The Standard Criticisms of Atlas Shrugged

[Philip Coates]

The standard criticisms of Atlas as a bad novel by the alleged "literary experts" are being trotted out all over again. And they are being repeated afresh on movie threads all over the web.

(This individual likes the novel, yet still falls for the standard criticisms, so I posted a very brief reply first on the official movie site.) ==>

> She repeats the same thing over and over again by stating it in a different manner each time. [brakeman]

A bit oversimplified: A difference between a long and 'rich' novel and a short and shallow one is that a theme is developed in more than one way. It is shown through many characters and many events. The "role of the mind in man's existence" is such a massively ambitious theme (and so unusual and abstract to almost everyone) that it -has- to be shown in many ways, made fully real that way. And you -do- need a long speech to fully tie together and make more clear many of the threads which run under the surface.

Yes, there are people who "poop out", get bored, don't want to spend that long immersed in that 'big' a theme. Of find it too inexorable. But they tend to be the people who say "I hate long novels". And might have the same reaction to Gone With The Wind or almost anything by Dostoeyevsky or Hugo. Or they simply -dislike- the theme or its scope:

It's not Rand's writing or literary skill that's the problem, but the reader.

> her characters are often very black and white and extreme caricatures. [brakeman]

No again. That's not true of the major characters who play central roles in the action and appear throughout the novel -- from Roark and Dominique and Wynand and Keating and Toohey to Rearden and Dagny and Francisco.

Minor characters -should- be more cardboard and based on only one or two traits. You will see that in Shakespeare or any highly effective fiction writer, not just Rand.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

> She repeats the same thing over and over again by stating it in a different manner each time. [brakeman]

A bit oversimplified: A difference between a long and 'rich' novel and a short and shallow one is that a theme is developed in more than one way. It is shown through many characters and many events.

[. . .]

It's not Rand's writing or literary skill that's the problem, but the reader.

Oddly, I was making much the same point last night in response to a world class expert on literature who recently declared on another thread that William Faulkner repeats the same thing over and over again.

Small world.

JR

[Philip Coates]

The difference is that WCE argued that the particular theme required not straight repetition but elaboration of a certain kind in Atlas: The "role of the mind in man's existence" is such a massively ambitious theme (and so unusual and abstract to almost everyone) that it -has- to be shown in many ways."

Whereas WCE Jr. did not offer such an argument in regard to LIA. (Imagine if WCE Jr. had offered as a defense against Brakeman's very specific criticism, he had merely dismissed him as an ignoramus: "One knows immediately that one is dealing with a person who, on a very fundamental level, did not understand what s/he was reading." How convincing would that ad hominem or argument from intimidation have been? )

Of course, now that JR (whoops, I meant Jr.) knows how it is done, he can always go back to that thread and . . .

Edited April 1, 2011 by Philip Coates

[9thdoctor]

The difference is that WCE argued that the particular theme required not straight repetition but elaboration of a certain kind in Atlas: The "role of the mind in man's existence" is such a massively ambitious theme (and so unusual and abstract to almost everyone) that it -has- to be shown in many ways."

Whereas WCE Jr. did not offer such an argument in regard to LIA.

Of course, now that JR (whoops, I meant Jr.) knows how it is done, he can always go back to that thread and . . .

What the hell, who put alphabet soup on the menu?

[jriggenbach]

How convincing would that ad hominem or argument from intimidation have been?

Are you under the impression that I'm trying to convince somebody of something?

JR

[Jonathan]

The standard criticisms of Atlas as a bad novel by the alleged "literary experts" are being trotted out all over again. And they are being repeated afresh on movie threads all over the web.

Who has been alleged to be "literary experts"?

(This individual likes the novel, yet still falls for the standard criticisms, so I posted a very brief reply first on the official movie site.) ==>

Phil, you're wasting your time when you claim to be quoting others without posting links to their comments. You have a reputation for misrepresenting what people have written, so you can't be trusted. If you want anyone to take an interest in your opinions and judgments of people who have been critical of Atlas Shrugged, then you're going to have to provide links so that people can easily check for themselves if you're telling the whole truth.

J

Edited April 1, 2011 by Jonathan

[jriggenbach]

The standard criticisms of Atlas as a bad novel by the alleged "literary experts" are being trotted out all over again. And they are being repeated afresh on movie threads all over the web.

Who has been alleged to be "literary experts"?

(This individual likes the novel, yet still falls for the standard criticisms, so I posted a very brief reply first on the official movie site.) ==>

Phil, you're wasting you time when you claim to be quoting others without posting links to the comments. You have a reputation for misrepresenting what people have written, so you can't be trusted. If you want anyone to take an interest in your opinions and judgments of people who have been critical of Atlas Shrugged, then you're going to have to provide links so that people can easily check for themselves if you're telling the whole truth.

