My REVIEW of "Atlas Snubbed"
Posted by jimjamesjames 9 years, 5 months ago to Education
For more detailed analyses, I suggest reading the (few) Amazon reviews.
The question addressed is "What happened to the rest of the world after the producers moved to the Gulch and the "outside" collapsed and how did things work out in the Gulch?"
Krawchuk does a superb and entertaining job suggesting what might have happened in both spheres of influence.
Within that framework, he also addresses some practical philosophical concerns such as: what about those left "outside" that were not looters, just normal people living normal lives that became "victims" of the changing events.
I highly recommend this book and think that even those unfamiliar with AS would enjoy and learn from it.
The question addressed is "What happened to the rest of the world after the producers moved to the Gulch and the "outside" collapsed and how did things work out in the Gulch?"
Krawchuk does a superb and entertaining job suggesting what might have happened in both spheres of influence.
Within that framework, he also addresses some practical philosophical concerns such as: what about those left "outside" that were not looters, just normal people living normal lives that became "victims" of the changing events.
I highly recommend this book and think that even those unfamiliar with AS would enjoy and learn from it.
"Secondly, and more importantly, as the Libertarian candidate for Governor, I repeatedly found myself in a position where I was forced to defend Miss Rand's philosophy to the public at large, a task I ultimately found in part to be impossible. Not that I wasn't up to the philosophical challenge; rather my experiences drove home for me time and time again that some of her ideas are simply indefensible."
So to state on this site as he does:
* my book is "meant to be a tribute to Ayn Rand"
but I call it "an extrapolation, a sighting along the philosophical lines drawn out by her that end in some surely-unintended, yet plainly-foreseeable consequences."
strikes me as extreme sophistry.
And a reader's accolade of:
* Ken presents his version of utopia. It could be seen as left-libertarian - leftist goals with libertarian means. It is a community of liberty. It is a community of compassion. But most of all, it is a community of happiness. If asked to choose between the Gulch and Vegas, I choose Vegas every time.
I can't imagine any of Rand's ideas that 'are simply indefensible', other than to a group of so called Eastern libertarians that are actually 'liberal libertarians' which is an oxymoron and is indicative of what is so terribly wrong with the Libertarian Party and it's candidates of today. This book's author exemplifies why Rand was so antipathetic to libertarians in general and their claim that her philosophy was their intellectual underpinning.
I fail to see any value to reading a book by an author claiming to be 'up to the philosophical challenge' of defending Rand's philosophy, and finds her ideas to be 'indefensible'.. NONSENSE
edit for format
Of course many of Rand's ideas are simply indefensible. As the most blatant example, I've never told my daughters that they couldn't grow up to be President of the United States. Why should they believe Matriarch Rand's opinion?
Hi, dbhalling. I was surprised to read that you "suggest you do not waste your money on this trash" (i.e., my book) when you apparently haven't read it. Your response calls to mind Rand's address to the West Point grads in 1974 where she posits, "[I]f you don't look, you won't have to know", and "so long as you don't know it, you are free to believe what you wish." You give the impression you're a philosophical brother of the stranded astronaut she spoke of that day. I hope that's not true.
Incidentally, it is NOT "a quote from the author's webpage" that my book "highlights many of the flaws in Rand’s Objectivist philosophy." Google the phrase, and you find that statement appears nowhere on my website. And although you quote someone else's website, I note you overlooked their very next sentence, which says, "overall it is a respectfully serious parody." If you do take a moment to read my website, you'll see that I say my book is "meant to be a tribute to Ayn Rand", that Atlas Shrugged is "the greatest novel ever written", and other similarly-nice things. In fact, my book is dedicated to Rand.
So you can call it "playing off of Rand's reputation", but I call it "an extrapolation, a sighting along the philosophical lines drawn out by her that end in some surely-unintended, yet plainly-foreseeable consequences." And if anyone chooses not to countenance those consequences, wouldn't that be "not objectivist"?
One last item: If "wasting" money is truly the issue, I'd be happy to gift you with an e-copy of my book so we can have an informed discussion of its merits or lack thereof.
How could any post, especially one that provoked 35 comments, not be considered interesting?
