/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11931198]

Now that the dust has settled, isn't this a great novel that stands on its own two feet, aside from all the memes and ideology the left like to attribute to it?

[Anonymous No.11931235]

>>11931198
Oh boy this is gonna be epic

[Anonymous No.11931247]

>>11931198
>left
Lolbergs are left-wing, though. Capitalism and "freedumb" are old now, but were "new" in the 1700s.
Now, in the case of the book, haven't read it. Wanna give a summary, and a critique?

[Anonymous No.11931276]

>>11931198
yes sir

[Anonymous No.11931350]

>Rand's novels are bad as literature for these reasons
>aha! But objectivism defines 'good literature' as 'the sort of books Rand wrote' so you see you are objectively wrong
250 replies and 47 images omitted

[Anonymous No.11931404]

>>11931350

[Anonymous No.11931524]

>>11931198
Never read this because I assumed it would be like reading Atlas Shrugged a second time. Is it different enough to warrant reading as someone who liked Atlas Shrugged (despite disagreeing with half of it)?

[Anonymous No.11931662]

>>11931524
Yeah it is, not nearly as preachy either.

>>11931350
Based brainlet commie

>>11931247
I mean modern left aka anti-classical-liberal. It's about an architect that gets thrashed by the system and comes out on top

[Anonymous No.11931670]

doesn't merit the attention it receives

[Anonymous No.11931689]

>>11931198
>oh no, my public image was ruined by an all powerful architecture critic

[Anonymous No.11931998]

>>11931689
>oh no, my public 4chan image was ruined by the fact that i'm an idiot

[Anonymous No.11933202]

Bump

[Anonymous No.11933341]

You literally cannot name a better villain than Ellsworth Toohey.

[Anonymous No.11933347]

>>11933341
CNN but in real life

[Anonymous No.11933353]

>>11931198
the characters are one dimensional and bland, and no one gives a fuck about buildings especially not the author

[Anonymous No.11933364]

I prefer Pillars of the Earth for an architecture book.

[Anonymous No.11934118]

>>11933353
>this
idc about the philosophy Rand's works are simply boring (assuming they're all like Atlas shrugged which bored me to tears).

[Anonymous No.11934207]

>>11933341

[Anonymous No.11934232]

>>11931247
overton window has shifted, lolbergs are right wing now

[Anonymous No.11934527]

enjoyable
Book > Sandwich

[Anonymous No.11934581]

What was Rand trying to accomplish with the rape scene? Was she trying to show that ubermensch take charge of their destiny or something? Especially since it's presented in a pretty unambiguously positive light after the fact.

[Anonymous No.11934590]

>>11934581
She had a rape fetish

[Anonymous No.11934670]

>>11934590
This.
She was into cuckholdry too, as all libertarians are.

[Anonymous No.11935882]

>>11934581
It's more a power and domination fetish to be consistent with her views

[Anonymous No.11936937]

>>11931247
>Now, in the case of the book, haven't read it
every fucking time

[Anonymous No.11937031]

I enjoyed the dialogue but I agree that the rape scene was unnecessary and parts of the philosophical dawdling take up too much of the page count.

[Anonymous No.11938482]

lllkkkkkbumop

[Anonymous No.11938752]

Instead of writing the whole fucking book, she should have just left the court scene no context and you would fully grasp what point she was trying to make. I loathe when authors use the characteras a mouthpiece.

[Anonymous No.11938826]

>>11931198
I remember reading the first sentence and deciding to put it aside.

[Anonymous No.11938939]

>>11933341
>book has a villain

[Anonymous No.11939288]

>>11934581
Watch the first part of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqoaf5S9m0M

[Anonymous No.11940314]

>>11938752
There is literally nothing wrong with that and is even fully warranted in some contexts.

[Anonymous No.11940388]

I read 400p of AS and dropped it. Her writing's really meant for the lowest common denominator, good lord why does she repeat her naive slop so much

[Anonymous No.11940506]

>>11940388
(You)

[Anonymous No.11940726]

>>11934590
All good women do.

