What do you think?
Rate this book
How Bad Writing Destroyed the World: Ayn Rand and the Literary Origins of the Financial Crisis
Literature can be used to disseminate ideas with devastating real-life consequences. In How Bad Writing Destroyed the World, Adam Weiner spans decades and continents to reveal the surprising connections between the 2008-2009 financial crisis and a relatively unknown nineteenth-century Russian author.
A congressional investigation placed the blame for the financial crisis on Alan Greenspan and his deregulatory policies—his attempts, in essence, to put Ayn Rand’s Objectivism into practice. Though developed most famously in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism sprouted from the Rational Egoism of Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s What Is to be Done? (1863), an enormously influential Russian novel decried by the likes of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Nabokov for its destructive radical ethics. In tracing the origins of Greenspan’s ruinous ideology, How Bad Writing Destroyed the World combines literary and intellectual history to uncover the danger of hawking “the virtues of selfishness,” even in fiction.
A congressional investigation placed the blame for the financial crisis on Alan Greenspan and his deregulatory policies—his attempts, in essence, to put Ayn Rand’s Objectivism into practice. Though developed most famously in Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism sprouted from the Rational Egoism of Nikolai Chernyshevsky’s What Is to be Done? (1863), an enormously influential Russian novel decried by the likes of Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Nabokov for its destructive radical ethics. In tracing the origins of Greenspan’s ruinous ideology, How Bad Writing Destroyed the World combines literary and intellectual history to uncover the danger of hawking “the virtues of selfishness,” even in fiction.
264 pages, Paperback
First published September 8, 2016
6 people are currently reading
173 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
January 10, 2021
Rasputin in America
How Bad Writing Destroyed the World is a classic history of ideas. By that I mean that it is fundamentally an academic exercise, the purpose of which is to demonstrate erudition and an ability to sustain a cogent argument while wading through largely irrelevant material. Adam Weiner is a literary historian who is clearly determined to fulfil his academic duty. But he also wants to make what is largely irrelevant to the rest of us relevant by arguing that a bad 19th century novel is the cause of the 2008 financial crash. Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t so much fail, as just forgets about it in most of the book.
Weiner’s thesis, and it is presented as such, is that Alan Greenspan in particular and, more generally, many leading figures in government and academic economics are guilty of the ideological sin of ‘objectivism’, the quasi-philosophical school of thought promoted by the Russian-emigre novelist Ayn Rand. They (as well as other eminences of a less liberal nature like Vladimir Lenin) were duped, no actually ‘programmed’, according to Weiner, because they didn’t appreciate the source of Rand’s thought in the Russian 19th century writer Nikolai Chernyshevsky; nor did they read enough Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Nabokov in order to understand just how evil an influence - on literature as well as social thought - Chernyshevsky was.
The consequences of this literary ignorance, according to Weiner, have been dire:
“Disappointed that her novels, particularly Atlas Shrugged, had failed to transform reality into an objectivist paradise, Rand had created in Greenspan a final devastating hero, heir to Rakhmetov [a fictional Chernyshevskian character], heir to John Galt [one of Rand’s novelistic heroes], and freed him from her pages that he might operate unfettered in the medium of history. Greenspan was the flesh of her mind, her idea incarnate, and she must have wanted to live through him, as he began to wield objectivism, first in the White House, after her death in the Federal Reserve, where he would offer up the US economy in a spectacular hecatomb.”
The breathless floridity of this conclusion fortunately isn’t matched in the rest of the text, which has nothing to do with economic policy and a great deal to do with arcane literary influences.
There can be little doubt that ideas have consequences, and that some ideas are better than others. Nor is there little to argue against the fact that from time to time various fundamentally idiotic ideological fashions - one thinks of EST, the various brands of management-thought, and the currently dominant theories of corporate finance, to name but a few in addition to objectivism - prevail even among, especially among, the educated leadership of society.
Thus it has always been. The political writings of Aristotle and Plato are proof enough. The curriculum of any MBA programme is a confirming footnote. Indeed, it could credibly be argued that it is Christianity, with its doctrinal theory of individual salvation, that is the source of both Randian selfishness and Dostoevskian hatred of the untraditional. The situation is what psychiatrists call 'overdetermined'. There are as many explanations as there are tales to tell. Proving which tale is better is rationally impossible (The British serial killer, Ian Brady, was a keen reader of Dostoevsky. Make of that correlation what you will).
It is often a pleasant academic pastime to document the parentage of these ideas. It is aesthetically pleasing, minimally for the author, and may even help his career advancement. But beyond such personal satisfaction there seems little point to be informed that (selecting a page at random) “Chernyshevsky would later assimilate from the Petrashevsky crowd this jumble of Fourier and Feuerbach.” Need I know this in order to be on the lookout for the verbal and stylistic tells of the closet, policy-making objectivist?
There are, I think, bigger fish to fry, or at least catch, in one’s practical life. Personally, I blame Sinclair Lewis's Babbitt for Donald Trump. But I'm open to arguments.
How Bad Writing Destroyed the World is a classic history of ideas. By that I mean that it is fundamentally an academic exercise, the purpose of which is to demonstrate erudition and an ability to sustain a cogent argument while wading through largely irrelevant material. Adam Weiner is a literary historian who is clearly determined to fulfil his academic duty. But he also wants to make what is largely irrelevant to the rest of us relevant by arguing that a bad 19th century novel is the cause of the 2008 financial crash. Unsurprisingly, he doesn’t so much fail, as just forgets about it in most of the book.
Weiner’s thesis, and it is presented as such, is that Alan Greenspan in particular and, more generally, many leading figures in government and academic economics are guilty of the ideological sin of ‘objectivism’, the quasi-philosophical school of thought promoted by the Russian-emigre novelist Ayn Rand. They (as well as other eminences of a less liberal nature like Vladimir Lenin) were duped, no actually ‘programmed’, according to Weiner, because they didn’t appreciate the source of Rand’s thought in the Russian 19th century writer Nikolai Chernyshevsky; nor did they read enough Fyodor Dostoevsky and Vladimir Nabokov in order to understand just how evil an influence - on literature as well as social thought - Chernyshevsky was.
The consequences of this literary ignorance, according to Weiner, have been dire:
“Disappointed that her novels, particularly Atlas Shrugged, had failed to transform reality into an objectivist paradise, Rand had created in Greenspan a final devastating hero, heir to Rakhmetov [a fictional Chernyshevskian character], heir to John Galt [one of Rand’s novelistic heroes], and freed him from her pages that he might operate unfettered in the medium of history. Greenspan was the flesh of her mind, her idea incarnate, and she must have wanted to live through him, as he began to wield objectivism, first in the White House, after her death in the Federal Reserve, where he would offer up the US economy in a spectacular hecatomb.”
