Ayn Rand and the Afterschooler

[jenbrdsly]

Her family got her out of Russia, and she pretty much abandoned them. She "used" relations in the US and them dumped them when they were no longer useful to her.

 

 

Yes! She lived with some cousins or something in their apartment while she wrote her first novel or screenplay or something, and did not contribute either through money or chores. Then she claimed to have gained all of her success in life to 100% her own efforts without any help at all.

Interesting side note.... Remember I'm the OP who also mentioned Rose Wilder Lang? Okay, so did you ever read the Little House on the Prairie series by Laura Ingalls Wilder? In it, they make a big deal about Laura teaching at a horrible school and living with a family where the wife is going crazy. Laura did this to earn money for Mary to go to the college for the blind.

In actuality, the State paid all of Mary's tuition!!!! Laura's contribution did help, as it paid for train tickets and clothes. But Rose Wilder Lane heavily edited (or perhaps almost wrote) the section to make it look like the Ingalls family never received any government assistance whatsoever.

 

Of course, I still LOVE Laura Ingalls Wilder. Ayn Rand, not so much.

[Word Nerd]

I'm reminded of some of the discussions in the main forum about NPD.

[Spy Car]

Yes! She lived with some cousins or something in their apartment while she wrote her first novel or screenplay or something, and did not contribute either through money or chores. Then she claimed to have gained all of her success in life to 100% her own efforts without any help at all.

Interesting side note.... Remember I'm the OP who also mentioned Rose Wilder Lang? Okay, so did you ever read the Little House on the Prairie series by Laura Ingalls Wilder? In it, they make a big deal about Laura teaching at a horrible school and living with a family where the wife is going crazy. Laura did this to earn money for Mary to go to the college for the blind.

In actuality, the State paid all of Mary's tuition!!!! Laura's contribution did help, as it paid for train tickets and clothes. But Rose Wilder Lane heavily edited (or perhaps almost wrote) the section to make it look like the Ingalls family never received any government assistance whatsoever.

 

Of course, I still LOVE Laura Ingalls Wilder. Ayn Rand, not so much.

 

I can't say that I have. Maybe I'm reading the wrong authors? :D

 

Bill

[Spy Car]

I'm reminded of some of the discussions in the main forum about NPD.

 

NPD?

 

Bill

[Word Nerd]

NPD?

 

Bill

 

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

[Spy Car]

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

 

Ah yes! I'm no psychiatrist, but Ayn Rand would have to be a "classic case."

 

Bill

[Tullia]

Whoa! This thread is getting a bit crazy. I just thought I'd point out that from my view, it is very clear that like me, Bill has extensively read the works of Ayn Rand, as well as the commentaries about her. I can 100% tell that from the comments he has made.

 

But has anyone watched the sketchy Helen Mirren movie "The Passions of Ayn Rand", or only me? :tongue_smilie:

 

The thread has taken an odd turn, but that's not unusual. I don't have any reason to doubt that Bill has read her work or the commentaries. However, the general tone of this thread reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote in the second chapter of An Experiment in Criticism. "This is where the literary Puritans fail most lamentably. They are too serious as men to be seriously perceptive as readers."

 

I have noticed for the past ten years or so an apparent lessening in people's awareness of the relative worth of different parts of an author's work--fiction or non-fiction. The tendency seems to be to either wholly condemn or praise an author based upon an arbitrary set of criteria without acknowledging possible strengths on the one hand or weaknesses on the other.

 

As to your original question...without knowing the people you mention I can't say whether or not they love Rand's work out of ignorance. They may very well be ignorant louts, but I think it more likely that they've seen something (even if it's only very small) worth thinking about. It might not even require accepting her work entirely; some ideas are most helpful when considered in juxtaposition with their opposites. I think, too, that a couple of the earliest replies in this thread mentioned Rand's commentary on the coercive tendencies of the state as being an attractive feature of her work. It's possible to appreciate some aspects of her work or her insights without wholly endorsing her philosophy or her lifestyle.

 

It seems to me that the point Lewis was trying to make was that if one takes a work too seriously (it could be either in a positive or negative way) doing so serves to distort one's reading. I don't think that the question raised in the later posts should be taken as meaning in a literal sense whether or not a person has or has not read Rand's work but whether or not she was given anything like a fair reading. I do agree with Bill that it would be unwise to hand Rand's work to a high school student without comment, but I also believe that high school students need to be aware of her work.

 

Interesting thread, though. I started out here as an afterschooler and occasionally see something that catches my eye.

