John Green Atlas Shrugged

[DallasCowboys]

I hate starting new topics just to rant but this really pissed me off. I read Paper Towns by John Green and from what I can tell I have no problem with the themes in the book though I could be missing something. After reading the book I was doing some research and came across John Greens tumblr page and found a post by him and why he hates Atlas Shrugged and it just really annoyed me because not only does he totally misunderstand the book he knocks Ayn Rand's writing when his isn't even in the same league. Nobody has to comment on this I just needed to vent my anger a bit. Here is his post

"

Why I Hate Atlas Shrugged with a White-Hot Passion

(I was asked why I dislike the novel Atlas Shrugged so much; I answered; people asked me to make the answer rebloggable, and so I have. All of this, as always, is offered with the caveat that I might be—and often am—wrong.)

1. Atlas Shrugged is a novel of ideas. The plot exists only so that Ayn Rand can lay out her set of philosophical beliefs. So it’s the kind of book that makes you feel smart because you “get it,” but the story itself is paper-thin and is carefully constructed to explain and celebrate Rand’s objectivism. I have an inherent problem with novels of ideas, because I think they fail to do most of what is interesting and useful about fiction, but I particularly dislike them when the ideas are bad ideas.

2. The philosophy of objectivism is absolutely repugnant to me (and also does not hold up to scrutiny). The philosophy of selfishness is all built around the idea that the person ingesting the philosophy feels special (i.e., that we all identify with John Galt), and of course we do all identify with John Galt, because we all feel that the world is against us and we are secretly a unique flower that could bloom brilliantly if only we did not have to carry the weight of other, lesser people.

But the fact that when we read Atlas Shrugged we all identify with the elite is itself evidence of the book’s crappiness, because either A. only extraordinary people happen to read Ayn Rand, or B. we all feel extraordinary, because we are so busy being our multitudinous and complex and extraordinary selves that we do not imagine other people as being as complex or interesting or extraordinary as we are.

All of my novels are written in persistent and direct opposition to the ideas put forth in Atlas Shrugged, and since there is nothing to the novel except its ideas (the language of the novel imho could not be less interesting), it follows logically that I would strongly dislike the book."

Thanks,

David C.

[moralist]

quote from article:

1. Atlas Shrugged is a novel of ideas.

(shrug) Ok. People either agree with those ideas or they don't.

Moochers and looters hate them... while Producers love them.

2. The philosophy of objectivism is absolutely repugnant to me (and also does not hold up to scrutiny). The philosophy of selfishness is all built around the idea that the person ingesting the philosophy feels special

Feminised liberals who live by their irrational feelings will automatically assume that everyone else also lives by their feelings just like they do.

(i.e., that we all identify with John Galt), and of course we do all identify with John Galt, because we all feel that the world is against us and we are secretly a unique flower that could bloom brilliantly if only we did not have to carry the weight of other, lesser people.

Feminised liberals are also prone to groupthink. The glaring truth this one blindly missed is that John Galt DID flower as an individual and was able to secure his own freedom as well as to build a path to freedom for others.

All of my novels are written in persistent and direct opposition to the ideas put forth in Atlas Shrugged

That's fine. Moochers and looters can buy them.

Greg

[Guyau]

Greg, the American spelling is feminized. The derogation "feminized liberals" presumes ignobility of the feminine and should be replaced with what specifically and essentially you think wrong with liberal persons ideas.

Thanks, for passing this along, David. There is a little refreshment in the man's criticism of Atlas in that at least some of his thoughts about it are original with him. He dislikes a novel of ideas. That invites the question for us, What is a novel of ideas? To be using words is to be using ideas. To be crafting characters is to be crafting their actions and sayings by their motives, or if not, at least to be making an artful representation of, for example, dementia, which would require some scheme of selecting words to that end. But none of this is what anyone means by making a novel of ideas.

Offhand I think of theme as being a place to look for whether a novel is one of ideas in the sought-for sense of the phrase "novel of ideas." Then one might look at particular novels and find their themes, defended by text and contour of the novel (not by putting our own spin on the novel or taking the psychology of the writer and calling that a theme), and see if some have themes so as to be sensibly said to be not a novel of ideas.

I wonder why Mr. Green does not consider his Paper Towns a novel of ideas. Is his theme perhaps indefinite? That might be one way of having a novel that is not a "novel of ideas."

