/lit/ - Literature

Italy doesn't hate Ayn Rand, in fact Mussolini's son personally approved one of her books getting made into a movie there

>>5106767
fuck, I meant /int/, but you all damn sure know it
Guess I'll have to kill myself now

>>5106761
>>>/lit/

Her name sounds like the dutch word 'aangerand' which means 'molested' in it's broader sense. I guess we're all born the lsd way, hallelujah, praise sauron.

I quite like Ayn Rand, but it's because she's profoundly retarded and emotional and in her having a following allows me to more easily pick out others of profound retardation and emotion.

she is not puh-trician

>>5106761
I don't know about other countries, but in the United States many college campuses are filled with drones who think she's the most amazing writer who ever lived, despite how intellectually shallow her writing really is.

I think Philosophy students and professors also dislike her because most of her ideas are just watered down versions of other thinkers before her.

Cuz shes a lesbian non-lesbian.

>>5106767

The Fountainhead was a REALLY bad film. Apparently the imdb people felt it was better than I felt.

Ayn Rand filmography:
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0709446/

>>5108134

Also, I realize that The Fountainhead wasn't the one produced by Mussolini's progeny.

>>5108137

ARE YOU "CUNT"/"CLINT"?

>>5108138

No. I'm CUNT

I'm changing my name every time I clear my history. Because fuck namefags.

>>5108143

I DO NOT COMPREHEND.

ARE YOU THE PERSON WHO I THINK THAT YOU ARE? YES, OR NO?

>>5106776
Shit I meant /lit/ and I just noticed now
It is not even worth bringing up anymore but the subject is still practically the same

>>5106767
>>5106776
>>5108162
is this post modernism

>>5108151

nope

>>5108167
Its a recluse with lack of sleep who spent his entire days on imageboard
I wonder if there's a book related to that

badly written, silly ideas, self help books for the rich, popular with tea party and libertarian dads, etc

Because she never grows a set and calls herself a social darwinist.

Rand is hated by most critics largely because of her "mass" appeal as well generally outspoken yet poorly substantiated ideas ("popular" philosopher).

The general consumer typically gobbles her "novels" with an insensitivity for higher literary appreciation and more a stereotyped idea of good literary work. Taking her "magnum opus" for example, Atlas Shrugged boasted most qualities fulfilling the public's criterion. It was significantly thick (page count), presented a premise encompassing popular genres like sci-fi dystopia and mystery, was speculative and inclined to "philosophy", and was supremely unradical in terms of novel conventions. In short: the book was easy to read, made the reader feel learned, and projected a learned facade to most. Such qualities were and still are loathed by members of the ivory tower (whether or not the reader should call hypocrisy, I shall leave it to you) or those who fancy themselves aligned to it.

Rand herself had no love for the idols of the tower, attacking the likes of Stein and Joyce in her work on writing The Art of Fiction. The persona she made of herself there, along with the ideas she projected, directly opposed and still chastises the critics. With characteristic brazenness, Rand claims justification of every word and punctuation mark in Shrugged as well as lambasts the styles of the aforementioned as non-objective. Obviously, crowing her head off and criticising the critics' heroes won't merit their adoring affection especially considering the poor quality of her work: overtly bloated, heedless to literary nuance and screwing up the blatancies (haphazard symbolism, poor characterisation et al), and ideas quixotic and painfully ill-reasoned (Objectivism's proposed ideas embody a poor understanding of various fields such as economics of which pure laissez-faire would cause collapse from factors such as externalities).

In short, the author is essentially a "pop" writer who inflates her writing to misconceived intellectuality by academics -- real or fancied -- of which she attacks with respectable bravado and idiocy.

>>5109935
tldr but i like the ending

>>5106761
Why does the OP hate chewing glass so much?

Honestly, because she is a woman with strong opinions, and she's not attractive.

You're all missing the point to Ayn Rand. It's baffling. Really, instead of enumerating all the sorts of people who would misunderstand her books or merely use them as a justification for crooked morals, why don't you try and refute her moral code? And try not to be the smartass saying she's got none.