The breathless floridity of this conclusion fortunately isn’t matched in the rest of the text, which has nothing to do with economic policy and a great deal to do with arcane literary influences.
There can be little doubt that ideas have consequences, and that some ideas are better than others. Nor is there little to argue against the fact that from time to time various fundamentally idiotic ideological fashions - one thinks of EST, the various brands of management-thought, and the currently dominant theories of corporate finance, to name but a few in addition to objectivism - prevail even among, especially among, the educated leadership of society.
Thus it has always been. The political writings of Aristotle and Plato are proof enough. The curriculum of any MBA programme is a confirming footnote. Indeed, it could credibly be argued that it is Christianity, with its doctrinal theory of individual salvation, that is the source of both Randian selfishness and Dostoevskian hatred of the untraditional. The situation is what psychiatrists call 'overdetermined'. There are as many explanations as there are tales to tell. Proving which tale is better is rationally impossible (The British serial killer, Ian Brady, was a keen reader of Dostoevsky. Make of that correlation what you will).
It is often a pleasant academic pastime to document the parentage of these ideas. It is aesthetically pleasing, minimally for the author, and may even help his career advancement. But beyond such personal satisfaction there seems little point to be informed that (selecting a page at random) “Chernyshevsky would later assimilate from the Petrashevsky crowd this jumble of Fourier and Feuerbach.” Need I know this in order to be on the lookout for the verbal and stylistic tells of the closet, policy-making objectivist?
There are, I think, bigger fish to fry, or at least catch, in one’s practical life. Personally, I blame Sinclair Lewis's Babbitt for Donald Trump. But I'm open to arguments.
March 30, 2017
Netgalley gave me a copy of this book for free, and it is quite an interesting subject so I would like to give it a good review. The high notes of the book are rather high. Chapter 3 was extremely good: I laughed out loud at Dostoyevsky's "The Crocodile" and how it parodied Chernyshevsky, and I was educated by the reading of "Notes from Underground."
Unfortunately this book is trying to do a lot of things at once. It is about Chernyshevsky, but also about Russian literary history in general, but also making an allegory for modern American politics (as the author explains very clearly in the introduction). It tries very hard to be both an academic work of literary history and, simultaneously, an extended sneer at Chernyshevsky and the Russian weirdos who admired him: "it is fascinating to observe the adventures of the Russian superman as he transitions from life (Speshnev) to literature (Rakhmetov) to life (Karakozov, Nechaev) to literature (Pyotr Verkhovensky) to life (Lenin), and on and on." (155) In Chapter 8 the sneer wins out with a very stereotypical biography of Ayn Rand where the author refuses to treat her with the same generosity he has offered to the Marquis de Sade. For some reason I started to doubt the author's personal judgments on such mundane things as whether the reading of Lenin that he cites is really a widely held consensus.
The true dilemma for this author seems to be whether the censor ought to have permitted Chernyshevsky's book to be published. Presumably, the author believes in freedom of speech, but he also seems to have remarkably little faith in the ability of people to sort good ideas from bad ones. The book ends seemingly without resolving this conflict, but the last two pages bizarrely shift to a impassioned plea against cigarette smoking. Perhaps there is the hint of an answer here. We Americans hold out for temperance to the last.
Unfortunately this book is trying to do a lot of things at once. It is about Chernyshevsky, but also about Russian literary history in general, but also making an allegory for modern American politics (as the author explains very clearly in the introduction). It tries very hard to be both an academic work of literary history and, simultaneously, an extended sneer at Chernyshevsky and the Russian weirdos who admired him: "it is fascinating to observe the adventures of the Russian superman as he transitions from life (Speshnev) to literature (Rakhmetov) to life (Karakozov, Nechaev) to literature (Pyotr Verkhovensky) to life (Lenin), and on and on." (155) In Chapter 8 the sneer wins out with a very stereotypical biography of Ayn Rand where the author refuses to treat her with the same generosity he has offered to the Marquis de Sade. For some reason I started to doubt the author's personal judgments on such mundane things as whether the reading of Lenin that he cites is really a widely held consensus.
The true dilemma for this author seems to be whether the censor ought to have permitted Chernyshevsky's book to be published. Presumably, the author believes in freedom of speech, but he also seems to have remarkably little faith in the ability of people to sort good ideas from bad ones. The book ends seemingly without resolving this conflict, but the last two pages bizarrely shift to a impassioned plea against cigarette smoking. Perhaps there is the hint of an answer here. We Americans hold out for temperance to the last.
November 4, 2018
There is not all that much in here actually about Rand, an awful lot of it concerns a different writer who arguably influenced Rand to a great degree.
There are strange passages where he says things like "Senator Rand Paul, who claims he was not named after Ayn Rand." What on earth is this even supposed to mean? He didn't choose his own name, his name is short for Randal.
He attacks Alan Greenspan both for being a Randite and also for going against Randian ideals concerning free markets. In the end though the argument simply isn't made how Rand's writing destroyed the world - it looks like we're supposed to believe that Greenspan's anti-Rand economic policies destroyed the world economy so therefore Rand destroyed the world!?
There's a nugget of interesting reading in here but it's so full of contradictions and non sequiturs that it attacks Rand's writing for bad reasoning and faulty logic but is just as guilty in itself.
Nice idea, terrible execution.
There are strange passages where he says things like "Senator Rand Paul, who claims he was not named after Ayn Rand." What on earth is this even supposed to mean? He didn't choose his own name, his name is short for Randal.
He attacks Alan Greenspan both for being a Randite and also for going against Randian ideals concerning free markets. In the end though the argument simply isn't made how Rand's writing destroyed the world - it looks like we're supposed to believe that Greenspan's anti-Rand economic policies destroyed the world economy so therefore Rand destroyed the world!?
There's a nugget of interesting reading in here but it's so full of contradictions and non sequiturs that it attacks Rand's writing for bad reasoning and faulty logic but is just as guilty in itself.
Nice idea, terrible execution.
November 2, 2019
This isn't a bad book, but its title is deeply misleading. It implies that it's going to dig deep into Ayn Rand, but instead, most of the book is taken up with a history and analysis of Nikolai Chernyshevsky's "What Is To Be Done?", a truly dreadful book that Weiner claims was the primary influence on Rand's thinking.
Unfortunately, this connection isn't made in any great depth - six of the book's eight chapters concern events before Rand's birth, with as much space devoted to a hagiography of Dostoevsky as anything else - and the reader is left to suspect that some editor foisted an eye-grabbing title onto what it is a fairly pedestrian analysis of the Russian literary scene in the second half of the nineteenth century.
