I hate her writing. She wants to push her ideology on her readers. I think my husband’s cousin reflects my feelings about her writing when he talks about Atlas Shrugged: 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.”
@Katina I am not the only one feeling like this. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. There are many people that think her writing is poor. Just our opinion.
Ryan rated a book did not like it almost 5 years ago The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand Read Read in January 2002 This book is the equivalent of a drunk, eloquent asshole talking to you all night at a bar. You know you should just leave and you could never explain later why you didn’t, but you just sit there listening to the guy ramble on. It’s all bullshit, and his arguments defending, say, his low-key but all-consuming misogyny aren’t that good and don’t even really make sense, but just for a second you find yourself thinking, “Huh, the man might have a point…” before you catch yourself and realize that no, he is just an asshole. You feel dirty and bad afterwards, realizing how close you came to the abyss, but there was that one second where, for some reason, his selfish, arrogant stances, which have hardened into granite truth for him, bluntly force you into a momentary empathy with his ideas–ironically, the one thing he will never, no matter how many shots of Jameson you buy him, give you. The only real difference between the drunk at the bar and The Fountainhead is that the drunk probably wouldn’t go so far as claiming, when relating an account of rape, that the woman wanted it, even craved it. Ayn Rand goes there while remaining perfectly true to her Objectivism bullshit. At least the drunk might buy you a drink. Ayn Rand would probably object to it on philosophical grounds. Like Comment Likes: 797 Comments: 82 Dirk Agree. Total waste of time. The book has no merit whatsoever. However, it’s a must read if you want to understand how Silicon Valley came into being. 9 days ago Sam Dunn agreed. I had to give up. 24 days ago Marina Alexander I usually read books to the end, even if I don’t like it. I’ve only asked Ryan why he didn’t “leave” because of his comparison to a listening in a bar to a drunk man, suffering, wishing to leave but not doing so.
Here is one on Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand’s characters are almost completely defined by the extent to which they embrace her beliefs. A good guy by definition is someone who agrees with her; a bad guy someone who dares to have a different point of view. For all the lip-service Rand pays to individualism, she brooks no dissent from her heroes; none of her so-called individualists ever expresses a point of view significantly different from hers.
To illustrate the gulf between Rand’s characters and human reality, consider this behavior. When Dagny Taggart meets Hank Rearden, she dutifully becomes his property, for no other reason than that he’s the most Randian male around. When John Galt arrives, ownership of the prize female transfers from Rearden to Galt, because Galt is the more Randian of the two. Does it ever occur to Hank to be resentful or jealous? Does Taggart experience loyalty or regret? Might Taggart love Rearden despite his lesser Randness? No, those are all things that human beings might feel.
(In a related departure from reality, sex in Randland is more or less indistinguishable from rape. Foreplay? Romance? Capitalists don’t have time for that commie nonsense.)
The real focus of Atlas Shrugged is to extoll Rand’s philosophy. (Not to debate it, since no one in Randland with any any intelligence or competence could have a different point of view.) About Rand’s philosophy I’ll just make two points (which I’m not going to bother providing evidence for at the moment).
The first is that, like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man’s nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition.
The second point is that, contrary to Rand’s belief, pure laissez-faire capitalism never works; it invariably leads to exploitation of the poor and middle class and to environmental catastrophe. The best economic system that has ever been devised — so far — is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
I read it when I was younger, along with Atlas Shrugged. Even back then, I found Rand’s writing very repetitive, her characters one-dimensional, and her philosophy selfish. As I matured, I realized how Rand pushed views that I now find totally void of spirituality, compassion or mercy.
Enjoyed it when I was in High School. Read it again to understand why she is so popular in some circles so many years later and I don’t get it. I found it kind of empty.
Enjoyed it
I had a hard time getting through it. Perhaps I read it too soon after reading Atlas Shrugged
I liked it much better than Atlas Shrugged
Me too.
I liked it when I read it 30 or so years ago.
Exactly the same here.
I hate her writing. She wants to push her ideology on her readers. I think my husband’s cousin reflects my feelings about her writing when he talks about Atlas Shrugged:
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.”
