/lit/ - Literature

I asked everybody and I am afraid the answer is yes

>/v/ hates hitting their dick with a hammer
>constantly asks for game recommendations

They only hate Rand because there a bunch of left-tard hipsters

>>1789656

no, i hate her because she's a bad writer. i don't care about her politics. i read Heidegger for chrissakes. the man was a nazi.

>>1789662
So you're calling Heidegger a good writer?!?!?!

>>1789664

he's leagues better than ayn fucking rand.

if she was born adam rand you guys would love her

>>1789675
Agreed. And if Glenn Beck were born Glenda Beck we would despise him.

well she's basically Nietzsche born female and you guys love Nietzsche

this board is such a hypocrite

>>1789675

not if he wrote like that we wouldn't.

>>1789680
she doesn't even write that bad

>>1789675
Shittily written libertopian nonsense is dime a dozen. There's a reason why she's a laughing stock in literature and philosophy, and I'll give you a hint: it's not because she has a vagina.

I would bring up the fact that /lit/ loves Hannah Arendt if anyone here had heard of her

And I Ran

>>1789688

oh, you mean that chick Heidegger was boning?

in all seriousness, yeah, she's brilliant.

i think what /lit/ doesn't like is that she doesn't really stretch to craft her stories well. they're basically flimsy plot skeletons filled with her ideology.

which is fine in general, but not what /lit/ likes

the real problem with /lit/ though, is that they pretend to hate her writing, when really they hate her ideology*

and because /lit/ is a huddle of sheeple, their criticisms of rand are painfully predictable and uninspired

*proven fact

>>1789715
>their criticisms of rand are painfully predictable and uninspired

So you're saying when a writer has major flaws that everybody picks up on, everybody will have the same criticism? Fascinating discovery!

>>1789715

what exactly would it take to prove to you that i'm objecting to her writing and not her ideology

>>1789737
you, individually? not much

the median poster on this board? very much

everything i hear about how bad she is is always directed toward her content, rather than her craft

>>1789725

>everybody picks up on

yes but,

/lit/ criticisms of her are almost formulaic and have very little substance

if i could make some hyperbolic caricatures of what i hear
>rand is just spouting libertarian anarcho capitalism
>rand is a shitty writer
(unsubstantiated, though they could)
>rand just wants to shove her ideology down your throat
>fuck libertarians
>see how long no altruism works out

i don't want to sound like i'm defending her as an author, but as far as what she set out to do . . . she pretty much did

>>1789740
>median
Shut the fuck up idiot, you don't know shit about statistics

They could not see the world beyond the mountains, there was only a void of darkness and rock, but the darkness was hiding the ruins of a continent: the roofless homes, the rusting tractors, the lightless streets, the abandoned rail. But far in the distance, on the edge of the earth, a small flame was waving in the wind, the defiantly stubborn flame of Wyatt's Torch, twisting, being torn and regaining its hold, not to be uprooted or extinguished. It seemed to be calling and waiting for the words John Galt was now to pronounce.
"The road is cleared," said Galt. "We are going back to the world." He raised his hand and over the desolate earth he traced in space the sign of the dollar.

>>1789757
>implying i thought i could apply statistics to qualitative data

i used that term loosely, moron

why don't you measure your q value and get back to me mkay?
>go ahead and imply my condescending tone

She fell back against the dressing table, she stood crouching, her hands clasping the edge behind her, her eyes wide, colorless, shapeless in terror. He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face, but no sound. Perhaps he had released her intentionally. He stood, his legs apart, his arms hanging at his sides, letting her be more sharply aware of his body across the space between them than she had been in his arms. She looked at the door behind him, he saw the first hint of movement, no more than a thought of leaping toward that door. He extended his arm, not touching her, and fell back. Her shoulders moved faintly, rising. He took a step forward and her shoulders fell. She huddled lower, closer to the table. He let her wait. Then he approached. He lifted her without effort. She let her teeth sink into his hand and felt blood on the tip of her tongue. He pulled her head back and he forced her mouth open against his.

