Myno

Award-winning book horribly misrepresents Objectivism

5 posts in this topic

I just finished reading "Timebound" (aka "Time's Twisted Arrow: The CHRONOS Files") on Kindle. This fiction book has won a major award from Amazon, and its sales are climbing.

(SPOILER ALERT) It has, at its core, a manifestly evil "Objectivist". This antagonist is nothing like an Objectivist. His name is "Saul Rand" and he has used time travel to establish a fake religion, with plans to kill billions of people who do not agree with him, thus making him an order of magnitude worse mass murderer than Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao combined.

I wrote a scathing review, and I would greatly appreciate lots of "YES (this review was helpful to me)" clicks to ensure that the truth about it comes to the top.

(I apologize for knowingly lumping Objectivism under libertarianism in my commentary, but I thought it the easiest way to explain to the Amazon audience.)

Here is a link to my review...

http://www.amazon.com/review/R27N5TT4ZW49N4/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B00CQC9O16&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=

I hope you find this mission of dissing disinformation compelling. If so, please pass the word... we need the clicks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the name alone it sounds like "Saul Rand" was intended at least as much a smear against Sen. Rand Paul as Ayn Rand, while understanding neither him nor Ayn Rand -- let alone the difference between them.

The 'reviews' there, including the dominant gushing promotions left unexplained, indicate that it is a poorly constructed juvenile novel with a confusing contradictory plot, repetitious characters describing rather than illustrating, and a theme no one could describe, perhaps because there isn't one.

What did the author do to identify Ayn Rand's philosophy with mass murderers and religion? Almost none of the commentators mentioned "Objectivism" at all -- that aspect seemed to have gone over their heads as irrelevant. Did you read (suffer through) the whole book? How is the author trying in the story to undermine good values in a package deal with the likes of Mao, and what did she promote as the false alternative?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The antagonist is, in several places, associated with an "Objectivist Club". The antagonist goes back in time, founds a "religion". It promotes wealth (without any attendant understanding of what Francisco's money speech covers so brilliantly) and makes its followers wealthy by parceling out hints about which stocks to buy, based on information obtained via time travel. Near the end (and yes, I read far too much of this book), it is revealed that the religion does not promote belief in an afterlife, but that only believers will survive some coming cataclysm (that the founders of the religion are about to perpetrate on the world)... in a thin athiest analog of motivating religious believers by the coming end of life. It is stated that billions will die, hence my freedom in tying in Mao, Pol Pot, etc. There's no false alternative; the religion says you will either believe or you will die soon. Saves the author from messy metaphysical issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All that was called by name "Objectivist"? More than once? Where did the name come from as described in the story? Was it taken for granted that readers were supposed to somehow know what she was pretending to refer to?

The false alternative I referred to was whatever ideology the author is promoting as the alternative to what she misrepresented. It is a common method attempting to dismiss Ayn Rand through misrepresentation while simultaneously presenting something else as supposedly the only superior moral alternative without having to defend it or address the criticisms rejecting it. What was the sense of life and view of a proper life promoted in the story through illustration or otherwise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was a snarky attempt to defame the name of Objectivism, without utilizing any real arguments whatsoever, so that if the YA reader ever encountered the term again, they'd have a negative bias toward it. As for false alternatives, I'm fully versed. As I said, it was a content-free slander job. Guilt by association with the mass murdering vaguely money grubbing antagonist. Low brow, but effective enough for a YA audience, I fear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites