Slog tipper Erica wants us to know that over the weekend, the Seattle Times came out swinging for the upcoming Atlas Shrugged movie in an editorial-slash-review. I don’t read the Seattle Times editorial page—when they endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, I stopped caring about anything they had to say—but as near as I can tell, Bruce Ramsey is a 13-year-old they allow, adorably, to scwibble out his feewings fwom time to time. And this bright young up-and-comer liked Atlas Shrugged Part I:
The novel “Atlas Shrugged,” published in 1957, is a perennial seller with millions of readers and many fans. It is 1168 pages long. There are too many speeches in it, so that 50 to 100 pages are excessive from a literary point of view, but otherwise the story is tightly plotted and told. It is not a story that can be condensed into a movie to be seen at one sitting.
Some years ago there was a plan to make a miniseries of it—something like what was done to Stephen King’s “The Stand.” That would have been the better way to do it.
“Atlas Shrugged Part I” is 110 minutes long, and is the first of three projected films to tell the story of the one book. “Lord of the Rings”—three books—was done that way, and was hugely successful. But Peter Jackson had about 10 times as much money as “Atlas Shrugged’s” director, Peter Johansson. The first “Rings” movie was 178 minutes, and the extended DVD version, which is better, is 208 minutes. And “Rings” is a simpler story, especially the first of the three films. It was a quest. One thing happened, then another. When the director needed to save time, he left some things out.
“Atlas Shrugged” is much, much more complicated than that.
Look at that! This little Ramsey fellow is practically a grown-up writer, and he’s reading slightly above his grade level! (Of course, the flow of the piece is totally weird—his sentence structure needs a lot of work—but I think this young man will do just fine on the English portion of his SATs when the big day comes. Give him time!) It’s nice to see children taking part in big-people discourse. But here’s the thing, little Bruce: One day, when you’re a big boy, I want you to go back and re-read both of these books. Then, you’ll see that the Lord of the Rings series is actually a much better-written (and far more complicated) literary work than Atlas Shrugged.
I understand that you’re still a child, so you were dazzled by the vapid soap-operatics and chintzy sexuality of Ayn Rand’s writing. That’s okay! We like things for different reasons when we’re kids. When we’re grown up, we appreciate nuance and subtlety, but for now you just want to see simple-minded drama play out in exactly the way you expect. Tolkien actually put serious thought into his characters, his fictional world, and the philosophy of his book. Rand was just a sociopath who understood how best to hypnotize undeveloped minds—with a brash, shallow worldview and simple, repetitive language. When you’re a little older, look up “straw man,” and you’ll understand what Rand was doing in her books. When you live in the real world one day, you’ll realize how embarrassing her writing really is. (And if you brush up your writing skills, maybe when you’re in college, you can intern for The Stranger, too!)
But anyway, three cheers for The Seattle Times! It’s nice for them to recognize that children, however inane their personal philosophies may be, are our future. Let’s just hope that in ten or twenty years time, some hard-hearted bloggers don’t hold little Bruce to this piece when he’s a grown-up writer. It’s really embarrassing to be confronted with your own childish stupidity like that.
What an asshole. How delightful to have him unmask himself so nicely, though!
Pwning a thirteen year old has its own rewards! Huzzah, good sir. Ayn Rand isn’t taught in most philosophy programs in the u.s., australia, and the UK (where philosophy is taken seriously and, go fig, is actually done)…then again, neither are most of the the cursed continentals.
My wife (left leaning liberal) wants to see this movie, read the book, liked the story. My brother in law (right leaning conservative), wants to see this movie, because it was written by Ayn Rand. He has no idea what the movie is about.
Needless to say, if the wire wants to see this, i’ll insist on waiting 2-3 weeks after the premier.
Paul hasn’t outgrown his interest in comic books and action heroes. Imagine being judged by a guy whose idea of fun is binging and barfing at the buffet and competitive eating.
I liked this blog post. It was good. It was longer, which I think is better.
