The Free Talk Live BBS
Free Talk Live => The Polling Pit => Topic started by: Brian Wolf on January 18, 2007, 04:14:17 AM
-
I want to read "Atlas Shrugged", but I haven't yet.
Someone told be that I should read "The Fountainhead" first.
Is this person right? Does it matter? Which book is better?
-
I got both for Christmas. The Fountainhead is sitting on my bookshelf and Atlas Shrugged is sitting under my bed (where I put books I'm currently reading for easy access). That should be self-explanatory.
-
I want to read "Atlas Shrugged", but I haven't yet.
Someone told be that I should read "The Fountainhead" first.
Is this person right? Does it matter? Which book is better?
I honestly dont know, but I would read them in chronological order.
Which ever one was published first.
-
I doubt it matters. I read Atlas Shrugged first, and then The Fountainhead.
-
I don't know, but I need to read both of them again. I read them in seventh grade.
-
Someone voted 'neither' but did not explain why.
-
I got both for Christmas. The Fountainhead is sitting on my bookshelf and Atlas Shrugged is sitting under my bed (where I put books I'm currently reading for easy access using to masturbate). That should be self-explanatory.
Fixed.
(I keed, I keed... :) )
-
I listened to the Atlas Shrugged ABRIDGED audio book and it was still excrutiating.
Wait for the movie...
-
I read Anthem first. Still my favorite Rand book. Short and sweet.
Barely made it through the Fountainhead. Haven't touched Atlas Shrugged yet.
Not sure what happened as she got older, but she lost the ability to express herself concisely that she had in Anthem.
-
I read Atlas Shrugged first, and it remains my favorite book. The Fountainhead, I'm told, is better literature, but I found some of it to be downright disturbing.
-
Oh yeah, Anthem is by far the best. That's what got me started on Rand.
-
It depends on your level of libertarianism. I read the Fountainhead a while ago and was able to read it from an artist's point of view(the selfish incapability to betray one's own aesthetic) and the discussion on martyrdom/altruism. There's a lot of Roark I can relate to.
I started Atlas Shrugged, but at the time wasn't able to stomach her heavy-handed Objectivism. Haven't started up again.
-
Lol, I'm an evil Objectivist, so careful there.
Fine by me, I just don't care to read political dissertations for fun. She was supposed to be writing a novel. I guess that in Fountainhead, the characters had something more to them.
-
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.
-
I don't think it matters that much. Rand considered Atlas Shrugged to be her magnum opus, so I do recommend that you read it at some point, but whether it's before or after The Fountainhead is irrelevant. Both of them stand on their own, they don't need the other to retain their value.
-
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 :)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
:)
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Heinlein-face.jpg) > (http://jpetrie.myweb.uga.edu/rand3.gif)
-
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.
-
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. . .
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Fountainhead. All about the Benjis.
-
Fountainhead. All about the Benjis.
I didn't know you liked dogs.
(http://www.operationkindness.org/events/Benji/Benji-_face_small.jpg)
-
Child of the 70's, can't help it.
-
I got a pony for my birthday but I broke its back giving it a suplex off the top bunk.
-
Someone voted 'neither' but did not explain why.
I just did too.
Thank you for explaining your reasons though. That was much more helpful than a vote on a poll.
Thank everyone for their responses, I have not decided yet, but I am sure I will be discussing whichever book I decide on here once i finish it.
-
I've read cook books and STD brochures that were better written than Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead.
-
What do you want from Russian-American writer?
-
You'll probably say Tolstoy was a horrible writer too.
Not horrible, but not very palatable.
God, if Rand is a pretentious windbag...this guy is the veritable Mt. St. Helens of piety and intellectual-masturbation. War and Peace?! Fucking come on, Bridgie...could it get any MORE unreadable?
-
I've read cook books and STD brochures that were better written than Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead.
Only because they were written at your reading level...
-
Ayn Rand's characters just sucks. Cardboard has more personality. She writes a book about individualism and the evils of collectivism and the main hero, the super individualist extraordinaire, is at the center of a cult of personality. and of all the characters in that book, He is the most artificial one of them all.
-
See, I'm a literature snob.
