Scan barcode
chaoticbyrddemon's review against another edition
challenging
dark
mysterious
reflective
tense
medium-paced
- Plot- or character-driven? Character
- Strong character development? No
- Loveable characters? No
- Diverse cast of characters? No
- Flaws of characters a main focus? Yes
3.0
katgriff's review against another edition
4.0
I read this for my American Author (post 1900) class. Well, we only read two of the plays (Think Twice and Ideal). Both were very captivating and a great introduction to the rest of Ayn Rand's longer fiction pieces (some of which I will be reading for the same class. I might read the third at some point because the other two were great.
If you like reading plays, I highly suggest these two. They are both quick reads but will definitely leave you thinking about Ayn Rand's fantastic characters.
If you like reading plays, I highly suggest these two. They are both quick reads but will definitely leave you thinking about Ayn Rand's fantastic characters.
oblomov's review against another edition
3.0
Ah, Miss Rand, I can't think what it is that reminded me of your flawed capitalist idealism lately, your fantasy of a world that would crumble if the entrepreneurs buggered off, but not all the people who actually run the machines/tills/shelves/hospital wards. Just what contemporary, global event could have reminded me of that flawed prophecy and thus these plays of yours I read so long ago?
Who knows, let's get to bitching about the low hanging fruit.
These three plays by Ayn Rand don't seem to be very well known, what with the behemoths of [b: Atlas Shrugged|662|Atlas Shrugged|Ayn Rand|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1405868167l/662._SY75_.jpg|817219] and [b: The Fountainhead|2122|The Fountainhead|Ayn Rand|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1491163636l/2122._SY75_.jpg|3331807] always blocking out the sunlight on the book shelves. This, I would argue, is actually a bit of a shame because they contain interesting ideas from a story telling perspective, it's just a pity the philosophy tries to drown the good by standing on its shoulders and mooning.
Night of the 16th
Set entirely in a courtroom, a woman is on trial for the murder of a rich business man who defrauded his company.
The creativity: What makes this play stand out is that it has two endings, and which the audience recieves is dependent on whether they vote to convict or acquit the defendant. That's a fantastic example of audience participation and forcing the viewer to emphathise with the characters.
The failure: A man who defrauded millions is supposed to be some tragic 'free spirited hero of objectivism' and, like The Fountain Head, his method of wooing is raping the object of his 'affections'. Also his victim apparently finds that perfectly charming and falls for him, so I think Rand was reading too many ancient Greek dramas before writing this play.
Ideal
Another famous rich bloke is murdered, his starlet lover is a suspect and now she's on the run. She visits the various houses of the mega-fans who sent her gushing letters in search of safety, but who will take her in or admit their adoration for her was merely shallow?
The creativity: Forcing a variety of wankers who pompously say 'Well, if I was in that situation, I know I'd do X and Y in a heartbeat' to admit they can't keep up with their mouth is always nice to see. Almost everyone does turn her away for reasons of family pressure, their own safety or not being arsed, and are all fairly human and sometimes interesting in their failures.
The failure: Then we get to the final fan who tries to protect our starlet, and it is a forced bloody and entirely unnecessary finale where all of Rand's philosophy is fisted in without grace or the common decency of lube.
Think Twice
Reknown physicist, Breckenridge, plans to make 'his' groundbreaking new invention public domain so all the world may benefit, but he is murdered during a celebratory firework display before he can sign the dotted line. Who is the murderer? His partner and co-creator of the device who wanted to keep the patent? His suspiciously sycophantic Russian friend? Or is it Beckenridge's family, who have silently suffered through years of the patriarch's double edged 'benevolence'?
The creativity: Breckenridge, if handled by someone other than Rand, would be a great villain. Everything he does 'for charity' is tinged with a slither of thoughtless cruelty. His wife had a life long dream of designing her own house, so he bought one already decorated for her. The wife, who is childless, also lamented she so desperately wanted to 'hear the little pitter patter of feet in the halls', so he adopts a son for her, who is confined to a wheelchair. He adopts the boy from a poor alcoholic, who didn't seem capable of giving his consent to the transfer of guardianship. Breckenbridge refuses to let the boy have an operation that could let him walk, despite everyone but him being for it, claiming it would to be too risky. Breckenbridge also buys a theatre for a talented actress but confines her too dull, family friendly roles rather than the meaty plays she wants. While a few of these are somewhat first world problems, what could make a Breckenbridge like villain so wonderfully evil is that he always gives the recipient something that would make them unhappy, but in ways that they can't complain about without seeming like the bad or selfish person, and if done with more care, a charitable villain would be a fascinating character.
The failure: Sadly, Breckenbridge isn't a brilliantly manipulative antagonist. He's a tone-deaf muppet who genuinely thinks he's doing good in the world, and Rand has him killed for doing what would arguably be his only good act, of improving world energy without the 1930s version of Elon Musk throttling its use through a patent because, oh no, the Soviets might use it, amongst all the hundreds of other countries who would benefit. Rand also goes on a bit of an ableist tinge as well, making out the adopted son is almost less than human for his disability. The rest of the play is a daft murder mystery with an ending you can see coming if you've so much as read the back cover of one of Rand's other works.