#1 – What did he write that makes him an asshole? I get that the review (or at least this excerpt) sounds like a book report, and that’s what is being mocked — but an asshole? What am I missing?
This was totally fucking unnecessary.
Really not sure what your point is, Paul, but whatever it was, you missed it. I enjoy reading most of your stuff, but with this one you just ended up sounding like a douche.
@6 I believe gus was referring to Paul
I’m with @7: Paul’s posts smack of bullying. The Times is ridiculous, yes, but belittling a middle-schooler isn’t cool.
Funny that neither critic bothered to check the director’s name: Paul Johansson. I guess their hypnotized undeveloped minds hindered them from reading and fact-checking. And to show my head and heart are in the right place, this blast of the Atlas Shrugged film project is more factual and entertaining to read.
I’m afraid I have to agree with Mr. Bombardier, Paul. You’re being mean to a middle schooler. Not cool. Totally with you on the critique of Rand’s “work” though.
Never mind, I actually read it. Carry on, Paul.
I hate to Jay Leno the joke for @7, @9 above, but the whole point is that the editorial board member in question is at minimum what most people consider ‘middle aged’, and on the editorial board of the Seattle Times, yet writes like an unambitious high school student.
As for the ‘asshole’ part, follow the link and click on his other ‘pieces’.
@9 and 11, Bruce Ramsey is an adult writer.
If you look at the photo accompanying the article, you’ll see that Ramsey is no middle-schooler. The post is belittling an Objectivist, which is completely a-ok.
So, a lot of you didn’t bother to click the link. Bruce has middle school’s best beard. Though poor kid is suffering through a very early receding hair line.
It would seem that Mr. Ramsey never actually read Lord of the Rings.
And actually, I’m not sure he read Atlas Shrugged either.
Why isn’t it? Children are largely despicable little twits and they gestate into yet more despicable adults who learn how to better conceal their despicableness to inflict greater damage on those around them. Better to take the wind out of the sails of young ambitious douchebags before they have time to mature into a vintage douchers (a fine vinegar) and buy their parent’s hype, develop impregnable self esteem insulating them from the reality of their vile douchiness, mediocre to nil talent, and ultimately pointless lives. Christ, hasn’t the existence of bill oreilly, chris matthews and sean hannity taught you anything? This kid’s future as a great douche is secure with enablers like you.
Ha! I guess I’ve been successfully trolled. Damn.
That will teach me not to follow links. (Really, though – I never expected The Stranger to lie to me!)
Sorry Paul, no harm no foul.
HOLY FUCK THESE COMMENTS ARE AWESOME!
Can we break 40?
Yes We Can!
@8, I was NOT talking about Paul, but Ramsey. ian @6, any grown person who writes of the 1168-page Atlas Shrugged that “50 to 100 pages are excessive from a literary point of view” is a flaming, dripping, flame-dripping asshole.
Would it violate child-labor laws to have an actual 13-year-old review this? Because if you believe that every work deserves to be reviewed by someone in its target audience, then a middle-schooler in the first egomaniacal flush of Objectivism would actually be perfect.
@23: Don’t know about child labour laws and book reviewing, but I would consider it child abuse to require a thirteen-year-old to read Atlas Shrugged. I have a thirteen-year-old precocious reader at home (hence my embarassing knee-jerk post above), and if he ever brings Ayn Rand home, we’re having a talk.
(Her books, I mean, not her. If he brings her home, we’ll need to have a whole different kind of talk.)
ohhhhh Paul you got me! Well done!
i especially like how paul suggests that lord of the rings is a more grown-up book than atlas shrugged. besides that, i thought, after rebecca black, that ridiculing thirteen year olds was not cool, so i’m glad to some come to this defense here. in the end, that makes the paul’s post an ever better burn.
Pretty much calls for this quote:
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
#5 FTW
A joy to read, Paul. But now I think you’re obligated to do a similiarly harsh critique of an actual middle schooler’s review of something, cuz these comments were hilarious.
