Decided to give "Atlas Shrugged" a try. What am I in for?
>>25227824one hell of an iq test
>>25227829agreed. Rand was a visionary.
>>25227829Kinda agree. If you don't come out of it nauseated then you are probably a midwit
Be aware that Rand took the concept of the Soviet Industrial Novel and inverted it to write a long-winded polemic in support of Capitalism. -- Also, it's a pretty bad romance novel telling the story of a woman's quest to find the man worthy of her love and after fucking everyone in sight she becomes his bang-maid when she finds him.
>>25227887she would have married Francisco had he been willing
It references the Greeks in the title so it must be good.
>>25227824shes not very good but yeah read it
>>25227824Some craven old honky writing an erotic novel about the heat death of the poors while she flicked her rotten bean
>>25227938What a grotesque person you are
>>25227956Oh, smile once in a while, would you
>>25227893/lit/ would eat up this line of reasoning if it were more committed>The book is full of references to the Greeks so it must be good. Waiting warmly for your /lit/ cult classic.
>>25227892>had he been willingHe was only unwilling because he knew she would dump him the moment she saw Galt. This is pure Harlequin Romance stuff.
>>25227962/lit/ hates frivolity
Is Rand or Peikoff better reading for the philosophy of Objectivism?
>>25227824>What am I in for?boredomthat book is a thinly disguised propaganda effort very little plotpage after page of sermonizing
The most based novel that ever was. The only way it could be been more based is if she, trollily, stuck with the original title of "The Strike".
>>25228455Brendan
>>25227824A shitty book that you’re allowed to hate instead of pretending to like, only because the message is le bad.
it's good, but the lead woman character is too much of an insane self-insert The Fountainhead is better, conveys the same ideas much more efficiently and Howard Roark is her best character she ever created.
>>25228562>A book I've never read but claim is shitty because I hate its message
>>25228562exactly. anything to the left of Mao is le bad.
>>25230738*to the right even
>>25227824>bafflingly stupid, blatantly amoral philosophy>hours spent slogging through boring, clumsy prose>defeat in future arguments when you try to talk about how stupid the book is but nobody listens to you because you never finishes it because it's a truly awful experience>or if you do finish it, you will still lose those same arguments because anyone who likes Rand is a drooling retard incapable of logic, and it's impossible to win an argument with an idiot
>>25230865>bafflingly stupid, blatantly amoral philosophyher ideal man is Howard Roarke. how is he stupid or amoral again? maybe you're just an envious midwit.
>>25230874Shut up nerd
>>25227956Hey you just described that weird freak Ayn Rand!
>>25227824>What am I in for?Something incredibly unique. People can shit on this book for whatever reason, but there's nothing quite like it out there.
>>25227938Isnt she a you know what
