Hi everyone. I probably shouldn't even be posting comments when it's been so long since I read this book but.....I just read Erica's post and wanted to thank her being honest about not being totally on board. I think that many of us will read the same book at different times in our lives and may react a certain way one time and another way the next. I guess that's what happened to me with Rand. I felt like she was beating me over the head with her philosophy of individualism. I prefer subtlety.
Also, I believe that this book was considered quite shocking when it was first published so I'm wondering what you all think is the subtext here. I suspect it has to do with religion - or, in this case, a lack of it. Was it controversial for Rand to propose that there's no higher power than the individual, perfect human being? Wasn't there a lot of discussion about her being an atheist or, at least, a proponent of an atheistic world view?
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
This blog is meant to serve as a means for conducting free-form book discussions about specific books our group has chosen or other books. Anyone with an interest in books is welcome to contribute. Reading the book(s) along with us is not a requirement.
This blog is meant to serve as a means for conducting free-form book discussions about specific books our group has chosen or other books. Anyone with an interest in books is welcome to contribute. Reading the book(s) along with us is not a requirement.
Subscribe to Blog
1 comment:
It's been a while for me as well, but I read it twice and I believe you hit the nail on the head. Rand's philosophy is humanism taken to the extreme. Not only is man the ultimate judge of right and wrong in his or her world, but every single man is his own "god" and should not bend his or her principles for even other men ("gods?").
I think her extremism just shows that the underlying concept is a bit flawed - especially in light of the idea that 'true love' can be demonstrated by removing temptation by ruining what one loves (her marrying the enemy). If two individuals who are both individualists can only show love by hurting each other - I don't see how a society, much less a relationship, can survive.
I am also disturbed by Roarke's decision to destroy the altered building. It's one thing to stick to your principles. It's another to destroy and rob to protect a 'vision'. For any society to survive, we all have to give a little. Maybe I sound like one of the architects justifying the alterations, or maybe I can't stand the waste, but the selfishness of his act appalls me. It would have been different if it was his home, but to destroy the future home of others was a bit much.
I saw the movie on AMC recently. The buildings were probably cool when they made the movie, and are in stark contrast to the architecture of the time, but I think it's hard from our time period to see how different his buildings were because we have knock-offs all around.
Post a Comment