So is this worth reading or not...

So is this worth reading or not? Every time someone brings this book up people either say it's a masterpiece or the worst book ever made.
I'm also a lolbertardian so I don't mind the muh free market muh capitalism is good shit. However, I'm a subjective idealist and objectivism is the complete opposite of everything I believe.
>inb4 just read it
It's fucking long. I'd like to know if it's a good read at least.

Other urls found in this thread:

pastebin.com/GGXthYE2
campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics
twitter.com/AnonBabble

it's honestly shit. it's basically a bodice ripper genre novel except the super duper secret society isn't pirates or the local aristocracy, it's rich lolbertardians who want to live on an apple farm it's not any good to learn farming from, like you shouldn't learn how to be a pirate from a harlequin romance either

It's not a good book. The story is sometimes interesting but it gets ruined with all the stupid side shit and by the ridiculous characters and terrible dialogue. It'd only be worth reading for the impact it's had on American society in the past, but people here say the fountainhead will give you that too

It is the only book worth reading.

Its worth reading evne if just to introduce yourself to her and her ideas, but honestly, shes a pretty bad writer, her prose is mediocre at best and at times it feels like a hassle to read through

libertarianism is a failed ideology, the enlightenment was a mistake

care to explain why that was?

People aggressively hate it, or love it. That should tell you something.

I'm honestly not sure, like it's a big talking point for Libertarians, but it's not worth reading just as itself.

Even if you're a libertarian, the supposed good guys are still horrible people who only look slightly worse than the cartoonishly evil and incompetent villains. There's way too many things that make no sense, too much boring description, too much wanking of how awesome the heroes are, too many long LONG speeches and it has some terrible lazy world-building.

Ayn Rand hated Libertarians, so it's no surprise the book isn't a good case if looked at from a Libertarian perspective.

Why did Rand hate libertarians anyway? Don't they follow her "fuck the State" ideology?

I’ve only read the first part (~200-300 pages) of The Fountainhead, so my opinion is worthless, BUT I will say I really enjoyed most of what I read of the fountainhead although I found it to be overlong. There was a lot of fluff that didn’t need to be in there.

There is the occasional moment of scathing genius.

Liberatrianism generally puts a high value on individualism, IMO, Ayn Rand was individualist to a fault, to a degree that'd make the average libertarian and ancap turn their head.

I got bored about 2/3 of the way through. The sex scenes make it pretty clear Rand liked it rough.
The antagonist characters -- the politicians and their crony capitalist hangers-on -- seemed very weird and exaggerated. Years later in life I read actual economic analyses of New Deal laws and the actions taken in the 1930s under the guise of laws like the Agricultural Adjustment Act, National Industrial Recovery Act, and so on and suddenly those characters made a lot more sense.
The book still isn't that good though. It really drags on. And Rand's philosophy is basically Nietzsche for babies.

I never understood why Ayn Rand was so obsessed with trains and why the plot put a huge emphasis on train magnates, when the only reason railroads exist is due to the government and eminent domain. The American railroad as it existed back then wasn't created by a free market, most railroads aren't.
Kind of undermines the premise of her story is all I'm saying.

>and suddenly those characters made a lot more sense.
It's still pretty stupid how in the end Ayn Rand basically says that anyone who disagrees with her hates themselves and hates life, and everything they do is for the sole purpose of destroying the world along with them.

>Ayn Rand was individualist to a fault, to a degree that'd make the average libertarian and ancap turn their head.
What does that mean?

Nothing, that guy has no idea what he's talking about. She ""hated"" libertarians because she saw them as a bunch of dude weed lmaos

It's breddy bad, but that doesn't mean it's not worth reading. If you've any interest in delving into the mind of a narcissistic sociopath it provides some tremendous insights.

>staunch individualist
>incapable of empathy
>obsessed with trains
lol Rand was literally autistic

>female writers
>worthwhile books

Pick one and only one

Daily reminder that this is what you will end up as if you read Rand.

pastebin.com/GGXthYE2

The premise is also undermined by the fact that Galt's Gulch only works thanks to an Infinite Energy Machine that couldn't possibly exist in real life. Even with that, it still wouldn't work because there is no way you could grow Tobacco or most of the other things they farm in the fucking mountains of Colorado. Not to mention that all the Gulchers get along with each other way too well despite being supposedly selfish and individualistic.