[MBM]

I've read that one of her books -- Atlas Shrugged? -- is handed out for free to high schools for AP English. 400,000 copies per year or so. I'm not sure if they still do that.

 

I am going to have to watch the movie about her. Now that is a soap opera.

[Spy Car]

The thread has taken an odd turn, but that's not unusual. I don't have any reason to doubt that Bill has read her work or the commentaries. However, the general tone of this thread reminds me of something C.S. Lewis wrote in the second chapter of An Experiment in Criticism. "This is where the literary Puritans fail most lamentably. They are too serious as men to be seriously perceptive as readers."

 

It is an interesting tactic to suggest people who find fault with a work do so because they are too serous minded. This strikes me funny.

 

For what-it's-worth I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time when I was 13, I'm rather sure over-seriousness wasn't the issue in my understanding Rand's ideology. Subsequent reading of other works of her fiction and (especially) her "philosophical" works have confirmed that, while young, I wasn't stupid.

 

 

I have noticed for the past ten years or so an apparent lessening in people's awareness of the relative worth of different parts of an author's work--fiction or non-fiction. The tendency seems to be to either wholly condemn or praise an author based upon an arbitrary set of criteria without acknowledging possible strengths on the one hand or weaknesses on the other.

 

First, my position on Ayn Rand and Objectivism goes back nearly thirty years. It is not newly arrived at.

 

Second, the considerations are not "based upon arbitrary criteria" they are based on reason and a sense of morality. Rand sought to replace the morality shared for thousands of years by people of good-will with an ideology which extolls selfishness, narcissism, and egoism as the prime virtues.

 

I reject her premises and her vision of "morality."

 

It's possible to appreciate some aspects of her work or her insights without wholly endorsing her philosophy or her lifestyle.

 

I suppose anything is possible. Rand, however, was known to bitterly denounce those who would pick and choose bits and pieces of Objectivism. Hers was a grand unified worldview that one either unquestioningly embraced, or you were out. People should at least know this basic fact.

 

I think many people have a belief that Ayn Rand was an anti-government anti-Communist, which (although true in the narrow sense) is only a small part of a much bigger picture.

 

It seems to me that the point Lewis was trying to make was that if one takes a work too seriously (it could be either in a positive or negative way) doing so serves to distort one's reading.

 

If you think Ayn Rand didn't intend to be taken seriously then you clearly do not understand the woman. Nor do you understand the cultic devotion of Objectivists who take her words in dead-seriousness.

 

That a skeptical reader might guffaw at some of the preposterous nonsense in her writing, or do an eye-roll when reading the purple-prose, is to be hoped for. But Rand herself expected to be taken seriously, and there are many who do just that.

 

I do agree with Bill that it would be unwise to hand Rand's work to a high school student without comment, but I also believe that high school students need to be aware of her work.

 

In the same way one might familiarize themselves with the writings of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Freud, Nietzsche or any number of figures whose "world-views" Thayer might wish to "understand" but not adopt as their own.

[Spy Car]

I've read that one of her books -- Atlas Shrugged? -- is handed out for free to high schools for AP English. 400,000 copies per year or so. I'm not sure if they still do that.

 

I am going to have to watch the movie about her. Now that is a soap opera.

 

And the Ayn Rand Institute gives out cash prizes for high school essays extolling Objectivism. It is a proselytizing anti-religious cult of personality.

 

Bill

[Tullia]

It is an interesting tactic to suggest people who find fault with a work do so because they are too serous minded. This strikes me funny.

 

For what-it's-worth I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time when I was 13, I'm rather sure over-seriousness wasn't the issue in my understanding Rand's ideology. Subsequent reading of other works of her fiction and (especially) her "philosophical" works have confirmed that, while young, I wasn't stupid.

 

 

 

 

First, my position on Ayn Rand and Objectivism goes back nearly thirty years. It is not newly arrived at.

 

Second, the considerations are not "based upon arbitrary criteria" they are based on reason and a sense of morality. Rand sought to replace the morality shared for thousands of years by people of good-will with an ideology which extolls selfishness, narcissism, and egoism as the prime virtues.

 

I reject her premises and her vision of "morality."

 

 

 

I suppose anything is possible. Rand, however, was known to bitterly denounce those who would pick and choose bits and pieces of Objectivism. Hers was a grand unified worldview that one either unquestioningly embraced, or you were out. People should at least know this basic fact.

 

I think many people have a belief that Ayn Rand was an anti-government anti-Communist, which (although true in the narrow sense) is only a small part of a much bigger picture.

