/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5079115]

Just finished this a bit ago. I'll admit I liked it much more than i thought I would.

I know /lit/ views Rand in a negative light most of the time but I want to hear what others have to say about it, good or bad.

[Anonymous No.5080751]

Is just garbage since the first chapter. You must to read more. Asshole.

[« 零 » !Ry9.FWKNDY No.5080761]

[Anonymous No.5080838]

At my university most people who hate Rand hate her because she espouses ethical egoism and that's it and most people who like Rand like her because she's popular and they don't understand how many elementary mistakes she makes.

[Anonymous No.5080854]

Is this thread real?
Is somebody going to start linking John Green books and then George RR Martin "books"?

[Anonymous No.5080860]

>>5080761
do you have anymore of these?

[Anonymous No.5080905]

Let me just speed this right up.
John green is my English teachers FAVORITE author. And I LOVE him too. Isn't he just the GREATEST writer? He so kows how I FEEL.

[Anonymous No.5080918]

Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged were good books with shitty prose and an excellent plot based on flawed philosophy. It's just a fad to hate on Rand, and the hatecult's followers are so damn determined they don't even understand what they hate and the majority are as ignorant as undecided voters listening to a dumb politician in front of a microphone and fall into something just because it's easier to not fall into something.

[Anonymous No.5082088]

I understand the criticism of her prose and her flawed philosophy. The book was also long winded and the characters were robotic. But I still think some lessons were valuable despite being ham fisted. However I don't think I would follow up the experience with AS.

[Anonymous No.5082147]

I read Atlas Shrugged and didn't much care for it, but the philosophy kept me interested enough to see it through to the end. After that I thought I was done with Rand, but the more I heard about the Fountainhead the more I thought it sounded way better than AS and I was right, I loved it. I think the main reason people talk about Atlas Shrugged so much is so they can push their political views (especially if they give away spoilers while trying to convince people to read it). The Fountainhead is better in every way.

I thought the plot got a little boring around part 3 and most of the time I was way more interested in Roark's career than in the weird romance subplot that seems to be in every Rand novel, but that sort of pays off in part 4, so whatever. I thought Ellsworth Toohey was actually scary as fuck because there are people who actually do think like that and sometimes people actually listen to them. I also liked Roark, but I'm sort of skeptical of him as a model of ideal behaviour. I mean, refusing to do college assignments because you think they're boring, having sex without unequivocal consent from the other party, and blowing up buildings for revenge then admitting guilt all seem like pretty bad ideas, but I like the way he stuck to his principles in the face of opposition. If people were less like Peter Keating and more like Howard Roark, I think the world would be a better place.

Gail Wynand was by far the most fascinating character though, a rebuttal to anyone who says all the characters in Rand's novels are one-dimensional. As far as Rand's philosophy goes, there are some flaws in my opinion, but you don't have to agree with everything in it to enjoy The Fountainhead. However, people who are deeply religious or collectivist will probably be put off.

[Anonymous No.5082188]

>>5080905
What do people on here think about John Green?

[Anonymous No.5082209]

I think most people that are overly critical of Rand take her 'selfish' ideology to be what they think it could mean rather than what Rand had intended. When I read the fountainhead I was surprised by how wrong my previous conception of her was. I is less about trying to dominate others and more about independence from their influence.

Although I do think its kind of hysterical how she depicts humanitarians as this kind of evil force that preaches altruism to ruin the strength of the nation.

[Anonymous No.5082212]

>>5082188
There are only three kinds of authors: Pre-Green, Post-Green and Green.

[Anonymous No.5082320]

>>5082147
The characters in the book are somewhat fantastical, but I agree with the dynamic characterization she presents with Wynand as a sort of foil to both Peter and Howard as someone who is caught in the middle between the two.

What I really enjoyed the most was the interaction between the major and minor characters, most importantly Catherine and her descent into corruption on the part of Toohey. She really demonstrates the sort of soullessness that is implicit in the philosophy of altruism as a moral principle. That isn't to say that helping people is a bad thing, but I believe that ultimately one must recognize that the must do what benefits them the most, and through that we will find real joy in solidarity.

[Anonymous No.5082335]

>>5082320
I agree, Catherine's arc was well done.

