/lit/ - Literature

I lurk GameFAQs' Books and Literature section from time to time. It's kinda stiff compared to here.

/lit/ is so messed up. I love this place.

This one, because I was taught to hate Ayn Rand here.

>>657432

Really. I thought that was just a natural thing, with or without /lit/.

The majority of /lit/, including yourselves, have never read any of her work and therefore you are fucking retarded sheep people. Go read We the Living, I have never heard anyone express a nontroll negative opinion on it.

Fuck Rand, Forums, I need them!

>>657422
w Ｈ y a r e Ｙ Ｏ ｕ ｓ t E Ａ Ｌ ｉ ｎ Ｇ C o n ｔ E N Ｔ c Ｈ ｒ i S t Ｏ Ｐ ｈ e r P ｏ o ｌ E ? H t ｔ P : / / 8 8 . 8 0 . 2 1 . 1 2 /

>>657441

I've only read The Fountainhead. How is it compared to the rest of Rand's work?

I'm a socialist. I'm pretty sure I would burst into flames with rage if I read a Rand book.

I too want these forums.

>>657420
Ｗ E Ｌ c o Ｍ e t o Ａ Ｎ ｔ ｏ ｐ I ａ W ｈ e Ｒ Ｅ A l l ｔ h e A N T ｓ L ｉ v ｅ i ｎ ｈ Ａ Ｒ M Ｏ n Ｙ : h T Ｔ Ｐ : / / 8 8 . 8 0 . 2 1 . 1 2 /

>>657467
commie bastard

>>657441
I actually saw some Rand novels in my local bookstore.
Almost bought them to find out why /lit/ hates her so much.

Well I've read some of Rand's pamphlets. they seemed to be as drivellous as any other political pamphlet I've ever read.

As for fums though I don't know. I lurk the boards.ie forums but really /lit/ has an energy you don't get elsewhere. the anonymity really does free people to express opinion or troll entertainingly without shitstorms.

I read Anthem during jury duty, it was a decent dystopian novel.

>>657425

>Books and Literature

Elitist faggots everywhere.

>>657518
Honestly, I think it's because her writing is par at best, but her message can't be argued against and she just drives it home relentlessly.
She kicks the horse to death and keeps on kicking, and although you stand there horrified at first, no part of you thinks she should stop.

http://www.worldliteratureforum.com/forum/

hipinion

has much better pretentious taste

420chan's lit is good too sometimes

>>657421
T ｈ Ｉ s Ｉ s ｃ Ｏ p ｙ Ｐ Ａ S Ｔ ａ ｉ Ｆ ｏ ｕ n Ｄ Ｉ ｔ ｈ ｅ r e : h T t ｐ : / / 8 8 . 8 0 . 2 1 . 1 2 /

>>657467

The sad thing about Rand is socialists hate it because they are fucked in the head and they still think it's possible for human beings to make socialism work.

And for some reason, the kind of people who believe in capitalist free markets also hate her for no good reason.

>>657891
Because objectivism is a failed attempt at a coherent philosophy. Libertarian here.

>>657432

/lit/ is like a couple of months old. Are you talking about /book/?

I don't understand why everyone here talks about /lit/ like it's got some personality and history, whereas it's really only just started to form its core userbase.

I went to Barnes/Noble yesterday to find some crazy pomo bullshit to read. I noticed many Ayn Rand books in both the Philosophy section and the Fiction and Literature section. That's way too much. Her books should be next to the Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter books.

When I found the section with the Bill ORLY and Beck books, I saw tons of Chomsky and Zinn. There was more of their books than the Fox shit. That made me feel much better. :)

>>657891
Free marketeers (we) don't hate her. She just gets too much credit. There are sharper thinkers on the matters of laisez-faire capitalism and libertarian politics.

Alot of people read her stuff, and walk away feeling like she invented these ideas. Granted she was my gateway, but I then learned about the Austrian School of Economics, and during/after Rand was Milton Freidman.
Also she stated everything in such a negative way. She was more prone to saying "you're the worst" than "we are awesome".

>>657893
Agreed. The objectivist rules for withdrawal of sanction are ridiculous.
"I have explained my position and given you no opportunity to debate. My position is so ironclad, that if you don't agree with me IMMEDIATELY I am never going to speak to you again.

Im the guy remarking on Austria btw, and before that on her "par at best" writing.

>>657905

Those people are both theists, and social conservatives. They are advocates of government. She would have had no time for them.
You, like many, mistake her capitalist views for Republicanism. You know nothing about classical liberalism or libertarianism.
This is /lit/, and you typed stuff, so I assume you can read. Read things before you critisize them.

>>657926

Very subtle.

>>657905
BTW, Chomsky is an anarcho-capitalist. Pretty much the only form of libertarianism more extreme than minarchism (The term given to the form of government Rand advocates).

>>657861
>>657909
>>657920
>>657926
>>657939
>>657949
Samefag

>>657949
butthatswrongyoufuckingidiot.jpg
Not even close...

Thread about another book forums

ends up in discussion about Rand.

Classic /lit/

>>657949
could have sworn chomsky was an anarcho-commie

anarcho-capitlist here
rand is a nutcase and cult leader who fails at philosphy, but fairly entertaining as an author and my gateway to the whole libertarian thing

>>657949
chomsky is an anarcho-syndicalist or a libertarian-socialist

definitely not an anarcho-capitalist

>>657441

Imbecile.

>>658685
FOr the love oof God, this is so true.
Rand should be word-filtered on /lit/.
I've seen so many threads reduced to /rand/om discussions because of that stupid BITCH
(btw: I've read Atlas shrugged and found it appaling)