Ditto...but give me a break, miss. I waded through 500 pages of class politics and French/Russian dialogue before I finally just quit...Dickens did it too, but he was more understandable. It's not that I don't get it...it's that I fall asleep halfway through. Booooooh-ring! If you want to cover these sorts of things in novel format, you need to add the spice. Otherwise, you may as well be writing philosophical dissertations.
Heinlein was a good spice-adder.
He was her Deus Ex Machina, that's why he was artificial in nature. Basically, like Sauron was for Tolkien, Galt is the plot driven device and less a character.
Who wants characters who act as machines? Vonnegut refers extensively to the Author-God, and it is sure sign of an incompetent God to make his presence so visible, with the audience fully capable of seeing the strings that are attached to the marionette. Rand's characters are little more than puppets, to suit her political diatribes. That's why I can't read her too much for fun. She's good for pondering, but others do it better. Aristotle and Socrates and Plato, even being translated from ancient texts, are more fluid than what is trying to be conveyed in Rand, because they have the benefit of being direct in their speech.
-
Vonnegut is an ass to be honest considering he wrote only a handful of books, and most were not even that decent.
Hmm. I found him to be slightly similar to Kafka. Again, as he ostensibly wrote genre fiction, the comparison is not necessarily apt. His personal character can be called to question, but he certainly did understand some things about writing and character creation.
My favorite stories of his are Breakfast of Champions(for the author-God discussions) and Harrison Bergeron(for exposing how idiotic egalitarianism is). I found Galapagos interesting in its character progression, although the story itself was relatively weak. What I like about Vonnegut is that he can general speak to the readers as an audience directly, sometimes even exposing where the story will head, but he is still interesting to read, because one wonders "How?"
-
Breakfast of Champions of Norrath...now wouldn't that be a weird and wonderful world!! Cross-dressing and cars-salesman, pulp-fiction writers and gay lounge pianists...what more could you hope for in an MMORPG?
-
I've read cook books and STD brochures that were better written than Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead.
Only because they were written at your reading level...
Hahah.
chest bump.
-
Im actually rather scared by how much Im agreeing with Gandhi at this point
Cyro 6:42
And the Gandhi spoke, saying "Blessed are the agreeable, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; their followers shall number the stars in the sky, and all shall marvel in the truth of the Lord God Brasky."
Still, I digress; I'm about 50 pages into that son bitch, and I just keep wandering. Normally I can go 100+ pages a night, but this is better than Nyquil, I've not made it past 5 a night. Not to mention that it's dismally slow and very drab.
War and Peace remains to this day the only book I have started that I have not yet finished.
-
The Fountainhead focuses on Individualism and personal autonomy. Atlas Shrugged focuses more on the stupidity of government.
-
Im actually rather scared by how much Im agreeing with Gandhi at this point
Cyro 6:42
And the Gandhi spoke, saying "Blessed are the agreeable, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven; their followers shall number the stars in the sky, and all shall marvel in the truth of the Lord God Brasky."
:lol: Oh, Brasky. My sides hurt. :lol:
Agree with logic and stick some in your pocket; it's plentiful among the chosen ones and rare among the heathens. Its a magic coin you can spend forever and never be without. Give it to those who may use it wisely, it shall be returned when it bears fruit, and we shall all prosper among its bounty.
-
I strongly believe that Ayn Rand's works should be read in the order they were written, except high school students might appreciate Anthem and a non-fiction intro on Objectivism as an appetizer before We The Living. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are not an easy read, though watching the movie or listening to an abridged book on tape is infinitely better than skipping them altogether. Try that first, and maybe the books will go easier 3-5 years after that. Libertarianism has a 20,000-page initiation ceremony, and Ayn Rand is a big part of it. 8)
BTW, I'm still seeding the audio books mentioned in the Libertarian Literature thread (http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=4021), but I only have one computer at the moment, and I need to run a full-tunnel VPN some of the time. So if you don't get them right away, please wait a while.
-
Libertarianism has a 20,000-page initiation ceremony, and Ayn Rand is a big part of it.
I guess I missed this part of the hazing. I've never been a frat boy, really.
Whatever happened to simply agreeing to the non-aggression doctrine? Does this make me merely a journeyman Libertarian? Or worse? A novice? An apprentice? Please, masters, grant me enlightenment. What do I have to read to graduate?
-
Libertarianism has a 20,000-page initiation ceremony, and Ayn Rand is a big part of it.
I guess I missed this part of the hazing. I've never been a frat boy, really.
Whatever happened to simply agreeing to the non-aggression doctrine? Does this make me merely a journeyman Libertarian? Or worse? A novice? An apprentice? Please, masters, grant me enlightenment. What do I have to read to graduate?
It makes you a laymen Libertarian, who agrees with the tenants, but isn't interested in doing the homework. Which is fine. Just expect some people to hold it against you when you're entering a debate. For many libertarians, Objectivists in particular, the practice of politics is the end result of a heck of a lot more that the non-aggression principle. What leads up to a political view is just as important as the view itself.
Things that happen before politics in matter of importance:
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
So some people may disregard your comments if you've plead ignorance of some of those fundamentals that preclude political theory.
I already know your views in Rand and Objectivism, so let's not drag that into it, but there are a lot of people who've done tons of homework and are willing to quickly dismiss those who haven't. This is in no way a criticism of you.
And yes, I'm a 95% Objectivist. (I can't seem to give up my agnosticism.)
-
I would say that I am hardly a novice or layman libertarian and while I have read Ayn Rand, I do not hold her to be a major influence upon my thinking. I myself have done quite a bit of homework and dismiss Rand and Objectivism.
-
I would say that I am hardly a novice or layman libertarian and while I have read Ayn Rand, I do not hold her to be a major influence upon my thinking. I myself have done quite a bit of homework and dismiss Rand and Objectivism.
Then I suppose my post wasn't about you then, huh?
You don't have to like Ayn Rand to be a Libertarian.
Rand didn't particularly like Libertarians herself. So what? The woman is dead.
The point was about reading a lot of crap to be considered "The real deal" as Ghandi was talking about. And he's right. I was just pointing out that some people are still gonna dismiss him, just because he hasn't read books x,y, and z. That's just the way Libertarians (And other intellectuals) act sometimes.
Added later: It's like the difference between Second Amendment defenders and gun enthusiasts. The enthusiasts are gonna get all high and mighty about the technical details, and will look down thier noses at the second amendment defenders who aren't as versed on details like the loose screw problem on the Smith and Wesson 645, or Glocks exploding (Or NOT exploding) and on and on. Get into and argument with a geek, and expect to be speaking to a geek.
-
Things that happen before politics in matter of importance:
Metaphysics
Epistemology
Ethics
Ok, I can handle that. This is where I'd rather spend most of my time studying anyways.
So some people may disregard your comments if you've plead ignorance of some of those fundamentals that preclude political theory.
This I can't handle, and it's why I'm bitter. It's the implicit assumption that a layperson cannot have a sufficient understanding of truth, or that two ideologies which share a common border cannot be equally valid intellectually. The same thing as I've gotten perturbed at BenTucker for..."Can't we just talk about theory, instead of bringing up the dissertations of Heisenberg and Schroedinger all the time?" If you have the same foundation, based upon principle rather than literature, what does it matter whether I call myself libertarian or not? I've accepted some of the preceding principles, and because libertarianism seems really close to what I believe, it's where I'll spend most my time. I have the same issue with organized religion...my philosophy may mirror some of the same principles as their religious teachings, but that doesn't mean that the inherent truth in those principles is less because I don't attend church or pay a tithe. This level of piety is very disrespectful, very patronizing, and very destructive to rational debate.
there are a lot of people who've done tons of homework and are willing to quickly dismiss those who haven't.
That's cool. More wisdom to them. But that's no reason to pick at nits, nor knock heads. Whether two people can agree on everything or just one thing...we are all adults, and debate should be able to go forward. There is no reason why anybody should be disregarding the opinion of another based on ignorance in a tangental topic, right from the get-go. If somebody has some knowledge, shouldn't it be offered, rather than preached? If it is important to the matter at hand, then there is the small chance that that person will have a change of heart based on that information that he voluntarily accepted. To me, this seems like it would only benefit the cause of spreading liberty.
-
The point was about reading a lot of crap to be considered "The real deal" as Ghandi was talking about. And he's right. I was just pointing out that some people are still gonna dismiss him, just because he hasn't read books x,y, and z. That's just the way Libertarians (And other intellectuals) act sometimes.
Brevity is one skill I have yet to master. Thank you.
-
I'm 100% on your side, Ghandi, even though I'm a mean old Randroid. Way too many objectivists have tolerance problems. There are a few fun loving Objectivists out there, but I know we're hard to find.
Dogma is a dangerous thing, wherever you find it. You can avoid dogma and still be uncompromising as well.
I try to remember the most important thing about being a freedom lover:
I'd rather have any one of you guys at my back if the shit hit the fan, than some moron who doesn't know or care about freedom.
Generally speaking, we're the good guys here. All of us. Bickering aside, we need to remember that.
-
Excepting Bendover... Er,Tucker. He's a commie.
-
Right now, the movement is largely concentrated among intellectuals, but is starting to move into the mainstream. The day will come when most people who consider themselves "libertarians" won't bother to read much about it, any more than most conservatives or liberals bother studying much about those concepts. The average libertarian will just say, "It's wrong to order people to do what they don't want to, isn't it? I mean, that's just the way it IS. I don't really have to read all those pointy-headed books, do I?"
-
Right now, the movement is largely concentrated among intellectuals, but is starting to move into the mainstream. The day will come when most people who consider themselves "libertarians" won't bother to read much about it, any more than most conservatives or liberals bother studying much about those concepts. The average libertarian will just say, "It's wrong to order people to do what they don't want to, isn't it? I mean, that's just the way it IS. I don't really have to read all those pointy-headed books, do I?"
Yup, until the socialists infiltrate*** and take over, just like with the democrats and republicans. Then we'll be right back to where we are now. The intellectuals are an important defense against that sort of nonsense.
Non-intellectuals are important, too. They can actually get off their asses and take action, with greater effect than intellectuals.
***It's already happening, just look at BenTucker and people like him, vocally embracing the term "Libertarian" and then disputing foundational tenants.
-
Yup, until the socialists infiltrate*** and take over, just like with the democrats and republicans. Then we'll be right back to where we are now. The intellectuals are an important defense against that sort of nonsense.
Non-intellectuals are important, too. They can actually get off their asses and take action, with greater effect than intellectuals.
***It's already happening, just look at BenTucker and people like him, vocally embracing the term "Libertarian" and then disputing foundational tenants.
They won't take over. There's no such thing as "Democratism" or "Republicanism". They are not philosophies. Libertarianism is. Socialism was a movement, as libertarianism is. The parties just picked up on it.
-
In any case, the socialists are already the dominant movement. But, socialism has proven itself a dismal failure. As time goes on, the fact that it can't deliver the goods becomes apparent to even the dullest citizens. Inevitable, those countries that embrace freedom grow more prosperous, while those that don't will fall behind.
-
I am reading Atlas right now the only problem is that edition I am reading seams to be in micro type which is very hard to read.
-
I am reading Atlas right now the only problem is that edition I am reading seams to be in micro type which is very hard to read.
I agree. Suprisingly, It by Stephen King was really easy to get through though. I read it in about a week.
-
It's hard to fit either of those books in a decent-sized vehicle unless it is in small print. I think you would probably have to have the hardback drop-shipped. I've never actually seen a Rand hardback.
-
As I get older, I find I prefer hard cover books because of the larger print. They also lay flat on a table, making them easier to handle. Unfortunately, my daughter keeps sending me King's Dark Tower series in paperback, and I almost need a magnifying glass to read them.
-
Yeah, I'm geezin, too. One eye is completely useless.
-
War and Peace remains to this day the only book I have started that I have not yet finished.
I leave books unfinished all the time. If they don't grab me by the first few chapters, I'll toss them in the donate bin and read something else. If they're really bad I'll toss them in the trash, although it took me a long time to be able to throw away a book and I still feel uncomfortable about it.
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are not an easy read, though watching the movie or listening to an abridged book on tape is infinitely better than skipping them altogether.
I'm not looking for an easy read, I'm looking for a good read. Some of the most enjoyable books I've read were difficult - they involed concepts and ideas that were hard to understand and required lots of thought, but they were well written and engaging.
Rand's ideas are not the problem. The problem is that she was a shitty writer.
Way too many objectivists have tolerance problems.
The same goes for the big L libertarians who routinely look down their noses at small Ls as if they were an inferior species of insect.
-
im reading the fountainhead...still
I started reading it late july/early august, '06.
as of now, I only have 200 more pages or so til I finish it.
I think its a wonderful book. quite thought provoking as to what drives me to do the things that I do.
-
The movie was a lot quicker.
-
I have to say I really dislike Rand's style. I really hope they don't do Atlas Shrugged movie like The Fountainhead. Ugh. Gets on my nerves.
-
blame the soviets.
-
Arrrrrrgh.
-
Rand and the director had trouble with the studio producers that changed the script during the filming of Fountainhead, so there's not much you can hope for if you got idiots running the show on any film production.
-- Bridget
-
The only good part of that movie was Gary Cooper. I laughed alot during that movie wondering how in the hell anyone could get that worked up over architecture.
-
Rand and the director had trouble with the studio producers that changed the script during the filming of Fountainhead, so there's not much you can hope for if you got idiots running the show on any film production.
-- Bridget
I can't help but think they were trying to make her scrip a bit more palatable. I guess she won.
-
Rand and the director had trouble with the studio producers that changed the script during the filming of Fountainhead, so there's not much you can hope for if you got idiots running the show on any film production.
-- Bridget
I can't help but think they were trying to make her scrip a bit more palatable. I guess she won.
Uh, yeah, who exactly do you think are the idiots here? The ones trying to make buck or the ones who don't give a shit if anybody sees their work?
-
Out of necessity, the film of The Fountainhead left out a lot from the novel, as they almost always do. The producers of Atlas Shrugged hope to avoid this flaw by doing the film in several parts.
The best screen treatment of a Rand novel is Goffredo Allessandrini's 1942 version, made without Rand's approval (or even knowledge). Ironically, it was financed by the fascist Italian government, which considered the story anti-communist. When released, they wondered why it suddenly became so popular--and then realized that it was just as anti-fascist as anti-communist. The government immediately yanked it from the theaters.
I have the tape of the movie. It is of very high production values for the time, and renders Rand's semi-autobiographical novel very well onto the screen.
-
I don't see how they're going to be able to make the movie long enough to cover everything without making it 4+ hours. Each LOTR book wasn't nearly as long as AS but you know how long those movies turned out.
-
Do you have any more information on that version?
-
Do you have any more information on that version?
If you're referring to We, the Living, then this is from the Wiki entery:
Without Rand's permission, We The Living was made into a pair of films, Noi vivi and Addio, Kira in 1942 by Scalara Films, Rome, despite resistance from the Italian government under Benito Mussolini. The film was eventually pulled from theatres as the German and Italian governments, who abhorred communism, found out the story also carried an anti-fascist message. These films were re-edited into a new version which was approved by Rand and re-released as We the Living in 1986. Ayn Rand - We the Living (1994) Director: Goffredo Allessandrini; A Scalera Films Production
It may be obtained from Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-LIVING-Alida-Valli/dp/B00004LC7U
-
Uh, would you like to rent your copy?
:-D
-
You might be able to Netflix it.
-
I wonder if Dr. Sorens got his FSP idea from Atlas Shrugged?
-
The Atlasphere: How did the idea for the Free State Project initially gel in your mind?
Jason Sorens: At the time, around 2001, there was a great deal of discussion among libertarians about the failure of libertarian electoral and political strategies up to that point. The libertarian movement had been active for at least three decades, but with only a few policy successes to show for it.
Many people were considering new strategies to increase the weight of libertarian ideas in the policy debate. And the Free State Project seemed to me to be an appropriate way of concentrating activist resources into a single geographical area where they could have a much greater impact.
Another factor that caused this idea to occur to me was my own research on autonomous movements around the world. The fact that the regional or state level is becoming more important worldwide seemed to indicate that the same trend may happen in the U.S. that the state level may be the level at which important political action takes place in the future.
http://www.theatlasphere.com/columns/040223_schwartz_sorens.php
-
I guess it takes a PhD to say "I nicked it from Rand" in that many words.