Why is she hated?

[Anonymous No.13965350]

Her books are pretty based desu

[Anonymous No.13965369]

>>13965350
Anti-Semitism

[Anonymous No.13965703]

>>13965350
>ends a book with a 200 page monologue
this is generally something you don't do if you are trying to be a good writer, nevermind her questionable ethics

[Anonymous No.13965749]

>>13965350
people don't like freedom

[Soren Kierkegaard No.13965757]

>>13965749
people like you, and especially Rand, don't understand what freedom is

[Anonymous No.13965773]

>>13965757
what do I think freedom is?

[Anonymous No.13965787]

>>13965773
free to be dum
frredum

[Anonymous No.13965968]

No one likes to be told home truths.

[Anonymous No.13965985]

>>13965350
Because she and the people that like her are detestable. I enjoy her books as the shitty ideological writing that it is, but wouldn't consider it great literature. I listen to her audiobooks when I'm doing shit, but don't seriously read her like I do with better authors.
>>13965703
Tolstoy doesn't do this? Melville doesn't do this? fuck off anon.

[Anonymous No.13965999]

She was a poor writer and an even worse thinker, the exact opposite of what I like to read.

[Anonymous No.13966001]

>>13965350
>are based

This is actually why, she's hated by people with a mental age beyond 13, you are free to continue the support though.

[Anonymous No.13966007]

>>13965350
>she

[Anonymous No.13966273]

>>13965350

[Anonymous No.13966291]

>>13965985
>Melville
>implying he ever wrote a 200 page monologue
actually go fuck yourself

[Anonymous No.13966313]

>>13965350
I appreciated the first sex scene in Atlas Shrugged. Pretty hot descriptions. With a feminine understanding that she was meant to be submissive. Because then you wonder about Ayn Rands sex life. Pretty fascinating when ideology and sexuality react.

[Anonymous No.13966406]

>>13966273
Butterfly put me off Stirner. I can't enjoy books she enjoys.

[Anonymous No.13966431]

>>13965350
collectivists feel threatened

[emonationalist !!HxQhKkNYVzK No.13966448]

Aside from being a capitalist, which makes her an enemy of socialist, and a Jewish capitalist, which makes her an enemy especially of national socialists, shes kind of an egoist psycho bitch, from what I've heard anyway. I read Anthem though and it's only real theme was heroic individualism, and I liked it. I am a collectivist though. It is a much more powerful strategy.

[Anonymous No.13966472]

>>13965985
But Melville and Tolstoy are actually good writers...

[Anonymous No.13966485]

>>13966406
>she

[Anonymous No.13966507]

>>13966485
Yep

[Anonymous No.13966514]

>>13965350
Fountainhead was good, Battlefield Train was shit.

[Anonymous No.13966518]

I don't want to read the literary equivalent of a mental breakdown.

[Anonymous No.13966534]

>>13965350
I think you're confusing "hated" with "ridiculed". Her books are shit, her novels are written in sloppy prose and her only aim is to defend points of her even sloppier philosophy. Nobody with an undergrad background in either philosophy or literature can take her seriously

[Anonymous No.13966539]

>>13965985
>Tolstoy doesn't do this? Melville doesn't do this? fuck off anon
But anon, they don't... Also their characters are like, you know, well rounded and plausible human beings, not simply spokesman for a certain philosophical view

[Anonymous No.13966547]

>>13966534
>X’s books are shit, X’s novels are written in sloppy prose and X’s only aim is to defend points of X’s even sloppier philosophy

[Anonymous No.13966556]

>>13966539
You are not a plausible human being.

[Anonymous No.13966593]

>>13965350
The left can only seethe at her mere mention because it has no real argument against her.

[Anonymous No.13966610]

>>13965787
not an argument.

[Anonymous No.13966666]

>>13966593
Even in terms of her own story, consider:
Galt's Gulch is only as functional as it is because it has access to magical technology. And even then, the details of food production are never discussed (as I recall, it's been years since I read it), because it would be such a downer if all those great men had to spend all their time in the fields and never had any time for greatness. I'm sure if she had bothered to include food production, there would be more magic to take care of it.
And they can't carve out a niche for themselves in the real world, because it turns out the collective can overpower them; their greatness can only be truly expressed if there's state power there to keep the not-so-great in line.
So it's really just an extremist libertarian version of Star Trek, where fallibility is written off and practical needs appear out of thin air. I guess the main difference is that Star Trek occasionally has interesting ideas, and its polemics are propped up by Patrick Stewart and Avery Brooks.