@27: I saw the joke coming, but it made me laugh nonetheless.
Paul: Please continue to pester and harangue the bad writers of the world. Ramsey is clearly surrounded by people too nice to be honest about his shortcomings…maybe he’ll read your critique and enroll in a few classes or something. Or quit writing altogether, which would also be fine.
And to those who think he’s being mean: Not only is Ramsey an adult writing for our city’s one remaining daily newspaper, and should thus be held to a high standard, he’s also a paid writer in a sea of unemployed/unpaid writers. If he can’t do the job properly–and clearly, he can’t–he needs to be shamed into getting out of the way for someone who can.
I will say the sample comes from the Times blog, and thus shouldn’t be held to the same standard as the paper itself…still, even the comment threads on the Stranger blog are better written than Ramsey’s piece.
See, I think it would have been funnier if Paul really WAS making fun of a middle-schooler. Shit like that is hilarious.
@33, I call bullshit. Why shouldn’t a blog be held to the same standards as the paper? It’s all content under one helm, regardless of the medium. Papers won’t be around forever, but I sure as hell hope the writers will still be decent.
If a blog pixelates in the digital forest, does it make a middle schooler cry?
@35: Fair enough.
@22: I think he intended to say that the book contained 50-100 pages of superfluous speeches, not that 50-100 pages would be too long for such a book. But I don’t see how either idea expressed by a 13 year old kid can be the basis for such a negative judgement on his character.
But Ayn Rand told me I’m a precious snowflake! *snif*
@27 It’s the first thing I though.
Hysterical article, Paul.
I’m kind of amazed at how many people took the post at face value. Without following the link or ever having heard of this Ramsey fellow before, it still seemed obviously satirical. I think the “as far as I can tell” before calling him a child was fairly clear signalling. In fact, I just assumed that posters 9&11 were both playing with the joke as well.
@35: “I call bullshit. Why shouldn’t a blog be held to the same standards as the paper? It’s all content under one helm, regardless of the medium. Papers won’t be around forever, but I sure as hell hope the writers will still be decent.”
You are talking about the Stranger/SLOG. We’re clear on that, right?
SLOG reads like it was copy edited by a 13-year-old unpaid intern.
Wait, it is?
The link to Matt Luby’s idiocy was inspired.
It actually does sound like it was written by a teenager.
The review was pretty bad too. Zing!
I’m sorry, Paul, I love to piss on the grave of Ayn Rand just as much as the next guy, but you CANNOT make comments about “The Stranger” and “Good writing” until you fire Charles Mudede, who is the leftist, unpopular equivalent of Ayn Rand’s pseudo intellectual writing skills.
@42, no, I was speaking of The Seattle Times versus the Times’ blogs, and @33 saying that *in general* blog writing is held to a lower standard than a parent paper.
The Stranger isn’t the paragon of journalism and isn’t supposed to be, and the Slog is no better or worse. Thanks for the straw man, though.
Musing about the movie itself: If this isn’t it, It makes me wonder if in the next few years we’ll end up seeing the “Rebecca Black’s Friday” of feature films (a commissioned, shoddily-executed vanity piece that’s done so badly they’ll make money from people watching it ironically)?
Objectivism, with its passionate rejection of age-old Judeo-Christian ideas in favor of reason, selfishness and unfettered capitalism, no doubt inspires antagonism in many people; but it deserves competent criticism, not just hysterical prose.
Paul Constant is clearly not competent to critique any system of Philosophy yet but he’s not bad at prosaic ad hominem attacks.
yawn …
Objectivism, with its passionate rejection of age-old Judeo-Christian ideas in favor of reason, selfishness and unfettered capitalism, no doubt inspires antagonism in many people; but it deserves competent criticism, not just hysterical prose.
Paul Constant is clearly not competent to critique any system of Philosophy yet but he’s not bad at prosaic ad hominem attacks.
yawn …