The Daily Beast says that Farrah Fawcett and Ayn Rand were friends. Further, Rand was a Charlie’s Angels fanatic who “never missed an episode.” She considered Fawcett the ideal woman to play the female lead in a proposed Atlas Shrugged TV miniseries.
Why did Rand say she was so determined to see you in the role of Dagny Taggart, the female heroine in Atlas Shrugged?
I don’t remember if Ayn’s letter specifically mentioned Charlie’s Angels, but I do remember it saying that she was a fan of my work. A few months later, when we finally spoke on the phone (actually she did most of the speaking and I did most of the listening), she said she never missed an episode of the show. I remember being surprised and flattered by that. I mean, here was this literary genius praising Angels. After all, the show was never popular with critics who dismissed it as “Jiggle TV.” But Ayn saw something that the critics didn’t, something that I didn’t see either (at least not until many years later): She described the show as a “triumph of concept and casting.” Ayn said that while Angels was uniquely American, it was also the exception to American television in that it was the only show to capture true “romanticism”—it intentionally depicted the world not as it was, but as it should be.
(Via Bookslut.)
Just when you thought Rand couldn’t be proven to be anymore intellectually fraudulent, you read this.
@1: Exactly what is it about saying that we should make every effort to adhere to reason that you find fraudulent? Or is it the rejection of the idea that any revelation that pops into your head is as valid as objectively derived fact that troubles you?
Hell of a second sentence you have there.
What Ayn loved about Angels was beautiful white women. Ayn was full of internalized anti-semitism and self-loathing, so she loved what she desperately wanted to be. The very same thing all of her literary heroines were: beautiful white women.
Everything about this, and all subsequent comments (including my own), make me feel retarded.
Wow @4! I quite seriously believe that’s the first honest criticism of Ayn Rand that I’ve heard in the last 20 years. Thanks for contributing something intelligent.
Ayn Rand apparently had a bizarre aversion to the whole subject of psychology, allegedly referring to it as a “sewer.” I think that’s why many of her leading characters come off as alienated or just plain emotionally repressed. The bastards of the world should not only not get you down, they shouldn’t even register on your emotional radar. Gee that can only lead to good outcomes…
Interesting. Ayn, Farrah, and I all share the same birthday, February 2, which supports the idea that Aquarians understand and intrigue each other immensely.
So Ayn Rand had a “thing” for beautiful white women? I guess she and Mudede have something in common, then.
Further evidence that Ayn Rand was as dumb as a bag of hammers.
let’s not sully the good name of Farrah Fawcett by linking her with that moronic twat Ayn Rand…
“Charlie’s Angels” was the only TV show that “intentionally pictured the world not as it was, but as it should be”? Was there ever a TV show that depicted the world as it was? And how in God’s name was “Charlie’s Angels” the world as it should be? Beautiful women taking orders from a speaker-phone? I’ve never read Rand, but wow, what a moron.
“Soupytwist- Everything about this, and all subsequent comments (including my own), make me feel retarded. “
OTOH, at least you’re miles above any Randroid.
@11,
The main character of Bloodline is Jewish.
Thank Christ that movie was never made. A Joan Jett biopic is bad enough.
Yes, I said it: Joan Jett is a middling talent.
#13: You hit the nail on the head. If FFM could not play agent Jill Monroe in exactly the way she should be played, then as a invidual, she should blow herself up. Probably using one of Charlies secret miniature explosives.
You guys are so quick to judge Ayn Rand without the proper context.
This is not “proof that Ayn Rand was intellectually fraudulent.” Please read The Romantic Manifesto to understand *why* she thought Charlie’s Angels was one of the closest shows to true romanticism before you have a cow.
“You guys are so quick to judge Ayn Rand without the proper context.”
And you’re used to deifying her independent of context and the utter failure of her philosophies.
@18: Get used to it. The overwhelming majority of people who are negative about Ayn Rand can’t give you even a rudimentary explanation of her ideas (I’m looking at you Paul). A typical example is @13: “I’ve never read Rand, but wow, what a moron.” How’s that for shameless, aggressive ignorance?
I despise Rand on two levels:
1. The Fountainhead is incredibly overrated on a literary level — clumsy prose, shallow and plodding plot, and characters that don’t have anything to do with real human beings.
2. Objectivism seems to justify no end of assholery by people who don’t have any better an understanding of philosophy than most of Rand’s critics.
@21:
1) “Despise?” You despise people who write mediocre novels? Or even terrible novels? Really? Where is there left for you to go for the people who do truly despicable things? Or do you equate her with Stalin?
2) Objectivism doesn’t justify the assholery of the people you mention. Yes, there are many such assholes, but that neither means that they understand Objectivism nor that Objectivism says you should be an asshole. I’m an atheist but I understand that Jesus never proposed that people murder abortion providers.
Back to my original post I have to ask that people who outright reject the sum total of Rand’s ideas and engage in gratuitous name calling at least put forth an intelligent refutation of specific examples of those ideas. The reason people don’t do that is that they haven’t taken the trouble to study Objectivism or if they have, they would be in the untenable position of rejecting things like reason or objective reality.
I read both books (Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged – please read them in order) before I found out that good liberals were supposed to hate Rand. I absolutely loved the books (esp. Fountainhead) yet consider myself more of a liberal than most people I know. The only objection I can figure out from the left would be her thinly veiled hate of communism. Is that really the only reason?
@23: Who knows? The criticism borders on the psychotic. I’ve had people laugh and tell me she never wrote any nonfiction despite the fact that she used to write a column for the LA Times. How can you talk to people who deny the existence of books that you’ve read? You don’t meet many “Kant was a moronic cunt” folks.