[Anonymous No.13966670]

>>13965985
Tolstoy has about fifty pages of essays on history in War and Peace, these are not from the pov of a character, are more or less separated from the story, and can be skipped.

[Anonymous No.13966676]

>>13965968
I think he looks hotter at 30. Is my brain broken?

[Anonymous No.13966684]

>>13966676
>he
>hotter at 30
yes, brain broken

[Anonymous No.13966687]

>>13966666
checked

[Anonymous No.13966692]

>>13966666
The mark of the beast

[Anonymous No.13966699]

>>13966593
Or, it's just 4chan and no one gives a fuck about explaining themselves to some other dickhead anon.

[Anonymous No.13966725]

The mainstream hates her because the literary world has always been left-leaning. Meanwhile, places like /lit/ sympathize more with reactionaries, fascists or conservatives rather than libertarians.

[Anonymous No.13966868]

>>13966666
>because it would be such a downer if all those great men had to spend all their time in the fields and never had any time for greatness. I'm sure if she had bothered to include food production, there would be more magic to take care of it.
The opposite of your point is pretty emphasized in the book though. She makes a big deal about them working at menial tasks like agriculture instead of being brilliant out in the world.

[Anonymous No.13966905]

>>13966725
>The mainstream hates her
The mainstream, and especially the left, doesn't know Rand exists. She's a meme among USA conservatives and Internet nazis. I'd never heard of her before /lit/

[Anonymous No.13966911]

>>13966692
You wish, that's a cinco in my book

[Anonymous No.13967033]

I don't think most of the people her have actually read her. The critiques always echo each other, more than any other books I've seen.

[Anonymous No.13967040]

>>13967033
The flaws in Atlas Shrugged are so huge and obvious it's not surprising people mention them.
Everyone who talks about the Clash knows Cut the Crap is their worst album, it's not because they've never listened to the Clash, it's because it's true

[Anonymous No.13967102]

>>13966547
I think I solved it guys
X = Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.13967122]

I think most of you didnt even read any of her books. It is no act of virtue to just read the commentary of someone else about a book and then just recreate the things this person said about the work of someone else. I would advice all of you to just buy Atlas Shrugged and try to read it without your prejudices against it.

If you really wanna attack her philosophy, then start with her arguments against determinism. Because I think no one of you can say something against the base of her philosophy, because that would mean contradicting your own being. Furthermore I think her saying that what the senses give you is objectiv has been widly missunderstood, but I think you didnt even bother to read the source material and not the commentary of some far leftist.

She wasnt right about everything, but no one can argue against her axioms.

[Anonymous No.13967137]

>>13967122
>just buy Atlas Shrugged and try to read it without your prejudices against it.
I've read it, and it's shit. I've not been brainwashed be le leftist machine. It's just not very well written. Have you read 'The Ragged Trousered Philanthropists'? Don't, because it's shit too and it's shit for exactly the same reasons Atlas Shrugged is shit.

[Anonymous No.13967157]

>>13966905
The educated mainstream left definitely knows her. They know that they're supposed to hate her anyway

[Anonymous No.13967166]

>>13967157
>The educated mainstream left definitely knows her
They don't. The average Brighton Corbynista doesn't even hate her. She's a meme in America and nowhere else

[Anonymous No.13967221]

>>13967137
>I've read it, and it's shit.
But why you are not even attacking any of her ideas, you just saying its shit.
This level of attack is something a 7 year old would do, after not getting what he wants.

[Anonymous No.13967225]

>>13965369
This.

[Anonymous No.13967260]

>>13967221
>But why you are not even attacking any of her ideas
So what? I said it wasn't well written. I stand by that. It's not well written, and you can't be unfamiliar with the reasons why people don't think it's well written

[Anonymous No.13967278]

>>13965369
I thought she supported Israel, and said the Palestinians deserved it

[Anonymous No.13967384]

Rand, if unironic, is strictly for pseuds

[Anonymous No.13967559]

>>13965350
brute solipsism is the ultimate brainlet cosmology

[Anonymous No.13967572]

>>13966666
checked and digits-pilled

[Anonymous No.13967727]

The Fountainhead infuriated me with how much of a selfish piece of shit the protagonist was. How was I supposed to feel bad about him? And then he just resolves all conflict with a passive aggressive speech. What the fuck?

[Anonymous No.13967729]

She was a grown adult with the worldview of a child

[Anonymous No.13967743]

19 year old sociology majors that end up dropping out and working at Starbucks get fucking SEETHING mad when you tell them that certain people are better than others. This is coincidentally why /lit/ is filled with a bunch of Marxist autists.

[Anonymous No.13968046]

>>13965350
Because she is an ugly kike