8 ms·

"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 engende

"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

joeblow9999 10y ago
Doesn't mean the quote isn't apt and good.
- fattire 10y ago
  It's ridiculously bad mustache-twirling dialogue that compares poorly to the grunts of an orc.
- CodeMage 10y ago
  The quote is somewhat apt, because it describes, to a certain degree, the current state of federal laws. That's the best thing I can say about the quote. It certainly isn't good. Those same views of the nature of power were much better expressed by Orwell in his "1984". That's what I would call good.
serf 10y ago
Is this the same John Rogers that helped write the story for the newest 'Catwoman' and 'Transformers' movies? I'm not so sure he's in the best position to qualify as a literary critic.
- rhizome 10y ago
  You don't have to be a lit crit to come to a solid conclusion that Rand should not be followed as a life plan. I feel the same way about "The Prince" and "The Art of War," both of which I haven't read because I don't want them poisoning my brain.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    You don't trust your ability to critically evaluate the things you read?
  - phaus 10y ago
    Edit: Apparently I'm not as cultured as I thought. I didn't know Machiavelli had his own version of "The Art of War". Obviously, my previous comment was unqualified. However, I did read "The Prince" and I think there's a lot most can learn from it. While I find the majority of the book reprehensible, there are many powerful people in our society that seem to think of it as a bible / instruction manual. Given the fact that such ideas still play a significant role in our society; I feel it is worthwhile to learn about them.
    - pitay 10y ago
      Are you talking about "The Art of War" by Machiavelli or "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu? Edit: Thanks for the clarification.
    - rhizome 10y ago
      I didn't know there was a Machiavelli "Art of War" either. I meant the Sun Tzu.
  - jsmthrowaway 10y ago
    That's like saying "I've never eaten lettuce, but I know I don't like it just from looking at it." What a weird, sheltered approach to life; you should broaden your horizons a bit and read, say, Mein Kampf. Developing critical skills is essential for anyone and it's totally reasonable to read something even when you know you will disagree.
  - icantdrive55 10y ago
    The Art of a War is a lot of common sense. If your not predisposed to be a sociopath, I don't think it's a bad read. You don't want to be the guy who has memorized every passage, and rarely leaves his room though. I wasn't introduced to Ayn Rand's books/philosophy until years after philosophy classes in college. The guys who followed it, or were rabid fans of hers were literally homeless. I can't blame her philosophy on their situation. One of her most voracious, fervent fans was one of the most naturally gifted artists I have ever been in the presence of. His personality was like sandpaper. He would argue for the sake of arguing. I will never forget one thing he did. He received over a million dollars in an inheritance. He bought a nice Van. I figured I will never have to picture him homeless. He decided to invest the money on the stock market himself. He literally lost everything in about a year in a half. He didn't want any advice--nothing, even about diversification. He relied on a computer program to pick stock. I heard he's still around. If you happen to read this; your art is magical. (He didn't know quite how talented he was as an artist. I don't know why. At some point, I believe, someone he respected, told him his art was not original, and his drawings were just the result of good technique? His drawings/paintings were original, and showed so much original talent.)
compiler-guy 10y ago
Like many thinkers, Rand's critiques are usually pretty insightful, but have very large blind spots. Also like many thinkers, her solutions are often worse than the disease.
crdb 10y ago
Responding with an ad hominem - whether at the author of the quote or the poster of it by association - is both an ineffective response (the appeal to emotion signals an inability to argue rationally) and lowers the quality of discussion (by taking it away from the point, into emotional territory). Constant appeals to emotion and resorting to a wide array of fallacies allows for strongmen to build tribes which follow them blindly (no need to bother forming policy) and is how we end up with Trump vs Clinton in 2016 (see [1] for the impact on the legislative process). Reducing the quality of debate is therefore a harmful thing with real consequences. One line of argument might be to criticise the paranoid nature of the quote: it is entirely possible that a mess of laws arises naturally from a mix of special interests doing some lobbying to preserve small advantages for themselves, and bad laws arising as a form of horse trading necessary to get policy enacted. Only then does this mess presents an opportunity to manipulators. [1] http://imgur.com/a/Wmoex http://imgur.com/a/Wmoex - "Voting Relationships between Senators in the 101st through 113th Congresses"
- CodeMage 10y ago
  I was tempted to reply with a "found the objectivist" just to illustrate what "ad hominem" really means, but I'm waiting for a build, so I have time to kill. Ad hominem would have been to attack Ayn Rand. I didn't do that. The quote I used doesn't attack the author, it attacks the work. I happen to agree with it. If you want to criticize it, you would do better to point out that the quote I used is not constructive criticism. I would agree with that, but I would probably also point out that humorous quips rarely are.
  - smokeyj 10y ago
    It's only humorous if you agree with it. Replace the two books with ones you like and you have a formulaic insult. Save it for elsewhere.
    - coldtea 10y ago
      Well, in addition to the "insult" (which surely adult conversationists can suffer easily) the quote also included a summarized view of the contents of mrs. Rand's work.
dredmorbius 10y ago
Rand is properly criticised with extreme prejudice. The passage, moustache-twirling or otherwise, is a fair presentation of the principle of threat-based leverage and its use.
Schwolop 10y ago
Does anyone know if there's a name for this form of humour? (That is: forcing a split between two things, then describing the second one first in a manner that is ambiguous until the punchline confirms the order.)
- sangnoir 10y ago
  I don't know if the type of humor itself has a name, but the technique it employs is misdirection, of which there are many variations such as posing a question to 1 of 2 very different people, when the more suitable target (to audience) starts to answer, asker then says "I wasn't talking to you"
- fenomas 10y ago
  I think of it as basically a garden-path joke. Incidentally I've noticed that jokes structured like this have become so common in UK comedy shows that the punchline is often unnecessary or even omitted.
kriro 10y ago
Is that the John Rodgers that gave us masterpieces like American Outlaws and Catwoman? Maybe I'm wrong/misremembering but I feel like all criticism of Atlas Shrugged I've read seems to assume that whoever reads it will be brainwashed into becoming a fanboy who cannot reflect on the work. I thought it was one of the more interesting books I've read but a bit long winded. I don't think it's well written but the content was interesting (I do think "The Driver" by Garrett is a better book). I do appreciate interesting ideas even if I don't agree with them (I partly agree with quite a few thoughts by Rand at least on some level)
forgetsusername 10y ago
John Rogers? The guy who wrote Catwoman? Why do you hold his opinion of literature in such high regard?

