/lit/ - Literature

>>4193417
What is a steel professor?

I'd recommend the Egyptian instead of Atlas. It's a bit shorter, but a lot better.

I didn't think it was that bad, too many speeches and some stupid moments, but don't go into it with a liberal mindset since you probably won't like it.

it's not a well written book, existing purely to advance Rand's purile ideas, and its ideologies are backwards and shit.

Other than that go ahead.

for impressing girls maybe

Nah. Skip objectivism altogether.

>>4193420
steel mechanics class - im in engineering

>>4193459
isnt that the chick who did a photoshoot on going to NYC park without anything covering her tits except infinite jest on some pics

>>4193417
It's a few hundred pages too long, and it's not so much a work of art as a vehicle for ideology. I think even Rand's followers would attest to this.

Read the wiki article, instead, and if the concept of egotism really interests you, go read Stirner's "The Ego and It's Own". It's a much purer, much shorter version of Rand's work.

>>4193496
>steel mechanics professor
>reading Atlas Shrugged
>mffw
Oh god, op, you don't know how humorous this is. In the book, one of the main characters is steel maker who started from the bottom and is painted as a super-intelligent, superstrong genius who is perfect in every way and not charitable cause that's immoral. It's clear that your steel professor probably saw this guy, thought: "Oh he's strong and works with steel, just like me!!", and declared the book his all-time favorite.

Terrible fucking book. The ideas it advances are child like.

>>4193561
Jesus my sides!
I'm reading it just for that.

One of 3 things is going to happen:
>You will read it and love it. You will make it your personal philosophy and became a weird dork about it. It may decades to undo your brainwashing.
>You will hate every word.
>You won't bother reading more than half of it.

It's not worth it. It's a very stiff, stilted story saturated with poor attempts at making a philosophy.

>>4193561
>not charitable cause that's immoral

After spending so much time arguing with people over Rand's works I've come to the conclusion there are three kinds of people, Those who read it and got it, those who read it and didn't, those who didn't read it and just parrot some ignorant shit spouted by the people who read it and didn't get it.

No where in the book is charity ever deemed as immoral, but the idea that it is a moral virtue IS challenged. If you did manage to read it, and if you had the aptitude to discern what was between the lines (which is not very much as she is fairly straightforward with what's she's trying to say), you would know that the problem is not charity, but those who impose it as a moral ought. There is nothing wrong with giving to charity or helping other people if you choose to, but you have to realize that you are CHOOSING to do it. There is no moral imposition on people to help other people.

I thought it was a nice read until ~ 300 pages or so then it babbles around with not doing much. There was a sense of complete economical destruction that the book decently gave but the ending didn't do it justice.
The terrible climactic ending when you actually meet John Galt was shit. He was so fucking boring it was disappointing. He truly was just a vehicle for Rand to just say whatever she wanted to say.

It's worth reading but it's silly as hell.
The part where the trio just met up together and start fighting seemed like Titans pushing each other and was incredibly silly.

>>4193602
I personally think people are being overly critical of her work and how she seemed too harsh on the whole thing.

Take charity, like you mention. She bashes it, sure, but she doesn't essentially bash charity and calls it wrong, she bashes it because giving away money without a purpose or because ''hey it might make someone feel good even though I honestly don't give a shit'' is what she was trying to point at.

In her perfect world, everyone would be giving to their own charity because curing all possible illness is good if you ever get sick or you can just call the best doctor in town for him to heal you.

philosophy aside, it's a bad book. I couldn't get through a tenth of it because it is so bad

>>4193778
I don't think it's that bad of a book, I've read a lot worse.

>>4193533
I feel that many people are like this poster who have not read the book but heard about it and read the wiki and think they get it. You can usually tell.

There was a thread a few days ago about how the businessmen who took government aid were the main characters and inspired the Wall Street bail out people. In fact the businessmen who took aid were the villains in the book.

>>4193624
>The terrible climactic ending when you actually meet John Galt was shit.

We meet Galt in the third part or the book, not at the end.

>>4193417
>steel professors
This is why you shouldn't take philosophy advice off a STEM academic.

Also why you shouldn't take materials science advice off philosophers.

>>4193899
not philosophy advice, just looking for new reading material. but i digress.

>>4193935
The VCR manual was perfectly good for Kramer.

>>4193417
It's a mediocre novel with the sole purpose of being a vessel for a rather mediocre philosophy.

Read The Fountainhead instead. It's actually sorta cool.

>>4193778
I havent read it but it is bad

>mfw your opinion is worth absolutely nothing

What is it actually about?

>>4193496
this has to be a joke

>>4193417
hey OP, I read this book over the summer. Most of it isn't very good or well written. The first 100 pages or so are okay, but after that, the characters usually start to sound the same. John Galt isn't really a big mystery in the book, since about every 30-50 pages his name is usually brought up, to the point where his reveal in the third part is mostly anti-climatic. If you want to read a book by her, I would steer clear of this one. A friend of mine, a former fan, said that her best book is probably her first one, We the Living, but I haven't read it.

My mom bought an Ayn Rand book today at the bookfair. I bought something else too because I was volunteering there.

how many people will it take for you to read a book. read it if you want. don't if you don't want to. until then fuck off.

>>4193444
puerile*

>>4195185
I don't get iit...

>>4196678

>>4193587
what about just reading it and taking some shit away from it but not becoming a Randdrone

that's what I did with Fountainhead and Anthem

>>4197626

The correct phrase is Randroid.

>>4197628
I like it.jpg

>>4193420
serious Q, what is a steel professor?

>>4197661
a professor who teaches steel

>>4193778
legit bad? or liberal professor "mein kampf" is BAD"?

>>4197670
It's bad in the same way that listening to someone argue in favor of creationism for 900 pages makes for a bad read.

Except instead of creationism Rand argues in favor of The Secret's brand of financial success.

>>4197670
It's a poor novel regardless of the ideas presented.

>>4193561

I just finished the first third (it's told in three parts) and it's already one of my favorite books. Some of the writing is tedious, but I like some of the characters (who are decidedly unrealistic).