That said, chapter two, where Weiner rips into "What Is To Be Done' without restraint, is entertaining as all get out.
Unfortunately, this connection isn't made in any great depth - six of the book's eight chapters concern events before Rand's birth, with as much space devoted to a hagiography of Dostoevsky as anything else - and the reader is left to suspect that some editor foisted an eye-grabbing title onto what it is a fairly pedestrian analysis of the Russian literary scene in the second half of the nineteenth century.
That said, chapter two, where Weiner rips into "What Is To Be Done' without restraint, is entertaining as all get out.
March 5, 2020
A disappointing, sometimes illuminating read. Spends far too much time summarizing Dostoevsky and Nabokov’s work in response to Chernyshevsky’s book and too little discussing the wider impact of said book and its very bad ideas. If you’ve seen Adam Curtis’s All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace or read Rebecca Solnit’s writing on Silicon Valley, you can skip much of it. If you enjoy literary dust-ups —Nabokov, oof!— the tone is little too dyspeptic for literary snark. Fortunately, the bad book and its Ayn Rand babies produce laughs all by themselves.
“Everywhere aluminum and more aluminum!”
“Everywhere aluminum and more aluminum!”
January 12, 2023
There is definitely a bait-and-switch with this title, as—aside from the introduction—only one chapter is about Ayn Rand. What is here—a cultural history of egoism from its early Russian roots into Rand—is fascinating, and I don’t think I would have picked this up had the bait-and-switch not occurred. Overall, Weiner’s prose is very readable, as this nonfiction text has a central narrative shaped across these chapters. Academics who are only interested in the aspects pertaining to American studies will likely be disappointed by this book.
September 18, 2017
Ironically it's bad writing that destroyed this book.
February 27, 2022
I gotta confess, I finished reading this book without having read it from cover to cover. Perhaps I will pick it up again, but that's in the indefinite future. Despite not having finished it, because of the eye-opening information and new perspective I picked up from it, I recommend it. It's good to understand where Ayn Rand was coming from-it's not enough just to think she was an elitist screwball (which she sorta was) or that she was really great (which in a very truncated way, she almost was or mighta been). Now seeing her link to the cold war capitalist ideologues of my youth, I'm disappointed my liberal education steered me away from her: as a liberal humanist I needed to know more.
I've skipped back and forth a bit because the deconstruction of Chernyshevsky's What is to be Done felt interminable, tho' obviously it was terminable since the book isn't very long, much less infinite. Nonetheless, it was a bit much. Perhaps it is because "... to be Done" which as an ugly contrived mouthpiece for an ideology is necessarily tedious. How could a deconstruction of it be other?
However I got two or three things from this book and I'm glad I read, or maybe "perused" it. First of all, learning the literary/ideological roots of Alan Greenspan's policies as former chair of the Federal Reserve was an eye opener. As a person whose interests have been the arts and sciences, coming of age at the end of the Cold War and watching the antics of Ronald Reagan and his vodoo economists and Reaganauts, then seeing George Herbert Walker Bush's continuation...well, it was confusing and I wasn't equipped to understand what was going on. It's strange that I went to a very liberal Liberal Arts college in 1987 yet was never introduced to the cultural and literary roots of the ideologies I and my young peers were all fired up about (or were manipulated into being fired up about in certain ways as I now see it). Or perhaps it isn't so strange.
Anyhow, let me set those memories and resentments aside: It is good at last to see that all the angry and confusing gab wasn't coming from nowhere, wasn't just stuff people were speaking of from out of their respective asses. There were these bad authors who wrote crummy books that people were excited about. You can't just blame the bad writers; the readers who didn't apply good judgement, who perhaps didn't have very good critical thinking skills, are very much to blame.
Let's not blame Ayn Rand, let's blame her followers and readers. Let's not blame Chernyshevsky, let's blame his readers. And let's blame those readers' teachers, for not having taught them to differentiate good literature from bad, good reasoning from spurious. But who taught those teachers? The chain goes back endlessly.
So, I'll take a cue from that and not blame anyone: when I was in college I found the campus ideologues as repulsive in their words and actions as I found those of the politicians(of all flavors) and certain right wing social crusaders of the time. Instead of fighting what I thought was a pointless fight, I mentally seceded. Let me blame myself ever so slightly for my small non-part.
The second thing I got was a renewed interest in Nabokov, for his book The Gift which is mentioned in How Bad Writing Destroyed the World... Nabokov, at least, even tho' he left the revolution behind at least wrote a book about it. If I'd written something speaking about against the various ideologues, left and right, that disgusted me so at the end of the Cold War, I wouldn't blame myself for nonparticipation.
How Bad Writing ... gives a less tedious examination of The Gift, which I did read (the examination of it, not the book itself, which I haven't finished yet). And now, as I have been reading "The Gift," I find myself equipped with more knowledge and ideas to inform my reading and help me make observations and ask questions as I progress. Frankly, Nabokov is a bit out of my league - either a bit beyond me because I'm just not that advanced or perhaps it really is a matter of needing a different grounding than I've got to make a rich intellectual meal from his writing. My difficulty staying with How Bad Writing ... perhaps indicates this. When I've read Nabokov without any contextualizing knowledge, like when I was 30 and read Lolita at random, he was a good read but my grasp was shallow. I'm not so sure I'd've stuck with The Gift at that age, and maybe not even now at 53, unless I knew more about the context. Fortunately ...Bad Writing... has given me sufficient, especially since I paid for a new copy of The Gift and would be annoyed to find myself unable to read it.
OK, the third thing: Dostoevsky. I've never read a goddamn thing by him and knew nothing about him. There's a chapter title "Radicalizing Dostoevsky." Well, I guess I don't know a goddamned thing about czarist Russia, or next to nothing. Especially not about the role of Christianity and the aristocracy and serfdom, nor that many of the writers I've read or read about owned serfs. Isn't owning a person slavery? Obviously there are great depths to my ignorance.
Anyhow, this all started with me getting curious about dystopian novels, and noticing what I've been calling "prescriptive utopian" novels a while ago and proceeding to notice lots of Russian authors, then realizing Ayn Rand's roots were in revolutionary Russian/Soviet Union, that her family had fled the revolution. I'd begun by reading Victor Pelevin's S.N.U.F.F., then his Omon Ra, both which I reviewed, then finding WE by Yevgeny Zamayatin and reading that. Then I started looking at other 20th century writers of various topias, u and dys, and read Anthem, which is sorta awful but before turning ugly touches on the dignity of the individual and free thought and obviously the tyranny of groupthink. The is depth to this field and How Bad Writing Destroyed the World: Ayn Rand and the Literary Origins of the Financial Crisis is the first book I've read the treats books in this field. I hope to find some more books, offering a broader treatment of the subject of dystopian(diagnostic dystopian?) and prescriptive utopian books in the context of actualized ideologies such as authoritarian socialist societies or laissez-faire capitalist ones, or whatever the heck current day Russia is (the allegory? metaphor? of S.N.U.F.F. me made me see I know less than not a goddamned thing about modern Russia, or my own country, or the world anymore).
