like Scrooge McDuck, because he might want to plow some of it back into R&D to keep ahead of the other clever dicks on the planet, who, now knowing it’s possible to make fusion cheaply, will be rushing to find a way to make it $0.02 per kWh cheaper than our inventor friend.

    But anyway. The net so far is: loads of people spend much less for power, so they have much more to spend on other things. So everyone kind of gets an instant raise. Then he’s created a load of high-paying jobs, which is nice. Then again, presumably cheap fusion power enables a whole lot of other interesting technologies — honeymoon trips to the Moon, say. So lots of new industries get started.

    I don’t really see how our friend dominates the planet, though. I mean, the world can certainly decline to buy his cheap power if it finds his conditions unacceptable. It leaves them no worse off than they are right now.

  47. I don’t really see how our friend dominates the planet, though.

    Free movies on the third Thursday of the month. With benefits like that, people will sign up. And they get a cool-looking, soul crushing minion mask made of the finest quality, high density PET. Hmmph, it’s pretty clear you haven’t thought this stuff out.

Comments are closed.