Sales of Atlas Shrugged Increase

cawacko

cawacko

Well-known member
Sales of “Atlas Shrugged” Soar in the Face of Economic Crisis

Washington, D.C., February 23, 2009--Sales of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” have almost tripled over the first seven weeks of this year compared with sales for the same period in 2008. This continues a strong trend after bookstore sales reached an all-time annual high in 2008 of about 200,000 copies sold.

“Americans are flocking to buy and read ‘Atlas Shrugged’ because there are uncanny similarities between the plot-line of the book and the events of our day” said Yaron Brook, Executive Director at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights. “Americans are rightfully concerned about the economic crisis and government’s increasing intervention and attempts to control the economy. Ayn Rand understood and identified the deeper causes of the crisis we’re facing, and she offered, in ‘Atlas Shrugged,’ a principled and practical solution consistent with American values."

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=22647


Edit: It would be nice to know how many books sold in the first seven weeks last year. Did sales triple from one to three or from 15,000 to 45,000 for instance?
 
I'd say redundant. Her Russian heritage shows. Why say something in 100 words when you can say it in 100,000 words?

Atlas Shrugged is not what I would call great literature. Though she's on equal footing as George Orwell as a political philosopher, she's not even remotely close to being in his league as a writer or novelist. On literary merit alone Orwell's two great novels "Animal Farm" and "1984" are vastly superior works of literature compared to "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead." Orwell more clearly communicates his message while simultaenously leaving an unmistakably clear vision of that message in a fraction of the pages Rand uses to laboreously get her message across.

Having said that, Orwell did not create a new system of political philosophy as Rand did by outlining obejctivism in her novels. On the whole, the nod goes to Orwell. As an apostate he teaches us much more about politics and how political intrigue, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are detrimental to our best interest and how they destroy lives and personal freedoms. In other words there's a lot more to be learned from Orwell's major works than Rand's and it takes on hell of a lot less time and is more enjoyable and styalistic literature than Rand's by far.

I mean think about it. Orwell more clearly communicates the central message of his story more clearly and concisely in a fraction of the pages that Rand take which is certainly the sign of a superior writer.
 
Last edited:
A very boring writer who I agree pads her work and seems hell bent on creating human gods who are above all other humans.

If everyone in the world were like her perfect beyond compare heros then maybe her silly ideas of utopia might have a chance in the real world.
 
Her characters are caricatures - complete one-sided creations, without any depth whatsoever. There are either bold, individualistic captains of industry, or whiny liberal 'victims' who can't do anything for themselves and blame everything outside of themselves for their woes.

It was a hard read. She made her point in the 1st 100 pages, and then continued to bash it home w/ a sledgehammer for the remainder.
 
It was a hard slog to get through.

A novelest who should of stuck to short story form could be a good way to describe her style.
 
evince said:
A very boring writer who I agree pads her work and seems hell bent on creating human gods who are above all other humans.

If everyone in the world were like her perfect beyond compare heros then maybe her silly ideas of utopia might have a chance in the real world.
Click to expand...

You certainly point out a failure of Rand's writing ability and literary style but her failings as a novelist don't detract for the huge significance of the philosophy of objectivism that she founded.
 
Damocles said:
About halfway through she seems positively psychic.
Click to expand...

Psychic or psychotic? ;)

I hardly found her writing prescient. Going back to my comparison of her an Orwell they were both considered prescient in their writings when they were in fact both writing about contemporary political conditions of the 1930's and 40's.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
Her characters are caricatures - complete one-sided creations, without any depth whatsoever. There are either bold, individualistic captains of industry, or whiny liberal 'victims' who can't do anything for themselves and blame everything outside of themselves for their woes.

It was a hard read. She made her point in the 1st 100 pages, and then continued to bash it home w/ a sledgehammer for the remainder.
Click to expand...

I have to agree. From a literary stand point she's a brutal read. You want to scream "THE HORSE IS DEAD! GET OFF IT ALL READY!" and she keeps going on and on and on. I attribute this to both the Russian literary style she was brought up with (Doestevsky, Tolstoy and Pasternak did the same thing in their great novels, belabor a point to death) and her attempt to fuse literary and academic writing styles with very mixed results.

You're right, she's a hard read but worth the read. Her philosophy she outlines in the novel is relevent and worth reading. If only she had Orwell's or Twain's talent.
 
Mottleydude said:
I have to agree. From a literary stand point she's a brutal read. You want to scream "THE HORSE IS DEAD! GET OFF IT ALL READY!" and she keeps going on and on and on. I attribute this to both the Russian literary style she was brought up with (Doestevsky, Tolstoy and Pasternak did the same thing in their great novels, belabor a point to death) and her attempt to fuse literary and academic writing styles with very mixed results.

You're right, she's a hard read but worth the read. Her philosophy she outlines in the novel is relevent and worth reading. If only she had Orwell's or Twain's talent.
Click to expand...

It's been a long time, but I remember reading several of her works. "We the Living" was frankly autobiographical as it detailed her escape from the Bolsheviks during the Russian revolution. By the time I reached "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" other things must have taken priority in my life and I never did complete it. One thing that stood out in her writings, in addition to those that you have aptly described, was the tremendous anger that suffused both her interpersonal relationships and her philosophies.

