Why Josh Can't Be Left Alone

Josh - surprised you got to these just now - what inspired it?
 

yikes. i perused fountainhead in high school and then in college, but could never get into it, despite being urged by several of my friends. i think i'm just much more of a leon uris gal, and now just prefer zionistic writings, bios & autobiogs,and fiction in the same key. maybe i'll give fountainhead another try, though maybe i'll skip those pages you mentioned.... :D
 

The monologue, while indeed at times brutally redundant, is part of the book, so if you haven't read the monologue you haven't read the book. Since the author is on record as saying that the three most important aspects of a novel are plot, plot and plot, it'd be wise not to skip parts just because they seem boring (I admit that I read the monologue the first time I read the book, but skipped it thereafter).

Also, while both Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are good books, We the Living is easily Rand's best novel.
 

I feel free to skim books liberally whenever there's a long winded description that doesn't interest me. I get the gist of it anyway and why waste time? Who said that every word an author writes is a pearl of wisdom.

MH
 

Sorry I've been slow on feedback

MH - In college I finally learned to love literature...and have slowly been working my through everything I missed.

Bec - I have to admit, it helped that Atlas Shrugged mirrored my own philosophies rather than challenged them. I like books that give you an insight into human nature, not just spin inspiring stories.

Shosh - Yeah, I hardly swallowed her hook and all, but it was refreshing to read an author who didn't just tug for an emotional response, but was willing to navigate the rational channels.

NG - Thanks for stopping in with your feedback. The one reason I was originally turned off of literature was the innane classroom focus on non-plot related developments. The gift of an amazing author is their ability to inform the reader of their insight without having to resort to lecturing, which is unfortunately what Rand does at numerous points in this book. While I might have missed out on something, I doubt it. Rand must have worked for the Department of Redundancy Department as her book is filled with themes that she feels the need to keep hammering home. I got the point - people respond to incentives.

Shosh again - There were numerous times where I felt that I could turn this from a great book into a fabulous book - if my hand were allowed to edit the book and trim it down to a non-reptitive work.

Erica - That was how I felt in high school. Of course, justice came years later, when as a senior in college I ran into my high school sophomore english teacher at the public library. I have a number of theories as to why I didn't enjoy the books back then, but it was certainly nice to be able to show her my brain existed. It had only been dormant in high school.
 

I figure i have to get in a word here edgewise on the religious front.
I think it's very telling that you only "discovered" the what-must-have-caused-the-ban material at about the halfway point in the book. Rand's novels are laden with philosophical ideas but many of them aren't expressed in such a way that they immediately cause a recognition in your mind due to their alarming implications or subversive nature. Many of these ideas seem natural and sensible to us because of the secular society in which we live, yet many of them present anti-Torah ideals. Rav Lichtenstein shlita, a gadol in both Torah and Madda (as is self-evident in any of his works), was being omeid on this point, warning the masses to stay away from that which regular people might not identify as foreign and possibly even perverted ideas in respect to Judaism (e.g. haves vs. havenots). I think it is also important to realize that he has read much philosophy and it is this philosophy that he felt proper to be banned. Thus, i bid you to take care because you are treading on dangerous ground, prancing around the lav of "lo sasuru acharei l'vavchem", which especially applies when the material has been banned by a gadol baTorah (whether you agree with his perspectives on many issues or not you can't deny his Torah knowledge, and he is fairly moderate as they come, so if HE'S saying it, then...).
 

Anon - It's always good to bring Gd into the equation. Just a correction though - I didn't identify the controversial material halfway through reading. I could tell much sooner. What occurred halfway through was finding out that their was extisting controversy surrounding the book. It wasn't just heresy, but banned heresy.

That being said, I'm pretty good at separating my beliefs from others. I'm not worried about absorbing some foreign belief just because I read it. When it comes to banning things, I think that works when it is emotion over logic. I.e. watching tv, where the emotional Yetzer Hora shuts out the brain from defending us from the trash we watch. But if a book throws ideas at us, I don't know why we should run. The same logical mind that I use to evaluate the author's philosophy can measure it against Jewish tradition, and either meld or reject what it finds.

Not that I might already have had some pre-existing heretical views...
 

I hear what you are saying and I do believe in the logical, rational ability to separate certain beliefs from others; however, I am not as worried about your intellectual capability to siphon wheat from chaff as I am about human fallibility, something from which no person can escape. I'll try to illustrate this with one of many possible examples. When a brilliant author makes a statement that strikes a vibrant, resonating chord in our hearts, in that it was something we already believed or felt but couldn't put it into words half as eloquently or, for that matter, at all, we tend to be more readily receptive to foreign ideas from that selfsame author, and sometimes we will even rationalize why such a brilliant idea is correct (l'havdil elef alfei havdalos something that is done everyday in Talmudic analysis).

A more general point is that one should also have the humility (i dare not use the term frumkeit) to realize that bans don't usually have exceptions, otherwise that the point of the whole ban is undermined (otherwise known as "lo plug"). Therefore, I suggest you adhere to a ban of one of the more moderate rabbonim of the modern Orthodox world. If you believe that you are so strong-minded, and I hope you are, then I would suggest that you call Rav Lichtenstein and find out why he banned it; he's reachable if one really cares. But that's only if you're really looking for the truth.
 

Anon - You're right, I don't mean to poke holes in blanket rules (although casually flaunting my experiences on a blog does accomplish that), but there are obviously a few assumptions that you're making- 1) That I had any reason to believe this book was banned or even controversial when I began reading, 2) That Rav Lichtenstein actually banned the book, as opposed to third party rumors floating around, and 3) That I hold of Rav Lichtenstein as my personal Posek.

Sometimes I am actually looking for the truth, although I do usually end up on the unorthodox road.
 

1) Ah, but you found out in the middle and could have stopped had you really wanted to.

2) True, but i think that only bolsters my suggestion: Call him.

3) While there's obviously a huge chiluk, one could've said at the time of Cheirem Rabbeinu Geirshom "oh well he's not my poseik because I live in Provence"...
My point, that I've tried to repeat emphatically, is that even from a non-hardline perspective there's reason to stop and think, proceeding with caution, because not many books are banned in general, these novellae aren't exactly banned by someone whose reputation is a machmir, and that the banner is a gadol baTorah and madda. If one is really a yarei shamayim I think it's worth looking into. That's all i have to comment on this post.