So, what's up with Ayn Rand? Why was hating her such a big meme for the longest time?

>implying that Ellsworth Toohey isn't literally the coolest villain ever to appear in a book

>hasn't read Star Wars

What the fuck is this response? Only an Englishman could possibly be so daft.

>he's never read If You Give A Pig Pancakes

Objectivism isn't well liked. Many conservatives dislike it because of its atheism, liberals because of its selfishness, etc. and considering that she is Jewish, /pol/tards automatically disqualify her as a legit source of information or wisdom. So just a figure that never got into any recent ideological zeitgeists.

>Conservatives dislike it because atheism
>Lefties dislike it because it is actively against altruism
>Everyone else with a bit of brain is against it because Stirner
Honestly mate.

I genuinely dont understand what you mean. Are you seriously saying that Tarkin, Anakin, Sheev, Shimrra, Nom Anor, Onimi, Maul, Bane, or any other Star Wars villain is remotely as cool as Toohey?

Okay, I guess Vergere comes close.

>Sheev
Get out of here, /tv/.

>liberals are selfless and altruistic
Do you even know what a liberal is?

>implying that meme ever ends

>CRAAAWLIIING IIIIN MY SKIIIIIN

People
Don't
Like
What
They
Don't
Understand

That meme is so old that I can only imagine you having read about it on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

because she was a woman and her books were shit

also her "philosophy" isn't an actual system which puts her in the same territory as nietzsche but nietzsche's writing and ideas are actually good rather than basic bitch CAPITALISTS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT WAIT THEY'RE NOT REAL CAPITALISTS SO IT DOESN'T COUNT

She's a writer, not a philosopher. That's pretty much it.

Great...! GREAT analysis!

it's about par for the course for Veeky Forums so idk what you're being a bitch about

i use my hair to express myself

???

Probably some UA who thinks being random is the way to fit in.

She wasn't the greatest prose stylist, but most people who genuinely hate her go beyond just prose. They hate her for her ideas. I'm not sure most of those people even know her ideas well.

Why's Randall Munroe got such a hateboner for her?

>right-wing poster girl
>left-wing critical establishment

She was a thoughtcriminal, basically.

They dislike what she represents.

She is at best a mediocre writer of potboilers
>tissue-thin characters; idiot plots driven by coincidence; laughable straw-man antagonists; blatant mary sue insert protagonists; cringe-worthy dialogue; sloppy with her fetishes; etc.
and she tried to justify her poor writing by claiming that buried somewhere in the bad pacing is some profound philosophy that she never got around to actually formally presenting.
That would all be fine *except* there is a cadre of sub-literate dolts that BELIEVE HER about the hidden gems of sublime philosophy lurking about and they mistake their 'I read a potboiler with rape' for 'now I know more about philosophy than anyone else'.
Which would be only cringe worthy if they would just shut up about it.
But they won't.

She has a boring style with cardboard characters and her poorly thought out philosophy is hamfisted into every corner or her works making them obnoxious.

Any other writers like that? Sounds like my kind of thing.

Go find your nearest high school lit mag

Enjoy

Because Marxists infiltrated Western Academia by the time she published Atlas Shrugged.

No it's because she's shit

>liberals
>not selfish

wtf?

a little bit of this a little bit of that certainly a dash of this >"I had a hard time with Ayn Rand because I found myself enthusiastically agreeing with the first 90% of every sentence, but getting lost at 'therefore, be a huge asshole to everyone."
that's Munroe.

Only a non-englishman would miss the joke so hard.

lol. this.

Also, she attributes all greatness, and gives all power to the individual.

People don't want the responsibility of their own happiness. They do not want to work so hard.

Plus, while I very much enjoy her writing, especially her essays, it is a bit preachy. I think readers like a book to confirm their beliefs, not point out how they're doing it wrong.

you, have never read Rand.
It is not about capitalism. She is the champion of the individual. And capitalism is the only system which allowed individuals the opportunity to be rewarded for their hard work.

This!!

No it's

>philosophy is hamfisted into every corner or her works making them obnoxious

Unfortunately, I'd have to agree. Definitely her great flaw in fictional writing. But subtlety was not her style, so I"ve grown to appreciative her authenticity. She can't turn it off, it was her passion.

Though I'm a huge fan.

Also, most people just don't get her at all. Shes become a catch-phrase, a name to drop for reaction.

Tumblr.