J

I am shocked and deeply saddened to see my old friend Phil Coates accused of misrepresenting the arguments and other comments of those he disagrees with.

If only we had the WCE around. He would set a proper standard for intellectual integrity, one which could not be questioned (except, perhaps by some wielder of "ad hominems," of whom the less said the better).

What I'm wondering right now is what the WCE would say the theme of Light in August is. He has already shown us that he can identify the theme of a novel whose author has announced what it was in one of her essays. I wonder if he can identify the theme of a novel when he doesn't have that assistance from the author. (WCE that he is, I don't doubt for a moment that he can. I mean, after all, how could he be so sure that there's useless repetition in Faulkner's novel if he has no idea what theme that novel is concretizing?)

JR

[9thdoctor]

If only we had the WCE around. He would set a proper standard for intellectual integrity, one which could not be questioned (except, perhaps by some wielder of "ad hominems," of whom the less said the better).

WTF does WCE mean?

[jriggenbach]

If only we had the WCE around. He would set a proper standard for intellectual integrity, one which could not be questioned (except, perhaps by some wielder of "ad hominems," of whom the less said the better).

WTF does WCE mean?

World Class Expert. It's the initials Phil chose for himself after asserting that his wide reading in the literary realm made him an authority on the subject.

JR

[Xray]

The standard criticisms of Atlas as a bad novel by the alleged "literary experts" are being trotted out all over again. And they are being repeated afresh on movie threads all over the web.

(This individual likes the novel, yet still falls for the standard criticisms, so I posted a very brief reply first on the official movie site.) ==>

> She repeats the same thing over and over again by stating it in a different manner each time. [brakeman]

Phil,

Where did this discussion take place? TIA for providing the link.

The "role of the mind in man's existence" is such a massively ambitious theme (and so unusual and abstract to almost everyone) that it -has- to be shown in many ways, made fully real that way. And you -do- need a long speech to fully tie together and make more clear many of the threads which run under the surface.

Was it really necessary for the speech in AS to be that long? Imo it is far too repetitive and bulging out in the novel like an atheroma.

Edited April 1, 2011 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> Where did this discussion take place? TIA for providing the link.

Xray, on the official movie site --> http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/

I've argued with "Brakeman" on several parts of the site. This one was the recent posting of the clip on Dagny and the union leader. Comments are thick and heavy, so you can do Ctrl F on "Phil" and find mine pretty quickly and the whole comment by Brakeman before it.

[Selene]

This Brakeman Has a Blog

The Brakeman (whose a character in Atlas Shrugged folks)

As someone familiar with the book, I would think you would hold the same opinion about Rand's writing. She's not exactly subtle. She repeats the same thing over and over again by stating it in a different manner each time. If I have one criticism of the book, it is that it is longer than it needs to be and often bores the casual reader so much to the point they stop reading. The story is so brilliant and interesting, but Rand has a way of losing people because of her redundancy. I'm trying to get some people to read it now before the movie comes out and I can tell that they are only staying with it because I keep telling them the payoff is there. They are ready to quit. To say Ayn Rand is a bad writer is not fair. She certainly is not, but she is grandiloquent to her own detriment.

Furthermore, her characters are often very black and white and extreme caricatures. I personally don't have a problem with that, but detractors often cite this as another example of Rand's poor writing. With that in mind, I think the acting here is extremely faithful to Rand's written portrayal. Let's just hope that they aren't so literal that we get all the long monologues. As interesting and well stated as they are, they work better as written works, than they do as stump speeches at cocktail parties that are unlikely to happen in real life.

One last thought: Ayn Rand felt that people missed the philosophical message in The Fountainhead so she really beat people over the head with it in Atlas Shrugged. That's why the redundancy is off the chart. Her mistake was not that she didn't articulate the message well, but rather some people refuse to be rational and accept the reality of what she was stating.

Dr. Evans:

Again. Rand new people who come up will all kinds of excuses of why her ideas wouldn't work or were wrong.

She needed to attack every objection from every angle. For me, I understood the book the moment I read the title. I knew in my heart her conclusions BEFORE I read the book but for me the book solidified and codified and explained it COMPLETELY.

I wish she had written a part 2 and it would be 3,000 pages long. I can never get enough of "the truth".