She fought like an animal. But she made no sound. She did not call for help. She heard the echoes of her blows in a gasp of his breath, and she knew that it was a gasp of pleasure. She reached for the lamp on the dressing table. He knocked the lamp out of her hand. The crystal burst to pieces in the darkness.

>>1789764
>He was laughing. There was the movement of laughter on his face

anthem is her only good book

>>1789764
Yeah, all her hero characters always have some rough sex.

>>1789784
>rough sex.

Is that the polite way of saying rape?

>>1789787
The polite way of saying "rape" is "sex"

>>1789787
Rape is a term created by collectivists. Sex with consent is altruistic, and thus, reprehensible.

>Sex with consent is altruistic, and thus, reprehensible.

only redeeming statement ITT

>>1789787

Pretty much all women have erotic rape fantasies.

I'm, shocked, SHOCKED that a woman writer would include a rough sex/rape fantasy in her work.

Because that's what all women get off to.

>>1789803
but it seems to have strange ideological functions or ramifications in rand. it's not just 'oh shit rape turns me on', it's 'rape turns me on and in some sense this relationship is good'. both in the sense that nearly everything in her work is at least partly didactic and because the scenes really bear that character in themselves.

When asked about Howard Roark's rape scene in The Fountainhead and how a writer putting forward a philosophy of voluntarism could justify her hero's actions, Ayn Rand said the following:
>It was rape by engraved invitation.
How can you not love this woman? That is the coolest shit.

Holy shit. I just got on /lit/ to START a troll thread about this, but you people are already talking about it. NEVER CHANGE /lit/.

>>1789807

>but it seems to have strange ideological functions or ramifications in rand.

No not really.

As explained in >>1789806

I just see a group of effete liberal men that are uncomfortable with true female sexuality.

>>1789819
So true female sexuality is accepting male domination?

Are you a Gorean?

real, constructive conversation about ayn

/lit/ is growing up

>>1789821
I reject the notion that constructive discussion about Ayn Rand constitutes 'growing up'. Rand is not worthy of having constructive discussion about, unless we're constructively discussing her failings as an artist and as a thinker.

>>1789820
Or perhaps that the male is the more powerful and the penetrative side of the equation in the sexual act. The femininized eunuchs that most men are are not attractive and Rand made that point by making her hero's a bit extra bold, masculine, and violent in the bedroom.

>>1789820

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19085605

I mean, this is just a published and peer reviewed study of actual human females, but don't let that interrupt your posturing.

I'm not talking about oughts, but rather what is.

The vast majority of women have rape fantasies where they are completely dominated by their lover.

Get over it.

>>1789830
Again: I'm not criticizing Rand for having rape fantasies. Whatever she finds hot, she finds hot. It's cool. She can be turned on by whatever. I am okay with that.

My issue is that these are not just scenes that she put in because she finds them hot. There's something normative at work here; there's something she wants us to take from these scenes. She wants sexual relations to have these qualities generally and not just in the specific instance. And yeah I find that problematic.

>>1789829
Yeah whatever we disagree on everything so not much point in arguing

>>1789829
>>1789829
>bold, masculine = rape

fullretard.jpg

Don't act like Rand was doing anything but projecting her own repressed fantasies.

>>1789831

So it is "problematic" for her to write an erotic scene that accurately represents the actual desires of women?

Really?

I assume you have some sore of utopian fantasy where everyone signs a sexual consent forms with each act and its alloted time clearly laid out. (NO DEVIATIONS OR IT IS RAPE)

Wow. And I thought the only people that wouldn't shut up about just a shitty author was my own family. The idea that women all have rape fantasies makes it seem like women just want to be dominated. But what about men? I'm just saying, if we're going to be general here, we better do it right.

>>1789833
I like how I have to think that all women have the exact same sexual desires and that all sexual desire is purely biological

You think that all women should desire to be raped? That all sexual relationships should be relationships of domination? That's something you want to defend as right and proper - and not only that but that all sexual relationships NOT founded on such are wrong?