It's not exceptional, but it's written competently and it conveys a belief-set that was central to the American zeitgeist up until a decade or so ago. As a work of art, it's mediocre, but as an entry in the history of ideas, it's definitely worthy of study.

t. Wrote a paper comparing Ayn Rand and Willa Cather for his American Lit final.

>Ayn Rand and Willa Cather
I'm so sorry, user :(

It's not worth the read. The characters are boring, static, and extreme. There is a huge amount of nothing going on for hundreds of pages. It's far more a chore to read than anything since you can't get anything out of it that you couldn't from a summary.
As an explanation of her ideology, it's incredibly lazy. The characters are completely polarized into "super great people I agree with and are handsome and cool" and "mouth-breathing morons with wrong opinions" which only serve to make her characters look better. They offer no resistance to her incredibly phallic and train-shaped ideology ramming your anus for 1200 pages.

Waste of time, even if it was 100 pages.

Is she wrong, though?

one-dimensional characters
awful dialog

Cather earned her place in the canon. The Prairie Trilogy is phenomenal. Not perfect, of course — the dialog sometimes slumps, and a handful of the metaphors she uses have been clichés since before she was born, but, overall, her writing was top-notch. It's a shame that most academics are doing "queer" readings of her work when her ideas on their own are actually interesting. She basically predicted contemporary neoliberalism.

Rand pales in comparison, but because Rand is/was a neoliberal, she borrows a lot of Cather's underlying ideas.
>protestant work ethic
>women should reject femininity
>success in a craft is the ultimate good for any individual
>america is meritocratic, or close to it
>failure in your chosen field of work is caused by some deeper moral failure
>men who sleep around are icky, but all is forgiven if they're also good at a thing
>i have underlying daddy issues & i desire to be dominated by a man who is an incarnation of my ideals
Atlas Shrugged is basically a retelling of O Pioneers, but with all of the subtlety of nuance taken out.

Paper was fun to write to be desu with you.

*subtlety and nuance
My mistake.

Rand just wanted to be a special snowflake. Her political goals were definitely libertarian.

>So is this worth reading or not?
Nothing written be feminists is worth reading.

>implying Rand was a feminist
I'm too lazy to dig it up, but I remember her saying in an interview that women were incapable of reasoning as well as men, and that she wouldn't trust a female world leader. If that isn't anti-feminist, I don't know what is.

I like Ayn Rand but I'm not even sure if it's worth reading. The first 300 pages are good, the middle is boring filler, and the 3 hour speech is appropriately grand but only makes sense once you actually experience the slave morality parasite she's describing with accuracy.
It's an interesting read, but I would recommend Fountainhead over AS.

Ayn Rand was pro individualism, which included both sex, but hated the feminism movement and saw it as another embodiment of collectivism.
Hell, Dagny is the CEO of her own company and is the only reason it's even working, though, obviously, most of the book is about her being a slut to strong men, so mixed messages all around.

>who is Emily Dickinson

kek

I am sympathetic to the politics but no, it is not a good book

the only good political fiction are brave ne eorld and 1984, everything else is hackneyed and embarassing

fuck every single one of you. its trendy to hate this book...
yes its drawn out and 1100 pages but there are some gem ideas here especially for a younger person.

this book apparently sells 500 000 copies a year still ?

its just a BOOK ! get the fuck over your haterade.

its written by a female too!? it should be getting a kudos from more females 'muh literature is all white males'.

I think the reason the vast majority of us hate it stems from the fact that we've actually read it, user.

If you want to understand Ayn Rand's philosophy, you are better off reading "The Objectivist Ethics": campus.aynrand.org/works/1961/01/01/the-objectivist-ethics
It clearly lays out her ideas in a much more concise and clearly reasoned form.

If you don't like her philosophy/way of thinking, then there is no way that you are going to like any of her novels.

Rand writes characters that are sexually liberated, I think that
>her being a slut to strong men
is a pretty big mis-reading.

I've never heard a single Rand hater accurately articulate the actual ideas that she puts forward. They just put up these simple strawman arguments.

Don't even try and think about how there is apparently still a market for Oil in the Gulch, despite the infinite energy machine.

nobody

her words, not mine

the book introduces ideas that the majority aren't capable of achieving because of mental blocks, lack of talent, lack of drive etc. of course people aren't going to like it.

shit awakens the deepest insecurities in people

Haven't finished it but, I'm liking it so far. Really connected with Hank's character.

The second step is actually applying that connection to real life, to become a better person.
Actually putting effort into your activities, striving toward productive goals.

Surely there are better ways to get an introduction to Rand than reading something this long?

