Currently on page 154 of struggling to understand why is pic related a thing. The prose is horribly melodramatic, the characters are monochrome as fuck, the ideology behind the book is literally being skull-fucked into you every reading moment...I'm oscilating between finding the piece so bad its funny and/or being bored out of my mind. Should I just let this one go, /lit/bros?
PS: As a psychology undergrad, I am becoming more and more convinced that Rand actually did have ASD.
never read AS as your first rand, I wish everyone knew this fact
>>7739061
I find it hard to imagine that a subjective quality of this book would change for me in any way, have I read any of her other stuff before. It just seems to be so hillariously bad to me. I should declare that I have an ideological bias though - objectivism is basically a complete inverse of what I 'believe' in. That's why I'm reading it. Still, judging the book on purely technical merits, it's still seems really bad. Harry Potter is written more eloquently.
>>7739091
yes it is a very bad novel, there is consensus, people read it only if they like the philosophy, otherwise it really has very low value
>>7739091
The other one - can't remember the name. Is NOT better.
>>7739038
>Atlas was a god that held up the planet
>rich people are modern gods that metaphorically hold up the planet/countries/civilization
If either of them "shrugged/disappeared" the rest of the world will feel it.
Book is about rich people being led away from society.
the fountainhead is better
>>7739643
"Better" as in "actually worthy of reading"?
>>7740296
Neither have any merit as what exactly?
>>7740427
I'm not him, but I'm guessing he meant as literature.
>>7740455
why would you say Rand's works are without merit exactly in regards to literature?
>>7739038
I personally thought it was shit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_j56IiLqZ9U
>>7739046
Same for most of her fan base, for which she is Muse and Apologist, the goddess upon whose dim altar all sociable conduct and statecraft must be sacrificed, in stiff requiem to socialism, heresy of her kin. That is to say that the hag was deeply religious in the sense that she held to dogma about human nature that its plainly contrary to evidence, and with zeal that has a very old time ring to it. Her objectivism is about as objectively considered as a doberman's preference for its present master, as opposed to any of the assorted neighbors. Objectivity, which is consciousness or our own subjectivity, does not come easily to anyone, so one can only expect it to flower feebly in cold fish, who lack heat enough for turning into light that shows a human scene.
>>7739697
Its shorter
>>7739481
Not so much rich people, productive people. There are a lot of rich people in the book who are clearly depicted as (malicious) idiots.
If you go into this book with any preconceptions about it or left leaning tendencies you're going to have issues with the unsubtle dichotomy in Rand's world. Everyone is either a hero or a villain, productive or a moocher, an almost infallible halfgod or a simpleton who ruins everything.
I didn't find it that great as a novel although I don't understand why it gets so much hate. It feels like the people who vigorously hate on this book feel personally threatened or devalued by its ideology and project their own feelings of inadequacy into their overly negative reviews.
It did challenge my worldview and ultimately changed my way of thinking a little, which is why I read anyway. Would recommend to my younger self again.
The title is great though
>>7740766
I agree, I recently started reading it with absolutely no idea about what it was about, just because I liked the name.
>>7740760
>Not so much rich people, productive people.
In her world rich people are THE productive people and the workers who actually produce and build everything are somehow the moochers.
>It feels like the people who vigorously hate on this book feel personally threatened or devalued by its ideology
Good point because the only people not devalued by its ideology are rich people and the only people not personally threatened by it's ideology are currently poor people who wrongly assume that they will end up rich by being productive.
>>7740939
>t. english major with student debt
>>7739481
The rich are net led away, the producers are. Most happen to be wealthy.
Alot of rich people are left behind.