So while ... Bad Writing ... may not be the best writing, or perhaps I'm an inferior reader of this sort of work, it has got me off to a good start in trying to understand all these books I've been exploring.
As an intense fan of science and science fiction, discourse re. the structure of society is a good complement, and adds perhaps a touch of depth where it begins to draw in authors like Dostoevsky into the mix. I look forward to reading some of his work now that I've read about him in this book. Who'd-a thunk reading comic books, then Tom Swift and His Ultrasonic Cycloplane at age 11 would lead a person to reading Nabokov and Dostoevsky as an adult? Those teachers who try to discourage reading such "trash" ought to know the trajectories any interest in reading might take can be worthwhile.
While writing this, it occurred to me to re-read Plato's Republic. It might even be interesting to know what Plato's context was when he prescribed his utopia. What was his society like and how did it inspire him? Can that be compared to Chernyshevsky's and Rands'? Like I said, this is a field with some depth. Or perhaps just enormous breadth. Something. It's big and it's pretty old too, if Plato and his Republic can be meaningfully related to Anthem and What's to be Done.
I apologize for the ragged and offhand review-as I get older and the number of books I've read grows, the number of loose ends to my understanding has grown faster, and I'd rather address what I can a be thorough at the cost of some awkwardness: There is so much to know and as a strictly amateur reader with a follow-your-nose methodology and a desire to share this seems to be the best, most honesty way.
I've skipped back and forth a bit because the deconstruction of Chernyshevsky's What is to be Done felt interminable, tho' obviously it was terminable since the book isn't very long, much less infinite. Nonetheless, it was a bit much. Perhaps it is because "... to be Done" which as an ugly contrived mouthpiece for an ideology is necessarily tedious. How could a deconstruction of it be other?
However I got two or three things from this book and I'm glad I read, or maybe "perused" it. First of all, learning the literary/ideological roots of Alan Greenspan's policies as former chair of the Federal Reserve was an eye opener. As a person whose interests have been the arts and sciences, coming of age at the end of the Cold War and watching the antics of Ronald Reagan and his vodoo economists and Reaganauts, then seeing George Herbert Walker Bush's continuation...well, it was confusing and I wasn't equipped to understand what was going on. It's strange that I went to a very liberal Liberal Arts college in 1987 yet was never introduced to the cultural and literary roots of the ideologies I and my young peers were all fired up about (or were manipulated into being fired up about in certain ways as I now see it). Or perhaps it isn't so strange.
Anyhow, let me set those memories and resentments aside: It is good at last to see that all the angry and confusing gab wasn't coming from nowhere, wasn't just stuff people were speaking of from out of their respective asses. There were these bad authors who wrote crummy books that people were excited about. You can't just blame the bad writers; the readers who didn't apply good judgement, who perhaps didn't have very good critical thinking skills, are very much to blame.
Let's not blame Ayn Rand, let's blame her followers and readers. Let's not blame Chernyshevsky, let's blame his readers. And let's blame those readers' teachers, for not having taught them to differentiate good literature from bad, good reasoning from spurious. But who taught those teachers? The chain goes back endlessly.
So, I'll take a cue from that and not blame anyone: when I was in college I found the campus ideologues as repulsive in their words and actions as I found those of the politicians(of all flavors) and certain right wing social crusaders of the time. Instead of fighting what I thought was a pointless fight, I mentally seceded. Let me blame myself ever so slightly for my small non-part.
The second thing I got was a renewed interest in Nabokov, for his book The Gift which is mentioned in How Bad Writing Destroyed the World... Nabokov, at least, even tho' he left the revolution behind at least wrote a book about it. If I'd written something speaking about against the various ideologues, left and right, that disgusted me so at the end of the Cold War, I wouldn't blame myself for nonparticipation.
How Bad Writing ... gives a less tedious examination of The Gift, which I did read (the examination of it, not the book itself, which I haven't finished yet). And now, as I have been reading "The Gift," I find myself equipped with more knowledge and ideas to inform my reading and help me make observations and ask questions as I progress. Frankly, Nabokov is a bit out of my league - either a bit beyond me because I'm just not that advanced or perhaps it really is a matter of needing a different grounding than I've got to make a rich intellectual meal from his writing. My difficulty staying with How Bad Writing ... perhaps indicates this. When I've read Nabokov without any contextualizing knowledge, like when I was 30 and read Lolita at random, he was a good read but my grasp was shallow. I'm not so sure I'd've stuck with The Gift at that age, and maybe not even now at 53, unless I knew more about the context. Fortunately ...Bad Writing... has given me sufficient, especially since I paid for a new copy of The Gift and would be annoyed to find myself unable to read it.
OK, the third thing: Dostoevsky. I've never read a goddamn thing by him and knew nothing about him. There's a chapter title "Radicalizing Dostoevsky." Well, I guess I don't know a goddamned thing about czarist Russia, or next to nothing. Especially not about the role of Christianity and the aristocracy and serfdom, nor that many of the writers I've read or read about owned serfs. Isn't owning a person slavery? Obviously there are great depths to my ignorance.
Anyhow, this all started with me getting curious about dystopian novels, and noticing what I've been calling "prescriptive utopian" novels a while ago and proceeding to notice lots of Russian authors, then realizing Ayn Rand's roots were in revolutionary Russian/Soviet Union, that her family had fled the revolution. I'd begun by reading Victor Pelevin's S.N.U.F.F., then his Omon Ra, both which I reviewed, then finding WE by Yevgeny Zamayatin and reading that. Then I started looking at other 20th century writers of various topias, u and dys, and read Anthem, which is sorta awful but before turning ugly touches on the dignity of the individual and free thought and obviously the tyranny of groupthink. The is depth to this field and How Bad Writing Destroyed the World: Ayn Rand and the Literary Origins of the Financial Crisis is the first book I've read the treats books in this field. I hope to find some more books, offering a broader treatment of the subject of dystopian(diagnostic dystopian?) and prescriptive utopian books in the context of actualized ideologies such as authoritarian socialist societies or laissez-faire capitalist ones, or whatever the heck current day Russia is (the allegory? metaphor? of S.N.U.F.F. me made me see I know less than not a goddamned thing about modern Russia, or my own country, or the world anymore).
So while ... Bad Writing ... may not be the best writing, or perhaps I'm an inferior reader of this sort of work, it has got me off to a good start in trying to understand all these books I've been exploring.
