/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3357947]

So why does everyone think Ayn Rand is a hack?

[Anonymous No.3357976]

They parrot what others say or don't understand her philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3357986]

>>3357976
O Quentin, I miss thee.

[Anonymous No.3358008]

hivemind, and she's a poor writer

[Anonymous No.3358014]

I just started this boook, I came here in the hope and knowledge that I'd find a thread to start a discussion about it.

Honestly, I'm having a difficult time reading it. I'm only 3 chapters in, and I'm a pretty die-hard socialist, so I'll admit to being initially biased. But it seems to me that every character is an insufferable cunt. All the socialists in the book are loudmouthed, point-dodging cunts who push their views onto everyone in incoherent and blatantly wrong ways. They show no respect to their friends and family who work very hard for them, and are generally obnoxious people. In the meantime, the people whom I'm guessing are the protagonists of the book (Hank Rearden, FemTaggart whose name is 'scaping me right now) are painted as strong, reserved, infinitely wise and hard working, and self sacrificial for the sake of the business. My problem with them isn't their drive or success, those are aspects to be emulated, but it's their social detachment, and their god-complexes to the point that they look emotionlessly upon a world that they view as ants, scrambling around with little understanding of what they're doing with their lives. It seems, in my opinion, based on my worldview, that they have forgotten everything that's important in life, and sacrificed it all in the name of running a good business, something that I find to be a ridiculous and horrible message.
But I've still got a thousand something pages to go, so maybe she can change my mind in that time. But if she keeps up with this "Look how stupid these people are talking about societal problems, look at these brave, intelligent figures working to keep their companies thriving," I think I'll drop the book long before she reaches her point.

Also, all her metaphor, symbolism, and foreshadow is really blatant, partly because of the simplicity of the language, but that's forgivable to some extent.

[Anonymous No.3358044]

>>3358014
Rand has said in her books that she writes her characters to be what she would imagine the ideal to be. Dagny and Hank are not perfect, but she wishes to portray them as two people of mutual interest working to achieve a common goal - being productive. This part of the book, though quite lengthy, sets up some of the later points in her novel quite well. Though some of the ideas she wants you to explore as you read are:

The pursuit of achievement, in one of two ways (The producer and the parasite).
The treatment of social guilt.
The legitimacy of social guilt.
The two views on what being 'selfish' really means.

[Anonymous No.3358063]

>>3357976

quentin was a genius.

[Anonymous No.3358165]

>>3357976
Ehhh, I dunno. I've always been down with the first part. I've always tried to ask as little as possible from others, especially my parents, who are more than willing to send money my ways, but I've always felt the need to help others, even if they do nothing to deserve it. Perhaps it's just my heavy liberal upbringing, but I empathize with almost everyone around me, even the absolute cunts and dregs of society. I view even the worst people as just people who have lost their way, and I feel bad that they miss out on what I find important.

[Anonymous No.3358182]

>>3357976

how are this guy's comics still posted? so dry and lame.

if you want to see a real critique of rand and objectivism, check out this page:

http://www.friesian.com/rand.htm

[Anonymous No.3358362]

>>3358182
TL;DR
I like Quetzalcoatl better.

[Anonymous No.3358366]

>>3358362

>TL;DR'ing on /lit/

You're missing the point, bro.

[Anonymous No.3358484]

>>3358165

As long as you don't claim that charity is a moral duty or virtuous on itself, your stance, as stated, is perfectly compatible with objectivism (or at least with Rand's views, Peikoff would disagree).

I think Rand's philosophy has far larger and more foundational problems than the ethics of reciprocity and how they affect charity.

As for Rand as a writer, she was putrid. The novels are particularly bad. As most engagé fiction anyway.

[Anonymous No.3359041]

>>3357976
I hate looking at fucking quentin. Every "meme" I've seen him in, his opponent is ignorant, thus making him look smart. But he looks like a pompous ass and it's annoying. Not reading this gay shit. Fuck quentin.

[Anonymous No.3359065]

Aside from her dreadful writing style, anyone stupid enough to subscribe to Rand's underlying philosophy would undoubtedly be at the shittest-tier of the society it espouses.

[Anonymous No.3359078]

>>3359065

The irony is, the dumbass movement that espouses her ideas has so warped them to be even more naive.

>She denounced libertarianism, which she associated with anarchism. She rejected anarchism as a naïve theory based in subjectivism that could only lead to collectivism in practice.

[Anonymous No.3359102]

>>3359065
No one mentions the horrible prose often enough. I tried to read The Fountainhead but good god, she takes as long as possible to say the merest thing.

[Anonymous No.3359133]

>>3359078