/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17830718]

Why does my college professor keep asking students to not read Ayn Rand, /Lit/?

[Anonymous No.17830732]

>>17830718
Reverse psychology.

[Anonymous No.17830735]

>>17830718
I suspect this is a bait thread

[Anonymous No.17830751]

>>17830718
she's a chud

[Anonymous No.17830753]

>>17830718
Maybe he's tired of obnoxious, easily impressed randian readers.

Anyways he shouldn't be closed minded like that.

[Anonymous No.17830757]

>>17830718
Antisemitism

[Anonymous No.17830764]

>>17830735
It really is not, Anon. I just want to know what it is about her literature that makes certain people (including my professor) seethe so much.

[Anonymous No.17830797]

>>17830718
Fuck Ayn Rand

[Anonymous No.17830804]

>>17830718
Because Ayn Rand is a useless cunt

[Anonymous No.17830834]

>>17830718
I’ve been trying to figure this out, too. I picked up The Fountainhead with the intention of reading something annoying. I thought she was some kind of shill for Übermensch because that’s what everyone told me. Now that I’ve read something by her, I wonder if this isn’t just meant to discredit her by association with Fascism and Nazism. Her ideas have some overlap with Nietzsche, but what ideas don’t?
I also had no idea that she fled Soviet Russia or that the Bolshiviks seized her father’s shop. No surprise that she commits the cardinal sin of questioning the motives of socialists.

[Anonymous No.17830836]

>>17830718
A lot of people hate her. Not that it makes her good but I dislike anyone who takes that attitude about any author. I think her philosophy is questionable but the Fountainhead isn’t a bad novel.

[Anonymous No.17830856]

>>17830836
>>17830764
Elsworth Toohey is probably enough to make any professor seethe.

[Anonymous No.17830922]

Because altruistic Humanity as New God is "the way forward" (for academics) in contraposition to selfism and egoism in its many appearances, and also to old religious thought.

[Anonymous No.17830953]

>>17830834
I mean, her family were literally friends with the Romanovs, and Rand later stated that it was justified to kill native Americans and steal their land sooooooo

[Anonymous No.17830998]

>>17830953
>It was okay to seize her family’s property because of assiciations were born into
>It was not okay to seize the native americans’ property because they were born on it
Go back to vaush.gg

[Anonymous No.17831169]

He's looking out for them so they can avoid years of cringe

[Anonymous No.17832959]

>>17830718
Does anybody know of any good resources to find literary agents and small presses? I know that some places like that exist already, like that MSWL website, but every fucking agent on there is atrocious and the things they say they want make me cringe. I'd like to find agents and small presses that are actually good.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.17832966]

>>17830718
The academia jew fears nothing so much as the agent person.

[Anonymous No.17832978]

>>17830718
Because all American writers are shit.
When your best contributions to the world are people like Rand, Tom Clancy, Hemingway and Stephen King you really should start questioning things.

[Anonymous No.17833157]

>>17830718
Most profs hate her because 1)she doesn't fit the analytic/continental paradigm 2) her writing isn't very good (or so the rumor goes, I've only read Anthem, hardly exemplar) or 3) if she's correct it renders universities obsolete - see Peter Thiels start up that tries to get students to drop out and start small businesses

[Anonymous No.17833166]

>>17830998
Cause should be put against a wall
>>17830953
That's fuxked
>>17832966
Kill yourself nazi scum
>>17832959
I am only aware of AK press, but they're communists and idk if they're into literary agents. They seem good tho, for independent leftist writings (not much help if you're not a leftist tho)

[Anonymous No.17833176]

atlas shrugged is free on audible plus, so far seems ok, but it's like 60 hours maybe i will seethe later.

[Anonymous No.17833511]

>>17830718
>professor telling people not to learn for themselves
Education system is trash for this reason and once you realise it, you are much better for it.

You'll notice most will say "I heard Ayn Rand is a bad writer or her ideas were bad" well those people who are controlling the idea marketplace and education have succeeded in their influence to sway people from self learning.

It's horrible to see and those professors should be punished for their crimes.

A math professor who said to not practice maths or to study something would be regarded as a fool but the literature professor gets away with it.

Only through seeking out the original will enlighten your understanding of her, everything else is manipulation.