As an intense fan of science and science fiction, discourse re. the structure of society is a good complement, and adds perhaps a touch of depth where it begins to draw in authors like Dostoevsky into the mix. I look forward to reading some of his work now that I've read about him in this book. Who'd-a thunk reading comic books, then Tom Swift and His Ultrasonic Cycloplane at age 11 would lead a person to reading Nabokov and Dostoevsky as an adult? Those teachers who try to discourage reading such "trash" ought to know the trajectories any interest in reading might take can be worthwhile.
While writing this, it occurred to me to re-read Plato's Republic. It might even be interesting to know what Plato's context was when he prescribed his utopia. What was his society like and how did it inspire him? Can that be compared to Chernyshevsky's and Rands'? Like I said, this is a field with some depth. Or perhaps just enormous breadth. Something. It's big and it's pretty old too, if Plato and his Republic can be meaningfully related to Anthem and What's to be Done.
I apologize for the ragged and offhand review-as I get older and the number of books I've read grows, the number of loose ends to my understanding has grown faster, and I'd rather address what I can a be thorough at the cost of some awkwardness: There is so much to know and as a strictly amateur reader with a follow-your-nose methodology and a desire to share this seems to be the best, most honesty way.
December 19, 2016
The promise of the title, i.e. the linking of Ayn Rand to the financial crisis is done (and brilliantly so) in the introduction to the book. The rest of "How Bad Writing Destroyed the World" is devoted to analysis of the internecine struggles of deservedly obscure Russian revolutionaries. Beginning with Chernyeshevky's "What Will Be Done?" the infamously unreadable novel that introduced the world to "rational egoism"( which Ayn Rand coopted and turned into "objectivism"), Weiner looks at the development of Russian revolutionary thought in Tsarist Russia. If you've ever tried to read Herzen, you know what a slog it is. Weiner gamely explains the intellectual history behind rational egoism
, but the subject matter is best left to academics. "What Will Be Done" is also examined in the rebuttals to it by Dostoyevsky (in "Notes From the Underground" and "The Devils") and Nabokov ("The Gift"). Weiner only gets to Rand in the last 30 pages; he does a great job, but the section is too short. "How Bad Writing Destroyed the World" is worth it for the introduction alone, but Weiner doesn't develop a solid link between Chernyeshesky and Rand and the financial crisis.
, but the subject matter is best left to academics. "What Will Be Done" is also examined in the rebuttals to it by Dostoyevsky (in "Notes From the Underground" and "The Devils") and Nabokov ("The Gift"). Weiner only gets to Rand in the last 30 pages; he does a great job, but the section is too short. "How Bad Writing Destroyed the World" is worth it for the introduction alone, but Weiner doesn't develop a solid link between Chernyeshesky and Rand and the financial crisis.
April 12, 2018
I started this book with high hopes which were only partially fulfilled. The subject matter was fascinating and I learnt a lot but the author's style and incredibly detailed analysis of the Russian background made it a very difficult grind. In that sense it was a very unbalanced treatment because the final short section on Ayn Rand was overwhelmed by the very detailed Russian background. It left me with the impression of a potentially brilliant misfire which unfortunately will not have the impact that the subject deserves. Given that the title is very apt, many more people need to know this story; it just needs a more skillful storyteller.
October 8, 2020
How Bad Writing Destroyed the World: Ayn Rand and the Literary Origins of the Financial Crisis by Adam Weiner is an interesting look at how one book snowballed through history. Wiener is associate professor of Russian and contemporary literature at Wellesley College.
Bad writing, itself, destroying the world may seem a bit farfetched but ignoring political theory and religious texts, two come to mind rather quickly. Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries both were poorly written books but made a major impact on society. Mein Kampf was the beginning of Nazism and The Turner Diaries is held in high esteem with militia groups and the domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh. Another badly written book is What is to Be Done? by Nikolai Chernyshevsky. This is not to be confused with Lenin’s book of the same title although he was greatly influenced by the original.
Chernyshevsky wrote What is to Be Done? in 1863 in response to Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. The book was written in opposition to the conservative Tsarist regime and called for socialism as the cure. Vera, the main character, dreams of freeing people from the basements (the prisons the masses live in) much like a shallow copy of Plato’s cave allegory. There are several flaws in logic and unbelievable plot lines. The book was deemed so poorly written that the censors allowed it to be published simply because it was such an embarrassment to the anti-Tsarist forces. It would be today’s equivalent of someone making a movie about sharks in tornados -- it’s so bad no one would go for it. Just like Sharknado, Chernyshevsky’s book became a cult hit.
Lenin was so impressed by the book, that he took the title for his own book. What is to Be Done? was the ideal of socialism. No charity, everyone needed to work, even children. Life will be built in a society where one’s own interests benefit everyone. Chernyshevsky called it rational egotism. In society and personal relationships, if everyone acts in their interest, the entire community would benefit. Sometimes, however, things get a little twisted with love and fake suicides. The foundation of the utopia was built upon aluminum. To be fair, aluminum was pretty rare at the time and a modern a modern equivalent of a city of gold, but far more functional.
A great deal of Weiner’s research is the Russian reaction to Chernyshevsky’s writing. However, the last quarter of the book takes it to America. Someone else takes the very same idea’s Chernyshevsky proposed and instead of socialism replaces it with capitalism. There is no aluminum city but there is Rearden Steel. The repressive Tsarist government is replaced with moochers. Instead of the masses rising up, the job creators disappear. Rational egoism is renamed selfish interest, but still provides the moral backbone of the story. Like Chernyshevsky, Ayn Rand relies on heroes to lead the way. Morally superior people (although rape is given a pass) who fight for what is right. There are the holes in Rand’s story as there are in Chernyshevsky’s work -- perpetual motion machines in one to child labor in the other. Perhaps one of the most obvious flaws in Rand’s book is the group sitting in Galt’s Gulch planning to buy the property back after the collapse of society for pennies on the dollar. It is a scene that is reminiscent of the pigs and men meeting at the end of Animal Farm or the contemporary vulture capitalism
So this is all fiction and fiction isn’t real life. A one hundred and fifty-year-old novel can’t influence the American economy. But, what if, that book’s ideas were changed a bit one hundred years later, and the new author developed her own loyal “collective” of followers. And what if one of those followers and true believers was a man named Alan Greenspan. What if he put those policies into practice but corrupted them with a safety net. Wiener takes the reader on a trip through history that the BBC’s James Burke would be proud of -- connecting an obscure 19th Century Russian novel and Greenspan admitting “a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works.” after the US financial meltdown. There is quite a long build up from the Russian novel to the Ayn Rand tie in, but it connects step by step. Wiener presents his thesis in detail in his introduction and uses the body of the book as a defense of his points.
