Who is John Galt

neptunechimney wrote: You must be very perceptive to get so much out of the first few pages.

I understand that "reading" and "comprehension" don't always--or even usually--go hand-in-hand but if the first few pages or even several pages are filled with such poor writing (in my opinion) why ever would I trouble myself with reading any more of it? After all, there are so many books and articles so rich with wonderful prose (thank you jmc), that I will probably never have the opportunity to get to some of them if I were to struggle through reading something so long and crappy and boring. What would be the point? I know what she had to say and it is self-absorbed, arrogant hooey. Hate it? Hardly. It barely rises to the level of disdain.

LadyJazzer wrote:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves Orcs."
--John Rogers

That is one of my favorites. Thanks for posting it.

But if she's the model for so many of the teabaggers, it's easy to see where the "I've got mine...Screw you" mindset came from.

It's still interesting that she preached "I've got mine...Screw you" for years, but when it came time to collect Social Security and Medicare, she was right in line to get it... I guess the "mine" that she got was the benefits that the rest of the unwashed masses had paid into.

poubelle wrote: Hate it? Hardly. It barely rises to the level of disdain.

Just barely.

poubelle wrote: You wanna know what I think about Rand and her ilk? She was an extreme narcissist whose personality/mind never got out of the childlike absorption with the self. How dare anyone attempt to rein in their desires or their ego. How dare anyone question their reason and motives when they are so above the "norm". It is only and always all about "I". Her chosen name itself, AYN, is pronounced as "ine" (rhymes with wine). Give me a flippin' break.

neptunechimney wrote:

poubelle wrote: Hate it? Hardly. It barely rises to the level of disdain.

Just barely.

poubelle wrote: You wanna know what I think about Rand and her ilk? She was an extreme narcissist whose personality/mind never got out of the childlike absorption with the self. How dare anyone attempt to rein in their desires or their ego. How dare anyone question their reason and motives when they are so above the "norm". It is only and always all about "I". Her chosen name itself, AYN, is pronounced as "ine" (rhymes with wine). Give me a flippin' break.

Silly me. I miswrote. I should have written that it doesn't even rise to the level of disdain.

Oh just lookie here at all the socialists all with their panties in a bunch over a few books that expose a morality in opposition to their own prejudice.

I'm getting so tickeled over all your responses. Maybe you all just didn't get it- maybe Rand was writing in terms above your heads. Your so used to being the sheep that you are- you can't even open your mind to an alternative, even on paper.

It reminds me of what one of my mentors taught me decades ago- beware of those who attack style over substance, for it is the substance they are most afraid of.

Then again there is one more possibility- the mediocre mind. I'm sure the same people would have the same reaction to another writing - The theory of relativity. Instead of understanding the concept- you all would complain that it is a difficult read!

So it's probably one or the other- you are capable of understanding the concept- and choose to attack style over substance out of fear, or your single digit IQ's and prejudice prevent you from understanding- and your only defense is to attack the messenger.

Reminds me of another great quote.....

"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly."
Albert Einstein.

Well - whichever it is - I'm impressed that your bothered by it.

One of my biggest beefs with "Atlas Shrugged" (and yes I've read it, every boring thudding word) is that it has a tendency to hypnotize 19 year old college freshmen and others with still rudimentary education into imagining themselves as supermen and everyone else as pathetically stupid pissants. Most 19 year old college students get over it, as their education iincreases and they begin to see and comprehend the gaping problems with a "philosophy" as bleakly self-centered and immaturely vain as Rand's.

Some, unfortunately do not. Greenspan, anyone? I could name others whose once grandiose and vain confidence in their own omnipotence has since scrabbled down into the dust of disgrace.

And those unfortunate enough to come to her works for the first time, at say, the age of 40, who have never developed a sense of critical analysis, usually fall into the abyss of unsufferable sneering vanity more easily even than the 19 year olds.

Rand was a narcissist, and narcisissts who read her see themselves mirrored in her monstrous vanity. Narcissists can and usually are intelligent, but never quite as intelligence as their own conceit suggests. Someone like Rand is a real gift to someone who has spent half a lifetime wondering why their obvious (to themselves at any rate) superiority has not been more cow-towed to by all the snivelling semi-defectives who seem to constantly thawrt and annoy them.

Rand didn't invent selfishness and conceit, but she certainly was the first person who seriously tried to convince the world they are the only true virtues.

But the liberals have determined that narcissism is not longer a psychiatric disorder. :rofl Maybe they need to be more clear that is only includes the me me me liberals and not those who like Rand's works. :rofl

Narcissistic personality disorder, characterized by an inflated sense of self-importance and the need for constant attention, has been eliminated from the upcoming manual of mental disorders, which psychiatrists use to diagnose mental illness.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/2 ... -disorder/

You don't have to be officially "mentally ill" to be an insufferable ass.

Though I'd argue that anyone who has actually read Rand's works and doesn't at least have a sneaking suspicion there is something seriously wrong with her may have something seriously wrong with THEM.

lol :rofl Good one.