100,000 Atlas Shrugged DVDs Mistakenly Promote Self-Sacrifice, or Shit Happens

[caroljane]

Objectivist-influenced fiction writers produce competent revenge fantasies, nothing more.

Which writers?

~ Shane

Erika Holzer’s Eye for an Eye and Robert Bidinotto’s Hunter are probably the examples she’s thinking of. But why not include Ira Levin and James Clavell in the category of “Objectivist-influenced”?

BTW, I can’t help thinking that this “goof” is in fact a publicity stunt. It sure has people talking!

http://www.slate.com...pisrc=obnetwork

The authors I read, Terry Goodkind and Nicholas Dykes, were pretty damned good at their books. But, that is my opinion.

Terry Goodkind does have revenge subplots, such as when Kahlan goes into her Con Dar (not all instances are vengeful, but there are one or two). But his approaches are far from being revenge novels.

Nicholas's book is a "guide to happiness" fiction, and I don't recall any revenge there. Although it's slanted more towards anarchistic points of view, the plots are extremely tame.

Suffice to say, it's hard to nail down that "Objectivist-influenced fiction writers produce competent revenge fantasies, nothing more." Just sounds like stereotyping. Hence the question for specific authors ;)

~ Shane

Shane, how did you miss the gleeful humiliation of the trespassers of Galt's Gulch West, or the triumphant foiling of stereotyped cops and officials in Scotland, or indeed the instant financial success of Jaques at age 18? Plus, he also gets to go to Oxford. Pure revenge, Dykes style.

I did not know that Clavell was Oinfluenced, I loved Shogun and very much enjoyed the Jardine novels.

Don't know of the first two to comment, however, I cannot argue the point of Jaques being well off. I'm guessing that implies revenge against the system. I'm working with you. But do you really consider the entire novel as being revenge? That's what I got from your first statement. I see pieces of revenge, not the whole puzzle being revenge.

~ Shane

No, I certainly don't consider it revenge novel, and in fact ONTGH was not even in my mind when I made my comment. I was thinking of the genre thriller stuff. The Guide is just that, a detailed guide to Nick's own brand of anarchocapitalism, throughout which he exercises his authorial privilege of wreaking justice on his real life enemies from time to time. It is a tour de force. He might not be entirely satisfied with that description, but upon consulting his principles I don't suppose he would mind the free plug,

Also I was thinking of the stories that turn up on Oist creative writing boards , the template being:

"Look at me, not that I care if you are looking or not. I am unique, free, unconquerable. I am not looking at you...I vaguely sense that you are many, drab, hunched, slack jawed with awe at my dazzling physical beauty..."

Hey, effective opening paragraph!

[sbeaulieu]

ONTGH is definitely a tour de force. I had read it a few years back, and had intended to try a little essaying on each of the chapters. Unfortunately, my intent has not materialized. But I really loved his approach at the book, and the contemporary setting. However, I've seen quite a few books, now that you mention thrillers, where characters are well off (Dean Koontz). This puts them on a platform to call forth reserves to get things done, whether by design or circumstance. In contrast, I liked Fountainhead for the opposite, since Roark was not well off and still got things done regardless of adversity. To me, this showcased Roark's will to persevere and stick to his principles. This doesn't take away from ONTGH, as Nicholas was using lots of historical examples to inform, and using plot points in the book as demonstrative applications of his philosophy.

Your effective opening paragraph does hit on that Rand hero type. I don't buy into the aloof, supremacy, unconquerable character types myself (I only see Roark as being the unconquerable, not the other two I mentioned). But I can see where that could be surmised in some writings. And it's that type of first impression that can turn people off.

~ Shane

[caroljane]

ONTGH is definitely a tour de force. I had read it a few years back, and had intended to try a little essaying on each of the chapters. Unfortunately, my intent has not materialized. But I really loved his approach at the book, and the contemporary setting. However, I've seen quite a few books, now that you mention thrillers, where characters are well off (Dean Koontz). This puts them on a platform to call forth reserves to get things done, whether by design or circumstance. In contrast, I liked Fountainhead for the opposite, since Roark was not well off and still got things done regardless of adversity. To me, this showcased Roark's will to persevere and stick to his principles. This doesn't take away from ONTGH, as Nicholas was using lots of historical examples to inform, and using plot points in the book as demonstrative applications of his philosophy.

Your effective opening paragraph does hit on that Rand hero type. I don't buy into the aloof, supremacy, unconquerable character types myself (I only see Roark as being the unconquerable, not the other two I mentioned). But I can see where that could be surmised in some writings. And it's that type of first impression that can turn people off.

~ Shane

You will have noted that ND does not depict his heroes like that. They are warm and sociable.

[sbeaulieu]

ONTGH is definitely a tour de force. I had read it a few years back, and had intended to try a little essaying on each of the chapters. Unfortunately, my intent has not materialized. But I really loved his approach at the book, and the contemporary setting. However, I've seen quite a few books, now that you mention thrillers, where characters are well off (Dean Koontz). This puts them on a platform to call forth reserves to get things done, whether by design or circumstance. In contrast, I liked Fountainhead for the opposite, since Roark was not well off and still got things done regardless of adversity. To me, this showcased Roark's will to persevere and stick to his principles. This doesn't take away from ONTGH, as Nicholas was using lots of historical examples to inform, and using plot points in the book as demonstrative applications of his philosophy.

Your effective opening paragraph does hit on that Rand hero type. I don't buy into the aloof, supremacy, unconquerable character types myself (I only see Roark as being the unconquerable, not the other two I mentioned). But I can see where that could be surmised in some writings. And it's that type of first impression that can turn people off.

~ Shane

You will have noted that ND does not depict his heroes like that. They are warm and sociable.

Correct. I don't think my previous entry alluded to that. If it did, that was unintentional. I remember making a comment to the effect of having a feeling that I was in the room during Jacque and Nikolai's conversations. For me, books don't do that unless I draw a parallel with the characters... in a sense, feel comfortable in their company. The warm and social aspects are very evident in all the main characters.

~ Shane