Bad writing, itself, destroying the world may seem a bit farfetched but ignoring political theory and religious texts, two come to mind rather quickly. Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries both were poorly written books but made a major impact on society. Mein Kampf was the beginning of Nazism and The Turner Diaries is held in high esteem with militia groups and the domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh. Another badly written book is What is to Be Done? by Nikolai Chernyshevsky. This is not to be confused with Lenin’s book of the same title although he was greatly influenced by the original.
Chernyshevsky wrote What is to Be Done? in 1863 in response to Turgenev’s Fathers and Sons. The book was written in opposition to the conservative Tsarist regime and called for socialism as the cure. Vera, the main character, dreams of freeing people from the basements (the prisons the masses live in) much like a shallow copy of Plato’s cave allegory. There are several flaws in logic and unbelievable plot lines. The book was deemed so poorly written that the censors allowed it to be published simply because it was such an embarrassment to the anti-Tsarist forces. It would be today’s equivalent of someone making a movie about sharks in tornados -- it’s so bad no one would go for it. Just like Sharknado, Chernyshevsky’s book became a cult hit.
Lenin was so impressed by the book, that he took the title for his own book. What is to Be Done? was the ideal of socialism. No charity, everyone needed to work, even children. Life will be built in a society where one’s own interests benefit everyone. Chernyshevsky called it rational egotism. In society and personal relationships, if everyone acts in their interest, the entire community would benefit. Sometimes, however, things get a little twisted with love and fake suicides. The foundation of the utopia was built upon aluminum. To be fair, aluminum was pretty rare at the time and a modern a modern equivalent of a city of gold, but far more functional.
A great deal of Weiner’s research is the Russian reaction to Chernyshevsky’s writing. However, the last quarter of the book takes it to America. Someone else takes the very same idea’s Chernyshevsky proposed and instead of socialism replaces it with capitalism. There is no aluminum city but there is Rearden Steel. The repressive Tsarist government is replaced with moochers. Instead of the masses rising up, the job creators disappear. Rational egoism is renamed selfish interest, but still provides the moral backbone of the story. Like Chernyshevsky, Ayn Rand relies on heroes to lead the way. Morally superior people (although rape is given a pass) who fight for what is right. There are the holes in Rand’s story as there are in Chernyshevsky’s work -- perpetual motion machines in one to child labor in the other. Perhaps one of the most obvious flaws in Rand’s book is the group sitting in Galt’s Gulch planning to buy the property back after the collapse of society for pennies on the dollar. It is a scene that is reminiscent of the pigs and men meeting at the end of Animal Farm or the contemporary vulture capitalism
So this is all fiction and fiction isn’t real life. A one hundred and fifty-year-old novel can’t influence the American economy. But, what if, that book’s ideas were changed a bit one hundred years later, and the new author developed her own loyal “collective” of followers. And what if one of those followers and true believers was a man named Alan Greenspan. What if he put those policies into practice but corrupted them with a safety net. Wiener takes the reader on a trip through history that the BBC’s James Burke would be proud of -- connecting an obscure 19th Century Russian novel and Greenspan admitting “a flaw in the model ... that defines how the world works.” after the US financial meltdown. There is quite a long build up from the Russian novel to the Ayn Rand tie in, but it connects step by step. Wiener presents his thesis in detail in his introduction and uses the body of the book as a defense of his points.
September 10, 2017
Adam Weiner's book, "How Bad Writing Destroyed The World" takes some of the thinking that has influenced the world for the last 75+ years and ties it to a surprising source.
The "Bad Writing" refers to a Russian author, Chernyshevsky. In 1863 he wrote a book "What is to Be Done". One chapter in the book, referred to as"The most atrocious work of Russian literature", sums it up. Chernyshevsky socialist philosophy was called "rational egoism". How this philosophy became the foundation of Ayn Rand, the arch-capitalist, is the shared belief that "the rational pursuit of selfish gain on the part of each individual must give rise to the ideal form of society". The book also caught the attention Lenin, Dostoevsky, and Nabokov. How their philosophies meshed with the book was also also discussed in the book.
Ayn Rand's fled to the south where she went to the University of Petrograd. Years later she came to the United States. She is best known for her book "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead". Capitalism, limited government, the individual, the free market, and eventually trickle down economics, were her areas of focus.
Her book "Atlas Shrugged" was reviewed by Whittaker Chambers who, with William Buckley, were the other well known conservatives of the last century. When Chambers said of her book that it was a "fairy tale" their relationships ended. (I think he was right) In other writings Rand said of herself that she was the smartest philosopher the world had ever had, except Aristotle. She also said that with a free market that, the rich get richer and the poor are hurt sometimes, but then "they deserve it". For her the free market rewarded brains. She thought people would naturally do the right think in a free market, because self interest meant people would protect their reputation.
An early disciple of her's was Alan Greenspan. He would later say he knew economics but didn't know why people acted the way they did. He felt Ayn Rand had helped him with that. By the time he served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 he was very much in her influence. After the banks crashed in 2008 the congress called him in and asked him why he had reduced all the regulation that was in place that seemed to have caused the crash? He said he had made a mistake. He said he knew economics but didn't understand people, and felt that the free market would cause people to do the right thing for the sake of their reputation. He misjudged greed, and admitted it.
The book is interesting, relevant, and worth reading.
The "Bad Writing" refers to a Russian author, Chernyshevsky. In 1863 he wrote a book "What is to Be Done". One chapter in the book, referred to as"The most atrocious work of Russian literature", sums it up. Chernyshevsky socialist philosophy was called "rational egoism". How this philosophy became the foundation of Ayn Rand, the arch-capitalist, is the shared belief that "the rational pursuit of selfish gain on the part of each individual must give rise to the ideal form of society". The book also caught the attention Lenin, Dostoevsky, and Nabokov. How their philosophies meshed with the book was also also discussed in the book.
Ayn Rand's fled to the south where she went to the University of Petrograd. Years later she came to the United States. She is best known for her book "Atlas Shrugged" and "Fountainhead". Capitalism, limited government, the individual, the free market, and eventually trickle down economics, were her areas of focus.
Her book "Atlas Shrugged" was reviewed by Whittaker Chambers who, with William Buckley, were the other well known conservatives of the last century. When Chambers said of her book that it was a "fairy tale" their relationships ended. (I think he was right) In other writings Rand said of herself that she was the smartest philosopher the world had ever had, except Aristotle. She also said that with a free market that, the rich get richer and the poor are hurt sometimes, but then "they deserve it". For her the free market rewarded brains. She thought people would naturally do the right think in a free market, because self interest meant people would protect their reputation.