I loved Orwell, and had a wonderful anthology of his work in addition to volumes that included Animal Farm and 1984.

For what some people considered a paranoiac view of life, but I simply saw as cynical prescience, I greatly enjoyed Phillip K. Dick's works. He seemed to me very insightful and wrote of alternate histories, sometimes potential future histories, "what if?". What if Germany and Japan had been victorious in WWII, for example. The world lost out when he died so young.
 
I know a lot of people thought "Anthem" was simplistic, but I liked that one a lot better. It was much more imaginative & "to the point," without getting bogged down in the repetition.
 
Thorn said:
It's been a long time, but I remember reading several of her works. "We the Living" was frankly autobiographical as it detailed her escape from the Bolsheviks during the Russian revolution. By the time I reached "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" other things must have taken priority in my life and I never did complete it. One thing that stood out in her writings, in addition to those that you have aptly described, was the tremendous anger that suffused both her interpersonal relationships and her philosophies.

I loved Orwell, and had a wonderful anthology of his work in addition to volumes that included Animal Farm and 1984.

For what some people considered a paranoiac view of life, but I simply saw as cynical prescience, I greatly enjoyed Phillip K. Dick's works. He seemed to me very insightful and wrote of alternate histories, sometimes potential future histories, "what if?". What if Germany and Japan had been victorious in WWII, for example. The world lost out when he died so young.
Click to expand...

I've only read one of Dick's novels but it was a sci-fi classic. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." The movie version took certain liberties with his novel but is also a sci-fi classic IMHO.
 
Onceler said:
Her characters are caricatures - complete one-sided creations, without any depth whatsoever. There are either bold, individualistic captains of industry, or whiny liberal 'victims' who can't do anything for themselves and blame everything outside of themselves for their woes.

It was a hard read. She made her point in the 1st 100 pages, and then continued to bash it home w/ a sledgehammer for the remainder.
Click to expand...

Let's put it this way.

The day I finished "The Fountainhead" was the day I stopped being a libertarian.
 
Mottleydude said:
I'd say redundant. Her Russian heritage shows. Why say something in 100 words when you can say it in 100,000 words?

Atlas Shrugged is not what I would call great literature. Though she's on equal footing as George Orwell as a political philosopher, she's not even remotely close to being in his league as a writer or novelist. On literary merit alone Orwell's two great novels "Animal Farm" and "1984" are vastly superior works of literature compared to "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead." Orwell more clearly communicates his message while simultaenously leaving an unmistakably clear vision of that message in a fraction of the pages Rand uses to laboreously get her message across.

Having said that, Orwell did not create a new system of political philosophy as Rand did by outlining obejctivism in her novels. On the whole, the nod goes to Orwell. As an apostate he teaches us much more about politics and how political intrigue, authoritarianism and totalitarianism are detrimental to our best interest and how they destroy lives and personal freedoms. In other words there's a lot more to be learned from Orwell's major works than Rand's and it takes on hell of a lot less time and is more enjoyable and styalistic literature than Rand's by far.

I mean think about it. Orwell more clearly communicates the central message of his story more clearly and concisely in a fraction of the pages that Rand take which is certainly the sign of a superior writer.
Click to expand...

I fully agree on the wordiness. I was already a Rand fan when I read Atlas and Galt speech made me want to scream. I think she was too afraid of being misrepresented or misunderstood.

I also agree Orwell was a better writer (much better) than Rand was in Atlas. But on political philosophy, Orwell might be peaking up Rand's skirt he is so far below her. Orwell's political philosophy can't be a called a philosophy. It's a muddled mess of contradictory and often irrational fears.
 
Onceler said:
Her characters are caricatures - complete one-sided creations, without any depth whatsoever. There are either bold, individualistic captains of industry, or whiny liberal 'victims' who can't do anything for themselves and blame everything outside of themselves for their woes.

It was a hard read. She made her point in the 1st 100 pages, and then continued to bash it home w/ a sledgehammer for the remainder.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Explain Wynand or Toohey.
 
Ron, what's going on with you? I'd have thought with the mega-growth in government we have seen in such a short time under complete Dem control, you would have been more pumped up than ever to fight against it but instead you barely post here and usually when you do it's about some odd police problem or something in the sports section.
Have you given up?
You know if it makes you feel any better, I know I warned for years that if the Dems get complete control they would be even worse on spending and so they are, but would McCain have stopped them or been a weaker version of them like Hoover and just delay the inevitable?
I'm not entirely convinced Obama was the wrong choice, the left could well have pushed McCain to do a lesser version of the growth in government they did and then (like Bush) blame laissez-faire Capitalism and push another New Deal when they got in in another 4 years.
Not sure what we'll see in 4 years now.
 
RStringfield said:
Just busy.

Aint, it great to see that the Iraq war has left us with such little government.
Click to expand...

I can relate, I'm a lot more busy than I used to be, so I've also posted here a lot less than the old days.

I hope that wasn't a rib, because I never contended that the Iraq war would result in little government, I only put forth the correct argument that all wars end and that Iraq will mean little to restrictions on future freedom or weight on the budget. Unlike socialism, where Obama and Dems universal healthcare will just grow and stick.

If you could undo one of the following from the first half of the 20th century would it be the war in the Phillipines or SS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top