Well, jimjamesjames, I can't make a comment about Atlas Snubbed yet but I can tell you that I will be reading it shortly. I find most things that I might not agree with, interesting and worthy of exploring further.
I believe I need to expose myself to what, at least initially, appears to be a different view in order to challenge and grow in my perception of reality.
Again, this post is interesting. Homogeneity is not.
For those who wonder about what they will do or can do after a real collapse, it's also a must-read.
Thanks for the kind words, JimJJ and BrettRS, but the lion's share of the credit must go to Ayn Rand. All of the innovations detailed in my book stem from her one key concept often called the non-aggression principle: you have the inalienable right to live your life your own way without interference, provided you respect the rights and property of others. All the political solutions in my book segue from that one philosophical principle.
Since you two have read my book, and in light of some other comments in this thread, let me ask: Did I misportray Objectivism anywhere?
Thanks again for the kind words!
Good point, that. It is indeed not her "one key concept". I misspoke. My apologies.
Regardless, an error of knowledge is no reason to hurl insults. I'd recommend Galt's advice from his big speech: "Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it... Make every allowance or errors of knowledge."
Or not. Up to you.
I do not see it as a parody, either. For me, just a "what the hell happened" with some issues with which remaining society members would have to deal.
I've read the Halling stories, loved them, and, being a "author" myself (nice romance, about an "individual's" "I'll do it myself" mindset and the interpersonal problems it causes -- Paris, Wyoming -- Kindle edition is the last version), I'm fully aware of "literary license" and the freedom (and problems) it can cause.
Hi, khalling. I'd disagree that "[t]his post is antithetical to the mission of this Gulch", because I took great pains with my book to portray Objectivism as accurately as possible without distortion. Should you find an error of knowledge somewhere in there, please let me know and I'll correct it. Those who have read my book have seen how Eddie's actions are the epitome of Objectivism, except without the intolerance and rancor the strikers are famous for. Give it a read for yourself, then let's talk.
Hi again, khalling. Pardon me if I disagree: Intolerance and rancor are not subjective; they're actual manifestations of a value. Yes, that value can be subjective, but it can just as well be objective.
For example, Many people are intolerant and display rancor when it comes to certain minorities. In many (all?) cases, such a reaction can stem from subjective values. On the other hand, intolerance can also stem from objective values, such as the strikers intolerance and rancor for what they call "the looters world".
And that was my point: the strikers in Atlas Shrugged were extremely intolerant of their fellow men, intolerant to the point of hatching and executing a clever plot to destroy their world, as Galt did. That's the epitome of rancor, and hardly subjective--especially if it happened to be YOUR world that was destroyed--and even worse for moral innocents like Eddie.
There's no question Galt could have responded in any number of other, better ways. And that's what Atlas Snubbed is all about: a better way to implement an objectivist society without killing off millions of people. I can't understand your reluctance to take a look. To quote from my book, is it more along the lines of: “You guys seem to consider [Galt] some sort of god whose edicts are never to be questioned"?
Galt didn't 'hatch and execute a clever plot to destroy their world'--All he and others chose was to remove the sanction of the victim and allow those that chose to live off of the production of others to reach their ultimately unavoidable ends.
Nor did AS have anything to do with the idea of "killing off millions of people" Reason is man's only means of survival and for those that choose not to learn how to reason and apply that knowledge to their survival, their ultimate fate is their own choice.
Indeed, Galt did destroy the world. He even admits it, right at the beginning of his big speech: "I am the man who has deprived you of victims and thus has destroyed your world." And on the night Mulligan threw Dagny's welcome party, Galt says, "I was the walking delegate of this strike, the leader of the victims' rebellion." Hatch and execute both. Guilty as charged, and damned by his own words.
Galt's blunt admissions aside, think of it in general terms. Let's say you are being troubled by someone of the looter-mystic persuasion. There are many ways you can deal with the issue, call them Plan A, Plan B, Plan C, etc. Let's say they all can solve the problem, albeit through differing means and with differing repercussions. All of them require some action on your part, whether it be reneging on contracts you've already negotiated with your customers, convincing others to renege on theirs, convincing others to help execute your Plan, or whatever other sorts of active persuasion you prefer. Plans A and B both negate the problem situation. But Plan A results in the looter-mystic's death; Plan B does not. Which Plan would you choose?