joeblow9999 10y ago

Doesn't mean the quote isn't apt and good.

fattire 10y ago
It's ridiculously bad mustache-twirling dialogue that compares poorly to the grunts of an orc.
CodeMage 10y ago
The quote is somewhat apt, because it describes, to a certain degree, the current state of federal laws. That's the best thing I can say about the quote. It certainly isn't good. Those same views of the nature of power were much better expressed by Orwell in his "1984". That's what I would call good.

serf 10y ago

Is this the same John Rogers that helped write the story for the newest 'Catwoman' and 'Transformers' movies? I'm not so sure he's in the best position to qualify as a literary critic.

rhizome 10y ago
You don't have to be a lit crit to come to a solid conclusion that Rand should not be followed as a life plan. I feel the same way about "The Prince" and "The Art of War," both of which I haven't read because I don't want them poisoning my brain.
- tempestn 10y ago
  You don't trust your ability to critically evaluate the things you read?
- phaus 10y ago
  Edit: Apparently I'm not as cultured as I thought. I didn't know Machiavelli had his own version of "The Art of War". Obviously, my previous comment was unqualified. However, I did read "The Prince" and I think there's a lot most can learn from it. While I find the majority of the book reprehensible, there are many powerful people in our society that seem to think of it as a bible / instruction manual. Given the fact that such ideas still play a significant role in our society; I feel it is worthwhile to learn about them.
  - pitay 10y ago
    Are you talking about "The Art of War" by Machiavelli or "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu? Edit: Thanks for the clarification.
  - rhizome 10y ago
    I didn't know there was a Machiavelli "Art of War" either. I meant the Sun Tzu.
- jsmthrowaway 10y ago
  That's like saying "I've never eaten lettuce, but I know I don't like it just from looking at it." What a weird, sheltered approach to life; you should broaden your horizons a bit and read, say, Mein Kampf. Developing critical skills is essential for anyone and it's totally reasonable to read something even when you know you will disagree.
- icantdrive55 10y ago
  The Art of a War is a lot of common sense. If your not predisposed to be a sociopath, I don't think it's a bad read. You don't want to be the guy who has memorized every passage, and rarely leaves his room though. I wasn't introduced to Ayn Rand's books/philosophy until years after philosophy classes in college. The guys who followed it, or were rabid fans of hers were literally homeless. I can't blame her philosophy on their situation. One of her most voracious, fervent fans was one of the most naturally gifted artists I have ever been in the presence of. His personality was like sandpaper. He would argue for the sake of arguing. I will never forget one thing he did. He received over a million dollars in an inheritance. He bought a nice Van. I figured I will never have to picture him homeless. He decided to invest the money on the stock market himself. He literally lost everything in about a year in a half. He didn't want any advice--nothing, even about diversification. He relied on a computer program to pick stock. I heard he's still around. If you happen to read this; your art is magical. (He didn't know quite how talented he was as an artist. I don't know why. At some point, I believe, someone he respected, told him his art was not original, and his drawings were just the result of good technique? His drawings/paintings were original, and showed so much original talent.)

