I'll let you know.

Bet you like it,,,

I up voted this post to zero - whether or not I agree with anything that is said here is not the issue. This is an interesting post.

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.

Well let's start with the title. Did you use any characters from AS? like Eddie? that could be construed a property right violation. Fan fic happens and authors get permission. Did you receive permission to use your title which clearly aligns what you are going to do with her work?

I could make a case that stole her intellectual property from a legal standpoint. You did not write a parody. Just because her heir and estate chose not to pursue you on copyright, does not excuse what you did.

Ken, I'm getting the impression that had you called your story "What Might Have Happened After John Galt Stopped the Motor of The World," a lot of this discussion would be moot.

Ken,

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?

That doesn't deserve a down-vote +1

Aaah, but my interpretation of Galt differs from yours quite a bit. Using the same words as you, Galt says "I am the man who has deprived you of victims". Some might call that passive-aggressive destruction, but I think in saying that, Galt simply expressed the essential idea of Objectivism "I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will live for no other man, nor ask another man to live for me."

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.

Atlas Snubbed Author responds:

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?

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

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.

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

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."

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

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.

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

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?

If he wanted to write a novel he should have written his own novel. He stole someone else's reputation and their intellectual property to further his own financial gain. You want to critique Rand? Write one. He was a thief stealing her success for himself. I would never crack the cover

everyone can write their own fiction. Fan fic is not important work. It is lazy and unoriginal. He makes money off of her work. second handing stands.

I do not think of you

The non-aggression principle is not in any way her one key concept, by any means at all. There is so much more in her work than what altruistic pacifist liberals have cherry picked from the philosophy. Much of it, obviously beyond your scope of comprehension.

You have so badly understood and represented the ideas and values of Objectivists, AS, and Galt.

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.

"intolerance and rancor the strikers are famous for"--Only in the eyes of altruist, emotional driven critics of the philosophy, and the words of sophists.

I'll simply use the author's own words:
"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

That didn't deserve a down_vote +1

Atlas Snubbed author responds:

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 disagree. Had AR written a sequel, detailing how Objectivism might have rebuilt civilization, you might have a point. But she didn't. I see Atlas Snubbed as an attempt to do just that. And the fact that the novel did not advocate any form of collectivism, promoted individualism (rights and responsibilities) is a testament to her, not against her.

basically, I see you as a second hander. Instead of producing something of value based on your own ideas-you stole Rand's ideas to further yourself. Disgusting