These works encapsulate what I find frustrating about Rand. It's easy to point out her terrible philosophy and hamfistedness, but every now and then she shows some wonderful creativty. And everytime that beautifully burgeoning idea is smothered by objectivism, choking that spot of light with a philosophy that cannot be questioned or viewed in any nuanced way, so every hero/ine is but the same, lifeless ventriloquist dummy repeating Rand's personal dogma. A damn pity.
Who knows, let's get to bitching about the low hanging fruit.
These three plays by Ayn Rand don't seem to be very well known, what with the behemoths of [b: Atlas Shrugged|662|Atlas Shrugged|Ayn Rand|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1405868167l/662._SY75_.jpg|817219] and [b: The Fountainhead|2122|The Fountainhead|Ayn Rand|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1491163636l/2122._SY75_.jpg|3331807] always blocking out the sunlight on the book shelves. This, I would argue, is actually a bit of a shame because they contain interesting ideas from a story telling perspective, it's just a pity the philosophy tries to drown the good by standing on its shoulders and mooning.
Night of the 16th
Set entirely in a courtroom, a woman is on trial for the murder of a rich business man who defrauded his company.
The creativity: What makes this play stand out is that it has two endings, and which the audience recieves is dependent on whether they vote to convict or acquit the defendant. That's a fantastic example of audience participation and forcing the viewer to emphathise with the characters.
The failure: A man who defrauded millions is supposed to be some tragic 'free spirited hero of objectivism' and, like The Fountain Head, his method of wooing is raping the object of his 'affections'. Also his victim apparently finds that perfectly charming and falls for him, so I think Rand was reading too many ancient Greek dramas before writing this play.
Ideal
Another famous rich bloke is murdered, his starlet lover is a suspect and now she's on the run. She visits the various houses of the mega-fans who sent her gushing letters in search of safety, but who will take her in or admit their adoration for her was merely shallow?
The creativity: Forcing a variety of wankers who pompously say 'Well, if I was in that situation, I know I'd do X and Y in a heartbeat' to admit they can't keep up with their mouth is always nice to see. Almost everyone does turn her away for reasons of family pressure, their own safety or not being arsed, and are all fairly human and sometimes interesting in their failures.
The failure: Then we get to the final fan who tries to protect our starlet, and it is a forced bloody and entirely unnecessary finale where all of Rand's philosophy is fisted in without grace or the common decency of lube.
Think Twice
Reknown physicist, Breckenridge, plans to make 'his' groundbreaking new invention public domain so all the world may benefit, but he is murdered during a celebratory firework display before he can sign the dotted line. Who is the murderer? His partner and co-creator of the device who wanted to keep the patent? His suspiciously sycophantic Russian friend? Or is it Beckenridge's family, who have silently suffered through years of the patriarch's double edged 'benevolence'?
The creativity: Breckenridge, if handled by someone other than Rand, would be a great villain. Everything he does 'for charity' is tinged with a slither of thoughtless cruelty. His wife had a life long dream of designing her own house, so he bought one already decorated for her. The wife, who is childless, also lamented she so desperately wanted to 'hear the little pitter patter of feet in the halls', so he adopts a son for her, who is confined to a wheelchair. He adopts the boy from a poor alcoholic, who didn't seem capable of giving his consent to the transfer of guardianship. Breckenbridge refuses to let the boy have an operation that could let him walk, despite everyone but him being for it, claiming it would to be too risky. Breckenbridge also buys a theatre for a talented actress but confines her too dull, family friendly roles rather than the meaty plays she wants. While a few of these are somewhat first world problems, what could make a Breckenbridge like villain so wonderfully evil is that he always gives the recipient something that would make them unhappy, but in ways that they can't complain about without seeming like the bad or selfish person, and if done with more care, a charitable villain would be a fascinating character.
The failure: Sadly, Breckenbridge isn't a brilliantly manipulative antagonist. He's a tone-deaf muppet who genuinely thinks he's doing good in the world, and Rand has him killed for doing what would arguably be his only good act, of improving world energy without the 1930s version of Elon Musk throttling its use through a patent because, oh no, the Soviets might use it, amongst all the hundreds of other countries who would benefit. Rand also goes on a bit of an ableist tinge as well, making out the adopted son is almost less than human for his disability. The rest of the play is a daft murder mystery with an ending you can see coming if you've so much as read the back cover of one of Rand's other works.
These works encapsulate what I find frustrating about Rand. It's easy to point out her terrible philosophy and hamfistedness, but every now and then she shows some wonderful creativty. And everytime that beautifully burgeoning idea is smothered by objectivism, choking that spot of light with a philosophy that cannot be questioned or viewed in any nuanced way, so every hero/ine is but the same, lifeless ventriloquist dummy repeating Rand's personal dogma. A damn pity.
More...