[Anonymous No.17833517]

>>17830718
She's retarded cause what she doesn't realize is that groups can often overpower le individual and that pure hands off government is a pipe dream

[Anonymous No.17833531]

>>17833517
t. an anon who hasn’t read Rand

[Anonymous No.17833539]

>>17833517
Groups are collections of individuals with a common interest. I haven't read her work and I was just lurking this thread out of slight interest/boredom, but I highly fucking doubt she's against collective action all together as an individualist. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Collectivists unironically think humans act like eusocial insects.

[Anonymous No.17833543]

>>17833166
Kek

>>17833511
This anon gets it

[Anonymous No.17833554]

>>17833511
Sun randy seems like a bitch and I won’t read her but 100% agree with this

[Anonymous No.17833555]

>>17833511
The difference between literature/philosophy and mathematics is that the latter is directly verifiable as to whether or not it's bullshit through proofs or lack thereof. Literature can waste large amounts of time without one ever being sure of whether or not the author is bullshitting you or not (Ayn Rand is a very good example for people with little background knowledge of philosophy - she is a textbook sophist). The professor is quite literally saving your time, so long as they're not outright FORBIDDDING you to read it, but merely giving you a recommendation of what NOT to read (to save you time and effort, which in the modern age is in short supply considering the sheer quantity of material that is out there).

[Anonymous No.17833558]

>>17830764
because she debunks liberalism and a lot of political/moral values that are status quo this day in age. it's obvious that people are going to get butthurt if somebody is telling them that their fake kindness isn't good

[Anonymous No.17833561]

>>17833531
I have read her works.
>>17833539
The problem is that voluntary groups are overwhelmed by groups that are collective, it's in our dna to create collectivized systems.

[Anonymous No.17833571]

>>17833561
>it's in our dna to create collectivized systems.
Okay, retard.

[Anonymous No.17833573]

>>17833571
Nature selects for collectivized systems at the expense of the individual. Read Ellul.

[Anonymous No.17833576]

>>17830718
Because she’s untalented.>>17830751

[Anonymous No.17833578]

>>17833573
Sure, I'll e-lul at you

[Anonymous No.17833585]

>>17833576
Responded to >>17830751 by mistake

[Anonymous No.17833587]

>>17833571
You're the retard bud.

[Anonymous No.17833633]

>>17833555
>literature's purpose is to verify something

>>17833555
>Ayn Rand is a very good example for people with little background knowledge of philosophy - she is a textbook sophist
Why do people jump straight to the philosophy?
It's because of the academics.

For some reason it's judged as a book about philosophy rather than as literature. The next thing you'll say is the writing is bad but again no actual discussion has taken place.

If you enjoy reading, why would the book be a waste of time?

Op's professor doesn't give any reasons why they should not read Rand and so you are assuming it's to save them time. I don't think that is the case. Academia has students do all sorts of hoop jumping crap to waste time. I bet they read far worse books, discuss far shallower things and write far more worthless pieces.

I really don't think you get it. Literature is a medium to explore things and not a factbook. If you are treating it as such, reconsider it. Your view of literature is reducing original pieces to a list of facts and arguments and as such is boring.

They should read Rand because they can see for themselves it's value (or lack thereof if they end up thinking that), anyone trying to convince you not to do something for yourself hasn't got your best interest at heart.
You won't ever become a well educated person by reading fact sheets and NOT reading original works.

[Anonymous No.17833645]

>>17833633
The mind is like a fortress. If you let a virulent disease in, it spreads and destroys it. Fictional literature which pretends to have real value is the most dangerous because it hides its viral payload behind pure rhetoric and provides no easy remedy (logical refutations), thereby spreading through the mind and exerting a corruptive influence, in many cases without the reader even being aware of it. This goes beyond Rand and explains many of the woes of the modern world, Rand is just one example of this phenomenon.

[Anonymous No.17833707]

>>17833645
>Fictional literature which pretends to have real value is the most dangerous because it hides its viral payload behind pure rhetoric and provides no easy remedy (logical refutations),
>logical refutations.
You're operating on a different level here. It doesn't have to be refuted logically. It doesn't have to be refuted at all unless you disagree with the ideas.


It's value is self explanatory since the book filters many people. To see how people react to such a supposedly silly book shows you alot. People don't engage with the work and instead go straight to trying to refute it or dismiss it. It's unique. Everything else in literature is treated differently to that.

If you think some book is a corrupting influence on thought, you're mad.

[Anonymous No.17833721]

>>17833645
I’m with you anon, dont these Randy retards even know how to crimestop their doublethink? What time wasters!!

