Talk:Atlas Shrugged

Edits to reception

I've removed some content from this section for focusing too much on WP:Recentism (specifically, attempts to link Rand with the current economic crisis) and not enough on historical perspective. There's still a much larger problem though, both with this section and the article as a whole, which is that much of it appears to be about Rand's philosophy in general rather than Atlas Shrugged in particular. That's understandable, given that this book is many people's first introduction to her thought, but it doesn't mean such content belongs here (rather than, say, at Objectivism (Ayn Rand)). This article should be about Atlas Shrugged as a novel; criticism, positive or negative, should focus on the book's literary merits rather than the political ideas it expresses. Robofish (talk) 08:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Robofish: your point is well-taken. I'm the one who added the section referring to Greenspan's connection with Rand, and his current renunciation of at least part of Rand's belief system. You're correct, my writeup belongs better in Objectivism (Ayn Rand). When I get a chance, I'll place it there. JohnSawyer (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

2008 financial crisis section

i have removed it. i am the second person to do so. it is unsourced psuedojournalism, the sort of thing that might very well be an ideal example of the problem of original research. that something strikes one as interesting does not warrant its inclusion in wikipedia. if the people posting this thing over and over would like to figure out who the "many observers" besides them who have noted this are, source the paragraph, and put it in either the praise or influence section, or perhaps another one as appropriate, then their contributions will quickly go from detrimental to helpful. What makes a man turn neutral? (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have not had a hand in the previous edits, but I will disagree with not mentioning the novel and the apparent literary relation to the current global economic crisis. As an example: http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13185404&source=hptextfeature I.e. this topic is getting mainstream recognition, and if you read the link above, you will notice that sales of the novel show a relatively strong correlation with dire economic events. -NM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.107.116 (talk) 18:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this section is interesting! I am sorry it is out. If someone decides to put this section back in, add AIG to list of bailout companies, it is now up to $180 Billion. 71.60.218.117 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Apparently, someone did some work to source this section after the complaint listed above was recorded. The latest complaint against it is only that it says that the crisis started in September 2008, which the person who removed the entire section felt was misleading. Perhaps so...but why does that justify removing the entire section? Surely a simple fix of the first sentence would have been enough. For instance, "In the wake of the negative economic situation which began in September of 2008" could easily have been changed to "In the wake of the negative economic situation of 2008-09". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plain Sane (talk • contribs) 20:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

"Thrown with great force"

Under Criticism:

One of Dorothy Parker's best known quips as a book critic, "This is not a novel to be tossed aside lightly. It should be thrown with great force." came from her review of Atlas Shrugged.

I totally agree with the sentiment, but I think that quote is actually from Parker's review of The Cardinal's Mistress by Benito Mussolini. I'm still looking for a real citation but I'm pretty sure it was not for Atlas Shrugged. Nickel.undertone (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a quick Google; it seems oft-quoted in regards to AS, but I didn't see anything that could be considered a reliable source for the matter. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Googling Dorothy Parker together with Mussolini, Duces Wild, The Cardinal's Mistress, you'll find this quote attributed to it. I found the review in question -- "Duces Wild" in the New Yorker, Sept 15, 1928. But Parker did not use this sentence in her review. Parker was also reviewing books for Esquire in 1958 when A.S. was published, but so far I have not found the primary source for this quote. It may not be in anything she wrote. The most reliable reference I have found is The Starving Artist's Survival Guide (2005) in which the quote is said to have referred to Mussolini's novel. The quote appears in other published works but what book she was referring to is not specified Nickel.undertone (talk) 23:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Auto archive

This page is rather long and has fairly old topics. I propose MiszaBot be set up for threads older than 60 days. Will go ahead with it if no objections within 24 hours. Jomasecu ^talk _contribs 20:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section citations

The criticism section has a distinct lack of citations, as is noted by the warning at the top of the section, but I added in an additional inline citation-needed flag at the beginning of the section about the novel "not being well-received". That clause has no citation, and a redundant statement just like it in the Early Reception section has a citation link. Following the link, the citation is just a random collection of reviews. No statistics are provided for even a subjective average score, and the reviews certainly don't all seem to dislike the book.

