Atlas Shrugged

I'm seeing a lot of hate for this story but most of the distain is not adequately explained for me to understand their perspective. Any user care to elaborate?

People hate Ayn Rand and her philosophy

checked
also, just bought a copy, not sure what it's about

Inb4

>Idealised characters are dumb but muh "graphic novels"

Train Politics is a good book. Read it. Don't listen to plebs.

People hays Rand because she tried to be le serious Philospher but didn't engage properly with the concepts that came before her, and effectively wrote books which just ram her points down the reader's throat.

t. Just finished Fountainhead reread.

/thread

People hate her work because it's true.

>tfw you know the word "plebeian" has been successfully adopted by the lower classes when used to promote Blue Collar Stateschoolsman's ™ Philosophical Manifesto

Her philosophy is short-sighted and people don't want to admit that they're selfish.
She's a decent novelist. I think people would find a new appreciation for Atlas Shrugged if it was adapted into a television show and trimmed down the objectivist preaching.

don't care about politics. Had trouble finishing this book because it's long and boring.

>distain
LOL
>not adequately explained for me to understand
>Paper-thin characters
>Unrealistic world, motivations, and actions
>Internal logic is inconsistent
>Cringe-worthy dialog
>Massive author tract
>ridiculous ideology
What isn't to understand?

I actually really enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, despite not agreeing with her philosophy. That being said, I couldn't finish The Fountainhead because they were just too similar. Do read one of the other, though. They're definitely not bad books.
>Paper-thin characters
I wouldn't say paper thin, just very black-and-white. The characters do have a lot of depth to them, but with very black/white motives.
>Unrealistic world, motivations, and actions
Pretty true, but doesn't make the book bad or un-enjoyable.
>Internal logic is inconsistent
I didn't notice that being the case
>Cringe-worth dialog
This is pretty true. The dialog is quite outdated and because of this it can be pretty cringe at times.
>Massive author tract
Not sure what you mean by that
>Ridiculous ideology
Pretty true, but, again, this doesn't necessarily make the book inherently poor or un-enjoyable.

>Her philosophy is short-sighted
nice meme

Not to mention she's a horrible writer

How do you write a book a thousand pages too long?

Just like David Foster Wallace hue hue

Seriously, I think somewhere in Atlas Shrugged there's a great little 200 page satirical novel, sort of a right wing Steinback.

>The characters do have a lot of depth to them
Sweet mercy, that's funny!
Midas Mulligan, what depth? 'I make money and don't want people to take it'
Lillian? Her motive is 'I deny my husband sex to destroy his love of Capitalism'. Nothing else is known about her.
Francisco? 'I like mining'.
No depth
>but doesn't make the book bad
'Unrealistic motives and actions' make a book bad, yes
>I didn't notice inconsistent internal logic that being the case
Read it again.
Producers don't lie - unless they are Francisco, you lies and defrauds investors with fake mines and false reports. Lying is ok, sometimes.
Violence is never acceptable - unless you are Ragnar, who routinely engages in piracy. Or a man raping a woman. So violence is OK, sometimes.
Life is of value in and of itself - unless you father works for the government, then you DESERVE to die, even if you are a child.
Rand had no idea what 'consistency' means
>Massive author tract
Not sure what you mean by that
So you never read the book?
John Galt's 60 page speech, pal, is just an author tract. It can take 3 hours to read it out loud
--------
Bad characters, bad dialog, bad plot, etc.
But there is a rape scene!
It is low-grade science fiction

I'd say more accurate - a science fiction novella

Hey speech on Communism vs Capitalism is phenominal.

The moral cannibalism that is altruism denies mans existence in his own right, that he must sacrifice himself to others.

Do you not understand romanticism?

its def not bad, its just too long, give it a try, at least get to the middle of it and then decide to continue

someone should write that great sci fi novella, so we can read it instead of AS

Which parts are worth preserving? I might make this my next project.

Fucking... just leave. Kill yourself.

>Paper-thin characters
This is simply false, the characters have plenty of depth, there's just no inbetween morality.
>Unrealistic world, motivations, and actions
A fantasy world doesn't have to be realistic. The motivations and actions are similar to ultrasuccessful people in real life.
>Internal logic is inconsistent
Where?
>Cringe-worthy dialog
True.
>Massive author tract
Other way around, Rand lived her philosophy, she made herself similar to her ideals (to considerable detriment eventually).
>ridiculous ideology
If you want to talk about the nuances of objectivism, that's fine, it gets batshit if you look deeper into it, but this book only goes over the fun surface shit.

I finished this last night. I really enjoyed it, at times the characters were very black and white, and I can see how one would find it boring. But train politics appealed to me.
I think Objectivism isn't bad, and has some points that I liked, but I don't entirely agree with it.
One thing really surprised me and that was Dagny straight up shooting a guy in the heart at the end.