Fountainhead

This will be my first Ayn Rand. I saw this and Atlas Shrugged in a box and picked up right away. What am I in for lads? Is this a good Rand starter?

how old are you?

22. why?

prepare for the pseudo intellectual Kant fags to jump on you.

It's a great book to read early. I've pretty much lived my life by objectivist principles since reading her books.

just become a satanist instead

the person that agrees with Rands philosophy is handsome and a genius and cool. Everyone else is a sniveling cretin, except the woman he fucks and a random billionaire guy. It wasn't unreadable but I don't know how people take Rand seriously as a thinker.

It's where I started for rand and it's a pretty easy read despite it's size. I was 16 at the time and enjoyed complaining about the book probably more than I enjoyed reading it. I feel like if the ending were tragic it would be more logical and have more of something to say, but instead rand goes all "ubermensch must win despite all odds" and it's really just terrible. That's my only complaint tho. The prose is easy to read but also elegant as fuck, and it may even change a few of your beliefs even if it doesn't make you full blown objectivist.

The fact that important people take her seriously makes her important to read so you understand why those important people make certain decisions. Ayn Rand is why the government shutdown happened way back when. It's why republicans in America generally refuse to compromise forcing democrats too and as a result pushing us to be a more conservative nation. Is it good? No. Is it important? Yes.

we're all commies here polfag, you're not welcome

I haven't read anything of her yet because I feel like from all the discussions I've read and mentions in fiction etc I know exactly what to expect and w/e, it's just a preface
What I want to say is that I don't get this criticism which is very often brought up, isn't it just a maybe corny but a legit literary device (like authors naming characters with "speaking names" which reflect character's character [sorry] and/or fate) - being reductionist with the characters/making them caricatural on purpose because you're just using them to drive a bigger point? Basically I don't think that employing something like that disqualifies you from possibly being considered seriously as a thinker. Although maybe it's written in a much more awkward way than I imagine?

the problem with that in arguing for an ideology is you're putting it up against no fair criticism. you make any opposition to your own ideas look childish. a caricature to move the hero towards the dragon is fine, but a caricature to legitimize a philosophical point of view shows an inability to argue in a serious context. it's like those stephen molyneux videos where he speaks into a wall and doesn't address any real counterarguments

Response to fair criticism of the work doesn't have to be contained in the work itself imo, although I realize that makes it less of a philosophical work of a serious thinker and more of a promotional pamphlet for an ideology and since these books are what she's famous for and not the writings that defend her work from fairly-represented criticism, I concede my point.

When you're a literature snob you have to pretend you're really smart and you have to pretend ramblings like James Joyce is really spectacular otherwise you'll get kicked out of the intellectual club.

Everyone here is so smart yet they are so blinded by their own intelligence that they can't even see that capitalism works every time and communism fails every time. East vs west Berlin, North vs south Korea, Hong Kong vs China.

It's sad that the human race will always be doomed to collectivism and a philosophical lust to make a system based on altruism. However, it always ends in failure.

Selfishness is the answer

Rand forgets the part of human nature that wants to be part of a collective

Marx forgets the part of human nature that wants to be an individual

Two sides of the same coin

Though I definitely prefer rand

You’re going to get a bunch of people in here making jokes about how you’re underage or something. But go for it.

I’m not an Objectivist, but I love Rand’s entire body of work. If you’re wondering:

Rand only wrote 4 major pieces of fiction
>We the Living – semi-autobiographical novel set in Bolshevik Russia (medium length)
>Anthem – slightly abstract dystopian novella, (very short, could knock it out in a couple of hours)
>Fountainhead – character-driven novel about integrity and standing up for one’s values (long)
>Atlas Shrugged – plot-driven novel about . Mostly a drama, but with strong mystery and sci-fi elements. If you’ve played the videogame BioShock, a lot of the plot will be familiar. It was based off of Atlas Shrugged. (Very, very long book btw)

My two cents:
>Fountainhead has the better characters and a more direct plot. Read this for fun and inspiration.
>Atlas Shrugged has the better story and dialogue. Read it for the philosophy and story. The first chapter of book 3 is something I come back to again and again.
>read Anthem first. If you’re not turned off by her extremely direct style and black-and-white views on good and evil, then you’ll likely enjoy the rest of it. If not, then you haven’t lost much time.

As for the haters; I’ve yet to meet someone who hates Rand who could prove to me that they read the book they decry.

Commie here to dispute what you said on Marx
"Marx forgets the part of human nature that wants to be an individual"
Marx argues "Human Nature" as we know it is just "Capitalist Nature" and is different than "Human Nature" under Feudalism (in the past) and Socialism and Communism in the future.

>Commie here to dispute what you said on Marx
>Marx argues "Human Nature" as we know it is just "Capitalist Nature"

where's the disputing my man?

If you wanna know about her philosophy I'd rather recommend you to read The Virtue of Selfishness. Objectivism is great, her novels not so much. You won't need to read the 1100 pages of Atlas to get a gist of it, either.

When it comes to libertarianism I'm more of a fan of Murray Rothbard, though.

>Commie here
HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHA

Anthem's the best place to start.
Everything after is just using the same theme and philosophy in longer and less subtle description.

>Commie here

can you CTRL-left spergs just fuck off for good?

B A I T

>CTRL-left
What.

Also, that's never going to happen. Zizek's too big a meme here. It's like asking the egoists to leave.

seems like its a pun on alt-right desu

I know, that's where he was wrong

Oh, I get it.

Ctrl-left can be good, as long as it accepts Stirner into their hearts. That way, they'll soon be on their way out of the left.

>Marx understands human nature!
>Proves other anons point

If you think women wanting prettier jewelry that is rarer and worth more than that other women is a construct of the capitalist overlords you misunderstand human nature. In fucking Jericho and Catal Hayuk we have found cowrie shell necklaces that were traded from the sea.

You've never read Marx.

I have, both on my own and in a university context.

I understand the revolution of history and he still doesnt understand human nature. But again, neither does Ayn Rand.

Ah yes the well known classless societies of the late neolithic.

Expect entrepreneurial superheroes, a strawman society, and some zingers. I wouldn't really recommend Rand to anyone beyond the age of 18. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are not the demonic, capitalist manifestos that some people decry them as, but they're also not empathetic, either, or even remotely what I'd consider good literature. They are self-help books parading as novels.

Anthem is plagiarized Zamyatin. The Fountainhead was probably Rand's best, which is tragic, because she probably could've been a first-rate writer if she didn't devote herself to polemics.

Roarke is actually supposed to be kind of Ugly, but in a striking and masculine sort of way.

Peter Keating is certainly snivelling, but he's also supposed to be better looking than Rourke.