Thanks for your response.

I read Atlas Shrugged and liked it as a teenager, aged 14 or so. I read New Intellectual and Capitalism the Unknown Ideal which my mother also had in the house, and I thought much less of them. I know, and knew, history pretty well. Ayn Rand is not much of a historian and does not understand the historical roots of freedom and capitalism nearly so well as, for example, Hayek. The artistic power of her work was due to her ability to put across powerfully some very important things about freedom, creativity and the evil of enforced collectivism. All good stuff. When she tried to systematize it, she lost me. I found the polemical stuff unconvincing, like the bad parts of Atlas, without the good stuff. Other people do a better job on the plane of social science and history. As to philosophy, to the extent I looked at hers, I did not find it engaging. Others can discuss its merits. It had no interest for me or impact on me. I also found I did not much care for the Randians I met — I use the word in the sense indicated above, to mean an appearance of cultlike and fanatical devotion — Sorry, I see something, and I report it how I see it — and her fan base probably did as much to undercut her message as they did to promote it. In particular,she and they retarded the development of a politically effective libertarianism by believing themselves to be above and beyond politics. That is a serious and destructive error.

Few people could have written an ideological atom bomb like Atlas, which for all its defects, is a force for good and can be a positive life-changer for people. That is enough of an achievement for anybody, without pretending to be the greatest mind since Aristotle.

There are lots of other writers who fill in lots of other things worth knowing.

Anywyay, no doubt the foregoing may arouse some ire. But I am done with this thread.

I like the many suggestions for a “fantasy cast” for Atlas.

I like Diane Lane for Dagny. Not what Dagny looked like in the book, and a little old for the role, but she could do it.

Christian Bale could be John Galt.

Johnny Depp as Francisco is intriguing. He could do it, actually. He is really a brilliant actor. If he put himself into the role, he’d be great.

I do hope they make the movie. It will disappoint the book’s ardent fans, but done well, it could have a positive impact.

I think Lexington Green is more than capable of answering my question. It was intended and asked in a purely friendly and reasonable manner. The lady doth protest too much.

Perfect casting!

Wow.

Try substituting other words for “Objectivism” here.

I wonder why you neither practice nor believe in Christianity, despite the fact that you obviously have some respect for it on some level.

I wonder why you neither practice nor believe in vegetarianism, despite the fact that you obviously have some respect for it on some level.

I wonder why you neither practice nor believe in anarchy, despite the fact that you obviously have some respect for it on some level.

People have complex motives for the belief systems they throw themselves into. One of the things I’ve gleaned about Rand herself, from the writings of people who knew her, was that she evidently felt entitled to grill other people on their belief systems and then pass judgment on them. Not attractive.

I wonder why you neither practice nor believe in Objectivism, despite the fact that you obviously have some respect for it on some level? What is it about Objectivism that you believe is untrue? Just curious.

Peewee Herman as Wesley Mouch.

Kevin Spacey as Simon Pritchett

Alan Alda as Mr. Thompson

Dustin Hoffman as Bertram Scudder

Meryl Streep as Lillian Rearden

John Goodman as Orren Boyle

You think 14 hours would be enough?

Heck, Galt’s speech alone …

First time I read the book I pictured her as Dagny. I didn’t even know her name, had to look it up.

As to Rand being in the ranks of Hugo and Rostand…I’m glad you think so. I wouldn’t say that. It’s one thing for a writer to aspire to grand examples and another – to achieve that goal. I’m sure some of the writers of 30s and 50s would list many of the Great Realists of the 19th cent as their patron saints (those same saints have their own, earlier), and some would go as far back as Homer and Japanese court poetry. But what appeared at the tip of their own pen had marks and signs of their own time. This is not only normal, not only something to expect – it’s something to look forward to, if a reader wants to get a taste of times past. Literature is organic process, not a fossil.
Personally, I enjoy Rand’s writing style. It talks to me through form as well as content, it’s a synthetic experience. But many people’s find her difficult to digest as a writer -she requires concentration and certain type of temperament to click. She doesn’t entertain, she has no mercy, she’s not sentimental.

Well, look at the time. Sorry to verve way off the topic of this post. Gotta go now.