>is a pretty big mis-reading.
I dunno, it's just my overall feeling on her character. In her childhood, she was enthralled by Francisco D'Anconia and let herself be controlled by him. Then she moved on, built her own company, then started an affair with Rearden which is ironic considering her own life. I still remember one random scene where a clerk calls both of them out for being so open about being in an affair and neither of them can say anything. It's honestly the only moment anyone says anything against her philosophy in the whole book, and it somehow foreshadows her downfall with Nathaniel. And then after finding out about John Galt, she immediately ditches Rearden just to be with him. It's somewhat obvious that Ayn Rand self inserts in her female protagonist but it felt incredibly self indulgent to just ditch Rearden because John Galt is a purer manifestation of her philosophy.

I argue that if Dagny had not left Rearden, people would not see her as a slut. Maybe even being called a 'slut' is incorrect, maybe more accurately I should say ;sexually submissive, willing to jump to another stronger man'.

>I've never heard a single Rand hater accurately articulate the actual ideas that she puts forward
My only real disagreements I have with her is what Nathaniel the objections had with Ayn Rand and Objectivism after his affair came to public. Many in the Objectivism movement just ignore him and just say he acted irrational but I don't think he was. There was a level of cult of personality happening in the Collective and Ayn Rand was demanding pure intellectualism without any connection to your emotions. Essentially becoming a robot by suppressing your feelings. Nathaniel argues that while Ayn Rand's views are grandiose, they don't really allow for people to be emotional outside of bed or in their work. I was rereading the Fountainhead recently and it became very apparent with Roark when he forms his own company, people tell him to be friendly with others is to be human, but he just scoffs. Hell, the first friend Roark makes is some really talented engineer (I think?) and only seems friends with him because he has skills and is passionate about his job. They share similar values of hard work, sure, but they share little else in common. Of course, in her philosophy, she argues that if you value a friend for who they are and what they represent, that's a good friend, and I view it similarly, but the way she depicts it in her fiction is off putting.

If Objectivist would allow for the criticisms of Nathaniel to be incorporated, rather than just ignore it like Leonard Peikoff did in the documentary My Sense of Life, emotions and following your desires rather than pure rationality should become more prevalent.

If it weren't for the constant bitch slapping, I would like him. I never understood why he kept doing that.

Read the Fountainhead. imo it strikes more at the core of her philosophy.

I like the majority of the ideas but the book really is bad user

>"The Objectivist Ethics":

Thanks for this. I've no interest in reading a 900 page rant

What's the difference between the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged?

The Fountainhead burns hotter but Atlas Shrugged burns longer.

How is that a joke?

...

Really?

I wouldn't be asking.

Yes.

>hated Kant
her entire being is unforgivable

Which makes her GOAT

Maybe if you couldn't into philosophy, a condition that Rand experienced.

>subjective idealist

you can't possibly know what those words mean

>There was a level of cult of personality happening in the Collective
I absolutely agree with you there, it's really what caused Rand to abandon any kind of organized movement. I don't really read anything into the Nathanial/Rand split though, it's just personal squabbles.

I read a bit too much into the split, but not in a negative way. More of a disappointment in someone you admire. I just wish I understood why Ayn Rand didn't see that Nathaniel leaving her for someone he loved was what brought him the most happiness. From an emotional standpoint, the answer is obvious, especially when you listen to Nathaniel that felt hollow and emotionless around Ayn Rand, but felt alive and happy with his new girlfriend.
Happiness should be your highest virtue and goal in life, but what if your values and desires (emotional value) change over time? Nathaniel went from being her lover to someone that betrayed her for someone else because she was getting old and it drained him emotionally. I read into it that pure rationality is not enough for human interactions and is a flawed system in objectivism.
It's honestly the reason why I don't call myself an objectivist despite liking what Ayn Rand has to say. It's also why I think psychopaths and autistic people are drawn to it.

I've spoken to a few objectivist about it and they say that there's nothing wrong with this criticism, that you can be emotional so long as you don't let your emotions overtake your rationality. But the problem with this is that it sets you up to dismiss your emotions, or they sneak up on you and overtake your rationality without you being able to notice it. Like Ayn Rand did when Nathaniel left her.

It's annoying to me because people that hate Ayn Rand will ignore her or shoot her down with stupid memetic crap (lol she took life insurance, lol in this part, she killed people in a train accident, lol rape) and people that like Ayn Rand just dismiss my problems as irrelevant since emotions do not matter and will never overtake the pure genius logic of man.