/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16425205]

are you telling me people these days are STILL reading this garbage?

[Anonymous No.16425216]

>>16425205
are there any right-leaning books you like?

[Anonymous No.16425269]

yeah, reading it right now. Not great by any means, but still good. It's a bit of a motivator, to be honest.

[Anonymous No.16425275]

>>16425216
Right wing is pretty much illiterate so no

[Anonymous No.16425296]

>>16425275
I bet you think of yourself as open minded

[Anonymous No.16425342]

>>16425205
Garbage it is, but so is any other politically engaged fiction. Don't get me started on some leftist pukes of Dickens or London.

[Anonymous No.16425352]

>>16425275
Retard alert.

[Anonymous No.16425360]

>>16425216
There are far way better right wing books that dont simply castrate Stirner's ideas and dumb it down and apply it only to justify shitty globo-homo capitalism.

[Anonymous No.16425453]

>>16425205
That was actually one of the books that got me reading more, along with The Road, I liked it. I don't get why people shit on it so much, besides the fact that she was cringe. I wrote an essay on it in high school and won 500 bucks from her organization, so it was pretty worth it.

[Anonymous No.16425488]

>>16425296
>you have to entertain retards and criminals otherwise you are close minded
Hard pass

[Anonymous No.16425638]

>>16425488
what?

[Anonymous No.16425711]

>>16425360
Like what?

[Anonymous No.16425719]

>>16425488
>I'm open minded to things I already agree with

[Anonymous No.16425731]

>>16425453
>>16425719
Ayn Rand was cool. She still triggers liberals to this day.

[Anonymous No.16425833]

>>16425205
https://youtu.be/kaLLy-U8MkI
I don't know it's pretty /lit/ if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.16426120]

>>16425731
>She still triggers liberals to this day.
Triggers with what? By telling them you need free markets and free trade? Liberals love that, and what better way to achieve it by promoting globalism. Rand is a brainlet that thinks you can push free market and free trade policies while still maintaining conservatism and social codes from being broken in the name of profits. And make a map of what she considers "selfishness" that is extremely narrow and justified with pseud dumb fuckery even by her time's standards.

>>16425711
>Like what?
Lurk more.

[Anonymous No.16426220]

>>16425205
People who bitch about Ayn Rand the most almost always misunderstand her ideas, or simply never read anything she wrote. Regardless of what you think of objectivism, Rand had a deep understanding of human psychology and character. The character dynamic between Howard Roark and Peter Keating, as well as the relationship between Ellsworth Toohey and Katie demonstrate Rand's ability to condense this understanding of human psychology into character archetypes, as well as showcase her talent for fiction writing in general.

[Anonymous No.16426271]

>>16426220
That part where Keating shows Roark his paintings, and Roark says it's too late gets me in the feels every time. Those two pages made the death of ivan illych look like hot garbage. The book's dialogue was fraught with meaning and some devastating existential emotion. The subtext makes the story really engaging.

[Anonymous No.16426283]

the prose might not be good, but the ideology is based

[Anonymous No.16426596]

>>16426220
>People who bitch about Ayn Rand the most almost always misunderstand her ideas, or simply never read anything she wrote.
>Rand had a deep understanding of human psychology and character
Thats how you know somone hasnt read any philosophy (or fiction) from 19th century onwards, Rand is the weakest and most outdated thinker from her time, its no surprise she is considered the baby's frist right wing philosopher as she literally doesnt spit anything but pseudo science along with a naive narrative that anyone older than 15 can understand.
I know this because she was the first philosopher i ever got into when i was 17 and every time i look back at it i cant help but cringe at how stupid naive it all was. When you start reading other thinkers you'll notice that she isnt anything more than a popular figure, like a ben shapiro of her time.
Any Marxist or Reactionary born 100 years earlier than Rand could already come up with better theories than her.

>>16426283
>the ideology is based
You couldnt be closer to live the true outcomes of her thinking than you are right now.

[Anonymous No.16426758]

>>16426596
>NOOO, YOU CAN'T JUST WORK FOR YOUR OWN SELF-INTEREST! NO ONE'S INHERENTLY BETTER THAN ANYONE! CAN'T YOU SEE THAT?!