I think the section needs serious work, if not removal (books such as Das Kapital have no criticism sections, despite presenting equally controversial philosophies.) In the short-term, I would recommend merging the text directly below the "Criticism" parent line and the text below the "Early Reception" header, because they're redundant and short. Merechriolus (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Just preliminarily, how about something like this, not changing any of the sentiment or tone of the article:

Reception

Atlas Shrugged was generally disliked by critics when first reviewed in 1957, despite being a popular success. According to a 1991 United States survey by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged was the book that made most difference in readers' lives after the Bible.

Note that the proposal above disregards the current citation provided in the Early Reception section, until a more substantial citation that doesn't rely on subjective perceptions can be provided.Merechriolus (talk) 18:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

The criticism section appears to be written by someone wishing to dismiss criticism of this book. Each example of a critic is followed by an attack on that critic, or an attempt to refute their criticism in the editorial voice. In contrast, when positive references are made to the novel there is no immediately following counterpoint.

If nobody objects I will try and rectify this problem myself (I will give people time to respond as I am not looking for an edit war).

GrampaScience (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do rectify this problem. I found the criticism section to be almost completely worthless. The critics chosen to be represented here seem to have been chosen specifically for the ability to refute their arguments. Even a cursory reading of Rand's philosophy finds all kinds of weak points which could be well attacked. Surely there are thousands of well-qualified critics who have made cogent arguments.

216.243.176.75 (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

After having a go at fixing the criticism section it has been once again revert by Rand fans to a list of people who don't like the book coupled with reasons they are Bad People. I find it incredibly tiresome that I have to undo this damage. GrampaScience (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Nolan chart criticism of this Wiki article

I haven't edited this article in eons, so I am not up to date on the latest disputes, changes, edit wars, etc.

http://www.nolanchart.com/article6235.html - this is a criticism of this Wiki article and recent changes made to it in light of Atlas' resurgence in sales. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Fictional Technology, etc. Irrelevant

The section on fictional technology in Atlas Shrugged is taking up space that could be used to address much more important issues about the novel, such as how Rand structured the concrete events of the novel to demonstrate the abstract principles she presented in Galt's speech. The fictional technology section borders on triviality because these technologies are not intended to be anything other than place holders for actual technologies that are always pioneered by the individual reasoning mind and perverted by altruist-collectivist villains. Rand's fictional technologies are not in the tradition of science fiction projections of the social consequences of space travel or robotics, they are closer to the projected technologies in Fritz Lang's Metropolis -- the technology is there to show the exploitation of the workers in Metropolis and of the 'men of the mind' in Atlas. Consider the "Ferris Persuader" at the climax. The real point of the scene is that they are torturing Galt to force him to take over the failing economy (true!) when the machine fails and Galt has to tell them how to repair the device with which they are torturing him, making the point that as parasites they need his mind for everything. It trivializes the work to devote so much time to the details of the imaginary technology and so little to its meaning.

The same thing is true of the comparison of the fictional railroad to the real ones. I propose we get rid of all these comparatively trivial items and instead draw on the many scholarly sources on the structure and meaning of Atlas Shrugged including those from ARI, The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, etc., and I call on members of Wiki Project Objectivism to help. I'll wait for your comments before removing the material I think is of little relevance. —Blanchette (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

There are no effective space constraints on Wikipedia, so sections on fictional technology and the structure and meaning of the book are not in competition for coverage here. The best path of article development in most cases is to expand will all relevant, verifiable coverage, and at that point, consider splits and weighting. There is little connection between the fictional technologies and the other facets of the work you mention, making them separate issues. So the easy answer here is to go ahead and add the scholarly coverage of the novel, and don't worry about the fictional technology. However, as a separate issue, the fictional technology section is completely unsourced, and I don't believe there is much in the way of secondary coverage of it or that it is a core part of the topic. As such, I think moving it here until sources are found would not be to the detriment of the article. I would stress, however, that the best way to advance the article is constructive rather than destructive: to expand with quality content from reliable sources. Skomorokh 03:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia should remain as NPOV as possible on the subject. While the fictional technology is by no means important to the plot, it does exist in the context of Rand's fictional universe. However, making commentary about the text is by no means allowed on Wikipedia without adequate primary sourcing.  Marlith (Talk)  03:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

