/lit/ - Literature

This is the end
Beautiful friend
This is the end
My only friend, the end

>>18485114
>What am I in for?
badly written scifi novel for autists

It's actually a really great read and people who don't like it are picrel who can't stand that some people have realised they don't have to prop society's failures up.

>>18485114
Trains. Hope you like them.

>>18485114
The fact that this book is only read by americans should tell you everything you need to know

>>18485253
>some people have realised they don't have to prop society's failures up.
None of the industries that go "on strike" in the novel exist in real life. There is no such thing as Rearden Metal, a way to revive dead oil wells, or a motor that's powered by air.

The closest thing to one of Ayn Rand's world-changing genius "heroes" who existed in real life was Albert Einstein, who wrote this.

>>18485278
>There is no such thing as Rearden Metal
The book is a work of fiction, anon. It is telling a story. I bet you didn't know lightsabers aren't real either!

>>18485278
>The closest thing to one of Ayn Rand's world-changing genius "heroes" who existed in real life was the one smart person I could find who supported socialism in this cherry picked quote

Wow that's not a lazy argument at all!

>>18485258
there's better books about trains if you like trains

>>18485278
Yeah listen to the kike who plagiarised ideas he found in a patent office and who's theories are getting debunked daily
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/challenging-einstein/

>>18485278
This is the villain of AS, not the hero. I know it's hard to tell, since her characterization is so famously subtle, but if you look a little harder, you should be able to see it.

>>18485114
You are about to read the work of a genius.

Just remember, Ayn Rand was purposely being provocative when she talked about “it’s good to be selfish”. She is trying to be controversial.

It’s about self-esteem, and putting yourself first.

The world just isn’t ready for that yet.

A solid book, enjoy it.

>>18485114
mediocrity and boredom

>>18485265
The strongest, richest, most culturally relevant nation on earth?

>>18485114
A wacky pulp fiction like story (in a good way) with provocative ideas. Superficially about capitalism, but is really about individuals taking command of their own lives in spite of hardships caused by those around them.

>>18485164
Fake news. "Income taxes" isn't even oversimplifying it; it's purposefully misleading.
They go on strike because the government was slowly taking control of their businesses, restricting them in how they could operate it, if not punishing them for their successes. For Hank Rearden's family, he kicked them out because despite living off of him, they supported ideologies that actively hurt Rearden, even showing hostility to Rearden himself.

>>18485114
Lol. Were you hearing good things about it here? Try and bait better

>>18485114
I find the divergence of opinion on her fascinating. Not just the philosophy and themes, that's to be expected. But even down to the style, and the quality of the prose. Lot of divided opinion on Henry James, but it least people agree that his prose is intricately constructed and dense, but with Rand you can't even get that much. It's literally 'wow, these characters are so lifeless and wooden', and 'wow, what powerful characters! I see these people all the time in real life!', and they're talking about the same fucking set of characters. It's wild, man.

This board unironicly discusses this book? I thought this board was full of nerds who read real books, after all this "greek first memes", but now I think there might be no adults here

It’s an interesting book philosophy wise. There is a lot to disagree with in regards to Rand, but I think she does a good job to taking the economic right to its furthest end point. It’s worth reading in that regard.

All the characters do kinda boil down to born super Chad or whimpering bitch, and none of them really change throughout the novel.

Rand develops a love story for the first half of the book, then immediately drops it and starts developing another one half way through. It’s really jarring story wise, and the first lover is basically like
>it’s cool I’ve met him and he is more alpha than me, so I’m not mad.
It’s just shitty story telling in my opinion.

A lot of Anons gripe about her prose texture, but I didn’t really have any problems with it.

>>18485114
Retarded jew shit

>>18485114
Dollar store Nietzche

>>18485114
>What am I in for.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you've ever read The Jungle, this reads a lot like it, in terms of structure.
It's a great book full of interesting developments regarding interpersonal relationships and external events. Problem is that Rand, like Sinclair, thinks you're stupid. After crafting an immersive world and weaving the signs of the ultimate message into the story in such a way that they are believable, both of them deliver a ham-fisted monologue on the message as if you hadn't caught on at all during the story. The difference is that Sinclair ends the book there while Rand tries to recover the story after the shellshock and does an okay job. If you've got more than two brain cells to bang together, you can pretty safely ignore the 50 page monologue Galt delivers over the radio towards the end without missing too much of the plot (Pages 924 to 979 if you get the version with pic's cover).
If you do skip over the monologue, I suggest going back to read it after you finish the story because it is basically Rand's final thesis, almost all of her other works revolve around that monologue.
In terms of story, it's pretty good, but a little fantastical. The sequence of events lines up a little too perfectly at times, but that's to be expected of a fictional story.
So yeah, solid characters, decent development, and a coherent overarching theme make it a solid book.

>>18485278
>Doesn't believe we have the technology to make air-powered motors but can't because governments worldwide/OPEC would never allow it

>>18485114
1000+ pages of absolute incoherent drivel and madcap ideologies. honestly the worst book i've ever read

>>18485114
Ayn Rand doesnt have all the right answers
But she has all the right questions

>>18485114
The book itself isn't that bad. It isn't greatly written and there's no great depth to the characters (or even the "philosophy"), but it's still decent and mostly entertaining (especially the first 3rd or so of the book).

However, Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is a pretty big joke. It's mostly self-help personal affirmation shit baked in Cold War-era anti-communist sensibilities. The only reason to take it seriously is to learn about what an ideology looks like and how it functions. Randianism is a well-structured easily internalized set of beliefs (and the pronouncements involving its supposed monopoly on reality/rationality ("Objectivism," get it) should be a big red flag that you're ingesting dogma (not tools with which to perceive the world)).

Randianism works by denying the complexity of the world and asserting dogmatic beliefs when confronted with that fact. For example, if you critique the fact that Randians hold up the ideal of the Free Market as a nonbias arbiter of all things (a way to fairly determine the good)...they'll basically give you their version of "that's not real Communism" as a retort.

Read it; enjoy the first 3rd of the book and try to get past the 80-page long John Galt rant near the end. Just don't take it seriously and reflect on how dogmatic something can be when it purports to be otherwise.

>>18485114
The book itself isn't that bad. It isn't greatly written and there's no great depth to the characters (or even the "philosophy"), but it's still decent and mostly entertaining (especially the first 3rd or so of the book).

However, Ayn Rand's "philosophy" is a pretty big joke. It's mostly self-help personal affirmation shit baked in Cold War-era anti-communist sensibilities. The only reason to take it seriously is to learn about what an ideology looks like and how it functions. Randianism is a well-structured easily internalized set of beliefs (and the pronouncements involving its supposed monopoly on reality/rationality ("Objectivism," get it) should be a big red flag that you're ingesting dogma (not tools with which to perceive the world)).

Randianism works by denying the complexity of the world and asserting dogmatic beliefs when confronted with that fact. For example, if you critique the fact that Randians make a utopian idol of the Free Market, as a non-bias arbiter of all things (a way to fairly determine the good), they'll basically give you their version of "that's not real Communism" as a retort to any example you put forward as to why such idolization isn't commensurate with objective reality.

Read it; enjoy the first 3rd of the book and try to get past the 80-page long John Galt rant near the end. Just don't take it seriously and reflect on how dogmatic something can be when it purports to be otherwise.

>>18485114
A 100 page speech. Honestly fuck this book, even if you agree with it, it's way too long and never fully realizes anything.

All you will get from this book is: don't read anything from women or atheists.