Phil:

> She repeats the same thing over and over again by stating it in a different manner each time. [brakeman]

Not exactly. A difference between a long and 'rich' novel and a short and shallow one is that a theme is developed in more than one way. It is shown through many characters and many events. The "role of the mind in man's existence" is such a massively ambitious theme (and so unusual and abstract to almost everyone) that it -has- to be shown in many ways, made fully real that way. And you -do- need a long speech to fully tie together and make more clear many of the threads which run under the surface.

Yes, there are people who "poop out", get bored, don't want to spend that long immersed in that 'big' a theme. Of find it too inexorable. But they tend to be the people who say "I hate long novels". And might have the same reaction to Gone With The Wind or almost anything by Dostoeyevsky or Hugo. Or they simply -dislike- the theme or its scope: It's not Rand's writing or literary skill, that's the problem, but the reader.

> her characters are often very black and white and extreme caricatures. [brakeman]

No again. That's not true of the major characters who play central roles in the action and appear throughout the novel -- from Roark and Dominique and Wynand and Keating and Toohey to Rearden and Dagny and Francisco. Minor characters -should- be more cardboard and based on only one or two traits. You will see that in Shakespeare or any highly effective fiction writer, not just Rand.

[Jonathan]

This Brakeman Has a Blog

As I suspected, Phil has misrepresented reality. The person calling himself "Brakeman" does NOT think that Atlas Shrugged is a "bad novel" as Phil falsely claimed, nor is Brakeman representing himself as a "literary expert."

J

[Selene]

This Brakeman Has a Blog

As I suspected, Phil has misrepresented reality. The person calling himself "Brakeman" does NOT think that Atlas Shrugged is a "bad novel" as Phil falsely claimed, nor is Brakeman representing himself as a "literary expert."

J

Correct. I was really surprised at how far off Phil's representation was from the reality.

[william.scherk]

The standard criticisms of Atlas as a bad novel by the alleged "literary experts" are being trotted out all over again. And they are being repeated afresh on movie threads all over the web.

(This individual likes the novel, yet still falls for the standard criticisms, so I posted a very brief reply first on the official movie site.) ==>

> She repeats the same thing over and over again by stating it in a different manner each time. [brakeman]

Phil,

Where did this discussion take place? TIA for providing the link.

Here is a direct link to the comment by "Brakeman." "Brakeman" is responding to a comment from "Warren Mells." Phil's brief snippet might leave the impression that "Brakeman" is a Rand-basher. The point Phil seems to be making is that "Brakeman" still falls for the standard criticisms. I don't know if this is true, but the full context supplies some clues . . .

So melodramatic and overly acted. The acting is anything but transparent and the lessons to be learned are anything but subtle. I read the book 40 years ago and have used it as a guide to America's destruction...I'll see the movie but have not been impressed what what I've seen so far and I ascribe to much of what is proposed in the film. Is the American Public so intellectually deficient that it could not garner the underlying principles of Objectivism without being hit over the head with them? Please don't answer that. Unfortunately, I feel the messenger has or will weaken or kill the message.

As someone familiar with the book, I would think you would hold the same opinion about Rand's writing. She's not exactly subtle. She repeats the same thing over and over again by stating it in a different manner each time. If I have one criticism of the book, it is that it is longer than it needs to be and often bores the casual reader so much to the point they stop reading. The story is so brilliant and interesting, but Rand has a way of losing people because of her redundancy. I'm trying to get some people to read it now before the movie comes out and I can tell that they are only staying with it because I keep telling them the payoff is there. They are ready to quit. To say Ayn Rand is a bad writer is not fair. She certainly is not, but she is grandiloquent to her own detriment.

Furthermore, her characters are often very black and white and extreme caricatures. I personally don't have a problem with that, but detractors often cite this as another example of Rand's poor writing. With that in mind, I think the acting here is extremely faithful to Rand's written portrayal. Let's just hope that they aren't so literal that we get all the long monologues. As interesting and well stated as they are, they work better as written works, than they do as stump speeches at cocktail parties that are unlikely to happen in real life.

One last thought: Ayn Rand felt that people missed the philosophical message in The Fountainhead so she really beat people over the head with it in Atlas Shrugged. That's why the redundancy is off the chart. Her mistake was not that she didn't articulate the message well, but rather some people refuse to be rational and accept the reality of what she was stating.

Xray -- because of the vagaries of the commenting software (Disqus), it is not always possible to move directly to a comment that appears beyond the first forty on a given thread.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Malicious Misrepresentation or Simple Error?...Judge for Yourself.

> The standard criticisms of Atlas as a bad novel by the alleged "literary experts" are being trotted out all over again. And they are being repeated...(This individual likes the novel, yet still falls for the standard criticisms...) [Phil]

> You have a reputation for misrepresenting what people have written, so you can't be trusted....The person calling himself "Brakeman" does NOT think that Atlas Shrugged is a "bad novel" as Phil falsely claimed, nor is Brakeman representing himself as a "literary expert." [Jonathan]

> Correct. I was really surprised at how far off Phil's representation was from the reality.

