Can you at least agree that the level of opprobrium she receives is out of proportion to the actual flaws in her work?
As if anyone on /lit/ would know
>>7996217
I'd say it's quite fair.
Even putting aside political qualms and disagreements with her work Atlus Shrugged is one of the most poorly written peices of shit I've ever had the displeasure of reading.
>>7996238
Would you mind explaining?
>>7996217
I would not agree even to that, because the question is too vague.
What do you mean? On this board, specifically, or in general?
>>7996217
It is in proportion to her overconfidence in her opinions.
Yea she deserves it, setting the world back with her neoliberalist garbage. What a strange women, she wasnt even that rich why propegate such as dumb theory.
>>7996891
>neoliberalist
>>7996448
Like I said putting aside her butthurt (and hypocritical) views of socialism after what the Soviets did to her dad her writing itself is torture.
For starters, all characters in her book capitulate to one of two personalities simply to push her hamfisted ideology that much more. Every man is either a virtuous industrialist autist who don't need no government or else they are so much selfish filth not fit to live in the same society as the previous men, because after all if you're not working you're leeching right? There's no place for balance in this woman's mind, she swings towards the furthest end of a spectrum due to her zeal and overconfidence in her utopian ideal.
She cares nothing for the cause effect relationship of life and believes that any man who triumphs does so entirely on his own merit paying no heed to family, friends or the like. Seriously, the relationships the two main characters have with their respective families is mind bogglingly retarded and should tell you all you need to know about Rand's view of anyone who isn't part of muh glorious industrial conquest.
Her work does not contain men and women but rather robots adhereing to one side or the other of her broken, narrow minded and bias moral code.
>>7996217
I actually like her philosophy. Her writing, however, sucks dick. The characters are flat, like others point out. But she doesn't know how to write an argument. Anybody that propagates her philosophy is simply right. Those who go against it make arguments and examples so weak that only a fool would agree with them.
It's a shitty author who needs to make the other side of the argument so unwinably weak that her own side can't do anything but be right by default.
>>7996891
She isn't a neoliberal.
Nah. I almost never drop a book once I start but I got halfway through Fountainhead and just couldn't do it. The writing was so tedious, the plot could barely sustain a novel half the length and all the characters were utterly transparent mouthpieces for either the authors opinions or strawman arguments against the authors opinions. Fuck it was so bad.
>>7998155
I can agree with this. I think you managed to give the best interpretation of her style that I have yet seen on this board.
>>7998445
To this day I cannot fathom how she garnered the fame and following that she did decades ago and why it seems like no one called her out on her bullshit and put an end to it at the time.
her most famous book is also her worst written one.
anthem and fountainhead are significantly better. they're not great, but they're passable.
so in that sense yes criticism is a bit unwarranted.
dont care about her philosophy/views. it's all a spook anyway.
>>7998594
I have to admit Anthem wasn't bad.