[Anonymous No.17833904]

>>17830718
theyre not putting a gun to your head and forcing you not to read it, theyre just warning you that the book is shit. and despite probably being a bunch of libtard faggots, theyre right. the book is poorly written, boring, long, repetitive, and shills one of the most retarded political ideologies on the planet. you have nothing to gain from reading it other than bering able to shit on ayn rand with a clear concience knowing youve actually suffered through her garbage novel

[Anonymous No.17833913]

>>17830764
She calls the liberal ideal of love for fellow man pig slop.
She also called libertarians disgusting subhuman plagiarists.

[Anonymous No.17833976]

>>17833913
Sounds pretty based desu

[Anonymous No.17834109]

>>17833976

[Anonymous No.17834115]

>>17830718
Because her books are philosophical texts with the drawings of shitty novels around them because nobody would listen to her philosophy otherwise. Have you ever actually read Rand? If so then you've witnessed the literal dozens of consecutive pages dedicated solely to ideological spiel.

Also because you're reading something written by a woman which is rarely a good idea.

[Anonymous No.17834136]

>>17833913
pigs are very redpilled creatures.

[Anonymous No.17834160]

>>17830718
fucking boring books with theorylet tier ideology

[Anonymous No.17834252]

Everyone always goes off about Atlas Shrugged (which I haven't read yet), but I thought The Fountainhead was actually a pretty good book, and the ideology contained therein shouldn't be antithetical to almost anybody excepting the most extreme opposites of the political spectrum. Like, for fuck's sake, nobody likes the Toohey types, we all know they exist, and they sure as fuck aren't beneficial to any system.

[Anonymous No.17834254]

>>17834115
I’ve only read The Fountainhead, but nearly every line ratchets up the conflict. Have you ever read philosophy? Have you ever read an actual bad book written by a woman? If you think Rand’s writing is bad, you’ve seriously lost perspective.
See picrel: a random page from an actual poorly written novel, which repeats the same idea for entire paragraphs. This is what repetitive writing looks like.

[Anonymous No.17834269]

>>17834254
dammit.

[Anonymous No.17834294]

>>17834269
>>17834254

[Anonymous No.17834311]

>>17834294
Flip your own screen
I got books to read

[Anonymous No.17834316]

>>17834311
cancer

[Anonymous No.17834328]

>>17834316
beetus

[Anonymous No.17834389]

>>17833913
It's so weird to me that people will constantly just claim that someone believes a certain thing. They're just like "yes, humans are (insert seemingly innocuous thing here) because they (insert snarky opinion that can't possibly be proven but is different or unexpected and therefore seen as intelligent). I don't think I could trust someone with an ego so great that they actually believe that the way they view the world is the way it is.

[Anonymous No.17834472]

>>17834254
what book?

[Anonymous No.17834476]

>>17834472
Dorothy Must Die

[Anonymous No.17834484]

>>17834389
>I don't think I could trust someone with an ego so great that they actually believe that the way they view the world is the way it is

Wow, that's exactly wrong.

Person A: >Murder and lying are objectively wrong, of this I am absolutely certain, and nobody will convince me otherwise

Person B: >Of course I believe pedophilia is wrong, but you know, nobody can ever be certain of anything. By the way, really looking forward to babysitting your daughters this weekend!

Which person is more trustworthy? Wrong answers kys.

[Anonymous No.17834515]

>>17830718
As others have said above it's probably less to do with it being bad as such (loads of books are worse) but more that it makes younger people pretty obnoxious and, to some degree, disruptive.

I read most of her books when I was 17-18 and it made me pretty annoying to be around for a while desu. That was years ago though.

[Anonymous No.17834525]

>>17830718
Because she writes terrible novels and her philosophy is derivative and weak, as proven by the fact that is only taken seriously by philosophy freshmen, who then move on to better authors, or by business students, who are by definition cavemen incapable of thought and never go beyond the opinion they develop when they are 21.

[Anonymous No.17834556]

>>17834515
Are you Tobias Wolff?

[Anonymous No.17834565]

>>17834525
>business students, who are by definition cavemen incapable of thought

"Intellectuals" spitting on practical men is deeply plebeian and betrays insecurity and weakness of spirit.

[Anonymous No.17834577]

>>17830718
Ayn Rand's philosophy is counter to the prevailing ethos in academia, and she's also a bad novelist. That means academics can excoriate her safely without appearing to be closed-minded. They have plausible deniability: "I hate her because she's a terrible writer, not because I disagree with her politically".

