<p>After some browsing I've seen books come up many times, and Ayn Rand is not an exception.</p>
<p>Personally, I love Ayn Rand because she defined that which I believed were right but couldn't put into words. I've read all of her fiction (Atlas Shrugged and Anthem being my favorite), and am working on the nonfiction.</p>
<p>Anyone else?</p>
<p>I almost read Atlas Shrugged, but it was too long, and I had no time lol</p>
<p>Totally with you on the “defining what you couldn’t put into words” part… she’s definitely up there on my list of favorite authors. I also find it interesting how she develops her theory of objectivism throughout her novels.</p>
<p>Ayn Rand’s a *****, nuff said.</p>
<p>I read her books, but I have no interest in partaking in her cult of followers. </p>
<p>Her books are interesting, but she uses her characters to push her dogma to the point where they’re not even human anymore. </p>
<p>I respect her theory, but she’s ironic at times :rolleyes:</p>
<p>^ Same opinion as fairy_dreams, pretty much. She’s interesting, to say the least, but I have a bit of a sore spot for writers who write in order to push a specific agenda (i.e. message fiction/fantasy) to the detriment of the story/characterization. In the case of Ayn Rand’s stories, I don’t even know if her characters have . . . characters. They’re just all mouthpieces for her to talk, talk, and talk. (Had a bit of the same problem with Philip Pullman’s books, though I really admire his worldbuilding. Just too much preaching.)</p>
<p>So, I don’t think much of Rand as a writer. However, I do have more respect for her as a philosopher.</p>
<p>I really do envy the way she writes, but I don’t plan on subscribing to her philosophy any time soon. Her books really are just lengthy platforms for her to espouse and preach her views (there’s a 70+ page monologue in Atlas Shrugged!), but I’m sure those were her intentions. I think her characters are simply meant to be exaggerations of different social archetypes - for example, in Fountainhead, Roark is the anti-establishment loner who determinedly acts out against senseless social norms (Rand’s ideal man) while Keating is the pretentious and competitive “good guy” who steps over others in order to achieve his own ends (the way I’m guessing Rand viewed most of society).</p>
<p>lol looks like I don’t have to read it. CC>sparknotes</p>
<p>Pro Rand - she was kind of inspiring. for a non native speaker, she wrote amazingly well. i wish i could master my own language as well as she did to english. she encouraged individualism. i love it. she loved capitalism because she hated communism in which she suffered and saw others suffer.</p>
<p>con Rand - She likes to create hero/heroin who are perfect, not a single flaw. totally unrealistic. she did not like Beethoven because B. made music that’s sad, yet she liked tchycovsky. she also adored Victor Hugo who wrote “les mis” and thought she was the second Hugo. she was wired.</p>
<p>I absolutely loathe Ayn Rand, with a passion. Her theories are barbaric and insane, and it really seemed to me like a messed up woman trying to get the world to understand they were the screwed up ones, not her. It honestly seems to me that she was someone so scared of feelings, and contact, and kindness she spent her life raging against it. I despise her perfect man, I despise that he had to ‘rape by engraved invitation’ her perfect woman, I hate that she was a homophobe and a chauvinist and believed that women should worship men. I hate that she is a hypocrite equivalent of those she disses in her books: in her own little objectivist ‘club’, she believed there was only one right kind of music, one right kind of book, one right style of architecture and anyone who didn’t agree was kicked out. Sound familiar?</p>
<p>Ugh, sorry for ranting, but some things about this woman truly get my goat. I understand where she was coming from, a messed up little girl who saw how evil the bolsheviks to her parents and family and friends, and thus grew up to radically advocate the opposite of socialism, capitalism. She took it insanely far: she despised the poor, wanted the rich to trod on them, and just had a lot of other ****ed up ticks.</p>
<p>She’s stupid as heck, imo.</p>
<p>^disagree. She’s a little extreme, but she’s a good writer with interesting ideas.</p>
<p>I read and enjoyed The Fountainhead. She stretches her concepts and ideals pretty far, but some parts of the book are very true.</p>
<p>She’s a terrible writer (technically) but has some decent ideals (a good many of which aren’t particularly original.)</p>
<p>Objectivism is a load of bullshi.t. So is libertarianism. Hey, so is conservatism. “Pure capitalism” leads to the destruction of lives, civil liberties, and social and economic justice. It’s a ■■■■■■■■ philosophy that is only ideal to the fat cats of America, yet unfortunately they brainwash the very people who need Progressivism and Liberalism.</p>
<p>I think it’s pretty obvious that she is not STUPID. Sure, you can bash her technical skill and philosophy, but she was creative and unique in many ways (and yes, I realize many parts of her philosophy aren’t THAT innovative). I admire her for her value of productivity and belief in a heroic man, HOWEVER I have problem with Objectivism’s many contradictions, dogmatism, and absence of psychology. The characters just become too unrealisitic and black-and-white. </p>
<p>I do think it is important to read her novels and consider them, instead of merely dismissing them as many people seem to do. She does have such great ideas and parts of her novels are very good. One does not have to subscribe to her “cult” in order to gain some new perspective from her.</p>
<p>@theReach</p>
<p>I find it offensive when you use “■■■■■■■■” in that way. And I’m being serious. And it doesn’t really help in your defense. </p>
<p>And it’s funny you say pure capitalism leads to a destruction of rights when that’s what proponents of laissez-faire capitalism are protecting. </p>
<p>That being said, I’m not for pure capitalism. Just pointing it out. <em>Waiting for discussion to veer into Rand’s economic views…and an inevitable mention of Alan Greenspan (OOPS!)</em></p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t be an uptight pretentious ■■■■■■. I support disability advocacy and gay rights, but I use “■■■■■■■■” and “■■■” all the time. Want to criticize my slang usage some more?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Laissez-faire leads to a disproportionate distribution of wealth, which inevitably leads to a loss of rights.</p>
<p>I haven’t read any books by Ayn Rand, but I have read Terry Goodkind’s Sword of truth series, which he claims was inspired by her Objectivist philosophy. Has anyone here read both? Because I can’t think that anyone would take her seriously if her books were anything like his.</p>
<p>I read Anthem last year and loved it. I’m not so sure how I feel about her “philosophy.” I’d have to read more of her books to see. On a book standpoint, I really loved Anthem, especially the ending.</p>
<p>I’m reading Atlas Shrugged right now. Great book. </p>
<p>I don’t think she’s stupid at all. When was the last time any of us wrote a one-thousand page book and became world renowned? Um, probably never. No one has to agree with her philosophies, and having an unpopular belief definitely doesn’t make you an idiot. The fact still stands that it’s extremely interesting to read and you can gain a lot out of it, even if you don’t agree with what she’s saying.</p>
<p>And some people here need to chill out a little. I know this is the Internet and we’re all pretty much anonymous, but seriously, how about we grow up and stop with the name calling, provoking…etc…</p>