Broadening the example, suppose Plan A resulted not only in the death of the looter-mystic, but also various bystanders whose moral codes range from angels to devils, that is, from the most innocent to the most guilty. Plan B does not result in any deaths, regardless of any individuals' morality. Plans A and B both negate the problem. Which would you choose?
Galt chose Plan A. In my novel, Eddie chooses Plan B and thereby defeats the looter-mystics without anyone's death.
Why would Galt choose a Plan A that deliberately destroys life? Why would anyone approve of it?
Your interpretation takes the popular evil definition of selfishness rather than Rand's rational self interest. You then apply that to your next argument implying that the individual or group making the choice must consider the effects on those that won't reason or produce for themselves. That's pure altruism. That's evil to the producers and men of the mind.
Your last sentence assumes that Galt chose to 'deliberately destroy life' and I proffer that had those others listened to his speech and message and got off their butts and began producing for themselves, they wouldn't have faced death. It was their choice, not Galt's. What you offer is a complete refutation of Objectivism and everything it stands for, relying on something on the order of 'being my brothers keeper'--altruism.
That shows no respect for Rand's work or other Objectivist.
Product Details
Atlas SnubbedMay 21, 2014
by Ken Krawchuk
Kindle Edition
$9.99
Auto-delivered wirelessly
Paperback
$18.85$19.99Prime
Get it by Tuesday, Dec 1
More Buying Choices
$14.85used & new(20 offers)
4 out of 5 stars 8
Product Details
Atlas SnubbedFeb 3, 2012
by Ken V Krawchuk
Paperback
$2,639.07used & new(4 offers)
4.8 out of 5 stars 6
You might want to check with Amazon for that last price.
Never crack the cover? Again, to quote Rand's address to the West Point grads in 1974, "[I]f you don't look, you won't have to know", and "so long as you don't know it, you are free to believe what you wish."
I beg your pardon, but I make money off MY work. My novel does not depend upon anything that happens in Atlas Shrugged. It stands alone on its own strengths. If you cracked the cover, you'd know that.
Really, there's no need to be frightened of knowledge. If my novel is wrong somewhere, then tell me where. If your assessment is correct, I'll fix it.
Khalling, I can't help but note that you did not address any of the points I raised. Rather, you resorted to numerous logical fallacies, such as changing the subject (i.e., whether intolerance and rancor are/are not subjective), distraction from ignorance (i.e., you haven't read my novel, yet you judge its contents), subverted support (i.e., claiming I "stole" Rand's ideas), and worst of all, ad hominem attacks--the last being a violation of the forum rules (https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#....
Nevertheless, I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. Can we please have an intelligent discussion rather than subjecting me to trollish flaming? To quote again from my novel: "Pardon me, but this IS the Gulch, isn’t it?"
I will assume that you are intelligent and benevolent, but a bit self-righteous about this group. Here's my $0.02.
I am a bit surprised that you are surprised at the responses that your book and your descriptions of it are receiving. Most people in this Gulch have been profoundly positively impacted by Atlas Shrugged. To Snub that book and to demean (yes, demean) the hero of that book is to court anger from this group - yes? Would you expect anything else?
It is not that Galt is a god or unquestionable. It is a question of respect for a character who represents the highest values and human greatness. To the degree that you fail to show respect or show disrespect, you can expect pushback and criticism.
If you want to demonstrate that you respect Rand and her work after snubbing it, such that people who love her work will give you a hearing, you need to try a bit (order of magnitude) harder.
Of course, if you just want to be right, I think your tack is right on. I will retract the benevolent bit and move on.
That said, the book sounds intriguing. I am a huge fan of the fanfic Harry Potter and the Methods Of Rationality. If you have created a good fanfic of Atlas, I would be interested in reading/experiencing it. I am unclear if I want to financially support it until I know if it is sufficiently (subjectively to me) respectful of Rand's work and her worlds. If you want to give me a copy, I will read it and give a fair/honest review. If I like it, I will purchase it after the fact. Thoughts?