Been thinking about reading this but everyone keeps telling me it's a bunch of rambling nonsense that isn't worth my time.
Can anyone here actually tell me how the supposed political and philosophical assertions of the book are wrong and stupid or is hating it just a meme?
>>8170796
A lot of Rand is just appeals to emotion and "muh common sense" masquerading as some kind of objective rationality.
Most damningly, the objectivist argument for free will is just "I feel like I have it"
>>8170796
Parts one and two are amazing. Part three fizzles. I would still recommend it. AS is a decent read. Even if you don't enjoy it you will still be able to generate actual opinions on the work, unlike >>8170810
>>8170796
The individual does not exist by exercising its own power, the basis of Rand's thesis for all her works. Once that falls apart, so does her prose become more obviously stale.
>>8170884
That is not Rand's thesis. Please read the book before you make stupid comments. Or at least read spark notes, holy shit.
>>8170902
Rand's thesis is so wide and varied, all it can be summed up is something as base as power feels good. It does not deserve anything indepth here.
>>8170907
Read the damn book. It is a novel. Not all novels have a strict thesis. If by thesis you mean 'main theme' then you are still wrong. The main theme of AS is that it is virtuous to be rationally selfish. I will say it again: read the book before you start making up shit.
>>8170933
Cold day in hell when I read Rand. I've read Mein Kamf for the silly bastard who wrote it, but I'll never touch Rand.
>>8170933
Just don't reply. That tripshit thrives off being as bafflingly stupid as possible, regardless of context.
>>8170937
New trip idea. Thank you.
>>8170937
I remember I had a phase where I deliberately acted stupid for my own amusement. Grew out of it in the fourth grade.
polite sage
>>8170953
>I remember I had a phase where I deliberately acted stupid for my own amusement. Grew out of it in the fourth grade.
Then why are you reading Rand? I thought you said you grew out of it?
>>8170877
>everyone who disagrees with me needs to come up with their own opinions
Not the person you're responding to, but that's a pretty narrow-minded viewpoint, don't you think?
i cant endure her prose but somehow finished her short book anthem many years ago, it's terrible
>>8170965
This, even if her philosophy were worthwhile, her writing would still be Objectively mediocre.
>>8170957
Would you kindly kys?
>>8170980
>>8170980
don't acknowledge it
>>8170989
You acknowledge me all the time on anon
>>8170984
>>8171006
What's the matter hun?
>>8170877
I'm not OP, but thank you for being the only person here to give an actual response.
>>8170935
Why even post in this thread if you haven't read her? You clearly have no actual oppinion on her. Where are you getting you oppinion if you haven't read her?
>>8170796
Generally I've seen that if you have a strong opinion about objectivist philosophy you'll tend to make the quality of the book agree with your viewpoints.
Think Rand's a genius and her ideas are revolutionary? Atlas is brilliantly fleshed out and wonderfully characterised.
Think objectivism is just a dumb excuse to be a selfish asshole? Then Atlas is a pile of hot garbage that's practically unreadable.
I admit the novel is semi-okay as a thought experiment but I still fall pretty hard in the latter category desu. Not a fan of her ideas or her style. Characters tend to talk "at" each other rather than "with" each other which is a turnoff to a lot of folks.
If you do read it, prepare for long, long, LONG monologues.
>>8170877
>Spending 1000+ pages of time on a "decent" read
Lol
>>8170796
read every third page and you'll finish faster and still get the "story" and "philosophy" of the thing.
>>8171892
1000 pages should be relatively quick for you, if you think you're worthy to post here.
>>8170935
Sonny you're acting like a real kaffir over here you know that?
Tripfagging for attention on a book you haven't even read.
>>8171264
I've read enough analysis of her work to know to not actually read her, I gained the meat of it without enduring the prose. I have to say, I did read the first fifteen pages of Atlas Shrugged in library, fifteen pages of anything by Rand is more than enough.
>>8172520
>fifteen pages of anything by Rand is more than enough
t. Cultural Marxism pro
Honestly, if you want to try Rand just read The Fountainhead instead. It still has a good chunk of her ideas, and is a far better story.
I read Atlas Shrugged for the sole purpose of bitching at one of my friends who loved it. There are parts that were fun, but it was a mediocre text, with half baked philosophy at best. I did like the Rearden steel conflict and the pirate dude and playboy were fun characters, but it just all fell to pieces around the radio speech.
>>8172667
When all the heroes get together to save the day, it felt like playing Star Wars Battlefront or some shit