@Katina I am not the only one feeling like this. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. There are many people that think her writing is poor. Just our opinion.
Just some reviews:
Ryan rated a book did not like it
almost 5 years ago
The Fountainhead by Ayn Rand
The Fountainhead
by Ayn Rand
Read
Read in January 2002
This book is the equivalent of a drunk, eloquent asshole talking to you all night at a bar. You know you should just leave and you could never explain later why you didn’t, but you just sit there listening to the guy ramble on. It’s all bullshit, and his arguments defending, say, his low-key but all-consuming misogyny aren’t that good and don’t even really make sense, but just for a second you find yourself thinking, “Huh, the man might have a point…” before you catch yourself and realize that no, he is just an asshole. You feel dirty and bad afterwards, realizing how close you came to the abyss, but there was that one second where, for some reason, his selfish, arrogant stances, which have hardened into granite truth for him, bluntly force you into a momentary empathy with his ideas–ironically, the one thing he will never, no matter how many shots of Jameson you buy him, give you. The only real difference between the drunk at the bar and The Fountainhead is that the drunk probably wouldn’t go so far as claiming, when relating an account of rape, that the woman wanted it, even craved it. Ayn Rand goes there while remaining perfectly true to her Objectivism bullshit. At least the drunk might buy you a drink. Ayn Rand would probably object to it on philosophical grounds.
Like Comment Likes: 797 Comments: 82
Dirk Agree. Total waste of time. The book has no merit whatsoever. However, it’s a must read if you want to understand how Silicon Valley came into being.
9 days ago
Sam Dunn agreed. I had to give up.
24 days ago
Marina Alexander I usually read books to the end, even if I don’t like it.
I’ve only asked Ryan why he didn’t “leave” because of his comparison to a listening in a bar to a drunk man, suffering, wishing to leave but not doing so.
Here is one on Atlas Shrugged: Ayn Rand’s characters are almost completely defined by the extent to which they embrace her beliefs. A good guy by definition is someone who agrees with her; a bad guy someone who dares to have a different point of view. For all the lip-service Rand pays to individualism, she brooks no dissent from her heroes; none of her so-called individualists ever expresses a point of view significantly different from hers.
To illustrate the gulf between Rand’s characters and human reality, consider this behavior. When Dagny Taggart meets Hank Rearden, she dutifully becomes his property, for no other reason than that he’s the most Randian male around. When John Galt arrives, ownership of the prize female transfers from Rearden to Galt, because Galt is the more Randian of the two. Does it ever occur to Hank to be resentful or jealous? Does Taggart experience loyalty or regret? Might Taggart love Rearden despite his lesser Randness? No, those are all things that human beings might feel.
(In a related departure from reality, sex in Randland is more or less indistinguishable from rape. Foreplay? Romance? Capitalists don’t have time for that commie nonsense.)
The real focus of Atlas Shrugged is to extoll Rand’s philosophy. (Not to debate it, since no one in Randland with any any intelligence or competence could have a different point of view.) About Rand’s philosophy I’ll just make two points (which I’m not going to bother providing evidence for at the moment).
The first is that, like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man’s nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition.
The second point is that, contrary to Rand’s belief, pure laissez-faire capitalism never works; it invariably leads to exploitation of the poor and middle class and to environmental catastrophe. The best economic system that has ever been devised — so far — is a mixture of capitalism and socialism.
There are a lot of people that don’t like Ayn Rand.
I loved it when I read it about 55 years ago.
Me too!
Funny that this came up on my newsfeed
I read it when I was younger, along with Atlas Shrugged. Even back then, I found Rand’s writing very repetitive, her characters one-dimensional, and her philosophy selfish. As I matured, I realized how Rand pushed views that I now find totally void of spirituality, compassion or mercy.
Not an Ayn Rand fan. She gets social life all wrong.
Dont care for Ayn Rand.
Waste of time to read as either a novel or a philosophy. You might as well read Moby Dick. And I’m not even sure I liked that.
Enjoyed it when I was in High School. Read it again to understand why she is so popular in some circles so many years later and I don’t get it. I found it kind of empty.
Her philosophy is based on individual self interest.
I liked it.