[Anonymous No.5082449]

>>5082209
ive only read Atlas shrugged but she seemed fine with charity as long as it was consensual and she didn't care that people dedicated their lives to it but she was against those people trying the drag others into it. Her theory was that if the majority of the population became altruistic we would only be solving problems in the moment rather than taking steps to improve the quality of life. Imagine of we all still drove Ford Model Ts and constantly had to make repairs and dedicate massive amounts of the workforce to maintain this one vehicle rather than allowing someone with intellect to go back to the drawing board and make a new damn car.

[Anonymous No.5082455]

>/lit/ hates X for no reason
>someone actually reads X
>"hey, this is actually no that bad"
>X is now the best thing ever
>/lit/ loves X for no reason
>/lit/ hates no-X for no reason

And so on, and so on...

[Anonymous No.5082510]

>>5082449
I just thought of a better example. I play alot of games and recently became interested in Speed running. Speed running is where you try to beat a game as fast as possible. Over and over. Its kinda fun and requires a shit ton of dedication to get world records. Every year the speedrunning community hosts event where they stream marathons for donations that goes to different causes. This is isn't bad on paper but here is the problem.

Speedrunning requires a shit ton of practice and "maintenance". Maintenance means you have to constantly be practicing, like 4 - 6 hours a day. This means if you really want a serious speed runner you have to give up a few things. You can either:
Work full time and speed run after work but give up social life (the least chosen)
Work Part-time and sacrifice quality of life for hobby (probably the most chosen path)
Be a NEET and Speedrun 16 hours a day

Now you may be wondering how does the NEET path sustain themselves? Well they stream practice runs on twitch and ask for donations so they can keep doing it. Do you see the problem here? They want donations so they can keep practice speedrunning without having to work, they need even more donations to get to and fund these charity events. Then the charity events themselves ask you to donate to whatever cause they support. Then it starts over.

This is exactly what Rand was against. Entire lifestyles being dedicated to altruism. There are speedrunners who try to make money through subscriptions and make enough to better they lives but they get shunned by the rest.

[Anonymous No.5082535]

>>5082449
It's really just an attack on a very misunderstood version of Marxism, more than anything. Her whole philosophy is a vehicle for venting about the Bolsheviks.

[Anonymous No.5082553]

>>5079115
I've only read AS.

It's far too long and it is stupidly obvious. That said, Rand is a compelling and engaging writer and makes it really easy to get through the 1000 pages of that book.

I have libertarian leanings but she is just ridiculous alot of the time.

It's good, but way too much.

[Anonymous No.5083337]

I honestly think that the only reason she writes so obviously is that she thinks everyone is an idiot and she has to spell it out for them.

Also, how is it even possible to embrace Rand's philosophy? Part of her ideology is to not be a shell for other peoples opinions.

[Anonymous No.5083354]

>>5079115
Stopped reading about half way through because it was so repetitive.

[Anonymous No.5083404]

>>5083354
>Roark makes a building
>Fails
>Roark makes a building
>Fails
I feel you

[Anonymous No.5083445]

Apologies for potential derail.
I've never read a John Green book, but I've watched some Crash Course videos. What are his books like? Bad I take it?

[Anonymous No.5083466]

>>5083445
The only reason those videos are worth anything is that they have a team of people writing about the topics. Green is just a spastic youtube personality that got lucky to join the production.

I honestly think he is bright. But he isn't smart enough to write something substantial and he knows it. However he is clever enough to pander to YA audiences with sappy teen melodramas.

He hates Rand by the way.

[Anonymous No.5083650]

Are there any book similar to the fountainhead (individual fails and suffers hardship, but grows over time) worth reading? Besides Musashi, I'm unfamiliar with any that have ever drawn my attention.

In b4 john green

[Anonymous No.5084100]

>>5080761
>my opinions are facts.gif

[Anonymous No.5084563]

>>5083650
I used to thirst for the same kind of books after reading Ayn Rand. But now I see that you can find such essense in many characters and many novels. Personally, I think that one of Steinbeck's main theme is somewhat the same idea as Rand's when it comes to what a man is. Though Steinbeck's characters are much more human and thus he gives the lessons in a more subtle way unlike Rand's spell-it-out. I loved The Grapes of Wrath. "Anyone can break, it takes a man not to."