"I have an inherent problem with novels of ideas, because I think they fail to do most of what is interesting and useful about fiction, . . ." The theme of East of Eden is the power and glory of human free will. It's a novel of ideas. Yet it does not plausibly lack an abundance of "what is interesting and useful about fiction."

[moralist]

Greg, the American spelling is feminized.

I know. I use the European spelling.

World English Dictionary

feminize or feminise

The derogation "feminized liberals" presumes ignobility of the feminine...

Not at all, Stephen. The ignobility does not lie in the feminine itself... but only when it resides within liberal males. Today, the US government is run by feminised liberal males.

One of Ayn Rand's more remarkable qualities was that she was a woman who could think like a man. There were others. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.

Greg

[Guyau]

Greg, the American spelling is feminized.

I know. I use the European spelling.

. . .

The derogation "feminized liberals" presumes ignobility of the feminine...

Not at all, Stephen. The ignobility does not lie in the feminine itself... but only when it resides within liberal males. Today, the US government is run by feminised liberal males.

One of Ayn Rand's more remarkable qualities was that she was a woman who could think like a man. There were others. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.

Greg

Greg, Americans should drive on the right side of the road and use American spellings. Conventions matter and are not all bad. They matter in communication. Americans using British spellings and using the British whilst instead of while come off as pretending to sophistication. For talking squarely with your fellow citizens, junk the British curly cues.

"One of Ayn Rand's more remarkable qualities was that she was a woman who could think like a man. There were others. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind." Greg, now you're stepping from one insult to two. Whatever you intend, both are received as insulting to women. Talk like that is no way to get a sympathetic hearing from the thinking public.

[moralist]

Greg, the American spelling is feminized.

I know. I use the European spelling.

. . .

The derogation "feminized liberals" presumes ignobility of the feminine...

Not at all, Stephen. The ignobility does not lie in the feminine itself... but only when it resides within liberal males. Today, the US government is run by feminised liberal males.

One of Ayn Rand's more remarkable qualities was that she was a woman who could think like a man. There were others. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.

Greg

Greg, Americans should drive on the right side of the road and use American spellings. Conventions matter and are not all bad. They matter in communication. Americans using British spellings and using the British whilst instead of while come off as pretending to sophistication. For talking squarely with your fellow citizens, junk the British curly cues.

Ok,Stephen. I'll use the lazy slurred z instead of the neat crisp s.

"One of Ayn Rand's more remarkable qualities was that she was a woman who could think like a man. There were others. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind." Greg, now you're stepping from one insult to two. Whatever you intend, both are received as insulting to women. Talk like that is no way to get a sympathetic hearing from the thinking public.

From what I've read of both women, it is highly likely that they would both regard "thinking like a man" as a compliment... which is exactly how I expressed it. I find it odd that an obvious compliment would be regarded as an insult... but that is your free choice.

On the broader subject of becoming offended... it's all the rage today. (pun intended)

It is because this society has become so weak and feminized and thus prone to become irrationally emotionally hypersensitive to words. The politically correct word nazis circle like vultures for the slightest perceived infraction so as to turn loose the histrionic harpies. Now whole careers can be crushed by a mere word. The US has devolved into the tyranny of the perpetually emotionally offended.

Greg

[Wolf DeVoon]

a sympathetic hearing from the thinking public

I did some research on scientists and engineers, lawyers, licensed pilots, business and finance managers, etc. I estimate 40 million "thinking public" in the U.S. and maybe 60 million overseas (100 million = 1% of English-speaking population worldwide).

Ron Paul received 1 million votes in the 2012 Republican primaries and caucuses (1% of 1%).

Publishers Weekly bestselling nonfiction year to date:

1. Killing Jesus

2. Hard Choices (Hillary Clinton)

3. Grain Brain: The Surprising Truth about Wheat, Carbs, and Sugar

Neilsen top TV shows:

1. America's Got Talent-Wed

2. America's Got Talent-Tue

3. NCIS

The "thinking public" is too busy to read, vote, or watch TV.

[Reidy]

Several sources tell the story that Rand was most flattered when von Mises called her "the most courageous man in America", so maybe she would be pleased to hear this, too.

[moralist]

I would like to think so... especially when considering the heroic strength of character she most admired in men as expressed in how she portrayed them in her novels.

Greg