Jonathan and Adam, I'm not sure whether either or both of you are dishonest. Or just sloppy. Or actively malicious ( trying to trip me up even if you have to rewrite things).

Anyone who has any ability to read a couple English sentences will see that I stated above: (i) Brakeman likes the novel, not that he himself says it's a bad novel, (ii) the criticisms of literary experts are being repeated, not that the person doing the repeating is himself a literary expert.

Jonathan conveniently snipped out my second sentence - the one in parenthesis - so that he could misstate point (i) above. And Adam, also looking for feet of clay on thread after thread, immediately jumps in with agreement.

(BTW, I wouldn't react this strongly to a simple careless reading of what I wrote, but Jonathan and Adam and several others of my "enemies" on this board have done this sort of thing on thread after thread - following me around like groupies, looking, hoping for a misstatement or a punctuation error.)

Edited April 2, 2011 by Philip Coates

[Jonathan]

Subject: Malicious Misrepresentation or Simple Error?...Judge for Yourself.

Judge for ourselves? Okay, I judge Phil's actions to be malicious misrepresentation.

J

[Selene]

From the Brakeman's Blog:

"Ayn Rand’s fictional composer Richard Halley embodies everything I hold dear. He understands and appreciates the role of both art and government, something many artistic minded individuals don't seem to get. I have a background in music and having been around many musicians, I can tell you that most of them are hopelessly liberal and they truly believe that it's the government's job to fund music. They lament about how most Americans don't appreciate real music and that the government should do something about it by making it more available. While I agree that most Americans are sadly very deficient in their knowledge, understanding and awareness of classical music, I reject the notion that it is a government problem. This is where personal responsibility comes in, something liberals seem to not believe in. Shouldn't people like these liberal complainers and me try to be a part of the solution? Shouldn't we be advocates for our wonderful world that gives us so much joy? Shouldn't we be welcoming others and inviting them into our so-called ivory tower to show them that it's not just for elitist intellectuals. I think some of these liberals enjoy feeling superior, while at the same time complaining that people are just too stupid to understand.

I always enjoy sharing things I value with others who have a genuine interest or curiosity. My purpose is not to be an aggressive evangelist, but rather make relevant information available to those who may be interested. I've noticed that some people have a level of interest in Classical music and just find it overwhelming and intimidating. Sadly many are made to feel that way by the elitist gate keepers of the genre. If you share my political outlook, but are not that interested in music, I hope I can inspire you to take another look at it and see if there is something there for you that you didn’t otherwise realize. Classical music is very much alive in America, but it is also a dying art. There is a whole musical world out there that many Americans just aren't even aware of and it is shrinking. I personally feel that wound is largely self-inflicted by the elitists who control the industry. On the one hand, they perpetuate the snobbish image that classical music already has and on the other, they present it as some kind of museum relic that is no longer relevant to people today. It wasn't until the 20th century that classical music started to gradually fade from the public consciousness at large. There are many reasons for this, but certainly one of them was an open hostility the elitists showed their audiences and they left.

Since these listeners didn't grow with the new music emerging, the older repertoire became a venerated body of work that gets played over and over and over at the expense of everything else. If you've ever listened to classic rock radio, it's the same thing. Seriously, there are other great songs besides "Hotel California" and "Stairway to Heaven." It becomes tired and boring. Certainly the "chosen" older works are great and deserve their accolades, but pretending that music stopped being made or that good music is limited to a small body of work is just stupid. Here's the problem: because the industry elitists rely on government grants and private donors to survive and they think their audiences are stupid and ignorant, they pander to what they think their tiny little brains can handle. People want to feel connected to the world they live in, not constantly visit a museum.

To many, classical music is about a bunch of dead white guys from a couple hundred years ago, but that is such a narrow view. The elitists have reinforced this specious stereotype and turned people off. What’s even worse is that when contemporary works are presented, the same elitists shove new music down the throats of their audience that they often don’t like. They tell them how good it is and that if they don’t like it, they just don’t get it.

While sometimes it takes some work, patience and familiarity to appreciate some of these piece, they often peddle lots of garbage too which have only been selected for performance through political favor, not musical worth. In any case, my goal is to break down the barriers, dispel the myths and show that classical music is not only relevant today, but that there are Bachs & Beethovens among us, working in the 21st century making great music."

He seems quite genuine to me.

Adam

[anthony]

...making great music."