>Hasn't read Rand

Liberals are extremely selfless because they abrogate the self.

ty!

Regardless of who benefits directly from their actions, it is the individual who is making decisions on how to spend their time, therefore, their actions are selfish. I am the conscious entity preforming the actions with my body and mind. No one else can claim responsibility or credit for my work.
Self ishness isn’t: “I only care about myself” Just as self lessness doesn’t mean: “I want to do good for others.”
To be selfish also means to be aware of your consciousness. Under this definition, if one’s working in the soup kitchen or stealing, it is still what they have consciously chosen to do with their bodies, therefore a selfish act.
Selflessness isn’t the love for others, it is the hatred of ones self (or the loss of ones self – someone who is brain dead is selfless.)

...

Her Objectivist philosophy does not hold up to logical scrutiny. However I find it very annoying when people represent her philosophy as just being "I'm selfish so fuck you". That is a very crude reading of her philosophy and yet I see people boil it down to that all the time. In her mind, if everyone acted in their own self-interest, then everyone would be better off; if everyone puts others before themselves, then humanity as a whole if worse off. So in her mind, it's not just "I got mine so fuck you", she genuinely believes that self-interest is the most moral way to live.

She talked about objective reality so much, because she thought that the "collective need" could be manipulated by those in power, to be whatever they want it to be. So she thought that only YOU can ascertain the truth through logic and empirical thought, and that other people can't decide the truth for you, so self-interest follows as logical.

Important to remember that she grew up during the communist revolution, where philosophy was largely used to justify communism, putting the needs of the collective over your own needs and getting the capitalists out of power. That's why in her books the villains are always moral relativists who think that nothing can be considered real.

shes just a horrible person, who worshipped a serial murderer. she shares a family name with me, so i have particular ire for her. she is another victim of reification, taking self defined terms and elevating them to universal truths. its a huge problem in right wing thinking, and also in the communist ideologies of china and russia. all are not grounded in anything real, are just endless passages through the mind, leading one deeper and deeper into madness.

Her style is good. Here is one of my favorite passages from "The Fountainhead"

Gail Wynand raised a gun to his temple. He felt the pressure of a metal ring against his skin-and nothing else. He might have been holding a lead pipe or a piece of jewelry; it was just a small circle without significance. "I am going to die," he said aloud-and yawned. He felt no relief, no despair, no fear. The moment of his end would not grant him even the dignity of seriousness. It was an anonymous moment; a few minutes ago, he had held a toothbrush in that hand; now he held a gun with the same casual indifference.

Besides the odd nuance of em dashes in her writing, I always saw her as especially vivid and poignant in her descriptions and dialogue. English was her second language learned well after she became an adult; not advantage of learning it quickly in her adolescence.

People that shit on her style are most likely people who never picked up one of her novels. She uses contrasting elements very well like in the passage I took from "The Fountainhead."

Shitty person.
Shitty fucking writer.
Shitty ideology.
Stirner was better.

misogynists

Striner is nihilism. Worthless.
He doesn't value his own ego.

Take her ideas like a pinch of salt and you're good.
Her prose is also quite enjoyable. At least it would be if she didn't repeat herself to infinity. Atlas Shrugged could have been cut in half in length and the whole story and ideas would still be intact. Because as it is now... makes it dreadful, really

The human ego is the worst thing to ever come into existence

Her novels are readable, but nothing particularly good.
Her philosophy is shit.

It is memed here because anything overrated is memed. John Green is not absurdly bad for a YA author, but he is described as brilliant for the media and people here hate that.
The same thing with Rand. I've seen people describe Atlas as a masterpiece. I don't think comments on rand would be so harsh if people described her books as just ok.

Linkin Park is known outside of Veeky Forums.

>The human ego is the worst thing to ever come into existence
then go sheet yourself in the head and get it over with.

the ego allows us t o communicate and understand the concept of self and all sorts of wonderful things about being human.

apathetic, lazy, stupid humans are the worst thing to happen. give the go a bad rep.

sheet = shoot, btw

autocorrect tried to save your ass

Meh. If you are familiar with the pulps this is pretty much mediocre. She's just imitating Harry Steegar (poorly) and her dialogue is so stilted and clunky.

Because her work is just free market fan fiction, and most economists don't take Libertarians seriously because their economics are fucking stupid.

Because her work is just free market fan fiction, and most economists don't take Libertarians seriously because Libertarianism is fucking stupid.