 

 

 

If you think Ayn Rand didn't intend to be taken seriously then you clearly do not understand the woman. Nor do you understand the cultic devotion of Objectivists who take her words in dead-seriousness.

 

That a skeptical reader might guffaw at some of the preposterous nonsense in her writing, or do an eye-roll when reading the purple-prose, is to be hoped for. But Rand herself expected to be taken seriously, and there are many who do just that.

 

 

 

In the same way one might familiarize themselves with the writings of Marx, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, Freud, Nietzsche or any number of figures whose "world-views" Thayer might wish to "understand" but not adopt as their own.

 

Hmmm....I failed to express myself clearly. Lewis is discussing readers--not authors. Readers who read only to debunk as well as those who read only to affirm their preconceived notions tend to read indiscriminately or in an undiscerning manner. It seems to me that this discussion is dividing along the lines of those who read books in the classical tradition and those who view the reading of books as primarily an exercise in ideology. But, then, not everyone here is interested in classical methods and that's a good thing--if nothing else it makes for interesting discussions. I tend to agree with the dx offered by an earlier poster, but what I don't get are the reams of vituperation (intended in the classical sense--no sarcasm intended) against Rand.

 

[For those who don't object to Lewis' work, his An Experiment in Criticism is on my list of essential works for the classical homeschool teacher. It helped refine my ideas of what I wanted to encourage and avoid in reading and discussing literature.]

[Kate CA]

In my experience (and I have had some) most Christians who claim to like Rand tend to talk solely about her views on capitalism, and tend to think that capitalism (pull yourself up by your bootstraps) goes hand in hand with Christianity. They especially seem to like her Laissez-Faire flavor. They seem largely to use quotes from the Old Testament, especially Proverbs, to support the idea that individual effort and good hard work will win God's blessing in the end.

They conveniently forget all the rest of her philosophy, and the New Testament as well.

 

You seem to be under the assumption that a Christian that likes any idea of Rand's throws out Scripture. That's inaccurate. Truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood no matter who delivers it. Rand delivered both. Some of the greatest Christian heroes in Scripture also did the same (Paul) yet we don't discount books written by him because he was once a persecutor of Christians and preached against Christ.

 

Rand was a terribly flawed individual and her views of many things were really off, but not all of them. To assume that Christians that accept some of her ideas are tossing out Scripture in order to do so is just plain offensive. Who reads a book of fiction and embraces every single idea from it?

[Spy Car]

Hmmm....I failed to express myself clearly. Lewis is discussing readers--not authors. Readers who read only to debunk as well as those who read only to affirm their preconceived notions tend to read indiscriminately or in an undiscerning manner.

 

I did not fail to understand your point. As I told you, I first read Atlas Shrugged when I was 13 years old. It was given to me by a friend as a book I might like, and I did not—at that time—know Ayn Rand from the man-in-the-moon.

 

I went into reading this novel with absolutely no preconceptions, other than a friend liked it (later I discovered his father was a figure in the John Birch Society, a fact unknown to me then).

 

So your premises (or those of Lewis) don't fit the situation.

 

Even as an adolescent I got a pretty good feel for the ideology of Ayn Rand (although much is it is masked in romanticized pulp-fiction). As the years went by reading additional works, especially the non-fiction works, affirmed my suspicions about Objectivism.

 

To parents that consider having their children (or themselves) read Rand I would start with the collection of essays called "The Virtue of Selfishness" written by Rand and her aforementioned former paramour Nathaniel Branden. It is an eye-opening read, and it is better to tread in dark places with ones eyes fully open.

 

It seems to me that this discussion is dividing along the lines of those who read books in the classical tradition and those who view the reading of books as primarily an exercise in ideology.

 

No, but they are intended as "philosophical novels" and not as pot-boilers.

 

But, then, not everyone here is interested in classical methods and that's a good thing--if nothing else it makes for interesting discussions. I tend to agree with the dx offered by an earlier poster, but what I don't get are the reams of vituperation (intended in the classical sense--no sarcasm intended) against Rand.

 

If attempting to junk the Moral Law (that C. S. Lewis speaks of) that has been common to mankind across societies for thousands of years in favor of an ideology that makes egoism the prime virtue isn't a cause for vituperation I don't know what is!:tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

Edited December 15, 2011 by Spy Car
Typos

[Storm Bay]

True. But that is not always a positive. Some people live through harrowing times and their response is to spend the rest of their lives trying to do good and in a small way help repair the world. But others end up deeply damaged, and replace one form of inhuman fanaticism for another.

 

There were many victims of the Nazis who became Communists in reaction, and victims of Communists who reacted by becoming Fascists. Ayn Rand was a deeply damaged person. The people in her personal life suffered for ambition and egoism, and her ideology stems from her damaged personality. Not a good basis for a worldview.

 

Bill

 

Yes, you are correct. My grandfather remained bitter all of his life, but to be fair, it wasn't just over the revolutions & the communists, but also over how he was treated as a foster child by the family who offered to take him in after his father died. He did remain a devout Christian, however, and dedicated his life to music rather than politics. My point actually was that it can drive people to extremes. Not everyone, thankfully!

 

 

 

 

Nobody in the collective knew about the affair. Finally Baraba came out with it, and Ayn denied it and then banished Barbara. Everyone, including Alan Greesnpban, believed Ayn, even though it wasn't true. The whole collective was so brainwashed by her, they couldn't look at facts and think for themselves that this point.

 

We haven't even mentioned Alan Greenspan because this board is not supposed to be political, but he and Ayn were also good buddies (but not in the Nathaniel way).

 

re: the bolded part--this is the irony in the situation, since my take on her when I read her about 30 years ago (I was very young, so you can correct me if this is wrong) was that the lazy ones she despised were brainwashed. The part I remember most clearly is her philosophy.

I'd guess that she was always an extremely difficult person. Based on some interviews I've seen which she gave near the end of her life I'd describe her more as having given up on people recognizing her supposed superiority and cherishing a growing bitterness about that. .

 

Yes, she really did think some people were especially superior, such as the female protagonist in Atlas Shrugged, and those were the ones who were taken to that hidden Utopia.

 

And the Ayn Rand Institute gives out cash prizes for high school essays extolling Objectivism. It is a proselytizing anti-religious cult of personality.

 

Bill

 

And, again ironically, there are Christian kids who sometimes win those prizes. I know of one myself, who won on about 10-12 years ago.

 

Rand was a terribly flawed individual and her views of many things were really off, but not all of them. To assume that Christians that accept some of her ideas are tossing out Scripture in order to do so is just plain offensive. Who reads a book of fiction and embraces every single idea from it?

:iagree: I do think that there are some thinking Christians who accept only part of what Rand says, particularly the part about working hard. However, I also think that there are some Christians who accept her stuff without much thought who don't really understand it. I'd say that's the same for many who do that, even if they aren't Christian.

[Tullia]

I did not fail to understand your point. As I told you, I first read Atlas Shrugged when I was 13 years old. It was given to me my a friend as a book I might like, and I did not—at that time—know Ayn Rand from the man-in-the-moon.

 

I went into reading this novel with absolutely no preconceptions, other than a friend liked it (later I discovered his father was a figure in the John Birch Society, a fact unknown to me then).

 

So your premises (or those of Lewis) don't fit the situation.

 

Even as an adolescent I got a pretty good feel for the ideology of Ayn Rand (although much is it is masked in romanticized pulp-fiction). As the years went my reading additional works, especially the non-fiction works, affirmed my suspicions about Objectivism.

 

To parents that consider having their children (or themselves) read Rand I would start with the collection of essays called "The Virtue of Selfishness" written by Rand and her aforementioned former paramour Nathaniel Branden. It is an eye-opening read, and it is better to tread in dark places with ones eyes fully open.

 

 

 

No, but they are intended as "philosophical novels" and not as pot-boilers.

 

 

 

If attempting to junk the Moral Law (that C. S. Lewis speaks of) that has been common to mankind across societies for thousands of years in favor of an ideology that makes egoism the prime virtue isn't a cause for vituperation I don't know what is!:tongue_smilie:

 

Bill

 

Bill, methinks you're in danger of letting your own eloquence trip you up. Do you have a rhetorical purpose or is your intent merely to vent? [sincere question--no snark intended.] I don't remember seeing anything in this thread other than carefully qualified opinions of Rand or her work, but the length and vehemence of your replies would seem to be more suited to a discussion at ARI amongst people who share her philosophy.

 

I think the OP was clear, asked a reasonable question, and received some thoughtful answers. But you're tempting me to quote Wilde and that's a sign it's time for me to bow out of this discussion. ;) Any any case I wish you a Merry Christmas or Happy Holiday Season, and please choose either or both as best fits--they're both sincerely meant.--Martha

[Jayne J]

You seem to be under the assumption that a Christian that likes any idea of Rand's throws out Scripture. That's inaccurate. Truth is truth and falsehood is falsehood no matter who delivers it. Rand delivered both. Some of the greatest Christian heroes in Scripture also did the same (Paul) yet we don't discount books written by him because he was once a persecutor of Christians and preached against Christ.