[Anonymous No.17834608]

It's called propaganda OP.

We already live in Rand's world except in practice it's not as idealistic and romantic. In practice, capitalism and individualism means a society where the state serves the interests of capital.

Clearly academics have to pretend that she represents some kind of polar opposite to what we actually have, when in reality 90% of her ideas are already true.

[Anonymous No.17834676]

The short answer is that Ayn Rand struck a nerve, and a very sensible one. This nerve happens to be something we regulate and repress daily because of the interconnection between individuals and society - this nerve happens to be the ego, which she defines as the fundamental right of a human being we repress and submit. Ayn rand reminded us of a tale about things that is at the same time both important, crucial for us and dangerous for us - things that we have learnt to love and hate at the same time. That’s why so many mixed reactions exist: she split humanity apart and in all senses made our ID/individuality emerge.

The catch with Ayn Rand is that her philosophy by definition caresses the ego, and the art of the ego is not something everyone can master. So yes, she can be dangerous. I have plenty to say about people who worship Rand too but given that the question is specifically about those who hate her, I’ll be partial and bite those people.

People aren’t wrong when they say Ayn Rand awakens an inner child, because a child can still dream and imagine things beyond destructive pragmatism. Ironically, Ayn Rand is dopamine for the ID, but whenever the ID gets excited by her philosophy, the superego decides to give us what we call “reality check”. This reality check may or may not kill change, which is why only a few people have a true grasp on their ID which allows them to come up with new, unique perceptions of the world, while also retaining a certain degree of realism. Ayn Rand is one of those people who is worshiped by those who cannot control their ID, and hated by those who cannot control their superego.

Ayn Rand literally struck a nerve, it awoke the repressed (and subconsciously spilled) individuality within every living human being and every society. Her influence is replicating more and more within a society that represses or subjugates individuality: society doesn't like this, it doesn't like "to each their own" mentality, It doesn't like people not relying on the services and the people its institutions stole. Ayn Rand struck a nerve that had already been hit by Nietzsche, the consequence is that people are trying to do everything to negate her philosophy as unnatural, the assumption that individualism and egoism are unnatural and that cooperation is paramount, the self delusion of doing everything to mitigate the effects of an individual awakening and the awakening of consciousness. While laughably spreading her philosophy instead, news coverage does nothing but propel her call within the masses. Every act of repulsion against her is actually a call to her attention.

[Anonymous No.17834689]

>>17834676
Those who say the meaning of the ending of Atlas Shrugged is unrealistic clearly didn’t bother reading history books, not only are rebellions for independence possible, but they were mandatory for the jobs you rely on today and actually always happened - people advocating for their rights and freedom have been everywhere in history, philosophy that held individual rights (even within collective rights) has fueled the french revolution and the creation of the United States’ constitution. Ayn Rand spotted a very plausible trend within our current societies which I call “the declaration of dependence”, undoing the individualism our ancestors fought for.

Another statistic I gather from history is that people have always held some form of moral resentment towards the upper classes and the elites, which justifies why people are all so concerned with her worship of individualistic creators that practice the art of mental self-reliance/independence by shifting away from being submitted to a person/system/institution. This is, Ironically, the same thing people did in the french revolution, they were tired of being submitted - and this gave not only the political ideologies we love to worship or slander - but also democracy. Ayn Rand struck a nerve that has always been struck in history: the will and power to say “I am tired of being subjugated, this is *my* life”. People like to say she advocates for conservatism, but whenever I read Ayn Rand’s ideas, I get a vibe of revolutionary ideology.

Nevertheless, the catch with Ayn Rand is more complex: She struck a nerve in a mass society that has done everything to hide subjugation cleverly, hiding it so much that analogically to totalitarian systems, people don’t notice they are unaware slaves with benefits, something that was blatantly obvious and harder to hide in pre-19th century societies. they thus hold the power to deny her philosophy as unrealistic. Those are the people who worship the phrase “Humans are social animals” like a rosary in the bible or who still think they live in a hunter-gatherer society made up of cavemen hunting to kill mammoths, these people are no better than the politicians who use Atlas

[Anonymous No.17834693]

>>17834689
Shrugged as their bible, failing to understand Rand’s underlying philosophy and using it to subjugate others to fulfill their motives. Which is the contrary of what she always meant with self-reliance, egoism and independence.

