Quote:
Originally Posted by SeattleUte
Can we agree that overtly didactic literature invariably sucks whatever the viewpoint? I read a comment about Dostoevsky in a recent book review of Coetzee's latest book (comparing Coetzee favorably to Dostoevsky) that I liked. Doestoevky, whose novels, like Rand's, contain long monologues and philosophical discussions and digressions, mastered the technique of never allowing the reader to know for sure the author's own actual beliefs. (Adam does the same thing with his posts, which is one reason I like him.)
Doestoevsky's chapters in the Brothers Karamazov, Pro and Contra, and The Grand Inquisitor, represent perhaps the most powerful philosophical argument ever against Christianity and organized religion. Even more, we feel Ivan the atheist's agony in delivering the argument. For generations Christians have wept in empathy, and we know from Doestoevsky's biography that he was in fact a Christian. It seems Rand (though I've never read her as I have Dostoevsky) clubs you over the head with her one-sided personal perspective. Not good literature or storytelling.
The wild and violent sex scenes sound intriguing, however.
|
She does tend to beat you to death with her viewpoint and therefore is weaker in her presentation of her viewpoint. I agree that the Brothers Karamazov is an excellent piece of literature and makes the arguments against Christianity very well. I've never thought to contrast them.
In short, I like much of Rand's philosophy but was also frustrated by her delivery and extremism. She is also quite the anti-feminist in the classic sense, hating womanly things and believing that a woman must be manly to be successful.
By the way, Ayn's delivery is very reminiscent of yours. I'm surprised you don't like it.