Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead

Atlas

8 (21.6%)

Fountain

15 (40.5%)

Either

8 (21.6%)

Neither

6 (16.2%)

Total Members Voted: 13

[cerpntaxt]

I tried to read Atlas Shrugged first and I could not get into it. The Fountainhead is a lot easier to get into I think, which was enough to get me interested in Atlas Shrugged... But yes, most definitely they both stand on their own. It's up to you. I recommend The Fountainhead to people because it's far less dense, controversial, and pedantic.
You can't deny that Atlas Shrugged is pedantic... I love every page of it, but it's pedantic as hell 

[zebraflood]

Yup. Most of the critiques I hear from friends of mine that read it (I have a donation policy. I give away copies of Atlas to people who promise to actually read it.), is that Rand has a fairly annoying tendency to repeat herself over and over throughout the work. To really hit the points home, I suppose, but I've definitely noticed that in Atlas, and in Fountainhead to a lesser extent. The motivation to read through another long diatribe wanes when you recognize that you've already read something almost exactly the same about 85 pages back.

But it's worth it. Don't let that throw you, Brian.

[gandhi2]

Please. No fucking spoilers. There's obviously people here who haven't read either book. Make a new thread if you want to discuss spoilers.

Fiiiine.  Editted.  I didn't think about it.

[cerpntaxt]

I think you would like the scene in the book where D'Anconia is refuting arguments against money being the root of all evil, because as much as it's a long one, it's a thorough refutation that gives you what evil IS and why money isn't it, and why money is in fact good.

-- Bridget

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
 

[mikehz]

Both are good books, and neither needs to be read ahead of the other. Atlas shrugged does have other practical uses: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/fun/zits.asp?date=20061203

Anthem is a prose poem, and We the Living is an excellent portrayal of life under Soviet Communism--as actually experienced by Rand, who called it "The nearest I'll ever come to writing an autobiography."

[bonerjoe]

I think you would like the scene in the book where D'Anconia is refuting arguments against money being the root of all evil, because as much as it's a long one, it's a thorough refutation that gives you what evil IS and why money isn't it, and why money is in fact good.

-- Bridget

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=1826
 

And that is the best part of her book ever, next to Galt's Speech.

-- Bridget

I think you're more than a little obsessed.

[atheistshawn]

I think you would like the scene in the book where D'Anconia is refuting arguments against money being the root of all evil, because as much as it's a long one, it's a thorough refutation that gives you what evil IS and why money isn't it, and why money is in fact good.

-- Bridget

Best speech about money ever made.  I have read Atlas Shrugged twice now and as soon as I am done the few books I am reading right now I am going to read it again.  It is very heavy on objectivism, but I like that, I am an objectivist.  Any one who says it's lacking in story missed something though, I read ALL THE TIME and even if it were not for the philosophy Atlas would still be the best book I have ever read.  I love the relationships between the characters and I love the gulch. 

[Hittman]

Someone voted 'neither' but did not explain why. 

I just did too. 

To really hit the points home, I suppose, but I've definitely noticed that in Atlas, and in Fountainhead to a lesser extent. The motivation to read through another long diatribe wanes when you recognize that you've already read something almost exactly the same about 85 pages back. 

And it was three pages long. 

I haven't read Anthem, maybe I'll give it a try.  But based on reading Atlas, and my kids review after they read Fountanhead, she is a shitty writer. 

In Atlas all the bad guys are cardboard cutouts, and carbon copies of each other.  Their repetitious "It's not my fault" rants go on for pages and pages.  There might be a good novel in there, trying to get out, but it would have to be edited to at least a third of its size. 

I'd recommend Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress," and any of the writings of H. L. Mencken to anyone who wants to learn about libertarianism.  They are far more readable (i.e. they are readable) and very entertaining.  They make their points without beating you over the head with them, over and over and over and over and over and over again. 

[gandhi2]

Although it was weird, the free-loving Martian from Stranger in a Strange Land changed my mind on the legality/morality of polygamy.  The rational anarchy of Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a good look at ONE aspect of libertarianism, it's more readable, but not as pure as the ideals in Rand's work.

Heinlein does help the layperson grok libertarianism a bit more.

[rabidfurby]

Although it was weird, the free-loving Martian from Stranger in a Strange Land changed my mind on the legality/morality of polygamy.  The rational anarchy of Moon is a Harsh Mistress is a good look at ONE aspect of libertarianism, it's more readable, but not as pure as the ideals in Rand's work.

Heinlein does help the layperson grok libertarianism a bit more.

Heinlein is much better than Rand, from what I've read of both of them.

That, and Heinlein was 10,000 times more badass.

>

[gandhi2]

I didn't say I liked Rand better....she's a pretentious windbag.  But her works can't really be accused of being inconsistent with her personal gospel.

Heinlein is, of course, much more badass.

[Hittman]

Heinlein is much better than Rand, from what I've read of both of them. 

Just about everyone was much better than Rand.   

But the two of them don't even belong in the same sentence.  It's like saying James Brown was a much better performer than Jessica Simpson.

Compare:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_A._Heinlein

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/H.L._Mencken

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesn't belong. . .

[gandhi2]

so to compare the two is like trying to compare vastly two different opponents that never will be (Superman vs Spiderman).

And of course, the Man of Steel is much better than web-boy.  And by Man of Steel, I mean Robert Heinlein.

[rabidfurby]

I find it amusing that folks try to down Rand only because they don't like her writing style or the fact that she advocated egoism.

I'm not trying to down Rand. I said I didn't like her writing style. Is it OK to say that based on me not liking her writing style?

Guess what? She's dead, and so is Heinlein, so to compare the two is like trying to compare vastly two different opponents that never will be (Superman vs Spiderman).

Heinlein dead was more badass than Rand alive. Even though Heinlein died years after Rand did, Heinlein was badass enough that after he died, he went back in time to when Rand was alive just so he could be more badass than her at that point.

[rabidfurby]

Guess what? She's dead, and so is Heinlein, so to compare the two is like trying to compare vastly two different opponents that never will be (Superman vs Spiderman).

Heinlein dead was more badass than Rand alive. Even though Heinlein died years after Rand did, Heinlein was badass enough that after he died, he went back in time to when Rand was alive just so he could be more badass than her at that point.

Right... Please stop with the stupidity already.

Hey, I'm complimenting Rand! You have to be extremely badass just to compare someone's badassery to Heinlein. Just like how in math you can't even compare 1 triliion to 30 or 40, you have to reach a certain level of badassness just for it to be possible to compare someone to Heinlein.