[Anonymous No.16426795]

>>16425453
>I don't get why people shit on it so much

They probably haven't read it because it's long. The writing is about average, but the story is definitely entertaining. The same people who say we should engage in the postmodern practice of divorcing a consideration of the author from a consideration of his work with regards to leftist literature are the first to dogpile on Rand's books because of her personal beliefs.

[Anonymous No.16426867]

>>16426758
Are you quoting me? I havent even mention her dumb defenition of self interest that she takes.

[Anonymous No.16426929]

>>16426220
Based. I'd also add that Ellsworth Toohey and Gail Wynand are great and compelling antagonists. Rand was a massively talented novelist who is only hated due to her insufferable personality and autistic politics, and even then by people who just parrot the shit they hear. She was also really good at structuring her works; they are huge but there isn't really anything in The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged that could be cut without damaging the whole. I think Atlas has some flaws, but, from a purely literary point of view, We the Living and The Fountainhead are fucking masterpieces.

[Anonymous No.16426945]

>>16426271
The part where Keating meets Katie for the last time and sees how broken and hollow she's become is just unsettling, especially because you know - like Keating does - that it is all his fault due to his social climbing.

[Anonymous No.16427179]

>>16426945
Keating is the real tragedy of the story, at first you think he's some sort of antagonist (like wynand) but you end up realizing that their stories are of failure and loss.

[Anonymous No.16427186]

Sure her writing isn't the best but I'll never understand this collective seething that comes when anyone mentions her. Ive read almost everything she's written, not because I really believe in the practicality of Objectivism but because there is something about her ideas and novels that is just interesting. She's distilled the idea of the ideal America into an impossible heroic world view. Imo shes important to read as another reactionary of the 60s social upheaval

[Anonymous No.16427264]

>>16425205
Not just reading, but basing their entire worldview on it. Mega-brainlets.

[Anonymous No.16427431]

>>16427179
There is a turning point in Rand's writing where she turns all her antagonists into drooling retards. Up to Atlas Shrugged, they are all compelling. Andrei (from We the Living, a literal communist), Keating, Wynand, Toohey, are all memorable and very well characterized, but the villains of Atlas Shrugged are all interchangeable whining idiots.

She actually had one of these compelling antagonists (a priest who attended to Hank Rearden) in a first draft and ended up cutting him for that exact reason.

[Anonymous No.16428226]

Why wouldn't they? There will always be people who have never read it.

[Anonymous No.16428254]

>>16426596
You've posted a lot of intellectual elitism and status signalling but no real argument. You should take some time to examine your biases.

[Anonymous No.16428285]

>>16426867
the picture says "self-interest"

[Anonymous No.16428407]

>>16426596
Your pic is how I know you never read Rand.

[Anonymous No.16428410]

>>16427179
>>16426945
That part at the end where Keating's aging mom tells him that the only thing she wanted in life was for him to be happy. It would take a man with a heart of stone not to be moved by that passage.

[Anonymous No.16428439]

>>16428410
Peter Keating in general is just a great, very well written character.

[Anonymous No.16428478]

The Fountainhead might have the single most mean-spirited excerpt of writing I have ever read, the part where Rand writes how Roark's temple became a shelter for retarded kids just oozes with contempt and hate.

[Anonymous No.16428538]

>>16428254
>He thinks im going to spend time trying to explain how none of her framework works if she doesnt take a bunch of presupposed philosophical shit that has been more than killed and destroyed by french and german fucks by her time.
Why would i argue with retards who take rand seriously? All it takes is read any other thinker who isnt 300 years older than her.

>>16428407
Seethe.

[Anonymous No.16428694]

>>16425205
>people
you mean libertarians?

[Anonymous No.16428728]

>>16428478
I liked the novel, but it sort of seemed like Rand was basically writing "this is the kind of man I want to fuck me" the book.

[Anonymous No.16428742]

>>16425205
Have you read it? Anyway, seethe

[Anonymous No.16428751]

why should people's taste in literature improve, while taste in music, art and entertainment rapidly decline.
why should books be the outlier?

[Anonymous No.16429128]

I've never read Arn Rand but I plan to. Apolitical but any writer that is this controversial is a must read in my book.