The difference is that Dostoyevsky goes out of his way to portray Ivan as intelligent and sympathetic, Hugo started Les Miserables by trying to write a truly good person who was opposed to his own ideology (the old bishop, who is a conservative monarchist from an aristocratic family).
Ayn Rand are able to give some good lines to people who wants to stay neutral, but she is fully unable to actually write a good character who believes in socialism. That is a weakness. Good books none the less, but on this particular metric much weaker than Dostoyevsky and Hugo.
That is a very funny joke, but alas it is empirically wrong. The red army contained many soldiers and officers who were both Socialst, Intelligent and Good Intentioned. Even opponents of socialism like Solzhenitsyn, Koestler and Orwell admitted as much. Underestimating how many of such people existed helped the USA loose the Vietnam War.
(For an example of a fictional character with all three traits, I would recommend Koestler's Darkness At Noon).
And not every anti-libertarian are outright socialists. If Rand had wanted she could have put in a highly competent and sexy naval officer who believes in his duty to God, King/President and Country. Then that officer could go blow up Danneskjöld, interrogate his crew and find out that a large group of very rich people were colluding with a pirate, try to hunt them down, and we would end with a final showdown not between a genius and a bunch of evil midwits but between one good, smart person believing in duty-to-self and one good, smart person believing in duty-to-country.
Would that make for a better book? Probably not, because Atlas Shrugged is not actually a book that should be compared to the Brothers Karamasov, but one that should be compared to Notes From Underground. It is a (very long) exposition of a certain type of character, the character driven entirely by resentment towards more talented people. And the book works great in that function. Perhaps it could be better if at least one of the people in Galt's Gulch were also there because of resentment rather than because of pure awesomeness, but that might also weaken the point.
When I read all of Rand's works fifty-five years ago , I was an undergrad and found her villains surreal but over the years have come to see them increasingly in positions of state and corporate power in significant number.
I disagree. There was something somewhat admirable about Stadler. Not so with Fauci. I think of Fauci more as being an Ellsworth Toohey. (Admittedly, I'm switching novels.)
Dr. Robert Stadler is the ultimate symbol of the compromised intellectual. Stadler is a tragic example of a brilliant mind who distrusts the public and blindly puts his faith in the hands of the state, betraying his greatest students and arming an ever growing totalitarian regime with a terror weapon.
The difference is that Dostoyevsky goes out of his way to portray Ivan as intelligent and sympathetic, Hugo started Les Miserables by trying to write a truly good person who was opposed to his own ideology (the old bishop, who is a conservative monarchist from an aristocratic family).
Ayn Rand are able to give some good lines to people who wants to stay neutral, but she is fully unable to actually write a good character who believes in socialism. That is a weakness. Good books none the less, but on this particular metric much weaker than Dostoyevsky and Hugo.
It’s the impossible triangle, you have to choose 2
Socialist
Intelligent
Good intentioned
It’s impossible to have those 3 at the same time
That is a very funny joke, but alas it is empirically wrong. The red army contained many soldiers and officers who were both Socialst, Intelligent and Good Intentioned. Even opponents of socialism like Solzhenitsyn, Koestler and Orwell admitted as much. Underestimating how many of such people existed helped the USA loose the Vietnam War.
(For an example of a fictional character with all three traits, I would recommend Koestler's Darkness At Noon).
And not every anti-libertarian are outright socialists. If Rand had wanted she could have put in a highly competent and sexy naval officer who believes in his duty to God, King/President and Country. Then that officer could go blow up Danneskjöld, interrogate his crew and find out that a large group of very rich people were colluding with a pirate, try to hunt them down, and we would end with a final showdown not between a genius and a bunch of evil midwits but between one good, smart person believing in duty-to-self and one good, smart person believing in duty-to-country.
Would that make for a better book? Probably not, because Atlas Shrugged is not actually a book that should be compared to the Brothers Karamasov, but one that should be compared to Notes From Underground. It is a (very long) exposition of a certain type of character, the character driven entirely by resentment towards more talented people. And the book works great in that function. Perhaps it could be better if at least one of the people in Galt's Gulch were also there because of resentment rather than because of pure awesomeness, but that might also weaken the point.
When I read all of Rand's works fifty-five years ago , I was an undergrad and found her villains surreal but over the years have come to see them increasingly in positions of state and corporate power in significant number.
Nice review. Like many, I see Rand characters everywhere. For example, Anthony Fauci is Robert Stadtler with a low IQ.
I disagree. There was something somewhat admirable about Stadler. Not so with Fauci. I think of Fauci more as being an Ellsworth Toohey. (Admittedly, I'm switching novels.)
Dr. Robert Stadler is the ultimate symbol of the compromised intellectual. Stadler is a tragic example of a brilliant mind who distrusts the public and blindly puts his faith in the hands of the state, betraying his greatest students and arming an ever growing totalitarian regime with a terror weapon.