Ayn Rand speaks to what we as a society defined as our dark side, what we have learned to repress our ego to live in comfort and give money to those who abuse of our incompetence. So every form of mass subjugation calls out we're cogs in a system, that we are made to cooperate with each other just to add for each others’ weaknesses instead of overcoming them, trying desperately to mitigate what Ayn Rand and Nietzsche have revealed: that most forms of community are based on subjugation, submission and lack of competence. Which can be direct and indirect, mild, noticeable or unnoticeable. Ayn Rand speaks to something that is attainable by only a few people: independent creativity. She advocates something that is impossible within an interdependent society: the ability to be mentally or physically detached enough not to harm others to manifest your freedom.

Ayn Rand struck an inevitable nerve: the nerve of individual emergence, our personal subjectivity and our personal goals beyond the influence of society but rather our own will. A nerve society has done everything to repress, because of money and harmony. Rand speaks to our ID in a society based on the dominance of the superego. People cannot accept a philosophy that worships self-centered behavior, for we are by nature and nurture unused to consciously focus on ourselves more than we consciously focus on others and we are so helplessly dependent on others, we all are to some degree - Rand was likely very aware of it - but some are more helpless than others. People accuse her of dichotomous thinking and black and white morality, yet identify themselves with archetypes we call political ideologies. They accuse her ideologies for not working in game theory, without realizing that 1) it wasn’t Ayn Rand’s purpose because she loathed pragmatism, it would mean being collective and submitting others to herself. 2) Nothing ever created works for everyone, even the most consensual political ideology fails the game theory.

[Anonymous No.17834697]

>>17834693
Ayn Rand's philosophy is the definition of socially inadequate, questionable and uncomfortable - Just like Marx, Moore, Freud, Copernicus and many others before her. The most impetuous winds and waves are the most socially uncomfortable, because they imply questioning the status quo paradigm shifts, these conceptions are slandered as unrealistic and taboo-ish because they imply a paradigm shift too big for our current conceptions and social constructs, It rhymes with democracy and heliocentrism, which were too big and uncomfortable for us to handle. Nevertheless, It is too late for the socialites to stop the awakening of rotten individualism, people are already doing everything wrong with her texts, using them to justify a libertarian system of oppression, which is a blatant demonstration of how much the individual critical capacity has been inhibited by collective thought and social standards. Revealing how much our individualism is untrained - you can't use a muscle if you haven't built it. Individualism, as Rand and many people acknowledged, is a natural part of being human. Repressing it leads to unbalance and it will eventually spill out like spumante during new year’s eve.

My criticism does not go to Ayn Rand, my criticism goes to those who speak of her individualism without having a slight bunch of self-discipline and self-moderation on it. Just like I don’t often criticize guns, but mainly people who use guns.

Ayn Rand is a modern example of paradigm shift, an exemplary demonstration of how much our individuality has been subjugated for collectivism, how people cannot even digest what she says and how all those who work for the mass society who asks for their bills are trying to row the boat in the opposite direction. Teaching everyone to make their own electrical current and logistics is highly inconvenient for those who made billions of dollars for you not knowing but a fraction of what Edison & co. knew. Individualism will deliver a lot of blows to society, this will lead to adaptation and people learning to self-discipline themselves and their mind.

[Anonymous No.17834702]

>>17834697
“I don’t kill because it’s wrong” is basically like saying "I don't kill because the law tells me not to". Being self-centered in healthy ways is not what is wrong with this world, it’s the desperate servitude to what we think is other than ourselves that is. if someone made a 12 hour law where the right of killing and harming became legal (The Purge) People would go out and kill, because they don't have the self-discipline to assess their motives. Society likes this because it means we're mere pawns and consumers.

The truly self-disciplined person says "I don't kill because I don't want or need to, why should I?”, we deny this ethical egoism because when we say we don’t kill because of the law we actually say: "I don't kill because it's useful for me not to", These are the unconscious manifestations of the superego - we follow the law for self preservation, we fear daddy's punishments. That's far from caring about others and being altruistic, that’s what most self-defined altruists forget.

Yet we tell ourselves we must care for one another, creating the most vicious and cruel of harm. We call ourselves kind altruists just because we listen to daddy telling us not to harm our brother - the difference between a daddy and society is that a dad often suggest his child not to harm himself, while in society we allegedly harm ourselves only if we harm the other. If this is what altruism means then I concur with Rand - it’s self-sacrifice. We are so close and involved with one another that we don’t like to see ourselves, which include our flaws and strengths.