Try to refute this:

“People think that a liar gains a victory over his victim. What I’ve learned is that a lie is an act of self-abdication, because one surrenders one’s reality to the person to whom one lies, making that person one’s master, condemning oneself from then on to faking the sort of reality that person’s view requires to be faked"

Or this:

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.”

Or this:

“Learn to distinguish the difference between errors of knowledge and breaches of morality. An error of knowledge is not a moral flaw, provided you are willing to correct it; only a mystic would judge human beings by the standard of an impossible, automatic omniscience. But a breach of morality is the conscious choice of an action you know to be evil, or a willful evasion of knowledge, a suspension of sight and of thought. That which you do not know, is not a moral charge against you; but that which you refuse to know, is an account of infamy growing in your soul. Make every allowance for errors of knowledge; do not forgive or accept any break of morality.”

Tl;dr She's no Kant, that's for sure, but really, being judgmental and oblivious about her message doesn't make up for a serious argument.

>>5110079

Oh my god is it normal to feel ill reading this?I'm not even joking. A wave of nausea.

I need some air.

All I'm saying is, there's more than laissez faire capitalism in her teachings. Her message is aimed at the individual, and it's one of self respect and self steem. Personally, I found Atlas Shrugged to be way more didactical than Nietzsche's Also Spracht Zarathustra.

>>5110084

Cool, mind explaining what is it you find so nauseating? Honestly here, I'm trying to understand the point of people hating her so much.

>>5110113

>I know the truth
>Don't lie because this is the truth!
>Everything is superiority
>My messages are glorious

>>5110063
It's cute that you think that.

Virginia Woolf and Sylvia Plath are loved here because they are both phenomenal writers, and they're not what's considered "le hot!" Ayn Rand is a poor writer all around, pushing an ideology that at it's very core is unsustainable. It promotes selfishness before anything else because of an extreme hatred of the living conditions she had to endure in the communist state she grew up in, causing her to have an irrational hatred of sharing to any degree. It completely ignores that everything great done by humans, whether at the micro or macro level, was done with a broader scope in mind.

"Anthem" was pretty good, though.

>>5110079
I agree with these, but objectivism doesn't properly adhere to these values, i'm afraid. It promotes the individual, the self, and the ego above all others, in order to achieve "true" self fulfillment. I don't remember exactly the parts, but I know there are points in Atlas Shrugged in which Roark lies, cheats, and steals to get his plan going.

She has some good ideas. I don't think most people would disagree with that (I personally agree with her stance on the feminist movement of the time). But they represent only a fraction of all the really shitty ideals and arguments she puts out.

>>5110202
>It promotes the individual, the self, and the ego above all others, in order to achieve "true" self fulfillment

I don't see how that is a bad thing

>>5110079
She does have some good ideas but the deeper you get to the core of her writing, the more evil it becomes. Atlas Shrugged was a big fat strawman against any form of collectivism. We all know that money doesn't really represent a person's intrinsic worth, and it's toxic to think that.

Nonetheless, here's one of my favorite Rand quotes.

"I despise irresponsible people. I don't want to deal with them or help them in any way. An irresponsible person is a person who makes vague promises, then breaks his word, blames it on circumstances and expects other people to forgive it. A responsible person does not make a promise without thinking of all the consequences and being prepared to meet them."

>>5110225

>bad

Perhaps you should ask if it is useful :^ )

>>5110232
>An irresponsible person is a person who makes vague promises, then breaks his word, blames it on circumstances and expects other people to forgive it.

Pretty specific, let's see the other side:

>A responsible person does not make a promise without thinking of all the consequences and being prepared to meet them.

So what if you do not think of all the possible consequences and do not prepare to meet them, but still makes distinct promises, keeps their word, doesn't blame others and shoulders the blame themselves?

>>5110225
It's only bad when it's done to the extremes and excesses that Rand suggests. The fact that she supports those who wish to become successful even through the use of theft and deceit also contradicts her views on the truth being the ends to the means. In a word, Rand is contradictory.

>>5110246
If you were able to keep your word then that would mean you were able to understand and deal with the consequences. The point is that you took the initiative.