An early disciple of her's was Alan Greenspan. He would later say he knew economics but didn't know why people acted the way they did. He felt Ayn Rand had helped him with that. By the time he served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve from 1987 to 2006 he was very much in her influence. After the banks crashed in 2008 the congress called him in and asked him why he had reduced all the regulation that was in place that seemed to have caused the crash? He said he had made a mistake. He said he knew economics but didn't understand people, and felt that the free market would cause people to do the right thing for the sake of their reputation. He misjudged greed, and admitted it.
The book is interesting, relevant, and worth reading.
April 3, 2022
Reading the cover, I was expecting the full assault on Ayn Rand and her literary works, which had become the philosophical foundation for the culprits of the latest Global Recession in 2008 (Greenspan and those greedy bankers), who persisted that what they had been doing was born out of pure logic and calculation, pretending that they were some human calculator. However, in this presumption, I was totally caught off-guard by the direction taken by the author of this book.
Instead of what I believe to be, this book discussed mainly about the particular work of an obscure writer, Chernyshevsky, titled “What is To Be Done?” (Which undoubtedly became the inspiration for the work of Lenin with the same title), which rather than to be laughed at and dismissed out of existence, was taken seriously by Russian Literary circles, with the likes of Dostoyevsky and Nabokov joined in criticizing it, giving the work more credibility that it deserved.
What I found funny is, from this one work, there were two branch of thoughts sprang out, one was the chained collectivism, as it manifested in Bolshevik’s communism, while the other was unfettered individualism, as propagated by Rand and her bunch of Neolibs. While being on the opposite sides of each other, both of them were similarly stupid for using reason and logic in justifying their actions, justification that as history proved brought catastrophe upon the people.
In the end, since my expectations were dashed after reading this book, I can only give this book 3 stars, for I am not really interested in reading about some obscure authors and their anarcho-terrorist charades, imagining themselves to be some part of global, secret society full of conspiracies.
Instead of what I believe to be, this book discussed mainly about the particular work of an obscure writer, Chernyshevsky, titled “What is To Be Done?” (Which undoubtedly became the inspiration for the work of Lenin with the same title), which rather than to be laughed at and dismissed out of existence, was taken seriously by Russian Literary circles, with the likes of Dostoyevsky and Nabokov joined in criticizing it, giving the work more credibility that it deserved.
What I found funny is, from this one work, there were two branch of thoughts sprang out, one was the chained collectivism, as it manifested in Bolshevik’s communism, while the other was unfettered individualism, as propagated by Rand and her bunch of Neolibs. While being on the opposite sides of each other, both of them were similarly stupid for using reason and logic in justifying their actions, justification that as history proved brought catastrophe upon the people.
In the end, since my expectations were dashed after reading this book, I can only give this book 3 stars, for I am not really interested in reading about some obscure authors and their anarcho-terrorist charades, imagining themselves to be some part of global, secret society full of conspiracies.
July 17, 2020
I look forward to the sequel: 'How Bad Writing Destroyed "How Bad Writing Destroyed the World": Adam Weiner and the Incomprehensible Origin of his Writing Career'.
I apologise. I couldn't resist.
I'd summarise and analyse this book & its antecedents except that is what it does ad nauseam for Ayn Rand's books while advancing—not by much—a thesis that they so influenced Alan Greenspan that it lead to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. There may be some truth to that, but Weiner tells us that in his introduction then spends forever summarising & analysing (sort of) Chernyshevsky's 'What is to Done?' and Dostoevsky', Nabokov's, and others' literary reactions to it. It takes 192 pages before he gets back to Rand, who he then summarises & analyses in a chapter titled 'In the Graveyard of Bad Ideas'.
Given Weiner's admiration of Nabokov (which I share), it occurred to me that 'How Bad Writing …' might be a Nabokovian mise-en-abyme, a great book deliberately written badly about writing badly written books; Weiner intends us to realise this at the end and clap our hands to our foreheads exclaiming 'now I get it'. Weiner gives us a clue when he writes about Nabokov's 'The Gift'—itself 'about' Chernyshevsky's 'What is to Be Done?—this 'discovery [will] send[] us back to the first page of the novel, which we must now re-read from an entirely new point of view' (p.174). He also provides the antidote to my poisonous fantasy, writing 'With Nabokov good formal structure is a maze in which perniciously stupid ideas become lost, never to emerge again' (p.176).
Sadly, some ideas will get through any maze.
I apologise. I couldn't resist.
I'd summarise and analyse this book & its antecedents except that is what it does ad nauseam for Ayn Rand's books while advancing—not by much—a thesis that they so influenced Alan Greenspan that it lead to the 2008 Global Financial Crisis. There may be some truth to that, but Weiner tells us that in his introduction then spends forever summarising & analysing (sort of) Chernyshevsky's 'What is to Done?' and Dostoevsky', Nabokov's, and others' literary reactions to it. It takes 192 pages before he gets back to Rand, who he then summarises & analyses in a chapter titled 'In the Graveyard of Bad Ideas'.
Given Weiner's admiration of Nabokov (which I share), it occurred to me that 'How Bad Writing …' might be a Nabokovian mise-en-abyme, a great book deliberately written badly about writing badly written books; Weiner intends us to realise this at the end and clap our hands to our foreheads exclaiming 'now I get it'. Weiner gives us a clue when he writes about Nabokov's 'The Gift'—itself 'about' Chernyshevsky's 'What is to Be Done?—this 'discovery [will] send[] us back to the first page of the novel, which we must now re-read from an entirely new point of view' (p.174). He also provides the antidote to my poisonous fantasy, writing 'With Nabokov good formal structure is a maze in which perniciously stupid ideas become lost, never to emerge again' (p.176).
Sadly, some ideas will get through any maze.
June 21, 2021
But of a clickbait title that never really delves into what it promises apart from a final chapter critiquing atlas shrugged. Probably a stretch to say Ayn Rand’s writing destroyed the world, or was even responsible for the financial crash- but good on you for trying. I did enjoy the Russian literary history, but even linking Rand to the rational egoism of chevynesky feels forced. But hey, interesting ideas and gives you pause to think about the dangers of the seeds that can be planted through literature.
November 14, 2020
A little disorganised and in need of further elaboration, but a brilliantly incisive book.
October 4, 2023
Fascinating! I spent most of a Sunday indulging in this meanderng journey of literary intrigue. The book demonstrates how even obscure writing from long ago can have substantial repercussions on economic and political ideals throughout the decades and into modern times.