He seems quite genuine to me.

Adam

Yes, honest and heartfelt (and very true.)

I can't believe that you transposed all that!

[Xray]

Xray -- because of the vagaries of the commenting software (Disqus), it is not always possible to move directly to a comment that appears beyond the first forty on a given thread.

Thanks for the info, William.

> Where did this discussion take place? TIA for providing the link.

Xray, on the official movie site --> http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/

Thanks for the link. That's a very interesting discussion going on over there, not just about the film adaptation but also covering other issues, like e. g. this comment by Adriana Allegri:

Adriana Allegri: Is a teacher making $35,000 a year and loving what she does living a life of self-sacrifice? No. Because she's doing what she loves. She's an amazing success. She's PRODUCING. On the other hand, a teacher who hates their job IS living a life of self sacrifice.

http://www.atlasshruggedpart1.com/atlas-shrugged-movie-scene-dagny-confronts-union

I don't want to run off-topic here (discussing this would belong to the ethics section), but that comment really struck a chord with me (a teacher).

So back to AS:

Unlike the "standard literary criticsm" by "literary experts" (Who are those literary experts? I'd be interested in getting some names), JR is of the opinion that Rand was one of the greatest writers of the 20the century.

This is an exerpt from JR's post on the Great Literature thread about 'good writing':

Does s/he Does s/he [JR: "the writer accused of being a 'good writer'"] employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal?

TIA for illustrating with some text examples from AS where Rand is doing this.

Edited April 2, 2011 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

This Brakeman Has a Blog

The Brakeman (whose a character in Atlas Shrugged folks)

Whose character, correct, "whose a character," incorrect, who's a character, correct. It's correctly used as an adjective, the possessive case of who and which.

--Brant

my new career (btw, where's the money?)

[Brant Gaede]

Unlike the "standard literary criticsm" by "literary experts" (Who are those literary experts? I'd be interested in getting some names), JR is of the opinion that Rand was one of the greatest writers of the 20the century.

This is an exerpt from JR's post on the Great Literature thread about 'good writing':

Does s/he Does s/he [JR: "the writer accused of being a 'good writer'"] employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal?

TIA for illustrating with some text examples from AS where Rand is doing this.

If you can't find it in the first run of The John Galt Line you are either purblind or it's not there anywhere. That passage, btw, is the most powerful piece of narrative fiction I've ever read. (The greatest speech in fiction I've read is that of The Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov.")

--Brant

[caroljane]

Unlike the "standard literary criticsm" by "literary experts" (Who are those literary experts? I'd be interested in getting some names), JR is of the opinion that Rand was one of the greatest writers of the 20the century.

This is an exerpt from JR's post on the Great Literature thread about 'good writing':

Does s/he Does s/he [JR: "the writer accused of being a 'good writer'"] employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal?

TIA for illustrating with some text examples from AS where Rand is doing this.

If you can't find it in the first run of The John Galt Line you are either purblind or it's not there anywhere. That passage, btw, is the most powerful piece of narrative fiction I've ever read. (The greatest speech in fiction I've read is that of The Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov.")

--Brant

Speeches in fiction are dicey things. For me as a reader, if characters need to make speeches - if the author can't resist making his point declaratively and definitively through a character - then the novel qua novel isn't good enough. I dislike the qua but can't avoid it here.

[Brant Gaede]

Unlike the "standard literary criticsm" by "literary experts" (Who are those literary experts? I'd be interested in getting some names), JR is of the opinion that Rand was one of the greatest writers of the 20the century.

This is an exerpt from JR's post on the Great Literature thread about 'good writing':

Does s/he Does s/he [JR: "the writer accused of being a 'good writer'"] employ the time honored techniques of assonance, alliteration, internal rhyme, etc., to underscore and thereby advance his or her meaning? Does s/he make intelligent use of rhythm and variations in rhythm to accomplish the same goal?

TIA for illustrating with some text examples from AS where Rand is doing this.

If you can't find it in the first run of The John Galt Line you are either purblind or it's not there anywhere. That passage, btw, is the most powerful piece of narrative fiction I've ever read. (The greatest speech in fiction I've read is that of The Grand Inquisitor in "The Brothers Karamazov.")

--Brant

Speeches in fiction are dicey things. For me as a reader, if characters need to make speeches - if the author can't resist making his point declaratively and definitively through a character - then the novel qua novel isn't good enough.

And why is that? Have you read "Karamazov"?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Esthetically the statist rulers in Atlas Shrugged would have had no interest in John Galt without that monumental take-over-the-airways speech which, btw, is in style and substance and length appropriate for the novel.

--Brant