[Anonymous No.11940916]

was at a party the other night with a friend and fellow philosophy undergrad. we were doing out own thing for a minute and I ended up finding him caught in slowly heating argument about Ayn Rand with a girl who loved Ayn Rand. This chick repeatedly insisted that philosophers didn't know how to think for real because they only know how to read philosophy and couldn't open their minds enough to consider or understand Ayn Rand's philosophy.
My friend was trying his hardest to reason with her, and having debated with this dude extensively in the past, this is the only time I witnessed him start to lose patience with someone. It was funny because from lectures and secondhand study he was actually more familiar with Ayn Rand's philosophy than she was, which made the discussion considerably more complicated.
Later went out for a cigarette with her and tried to win her over all good cop like, but I don't remember her really budging or even hearing very much of it. I just told her to read Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.11941089]

>>11940916
Let's hear some of the embarrassing points she made and fallacies she argued at this party that totally happened anon

[Anonymous No.11941403]

>>11931198
>>11931247
>>11931350
I read The Fountainhead a few years back when I considered myself "like, a hardcore libertarian, man." Even then, I thought "Holy shit, is Atlas Shrugged this bad?" After slogging through a billion pages of Mr. Strong Silent McBroadchest being a martyr, I started Atlas Shrugged. Somehow it was worse. I think the books were targeted at middling-successful businesspeople, and Atlas Shrugged just hit at the right time (late 50s).

[Anonymous No.11942849]

>>11941089
Sorry that you find something unbelievable about this, but I don't have much to give you because I didn't hear a lot of it and not much of it was memorable. It wasn't my argument.
I say that my friend knew more based on his account of the exchange after the fact, that she said something that contradicted Rand's philosophy and said what he claimed to know didn't count because he didn't read the books. Which is fair on some level, I guess?

If I were making up an anecdote to trash Ayn Rand fans I would have made it a lot more interesting. It's not even something that needs trashing anymore

[Anonymous No.11943071]

>>11942849
That's right skipper, keep ignoring Objectivism's slowly encroaching victories. Just according to keikaku. Rand's philosophic acheivements are so densely packed it's staggering and my previous dread for coming civilizational collapse is slowly abating.

[Anonymous No.11943108]

11943071
>baiting this hard
No (you) for you

[Anonymous No.11943123]

>>11943108
Aww :( but those are like super important.
Here me, >>11943071 the deserved (You)
Close one

[Anonymous No.11943156]

>>11943071
ok

[Anonymous No.11943175]

[Anonymous No.11943922]

>>11943175
Nope

[Anonymous No.11944296]

>>11943922
But wasn't she on the welfare?

[Anonymous No.11944304]

>>11944296
I think Social Security. I don't really see anything wrong with that since she (and everyone else) was forced to give her money to the government for that purpose. Accepting the checks is just getting the money that was forcibly taken from her back.

[Anonymous No.11944307]

>>11944296
Yup

[Anonymous No.11944435]

>>11944296

[Anonymous No.11944534]

It read like conservative fanfiction and ended like your typical bad movie: guilty guy gives a speech and is found not guilty cause he moves everyone with his POWERFUL IDEA (just like real life)!

[Anonymous No.11945479]

>>11943175
lel

[Anonymous No.11945540]

>>11944534
The alternative would have been too bleak. Toohey would have effectively won.

[Anonymous No.11946004]

>>11933341
>Iago
>Polonius
>Lady Macbeth
And that's just Shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.11946015]

>>11943922
That doesn’t refute the claims made though

[Anonymous No.11946097]

>>11946004
It's nice that you need to compare Ayn Rand to shakespeare.

[Anonymous No.11946136]

>>11940916
Your friend sounds like a virgin.

[Anonymous No.11946180]

>>11931198
It's trash but Ayn Rand wouldn't receive a fraction of the hate she gets if she hadn't been a right wing semitic woman. Nikolay Chernyshevsky doesn't get any hate even when his philosophy is the same shit but leftist and his work is just as bad. And don't come saying it's because he's less relevant because he's as iconic for soviet communism as Rand is for libertarianism.

[Anonymous No.11946389]

>>11946180
>Nikolay Chernyshevsky
When his fans start shitting up the Internet like Randroids do he will be hated too

[Anonymous No.11946394]

>>11933353
>the characters are one dimensional and bland
That's the whole point. Each character is a personification of an idea. They are not supposed to be realistic.