My personal experience reading this book was a synaptic feast. I discovered it recently while embarked on a personal project to read Dostoevsky’s masterpieces for the first time. To orient myself before diving into the novels, I read Joseph Frank’s “Lectures on Dostoevsky”. In that book I learned two important things 1) That Dostoevsky wrote “Notes from Underground” as a rather indignant response to a popular Russian novel of the 1860’s, "What is to be Done” by Nikolai Chernyshevsky. 2) That Lenin (who borrowed directly from Chernyshevsky's novel to title his own political treatise) considered Dostoevsky a terrible writer. I was utterly surprised by #2. So I googled “Dostoevsky and Lenin” which returned, among other things, a link to Wellesley College professor Adam Weiner’s article “The Most Politically Dangerous Book You’ve Never Heard Of” (published in Politico magazine on 12/11/16). Weiner is a professor of Russian literature specializing in Nabokov and Dostoevsky. That article extracts the general thesis of this book and explains how the Chernyshevsky novel had profound influence on Lenin (and therefore the Russian Revolution that would degenerate into the communist/Soviet regime). It also influenced the mentality of Russian-born Ayn Rand whose Objectivist philosophy strongly influenced Alan Greenspan. He in turn was Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the late 1990’s and early 2000s, and oversaw and led the policies which would degenerate into the capitalist discontents of the Financial Crisis of 2008 and the ensuing Great Recession.
As I have been a Financial Advisor for almost 25 years, I lived, worked, and suffered through the 2008 debacle. So while having come to read and admire the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky so recently, I was thoroughly captivated by this book which knits a spectacular literary and political web bringing together seemingly unconnected episodes of world history into a coherent, fascinating and shocking theory, imaginative and satirical, that also seems perfectly plausible.
My personal experience reading this book was a synaptic feast. I discovered it recently while embarked on a personal project to read Dostoevsky’s masterpieces for the first time. To orient myself before diving into the novels, I read Joseph Frank’s “Lectures on Dostoevsky”. In that book I learned two important things 1) That Dostoevsky wrote “Notes from Underground” as a rather indignant response to a popular Russian novel of the 1860’s, "What is to be Done” by Nikolai Chernyshevsky. 2) That Lenin (who borrowed directly from Chernyshevsky's novel to title his own political treatise) considered Dostoevsky a terrible writer. I was utterly surprised by #2. So I googled “Dostoevsky and Lenin” which returned, among other things, a link to Wellesley College professor Adam Weiner’s article “The Most Politically Dangerous Book You’ve Never Heard Of” (published in Politico magazine on 12/11/16). Weiner is a professor of Russian literature specializing in Nabokov and Dostoevsky. That article extracts the general thesis of this book and explains how the Chernyshevsky novel had profound influence on Lenin (and therefore the Russian Revolution that would degenerate into the communist/Soviet regime). It also influenced the mentality of Russian-born Ayn Rand whose Objectivist philosophy strongly influenced Alan Greenspan. He in turn was Chairman of the Federal Reserve in the late 1990’s and early 2000s, and oversaw and led the policies which would degenerate into the capitalist discontents of the Financial Crisis of 2008 and the ensuing Great Recession.
As I have been a Financial Advisor for almost 25 years, I lived, worked, and suffered through the 2008 debacle. So while having come to read and admire the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky so recently, I was thoroughly captivated by this book which knits a spectacular literary and political web bringing together seemingly unconnected episodes of world history into a coherent, fascinating and shocking theory, imaginative and satirical, that also seems perfectly plausible.
February 5, 2017
I received a digital ARC of this title from Netgalley.
I enjoyed this, but I'll read almost anything. Thus, it's hard for me to say how much anyone else would like this. Have you heard dozens of libertarian dorks tell you to read Ayn Rand? Are you interested in the history of Russia and the revolution? Do you enjoy gleeful hatchet jobs of bad writing? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you might enjoy this book.
Weiner traces the history of the financial collapse of the 2000's from Greenspan and Rand all the way back to Czarist Russia and the inexplicable popularity of a book called What is to be Done? What is to be Done? became a revolutionary handbook despite being abysmally written, and influenced in its way such writers as Dostoyevsky and Nabokov, who reacted to it in very different ways in their work.
Although a little heavy on the ins and outs of the Russian intelligentsia before the revolution (I found myself Googling lots of different names) this is an interesting niche history about the interplay of art, culture, and economics.
I enjoyed this, but I'll read almost anything. Thus, it's hard for me to say how much anyone else would like this. Have you heard dozens of libertarian dorks tell you to read Ayn Rand? Are you interested in the history of Russia and the revolution? Do you enjoy gleeful hatchet jobs of bad writing? If you answered yes to any of these questions, then you might enjoy this book.
Weiner traces the history of the financial collapse of the 2000's from Greenspan and Rand all the way back to Czarist Russia and the inexplicable popularity of a book called What is to be Done? What is to be Done? became a revolutionary handbook despite being abysmally written, and influenced in its way such writers as Dostoyevsky and Nabokov, who reacted to it in very different ways in their work.
Although a little heavy on the ins and outs of the Russian intelligentsia before the revolution (I found myself Googling lots of different names) this is an interesting niche history about the interplay of art, culture, and economics.
September 28, 2018
The introduction is written in such a witty and easy to read style I had to do some research to check the it was in fact non-fiction.
The author then analyses the premises in a skillful and accessable way which makes this both an academic text and a novel for those interested in how the butterfly effect can be applied to history and politics as well as weather.
I will certainly see what else this author has written as I am not am avid non-fiction reader but I enjoyed reading this novel.
Rocks fall and everyone dies extract
A new twist on the magical theme which is intriguing but also a coming off age novel.
Even with out the full novel we can see its about realizing that your family is not always as you think and they don't tell you everything you need to know. The main character is just at that point where he is starting to have unexplained problems which hint at possibilities.
I'm hooked and will be going out to buy the novel to find out why a wall has feelings!
The characters are well written, credible and likeable. The magic is a minor plot device at the start and if that continues then this would be a good first novel into scifi-fantasy.
I received a free copy from net galley.com for my fair and honest review.
The author then analyses the premises in a skillful and accessable way which makes this both an academic text and a novel for those interested in how the butterfly effect can be applied to history and politics as well as weather.
I will certainly see what else this author has written as I am not am avid non-fiction reader but I enjoyed reading this novel.
Rocks fall and everyone dies extract
A new twist on the magical theme which is intriguing but also a coming off age novel.
Even with out the full novel we can see its about realizing that your family is not always as you think and they don't tell you everything you need to know. The main character is just at that point where he is starting to have unexplained problems which hint at possibilities.
I'm hooked and will be going out to buy the novel to find out why a wall has feelings!
The characters are well written, credible and likeable. The magic is a minor plot device at the start and if that continues then this would be a good first novel into scifi-fantasy.
I received a free copy from net galley.com for my fair and honest review.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews