Reading Atlas Shrugged , worth ?

[Anonymous No.12898674]

Want to read this shit very hard , what am in for ?

[Anonymous No.12898687]

>>12898674
Only book whose Wikipedia summary is actually superior.

[Anonymous No.12898704]

>>12898674
Prose: 6/10
Sufficient to the task. Romantic but workmanlike and employs little metaphor.

Story: 10/10
Rand likes an integrated consistent whole for her stories. All elements blend and elevate each other.

Characters: 8/10
Written purposefully as archetypes representing a given ideal, which is done well. Differing aesthetic philosophies will grade it as too unrealistic. Though well written, mary sues abound.

Philosophy & moral: 11/10
Best that has ever been. Isolates and identifies an ancient moral issue that has persisted for millennia and tackles it with skill seldom seen

[Anonymous No.12898713]

>>12898704
Thanks Anon

[Anonymous No.12898762]

>>12898674
Pretty good story on the potency of the ego and individualism. The heroes are written as propelled by a self consistent, inevitable momentum powered by the potency of their rational thinking style (though some fail to identify it in themselves) and the villians are written as hopelessly stagnant in their thinking and crushed by the weight of their own ineptitude and malevolent view of life. If you can stand that sort of archetypical idealism you'll adore this book. If not you'll hate it. Probably akin to the top voted normie review on this goodreads page. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/662.Atlas_Shrugged

The big 3 speeches in this book by 3 of the heroes is why people read this book. They are worth it, though some don't think the long journey is worth it. I did. Curiosity is ingrained in you ever page wanting to know not just what will happen but why they are.

[Anonymous No.12898765]

>>12898674
Meme novel from a meme author.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.12898789]

>>12898674
You’ll get more out the dictionary, which is shorter and more exciting

[Anonymous No.12898866]

What the fuck does that even mean lmao

[Anonymous No.12898882]

>leave /lit/ for a few years
>come back in 2019
>people are unironically praising books like Atlas Shrugged

This place really went to the dogs, huh?

[Anonymous No.12898887]

>>12898866
It’s means that Atlas Shrugged is an immense unit and is absolutely worthless m8

:3

[Anonymous No.12898945]

>>12898674
Makes the "punching up" crowd unbelievably asshurt.

[Anonymous No.12898950]

>>12898887
>:3
You again

[Anonymous No.12898998]

only read it if you're already a hardcore libertarian, since that's the only group that can see past the numerous literary and ideological flaws and actually enjoy her writing. if you're not a hardcore libertarian but want to read it anyway, skim the fuck out of it and completely skip the John Galt speech

[Anonymous No.12899130]

>>12898998
>skip the John Galt speech
>skip the best part of the book
That is WHY people even read this book you shit. If anything the only viable thing to do if you're going to skip shit is skip the rest of the book and search Rearden's, D'Anconia's, and Galt's speeches online.

[Anonymous No.12899160]

>>12899130
the speech is just a patronizing and overlong summary of the rest of the book. at least the rest of the book has some redeeming qualities; the speech is just irritating

[Anonymous No.12899243]

>>12899160
Well for people who can appreciate the message, seeing the ideas that are diffuse throughout the length of the book be professionally and explicitly identified in one place in a cathartic slap to the statists' faces is very enjoyable and well done.

[Anonymous No.12899409]

>>12899160
this, it's like someone was unsure whether her brainlet american audience had the cognitive power to keep track of the themes she'd spread around the 800 pages beforehand so publishers asked for a brief summary which ended up being the length of a short novel

[Anonymous No.12899565]

>>12899160
What else are you supposed to be but patronizing when you are addressing the people responsible for putting the world on the precipice of Dark Ages 2?
>>12899409
She is on record as saying that she made Galt's Speech first and the story was crafted around it.

[Anonymous No.12899624]

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year-old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

[Anonymous No.12899716]

>>12899624
This is a statist subscriber to the Pragmatist philosophy smearing Rand's iconoclasm to the mixed economy state as "unrealistic". Typical weaksauce from Rand detractors.

[Anonymous No.12899741]

>>12899716
>weaksauce

[Anonymous No.12899783]

>>12898674
It's yet another book that assumes all humanities problems have an innovative and technological fix despite the laws of physics and the limits of growth. To this end it preaches all our problems will be solved if only we give free reign to ambitious, inventive types whose civic and moral benevolence extends only to other ambitious, inventive types. It's theory of human behavior is comic book level retarded and its actual knowledge of what actually governs civilization and its decay is is flat out wrong (like most things involving philosophy or economics). Read something like Earl Cook's "Man. Energy. Society" if you want a better idea of what's important in life.

[Anonymous No.12899793]

>>12899716
>weaksauce

[Anonymous No.12899802]

>>12899783
From what I understand, it ends with the business elites "going on strike", as if there aren't a dozen corporate whores waiting to fill in their place.

[Anonymous No.12899850]

>>12899802
>business elites "going on strike"
More of the productive members of societ that are paying for all the social prograns

>as if there aren't a dozen corporate whores waiting to fill in their place.
just like in venezuela, as absurt taxation and regulations are never a factor

[Anonymous No.12899888]

>>12899565
Well I guess it was so fucking good she decided to have Franchisco AND Rearden say the same exact shit on two different occasions spanning equally uncomfortable stretches of time, those must've been at least 40 pages each or at least that's what they felt like. Make no mistake I thoroughly enjoyed the novel but only one of those monologues had the right to be in there, and honestly it was Francisco's for he's the best boy

[Anonymous No.12899921]

>>12899850
> muh leeches fallacy
Most spending for social programmes go towards people who have jobs and families. In America much of that goes towards your retarded healthcare system. Real-life elites understand that if you just tell people that they should git gud or sell - ah, wait, I mean take out a second mortgage - their house or just their kidney to afford medical treatment, then no amount of "BUT MUUUH PRIVATE PROPERTYYY" is going to save you.
> just like in venezuela, as absurt taxation and regulations are never a factor
What about the impact of fluctuating oil prices and their effect on an oil-dependent economy? What about U.S sanctions? I won't deny that sim-management plays a role but saying that countries fail because of regulations is the sort of ideologically-driven nonsense that even American politicians are mostly smart enough to avoid stooping to.

[Anonymous No.12899946]

>>12898674
Just watch the cringy films instead.

[Anonymous No.12900025]

>>12899888
You need to understand the difference between Rearden, D'Anconia and Galt and their degrees of development and purpose in the story.
Rearden experiences the potency of his method and the virtues he as concluded as-such, with no effort paid to deeper philosophic operants that justify his creed. To his his peril. He has a code and it is constructed by the potency of his efficacy, but with little compass of introspection and NONE of extrospection. The irrationality of his family is a malevolent mystery to him.
Francisco is a degree of philosophic development higher. In his dealings with irrational associates he has learned a cynical meta-psychologic tool with which to deal with his rivals, customers, and politician interlopers. He understands the potent morality money and trade and treats it with a rational devotion. He is akin to a lolbertarian who is deeply invested in economics and lightly into politics but little further. He can identify and anticipate the character of peoples corruption but cannot unravel the philosophical impetus and reason for it in them.
Then we come to Galt. Galt's understanding of philosophy and ideological history is so complete that he can identify at root the causes behind peoples character and psychology and even why men of better character fear to tackle their corruption. He develops his own philosophy to assess the flaws in the methodology of thinking people have been taught and understands their cross-implications. Further he knows how to effectively articulate these ideas to a vast assortment of different men so much so that he convince all of them to strike with him.

The 3 speeches are convergent on the same philosophic truth but they are no where near "the same". One is a court defense extolling selfishness as a virtue, one is a lesson in the potency of the morality of money, and the last concerns a complete philosophy in all branches and is a declaration of intent to the world's politicians.

[Anonymous No.12900036]

>>12899783
>Technological? Lmao no, Rand despises this approach. Her whole shtick is railing against the degeneration of philosophy in men.

[Anonymous No.12900263]

>>12898674
>reading jewish authors
Anon, I ...

[Anonymous No.12900275]

>>12900263
Redpill: echoesposters are the real kikes

[Anonymous No.12900474]

>>12900025
Autism

[Anonymous No.12901071]

>>12900025
They word their ideas almost exactly the same way and deliver an identical message to the reader. The context within the story, while indeed crucial, does not justify the audience having to go over one philosophical statement three times

[Anonymous No.12901091]

>>12898674
You're in for 3, already exceedingly long, books worth of words with horrible writing in which every character is a flat stage piece to be moved around at the very obvious whim of the author. Motivations are few and far between which makes sense because her philosophy is as thin as her characters. Also there's a 100 page speech.

[Anonymous No.12901215]

>>12898866
Based and trippilled
Keep doing God's work anon

[Anonymous No.12902067]

>>12901091
To elucidate 3 different degrees of development of what is approaching the same discovery is what justifies it anon, just like I said above.
It is true that after the first instance of exposure to it, the reader does start to anticipate certain elements of the creed by what people call common sense, but they certainly cannot anticipate the latter two's insights in full.

[Anonymous No.12902080]

>>12902067
meant for >>12901071

[Anonymous No.12902969]

>>12898762
>that goodreads review
Lmao imagine being this butthurt

[Anonymous No.12903107]

>>12902067
Yeah anon you're making good points, I just wish it wasn't such a chore to read through. Still, as I said, loved the book. Peace mate

[Anonymous No.12903147]

>>12898762
It's a long book with very little point to it being a story. She could and should have made it a two page essay. Instead, it comes across like a protracted rant -- which perhaps unsurprisingly it is. For that reason it's a pointlessly divisive work. You either agree with most of what Rand has to say and seek the book out, or you don't agree with most of what Rand has to say and you throw the book out. The pages of this book are wank tickets for the 'murican circlejerk. It says nothing interesting, it's just another rant by a deluded madwoman who desperately wants to deflect blame from where it belongs.

And it's worth mentioning that most "political books" of this kind are just wank tickets. Nobody actually reads them or studies them.
>I do
No, imagined opponent, you don't. Extensively quote mining your favourite author's books does not count as study. Religiously memorizing your camp's "playbook" doesn't make you a scholar. Making a list of embarrassments and out-of-context quotes for your opponents isn't "studying the other side." This shit makes you a sophist.
People use these books to pick and choose catchy quotes that massage their ideology, they don't convince anyone but their own political base, and they don't actually defend against real criticism against their work. Nobody's interested in actually having a conversation about politics, they just want wank tickets from their favourite author. Rand just happens to be a good example of this kind of shit. I'd also gladly shit on Chomsky, Dawkins, and Hitchens, but it's a fuckin waste of time because it'd literally just be the same post over and over again.

[Anonymous No.12903157]

I liked the Galt speech but it might as well have been an essay instead of a part of a fictional book.

[Anonymous No.12903179]

>>12902969
>Do you want to know what I’ve learned after spending nearly two months reading Ayn Rand’s crap?
>two
>months

[Anonymous No.12903484]

>>12898762
The best part about Ayn Rand to me is just the art-deco style that people associate with her work.

[Anonymous No.12903607]

>>12898945
This. How difficult is it to understand that punching down OR up is both evil?

[Anonymous No.12903634]

>>12902969
>Ayn Rand makes my eyes hurt. She does this, not by the length of her six hundred thousand word diatribe, but rather by the frequency with which she causes me to roll them. Do you want to know what I’ve learned after spending nearly two months reading Ayn Rand’s crap? Here’s a brief rundown, Breakfast of Champions style. >Socialists are scary. Socialists are frightening creatures who lurk in corners, waiting to pounce on you. They are unpredictable, they have curvature of the spine, and they often foam at the mouth.

>This is a socialist: [pic]

Kek this hasn't aged well. Just think of the legion of riots soccies make at Bernie rallies and universities like the npc spazes they are.

[Anonymous No.12903638]

>>12898687
Every. Single. Thread. Almost verbatim. How many times have the same handful of holdouts been soundly, resoundingly btfo'd only to just try again some other day in the hopes that old lies look truer to new eyes? And when will they figure out that this board doesn't have a high enough turnover for that shit to work?

[Anonymous No.12903736]

>>12903638
Nicely put

[Anonymous No.12903754]

>>12903147
>For that reason it's a pointlessly divisive work.
Oh it's certainly divisive but not pointlessly so.

[Anonymous No.12903837]

>>12898882
You know you've hit rock bottom when people actually believe Atlas Shrugged is a decent read.

[Anonymous No.12903858]

>>12899716
>weaksauce

[Anonymous No.12903872]

>>12898674
Just skip it and listen to Galt's speech on youtube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F5nhYo5nx4

[Anonymous No.12904023]

>>12903147
Yes, disingenuous centrist, I do. Certainly libertarians who just read Atlas and then go on to associate it with a sundry assortment of their favorite AnCap figureheads do what you describe but Rand specifically hated these types. Rand's nonfiction is where people who are serious about her reside. Rand disliked heavily people with a politics-centric mentality and spent her entire career stressing that the battle of ideas needs to be taken to the universities and that the worlds problems needed to be solved with philosophy and not disintegrated topics of the day.
I take the same approach to 4chan and have /lit/ as my main board and lurk on /pol/ only occasionally to witness what hysterical absurdity of the day they are engaged in.
There is nothing whatsoever wrong with treating something as life or death as philosophy as a competition to be won and enemies defeated dear centrist. Insofar as is possible bridges should be built and can even be a great benefit, but how on earth do you propose to invite the other side to a seat at the when their DECLARED mo is to flip it at every opportunity to achieve their "socially-just" equalizations? Do tell. People who take a centrist approach to all problem solving like to pretend it is only the Black & White fallacy that exists and not also the Middle Ground fallacy.

[Anonymous No.12904030]

>>12899624
That's so funny!

[Anonymous No.12904036]

>>12899783
>all humanities problems have an innovative and technological fix
>all our problems will be solved if only we give free reign to ambitious, inventive types whose civic and moral benevolence extends only to other ambitious, inventive types
I unironically see nothing wrong with this. I think you're being prejudiced.

[Anonymous No.12904057]

>>12903157
This is fair. I also would have preferred if Rand had detailed each speech Galt gave to bussinessmen and leaders of industry to convince them to strike with them instead of it just happening behind the scenes. Surely such a different assortment of men would necessitate a slightly different improvisational approach.l for each.
I would have liked a "Galt companion" to Atlas doing that honestly.

[Anonymous No.12904059]

>>12899921
>the impact of fluctuating oil prices and their effect on an oil-dependent economy
An impact precisely amplified by Chavez and Maduro's retarded policies.
>What about U.S sanctions?
>Thinking sanctions caused the pre-existing crisis.
Jesus Christ you're a fucking dunce.

[Anonymous No.12904102]

>>12898674
No other book inspires such rabid reactions from people who, ironically, have never read it. So take all """"reviews"""" with a truckload of salt.

[Anonymous No.12904111]

>>12904102
I've reddit
It's refuted by the fact there is no precednet for le if the rich leave the economy will collapse meme, only the opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secessio_plebis

[Anonymous No.12904127]

>>12904111
Holy shit cat proofread your posts. In fact delete this and reup, it's so bad.

[Anonymous No.12904135]

>>12904127
Trips don't lie
Cope harder faggot

[Anonymous No.12904173]

>>12898674
>>12898704
>>12898762
It's undeniably autistic. Some of the book is particularly cringy if you're above 22. But there's a certain earnest charm to the ideals, and there are some unironically inspiring sections and worthy portions of her philosophy if viewed in isolation.

[Anonymous No.12904175]

>>12904135
>Getting muh dubs counteracts having shit spelling
>Cope
Imagine being a walking maymay

[Anonymous No.12904183]

>>12904173
The kind of autistic I want to cuddle and stick my dick in

[Anonymous No.12904240]

>>12898674
Trains. Lots of trains.

[Anonymous No.12904250]

It's only worth reading for the pseud cred. The book is shit. Read the fountainhead instead

[Anonymous No.12904290]

>>12904175
not an argument
wez be cummin' fo yo' monies wh*teboi

[Anonymous No.12904336]

>>12904111
What the fuck are you even saying?

[Anonymous No.12904462]

>>12904173
27 here. The only thing I cringed at in Atlas was how much of a mary sue stud young D'Anconia was as it was Rand blantanly writing her sexual fantasies into the story.

[Anonymous No.12904647]

So is Rearden + Francisco a canon ship? Things seemed to turn hilariously intimate whenever the two were together, and even though Rearden himself thought those were fatherly love vibes, I just feel like they loved one another in some other special sense and would never let go, not unlike two disproportionately jealous lovers. The connection is so tight that they even loved the same woman before finding one another, and Rand herself describes how at one point as Rearden was pumping Dagny's sloppy public-parking-area pussy all he had on his mind were Franchisco's beautiful golden locks

[Anonymous No.12904665]

>>12898674
read the fountainhead

[Anonymous No.12904747]

>>12904647
lol

[Anonymous No.12904792]

>>12898674
As you can probably already tell, it's a massively divisive book. Some people love it to death, some hate it to death. Personally, I think there's some interesting, worthy points in both her philosophy and writing, specifically regarding egoism as the prime moral value, but overall it's way too idealistic/unrealistic for my tastes. If you're just in it for the philosophy aspect, read Galt's speech at the end. It's a nice summary of the author's stances taken as a singular whole.

[Anonymous No.12904853]

I still don't understand how exactly the "Who is John Galt" was disseminated and made into a meme.

[Anonymous No.12904861]

The Fountainhead is a bit better, but they're good reads. Just don't take them too seriously and you'll love them.

[Anonymous No.12905520]

>>12904853
He stuck in the minds of the people he btfo in that commie factory commune so they started to defensively ask "Who is THIS faggot to say such things to us?" among themselves when face with any situation of difficulty and it spread organically from there.

[Anonymous No.12905559]

>>12904023
>Certainly libertarians who just read Atlas and then go on to associate it with a sundry assortment of their favorite AnCap figureheads do what you describe but Rand specifically hated these types
Lolberts will ALWAYS be a joke

[Anonymous No.12905701]

>>12898674
Eddie Willers is best boy

[Anonymous No.12905953]

The Fountainhead was a better book

[Anonymous No.12906144]

>>12904183
baste
>>12904462
>The only thing I cringed at
you could be autistic, friend. there's a lot to cringe at in that book. there are enjoyable parts, but it gets bad in some areas.
ywn bust the fattest nut in prime Dagny Taggart...why even live?

[Anonymous No.12906236]

>>12906144
Quote some cringe passages.

[Anonymous No.12907140]

>>12899716
Ayn Rand was also a statist.

[Anonymous No.12908782]

>>12907140
Minarchism=/=statism
The separation of state and economics is fine and just, the separation of state and law is retarded. Though expect AnCaps to continue thinking you can have markets in the objective application of the retaliatory use of force. Free markets hard-require the preclusion of force. Unlike everything else, Law should be a monopoly.

[Anonymous No.12908815]

>>12904023
>seat at the
*seat at the table
Fug just realized this.

[Anonymous No.12908962]

>>12898674
Like Zizek says about Rand, she accidentally exposes the premises of the capitalists

[Anonymous No.12909088]

>>12908962
>the other side of the Peterson pseudery coin
>his opinions being worth anything

[Anonymous No.12909313]

>>12909088
Just because he's showing up to the same room as Peterson to speak doesn't mean he's on that same bottom rung.

[Anonymous No.12909329]

>>12909313
True, he's just on the same bottom rung for a different reason.

[Anonymous No.12909375]

>>12909313
>the commie Hegelian
>not on the same rung as the Jungian mystic

[Anonymous No.12909402]

>>12906236
Dagny and Francisco as kids is pretty awful at points.

[Anonymous No.12909511]

>>12909402
Well, that was the one thing I said I cringed at myself. Only a bit though.

[Anonymous No.12909572]

what's some gigachad literature? I read meditations and the ego and its own (and ignored the lefty parts ofc) and they fulled me with energy to have a better attitude and get shit done

[Anonymous No.12909690]

>>12904647
What artist is this by?

[Anonymous No.12909700]

The setting of this book fucks me up.

It seems like in the future, then it seems like in the past because of the railroads.

[Anonymous No.12909715]

>>12909700
Railroads are the future, anon...

[Anonymous No.12909730]

>>12898674
Why'd you put a space before the comma you fucking faggot?

[Anonymous No.12909746]

>>12898704
This is pretty much spot on but I thought her prose was better than a 6/10. I'd give it an 8/10 but I can understand the 6/10. She does seem to prattle on at times, particularly in THAT chapter.

[Anonymous No.12909820]

>>12909700
Railroads and asphalt are of a raw sort of brute efficient such that they will never be replaced barring some teleportation invention.

[Anonymous No.12909857]

>>12909746
The point of a 10/10 is that it's "the greats" of prose and Atlas is certainly not one of the greats prose wise. Rand is very literalist.
She's no Tolstoy and though her philosophic approach kind of necessitates and justifies it, Atlas is still only sufficient. Now Anthem is easily 8/10 prose what with the dystopia's degenerated vocabulary.

[Anonymous No.12909935]

>>12908962
And what are these supposedly damning premises?

[Anonymous No.12909973]

>>12909935
Brutal capitalism, no compassion for others

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FseddRl1WIg

[Anonymous No.12909988]

>>12909700
I think that it's alternative-reality 50's.

[Anonymous No.12910023]

Did this book actually influence the tech moguls in silicon valley? Heard greenspan was even friends with ayn

[Anonymous No.12910367]

>>12909973
>no compassion for others

Why random others should be deserving of my compassion and ressourses if they don't add any value to my life?

[Anonymous No.12910429]

>>12904250
>>12904665
>>12904861
>>12905953
Atlas Shrugged=ME ENGINEER ME INDIVIDUALISM
Fountainhead=with my polymath knowledge of architecture I detest all socialist and non-individualistic relations to the uptmost and I will continue to pursue my individualistic creativity regardless of detestion from society for individualistic genius minds are only scene in a individualistic genius level and therefore.......

[Anonymous No.12910653]

>>12910429
Common on now Atlas is clearly meant as a polemic against irrationalism

[Anonymous No.12910659]

>>12910653
*Come on

[Anonymous No.12910848]

Suffered through it when I was 20. It physically hurt to progress beyond 600 pages; the book is inane in its repitition, and the action sequences toward the end are so bad and cheesy that I had the worst reaction to it over any other book I've read ever. I remember gripping my own face and staring wide eyed into the labyrinth of angular capitalists, flabby socialists, tracks without limit, copper shortages with ever increasing vaccums, and topped with the whipped cream of every antagonist screaming at the glorying eulogies of Dagny, Galt, and D'Anconia combined as one in a Money Making Power Rangers episode.

I hated that book so much. I only read it so that I said I read it.

The poor girl I worked with who read it and adopted its mentality was sad, and bitter. Her boyfriend dumped her and she immediately dressed in a sexy black dress and went out, head held high, in the spirit of Dagny Taggart. Her pride couldn't hide her pain. It still makes me sad. I wonder how she is doing. She saw herself as so strong. But she was weak to allow Dagny to vicariously act through her. She didn't even know herself.

Pretty sure she would have been dtf if I hit on her after the breakup. It was at her insistence that I finish that book. She kept hinting that she liked me. That she saw me as a man, as manly, even though I was just a boy.

[Anonymous No.12911527]

>>12910848
Unfortunate thing this, this totally true story elucidating how people who attempt to live by Rand's philosophy are destined to loneliness and misery. I have NOT seen any similar story told just like this one in the midst of Rand discussion. It just goes to show true happiness can I only be found when you embarace the community™.

[Anonymous No.12911726]

>>12908782
Statist states are involved in the economy.
Taxes are a part of economics.
Minarchist states have taxes.
Minarchist states are therefor involved in the economy and thus minarchists are statists.
It astounds me, a real rational prime mover, how irrational sobjectivists are.
(Also, Peikoff was far better than Rand when it comes to philosophy)

[Anonymous No.12912466]

>>12904647
Best post itt.