compiler-guy 10y ago

Like many thinkers, Rand's critiques are usually pretty insightful, but have very large blind spots. Also like many thinkers, her solutions are often worse than the disease.

crdb 10y ago

Responding with an ad hominem - whether at the author of the quote or the poster of it by association - is both an ineffective response (the appeal to emotion signals an inability to argue rationally) and lowers the quality of discussion (by taking it away from the point, into emotional territory). Constant appeals to emotion and resorting to a wide array of fallacies allows for strongmen to build tribes which follow them blindly (no need to bother forming policy) and is how we end up with Trump vs Clinton in 2016 (see [1] for the impact on the legislative process). Reducing the quality of debate is therefore a harmful thing with real consequences. One line of argument might be to criticise the paranoid nature of the quote: it is entirely possible that a mess of laws arises naturally from a mix of special interests doing some lobbying to preserve small advantages for themselves, and bad laws arising as a form of horse trading necessary to get policy enacted. Only then does this mess presents an opportunity to manipulators. [1] http://imgur.com/a/Wmoex http://imgur.com/a/Wmoex - "Voting Relationships between Senators in the 101st through 113th Congresses"

CodeMage 10y ago
I was tempted to reply with a "found the objectivist" just to illustrate what "ad hominem" really means, but I'm waiting for a build, so I have time to kill. Ad hominem would have been to attack Ayn Rand. I didn't do that. The quote I used doesn't attack the author, it attacks the work. I happen to agree with it. If you want to criticize it, you would do better to point out that the quote I used is not constructive criticism. I would agree with that, but I would probably also point out that humorous quips rarely are.
- smokeyj 10y ago
  It's only humorous if you agree with it. Replace the two books with ones you like and you have a formulaic insult. Save it for elsewhere.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    Well, in addition to the "insult" (which surely adult conversationists can suffer easily) the quote also included a summarized view of the contents of mrs. Rand's work.

dredmorbius 10y ago

Rand is properly criticised with extreme prejudice. The passage, moustache-twirling or otherwise, is a fair presentation of the principle of threat-based leverage and its use.

Schwolop 10y ago

Does anyone know if there's a name for this form of humour? (That is: forcing a split between two things, then describing the second one first in a manner that is ambiguous until the punchline confirms the order.)

sangnoir 10y ago
I don't know if the type of humor itself has a name, but the technique it employs is misdirection, of which there are many variations such as posing a question to 1 of 2 very different people, when the more suitable target (to audience) starts to answer, asker then says "I wasn't talking to you"
fenomas 10y ago
I think of it as basically a garden-path joke. Incidentally I've noticed that jokes structured like this have become so common in UK comedy shows that the punchline is often unnecessary or even omitted.

kriro 10y ago

Is that the John Rodgers that gave us masterpieces like American Outlaws and Catwoman? Maybe I'm wrong/misremembering but I feel like all criticism of Atlas Shrugged I've read seems to assume that whoever reads it will be brainwashed into becoming a fanboy who cannot reflect on the work. I thought it was one of the more interesting books I've read but a bit long winded. I don't think it's well written but the content was interesting (I do think "The Driver" by Garrett is a better book). I do appreciate interesting ideas even if I don't agree with them (I partly agree with quite a few thoughts by Rand at least on some level)

forgetsusername 10y ago

John Rogers? The guy who wrote Catwoman? Why do you hold his opinion of literature in such high regard?