>no one gives a fuck about buildings
Architecture is totally irrelevant in this book.

[Anonymous No.11946397]

>>11931198
It’s very entertaining, I’ll give it that

I guess you could interpret it more conservatively as an argument for artists to free themselves of the burden of financial success, and to seek authenticity above all else

[Anonymous No.11946483]

>>11946394
>it's meant to be badly written

[Anonymous No.11947387]

>>11946389
>implying tankies don't shit up the internet as much as libertarians.

[Anonymous No.11948187]

>>11946483
You don't understand. I'm not talking about her writing itself but her way of telling a story and its purpose.

[Anonymous No.11948193]

>>11946483
No one is going to understand why this comic is so funny.

No one

[Anonymous No.11948295]

>>11946015
But it does curtail the intended implication. Not my first rodeo champ

[Anonymous No.11948308]

>>11946483
No fag just because you don't like romantic realism as an aesthetic philosophy doesn't make it bad.

[Anonymous No.11948408]

>>11948308
It does make it bad to me though. I prefer well written books, it's a foible

[Anonymous No.11948427]

>>11948408
No aesthetic naturalism has simply been ingrained in you. What you consider as well written is colored as a result.

[Anonymous No.11948527]

>>11948427
>aesthetic naturalism
>implying
I actually prefer 18th century picaresque, but please don't adjust your stock response on my account

[Anonymous No.11948555]

>>11931198
I read this in high school and thought it was a very enjoyable novel desu. I thought her characters and story telling were all right, never got what the big deal was. Am i a pleb?

[Anonymous No.11948560]

>>11934232
its shifted again, lolbergs are left wing again.

[Anonymous No.11948578]

>>11948555
>I read this in high school and thought it was a very enjoyable novel
This is understandable

[Anonymous No.11948586]

>>11931198
Am I a pleb for actually enjoying this book solely because there isn’t nearly enough great fiction written about architecture?

[Anonymous No.11948590]

>>11946394
> hey, I’m going to make the premise of my book about people who are architects, but I’m not going to write about either and instead I’ll just shill my ideology for the 30th time
Yeah great, at least John green tries to write a story in a novel and not just propaganda

[Anonymous No.11948632]

>>11944435
Taxes are theft bro, prove me wrong

[Anonymous No.11948651]

>>11948632
They are rent for living in society. If you don’t want taxes live in the woods

[Anonymous No.11948804]

>>11948651
We have productive bussinessmen to thank for "society" not the government.

[Anonymous No.11948816]

>>11948527
Preferred school of artistic style=/=opperant philosophy of aesthetics

[Anonymous No.11948849]

>>11948804
Business men don’t stop crime, or put out fires, or get you to hospitals, or teach your kids.

[Anonymous No.11948875]

>>11948816
>implying 18th century picaresque doesn't have its own philosophy of aesethics

[Anonymous No.11948883]

>>11948849
In fact that is literally how firefighters and police were invented you low iq idiot. The business man Marcus Crassus made the first fire department and if you didn’t pay him he would let your house burn to the fucking ground

[Anonymous No.11948893]

>>11948883
Then he’s a nigger. Now I don’t half to pay some asshole to stop my house from burning down.

[Anonymous No.11948898]

>>11948893
> half
Have* god damn autocorrect

[Anonymous No.11948946]

>>11931350

>>11948308
>>11948187
>>11946394

[Anonymous No.11949280]

>>11948849
Who enable the building of the firehose's componetst hat carries the pressurized water to put out said fire?
>...
That's what I thought

[Anonymous No.11949299]

>>11948946
>Rand's novel's are bad because it doesn't follow aesthetic naturalism
>"Other aesthetic philosophies than naturalism exist anon"
>AHAHA Randroid once again spewing apologism for Rand's shit lit
Someone find me a smug animu gril now. I have none saved.

[Anonymous No.11949313]

>>11948875
Yeah champ but I didn't say "=/=philosophy of aesthetics" I said "=/=opperant philosophy of aesthetics"