Obscure Ayn Rand Novel To Be Released

[Jackalope]

IMO, there's room for both individualism (though not unrestrained) and altruism.

That's why you can cherry pick Ayn Rand. There's nothing against reason being your guide and taking a stance against irrationality. Buying the whole package though sings a very different tune.

Oh, absolutely you can do that. IMHO, Rand got a few things right, specifically, the power of reason and rationality. She also warned against the power of the unrestrained state, unfortunately, she swung that pendulum back in the other direction in a way that was at least as harmful.

Thing is, once you've picked out the tasty bits, what's left doesn't resemble what you started with, nor is it particularly original.

[Nope]

I have tried several times to read Rand's novels but have never been able to connect with her characters. Every person that she creates just seems too flat. There are other books that I have enjoyed with one dimensional characters but usually there is an interesting plot or something else to keep my attention. Rand's novels don't even have an interesting plot and are just boring. It amazes me that her books are popular when they are so bad.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Very true - though the same can be said of any human economic or political system, when too much power is invested in individuals or bureaucracy, and left unchecked.

Indeed -- it's almost a generic criticism, and weaker for it. But that in itself shows the power of greed, that it subverts every effort to either discard it or harness it, which is the essential distinction, respectively, between Marxism and unbridled capitalism.

---

I have tried several times to read Rand's novels but have never been able to connect with her characters. Every person that she creates just seems too flat. There are other books that I have enjoyed with one dimensional characters but usually there is an interesting plot or something else to keep my attention. Rand's novels don't even have an interesting plot and are just boring. It amazes me that her books are popular when they are so bad.

Her ability to sculpt characters is perhaps the worst of any best-selling author I've ever read in my life. And shitty dialogue, too.

[simplemoss]

Ok if she's such a bad writer in your high literary opinion then why is she so influential. Why does everyone here know her name??? I'm sure there are many great writers that we could not say the same about

[FatAndFaithless]

Ok if she's such a bad writer in your high literary opinion then why is she so influential. Why does everyone here know her name??? I'm sure there are many great writers that we could not say the same about

Woah there...that's a particularly horrible argument...

There are plenty of awfully written literature that is still influential for one reason or another (kind of like..dunno..the Bible?). Appealing to its "influence" isn't any sort of point for or against a book's quality of writing.

And if I can put on my Godwin hat (as this was honestly the first thing that popped into my head)...

Ok if he's such a bad writer in your high literary opinion then why is she so influential. Why does everyone here know his name??? I'm sure there are many great writers that we could not say the same about
(Hitler)

[abaris]

Ok if she's such a bad writer in your high literary opinion then why is she so influential. Why does everyone here know her name??? I'm sure there are many great writers that we could not say the same about

I only know her name because a decade ago I picked up a book by Terry Goodkind. And when reading it, I thought WTF, is he trying to preach to me?

So I looked him up and up came Ayn Rand.

[simplemoss]

Right and if we were all nazis I would expect us too show respect or atleast mild indifference toward mein kampf

But here we have our hitler and we don't support her. We denounce like Christians do and say she's not a "true atheist"

[abaris]

But here we have our hitler and we don't support her. We denounce like Christians do and say she's not a "true atheist"

I never said she wasn't a true atheist. But that doesn't mean I have to like her brand of social Darwinism.

I know, I know, she said some good things too, such as reason being the ultimate guide and fighting irrationality, but that's not the whole package, since she was also grand at calling native people savages and to only help other people if it furthers one's own agenda.

[FatAndFaithless]

I don't recall anyone even implying that she wasn't a "true atheist", I don't even know what "true atheist" means. I was merely pointing out that appealing to her influence amongst certain groups says absolutely nothing about the content of her arguments. The stand and fall on their own merit, not because some people think they're compelling.

[simplemoss]

So what she's an atheist and just because of that alone, we should adore her, not ridicule her.