>I assume you have some sore of utopian fantasy where everyone signs a sexual consent forms with each act and its alloted time clearly laid out. (NO DEVIATIONS OR IT IS RAPE)

That's such an awesome strawman, bro, got any more strawmen for me

>>1789837
Like it or not, its true. Domination is an essential part of biologically motivated sex. Religion and Intelligentsia have been trying to suppress that fact since ages. But have always failed on individual levels, whereas succeeding on mass levels. e.g. you.

>>1789837

You keep conflating ought with is.

And then you complain about strawmen.

LOL!

I use the word "assume" as an invitation for you to lay out your belief system. (probably some equalist pap but what can you do)

Ultimately I think that people should interact in ways that maximizes their satisfaction. For the vast majority of women, that will include a man that takes a dominant position in the relationship.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

>>1789832
Argues that Rand was constructing a moral argument for sex and therefor her characters as aggressive lovers were wrong. Argues it would have been less venomous writing had she just been putting her personal fantasies on the page and wouldn't have moralized sex.

>>1789833
Argues that Rand was just projecting her own personal kink on her writing and for that she is wrong.

There is no arguing against people that hate Ayn Rand. I'm pretty sure that you've all just been told since you were 16 by people that appeared to be smart and authorities on literature and good taste that Rand is some sort Devil figure that must be spit upon in any and every instance. Even an intense sex scene can't be enjoyed. Everything must be torn down.

sup /lit/ sry im kinda late, i missed my bus. The rapture begins in like half an hour, i know its later but i really needed a coffee this morning.

So... rapture is an easy thing we did the same on the mars. Christians go to heaven were its pretty boring because you cant marry, and you know marriage is needed for having sex so if you try to fuck without marriage ur dick falls off. Atheists can stay on earth, but earth is kinda like u know exploding in a few months or so dunno right now i will ask my dad later. Well and for the guys loving satan... You guys go to hell and live a gay live, im serious! Its really kinda like the hell shown in south park. Muslims and all the other shitty religions will die. Yeah well thats all folks, lets get this done nice and easy.

cheers,
Jesus Christ

>>1789842
I like how you quoted two people arguing with each other, and then claimed that the fact that they disagreed with each other proved that those arguing against Rand are hypocritical

wait no that doesn't make any sense at all

>>1789839
>>1789841
cool women like rape and male-dominant non-consensual relationships should be normal and are good, further any relationship where a man is not dominant is bad

glad to hear it

not talkign to you any more

All right. This is getting old. I'm hitting eject and getting the hell out of this before it becomes a complete twatfest

>>1789848
>before it becomes a complete twatfest
>before it becomes
>before
>it becomes
>before it becomes

>>1789844
Where did I say rape is good anywhere? And from your rage you look like you are underage. Am I right?

>>1789844
>>1789844

>cool women like rape

In their fantasy form, yes. If you read the study I linked, you'd know that the fantasy is often a complex twist of aversive and erotic. Exactly like the scene in Rand's work.

If anything, it is a typical woman's fantasy in print. I feel bad for you that you don't realize this, only because it means your sexual relationships are either repressed as hell or you aren't very experienced.

>male-dominant non-consensual relationships should be normal and are good,

lolwut? DIE STRAWMANNNNNNNN

> further any relationship where a man is not dominant is bad

If you sat me down and asked me if I believe that no female-dominated healthy relationship exists, I would probably grant some limited "anything is possible" exception. That said, women are unhappy in relationships with equals, it's a pretty well know fact that their hypergamous nature will tend to hold lower status men in contempt.

i'm really into rough sex and S&M, and so is my wife.

one of my favorite souvenirs from our honeymoon is a set of photos i took of her bruises.

ayn rand is still a shitty writer.

>>1789859

you have no experience with dominant women. and that is sad.

>>1789865

Or, if I desire happiness, amazing.

Who wants to lead a henpecked existence?

>>1789894

who said anything about "a henpecked existence"?

we're talking about sexually and socially dominant women. they're a blast.

i didn't say anything about annoying or antagonistic people. those come in top and bottom, male and female versions.

>>1789679
Wrong. Don't ever confuse the two.

>>1789693
Typical.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/05/all_watched_over_by_machines_o.html