vs. 
Random House released two lists of their 100 best novels; one from their board of directors and one compiled from reader feedback. Numbers 1 & 2, respectively, on the reader list are Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, both by Ayn Rand. I was surprised when I saw the order, because I think that The Fountainhead trumps Atlas Shrugged any day of the week. When I read it I couldn't put it down, fell in love with Roark, vowed never to be a second-hander, and claimed it to be the best book I have ever come across. When I read Atlas Shrugged I enjoyed it, but I felt like I was reading the same story with different characters and the 50 page monologues weren't nearly as spell-binding the second time around. However, as I mentioned, I read The Fountainhead FIRST, and the more I talk to people and read about Rand preferences it seems that almost everyone prefers the first book they read. So, which one is actually BETTER?
Let's break it down: The Fountainhead was written first, so many say that Atlas takes the initial ideas, such as objectivism - the pursuit of one's own happiness and rational self-interest, but more fully develops the characters and thoughts. So, is it a better novel? More critically acclaimed? Or does the grittier idea flow of The Fountainhead reflect a purer philosophy? Sometimes over-thinking a matter can make the idea more polished, but it loses some of its originality. I think that this is the case with Atlas Shrugged, and some people may agree. However, probably a million more would tell me I'm nuts.
So which is it??
I'd love to hear feedback on this post - and please mention which book you read first!!!
.png)
I have only read Atlas, and will tell you that it IS my favorite book...planning to start The Fountainhead this month and am curious to know how I will feel about it, especially after reading this post. (this response, in actuality does not answer your question at all, however I just wanted to share.)
ReplyDeleteI haven't read The Fountainhead, so I'll have to get back to you. I'm a new follower btw, love your blog!
ReplyDeleteThis was posted on my FB wall and I think it's a really interesting view - and really it's true, there isn't a whole lot of love in Rand philosophies and she's a filthy capitalist . . . but I still love reading her. (Thanks DS! This reminded me of Raftery's AP English and I want to get a book list from you.)
ReplyDeleteAtlas is digusting. The "story" is less plausible, much more shittily written, and much more of a crutch for her philosophy...which, it seems, during the time in between the two novels, had grown increasingly more fanatical, dangerous, and laughable. Roark I think passes muster because he's just trying to self-actualize or whatever... John Gualt and his crew are out to destroy civilization via selfishness. Both novels are kinda sickening at the end of the day... There's no love in them. but Atlas is much more offensive. And flimsy. An engine that runs on water?? Sounds like 4th grader's creative writing assignment.
Oh, ps: I read fountainhead first. Couldn't even quite finish atlas because of how mad it made me that she was forcefeeding people such horseshit. People rank her books highly ONLY because they feel cool and smart after reading them. People like feeling like they are individuals...even though they're feeling that way vicariously.
Found this in an internet search for AS and Fountainhead comparisons, but I felt compelled to response regardless of being 3 years old...
DeleteWell, someone who describes one's work as "shittily written" doesn't come across as the most valid person to judge the quality of one's writing.
I also believe you missed the point of Atlas Shrugged. It's encouraging people to use their own minds, instead of saying: "I'm not smart and don't feel like working, so people who are, owe it to me to benefit from their knowledge and hard work, because I am too weak to do so on my own." That is an awful way to live your life.
Ayn Rand a filthy capitalist? All the characters were living meager lives, just for the chance to do exactly what they wanted to be doing in Atlantis. It made it very clear they were not out for money for the sake of being materially rich. They wanted to do what they loved and be rewarded for their creation and productivity only. They also stated that they would not trade with people for the sake of ripping them off, and cheating them. All the other characters (James Taggart, Mooch etc.) were making wealth off of other people's hard work, under the guise of socialism. They are basically CEO's able to keep living a lavish material lifestyle based off the work of others, claiming they are entitled to it based on their need. That sounds like the "filthy capitalist" you are describing.
Also, the engine was based off of kinetic energy. A technology that is used today. Hardly a 4th graders creation of mind.
Although it might seem extreme at times, she uses her word choices very carefully and I feel they can get lost in the macro view of many of the criticisms you mentioned. I'm no Rand fanboy, and am not an Atheist as she clearly is, but her views resonate with me in terms of people being lazy and not wanting to use their own minds to make their own decisions. THAT is what's "dangerous".
Anon - have you ever tried the drug Xanax? I heard it works miraculously well for stifling urges to express overly aggressive opinions regarding responses to comments posted on blog posts...it also induces the effects of wine though (BE CAREFUL - I LEARNED THE HARD WAY!)
ReplyDelete