 

Rand was a terribly flawed individual and her views of many things were really off, but not all of them. To assume that Christians that accept some of her ideas are tossing out Scripture in order to do so is just plain offensive. Who reads a book of fiction and embraces every single idea from it?

 

Kate--I apologise for being unclear. What I was trying to say is that I have personal experience of a type of Christian who believes that Lassiez Faire capitalism is mandated in the Bible, based on an, IMO, skewed reading of only certain parts of Scripture, and that this type of Christian is likely to accept much of Rand's work based on her ideas about Capitalism and Communism, overlooking the deeper, anti-Biblical ideas she espouses. I believe that these folks start out with one shared idea and let it lead them into acceptance of other ideas without examining the deeper implications. While *I* disagree with that the shared idea is Biblical, I don't deny them the right to do so. I am merely trying to answer the question about why a Christian would praise the work of a woman who despised them and their faith.

[zenjenn]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I feel the need to correct the misconception that Rand is opposed to charity.

 

She's not opposed to charity; she's opposed to charity for charity's sake. Charity is fine if it possesses some objective value for the person providing the charity (thus the term, "objectivism".)

 

She rejects subjective submission to higher authority, whether it is religion, popular ideology, government, or academia, in favor of objective reasoning. (And in my experience, atheists are just as likely to forfeit themselves to ideology with the same enthusiasm as theists are to forfeit themselves to religion.)

 

So an objectivist would support charity, but they would do so with the rational assessment that the charity will be meaningfully productive and serve their own interests.

 

I do find it strange that many fervently religious people would place Rand on a pedestal, but I don't see a logical inconsistency with a religious person finding Rand's philosophies valuable and interesting. While I still believe in charity for charity's sake, I think her writing did play a direct role in inspiring me to give more judiciously - to stop and think whether my charitable giving is effective rather than just giving emotionally.

 

She was definitely a flawed and probably an emotionally unstable woman, but that doesn't mean she's a hack, either. Her works gave me a perspective I found interesting and worthy of consideration, though I'm far from being a Randian.

 

And as per the mention of her sexual scenes in her writing (as Spycare referenced), that in and of itself does not make her a "sick puppy". Economics and morality aside, she has some interesting perspectives on female sexuality that reflect a reality of the deep-seated sexual psychology of many women. For example, rape fantasies (not to be confused with ANY real desire to be raped) are far more common than you think among women - often even sexually repressed women. The fantasy - and I restate, fantasy only - rape sometimes represents the woman psychologically allowing herself engage with sexual thoughts while exonerating herself of any responsibility. She is free from self-labels such as slutty or dirty if the sexual acts were not her "fault". Writing about this in fiction does not make one sick.

Edited December 15, 2011 by zenjenn

[Spy Car]

I haven't read this entire thread, but I feel the need to correct the misconception that Rand is opposed to charity.

 

She's not opposed to charity; she's opposed to charity for charity's sake. Charity is fine if it possesses some objective value for the person providing the charity (thus the term, "objectivism".)

 

To recap: Rand is against charity that benefits the recipient of the charity (no matter how life-changing the help they receive might be) unless the benefit to the person giving the charity (the donor) exceeds their material loss.

 

So, if a donor gets a great sense of satisfaction and self-aggrandizement and self-worth out of supporting those with inferior life-styles, or receives some publicity for their "good works" or some other benefit, then (and only then) does she feel that "charity" is morally acceptable—as it is providing a net benefit to the donor.

 

Otherwise, giving to others is simply hurting oneself while encouraging parasites and moochers.

 

She rejects subjective submission to higher authority, whether it is religion, popular ideology, government, or academia, in favor of objective reasoning. (And in my experience, atheists are just as likely to forfeit themselves to ideology with the same enthusiasm as theists are to forfeit themselves to religion.)

 

Yet, she carved out one exception to the general rule of rejecting submission to a higher authority. And that was demanding utter and total devotion to Rand and Objectivism among her cult followers. She brooked zero-dissent among members of her Collective. If one crossed Rand in any fashion they were "excommunicated."

 

Her ideology was as rigid and all encompassing as that of any totalitarian or cult of personality movement. The idea that there is "free-thought" in Objectivism is laughable.