All commentary in this section can be stripped as Original Research. And without the commentary, it devolves into a list. Instead of removing the section or laboring over the sub-sections, I'd recommend reducing the section to a paragraph giving examples of government projects - torture and mass murder machines - and industrial projects - hard to get oil extraction, engine that runs off of omnipresent static, a metal that signifigantly improves upon steel. We just need to avoid writing a conclusion not supported by a reliable source. Karbinski (talk) 12:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A full discussion of the novel will include a treatment of the technology that is found in the universe in which it is set. There are, as has already been stated, no constraint on space. Wikipedia is not paper. If an article reaches such a size that it is practically inaccessible to those that have slow Internet connections, use mobile devices, or accessibility issues, that can be addressed by splitting articles. This is all policy, as can be found in the link above. Hence, deletion of the section for the purpose of saving space, or even of preserving 'balance', is out of the question.

However, the entire section, and entire article, must be supported by verifiable references, from reliable sources, as is also policy. That is to say, the technology of the world must be covered in another medium. I suggest that one would find one in in-depth reviews, in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, or in any discussion of Ayn Rand as a science fiction author in another publication. Until then, the section should be viewed with suspicion: only because it is unsourced, not because it is 'unduly' long. Bastin 14:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

A quality encyclopedic article is not created by including everything just because you can include it. A quality article requires quality writing and quality style. I'm not advocating deletion of the section, I'm advocating replacing an over-emphasized list (essentially a list, once OR commentary is taken away) with prose. Karbinski (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree- this whole section is basically original research, not a single reference there. And it is massively out of proportion to its significance in the novel. Kaisershatner (talk) 20:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Overhaul

If you look at comparable wikipedia articles of the featured class/works of literature: for example Hamlet, To Kill a Mockingbird, Uncle Tom's Cabin, they share common structural elements - (short) plot summary, maybe a discussion of characters, and info about the writing/background, reception, and adaptations. This article is creaking along in that direction, but there are literally paragraphs and paragraphs of assertions about what Rand meant by this, that, and the other thing. Much of it, like this post, repetitive and redundant. So I am cutting text as well as adding cites. Kaisershatner (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done, Kaisershatner — not only did you trim the Fictional Technology section to a more reasonable length, your entire reorganization makes this a much better article. I would not have edited nearly as well, so many thanks.—Blanchette (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As mentioned above, I have removed some of the editorializing from the 'criticism' part of the reception section, so now it reads less like 'why all critics are wrong'. I feel this article has suffered from being produced primarily by Objectivists who are keen to present their viewpoints perhaps at the cost of readability. GrampaScience (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution! Kaisershatner (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

New Deal

It is true Rand hated the New Deal. However, this paragraph as written doesn't cite the relationship between that and Atlas, so I am storing it here in case someone wants to find a cite that does establish this. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the novel, the government's interference with and regulation of economic life are reminiscent of those instituted through President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "New Deal" – of which Rand strongly disapproved. The Washington bureaucrats depicted in the book resemble those in Rand's work The Fountainhead, which is explicitly set in the later 1930s under Roosevelt's New Deal administration.

Also uncited, possibly true but also possibly unrelated. Kaisershatner (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC):

Rand conceived the book and started writing it at the time when the US implemented the Marshall Plan and sent extensive aid to European countries, many of which – while opposed to the Soviet Union – implemented Socialist or Social-Democratic policies of one kind or another. Specifically, a major beneficiary of American aid was Britain under the Attlee Government, which implemented more clearly Socialist policies than any other British Labour Party cabinet, carried out significant nationalizations and instituted the Welfare State. (A minor character in the book, Gilbert Keith-Worthing, is a British novelist who comes to the US and urges his American hosts to nationalize their country's railways.)

Aggressive soapboxing by Rand fans

This article merely serves to describe the book, its themes and its reception. It is not a place for Ayn Rand fans to score debate points. DO NOT revert my edits to the criticism section without first come here. Immediately following the opinion of a critic with an assault on their political affiliations is a clear example of weasel words.

Seeing as how this book might well be turning into a movie in the near future, and certain pundits have been pushing it as well, this articles importance looks set to rise. Lets have its quality rise as well and not let it be a soap box for Objectivists. GrampaScience (talk) 16:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC) But your weasel words are OK, right?