 

In her ideology there were 3 classes of people. The looter/parasite/moochers, the "creators", and then at the top Rand herself as "The Objectivist." If others in her movement called themselves "Objectivists" Ayn Rand would fly into a rage and scream that she was "The Objectivist" and they were just followers of "The Philospher."

 

Narcissistic Personality Disorder indeed.

 

So an objectivist would support charity, but they would do so with the rational assessment that the charity will be meaningfully productive and serve their own interests.

 

The first part would be irrelevant, but the second part is essential. The giving of "charity" must benefit the donor, or in Rand's worldview it would be an immoral and evil act. Benefiting others would be entirely beside the point, and generally a bad idea, as it just encourages the weak to not do for themselves.

 

I do find it strange that many fervently religious people would place Rand on a pedestal, but I don't see a logical inconsistency with a religious person finding Rand's philosophies valuable and interesting.

 

It is mind boggling, I agree.

 

She was definitely a flawed and probably an emotionally unstable woman, but that doesn't mean she's a hack, either. Her works gave me a perspective I found interesting and worthy of consideration, though I'm far from being a

 

True, she was not a hack because the was emotionally unstable and had a nasty personality, plenty of very talented writers were less than stable. Rand was a hack because she wrote poorly.

 

And as per the mention of her sexual scenes in her writing (as Spycare referenced), that in and of itself does not make her a "sick puppy". Economics and morality aside, she has some interesting perspectives on female sexuality that reflect a reality of the deep-seated sexual psychology of many women. For example, rape fantasies (not to be confused with ANY real desire to be raped) are far more common than you think among women - often even sexually repressed women. The fantasy - and I restate, fantasy only - rape sometimes represents the woman psychologically allowing herself engage with sexual thoughts while exonerating herself of any responsibility. She is free from self-labels such as slutty or dirty if the sexual acts were not her "fault". Writing about this in fiction does not make one sick.

 

Any fair-minded look at Ayn Rand's life would, I believe, cause one to question her mental health, you said so yourself. She was a narcissist who was cruel to those closest to her (although she may have rejected the implications of "closeness") and her ideology was hate-filled. The rape of the heroine by a hero (as a heroic act) is just one small piece of a deeply disturbed (and disturbing) personality disorder. She was a very angry, bitter, and sick woman.

 

Bill

Edited December 15, 2011 by Spy Car

[Kate CA]

Kate--I apologise for being unclear. What I was trying to say is that I have personal experience of a type of Christian who believes that Lassiez Faire capitalism is mandated in the Bible, based on an, IMO, skewed reading of only certain parts of Scripture, and that this type of Christian is likely to accept much of Rand's work based on her ideas about Capitalism and Communism, overlooking the deeper, anti-Biblical ideas she espouses. I believe that these folks start out with one shared idea and let it lead them into acceptance of other ideas without examining the deeper implications. While *I* disagree with that the shared idea is Biblical, I don't deny them the right to do so. I am merely trying to answer the question about why a Christian would praise the work of a woman who despised them and their faith.

 

Thank you for clarifying.

[LMD]

 

Any fair-minded look at Ayn Rand's life would, I believe, cause one to question her mental health, you said so yourself. She was a narcissist who was cruel to those closest to her (although she may have rejected the implications of "closeness") and her ideology was hate-filled. The rape of the heroine by a hero (as a heroic act) is just one small piece of a deeply disturbed (and disturbing) personality disorder. She was a very angry, bitter, and sick woman.

 

Bill

 

Are we talking about the Fountainhead scene? Because, yes, that pushed the boundary of normal to me. But the scenes in Atlas were quite strikingly insightful... and that's all I'm going to say about that.

 

 

Just to re-cap from my point of view :tongue_smilie:, I am a conservative Christian who loved Atlas Shrugged. I don't think I'm particularly ignorant about my faith or about Rands philosophy. I'm certainly not a Randian or Objectivist, and I would agree that devotion to this philosophy is antithetical to Christianity. Disclaimer out of the way, there are some aspects of Atlas, yes even philosophical aspects, that I found to be insightful and inspiring. I realise that conceding only aspects was worse than ignorance to Ms Rand, but I'm really not concerned with that. I also simply really enjoyed the story!

 

I would agree urpedonmommy, that Christians (well, everyone actually) need to be discerning when reading her work!

[stripe]

But there's a major segment of American Christians who believe God rewards them with ca$h. So this fits in coneniently. The idea that money is a proof that one is better.