Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You really have to wonder why anyone would take a writer who published their works before 1950 and who has been dead for over 30 years and choose to insult them.
Tell me, do you expect her to rise from the grave to debate you? Or do you just think it's "mature" to call people you don't even know all sorts of names?
So you think a writer's works can't influence people after they're dead? And we shouldn't criticize the author or the work after they die?
Don't pretend you are unaware of the influence Rand's work has had on people like Paul Ryan.
Personally, almost everyone I've ever met who either still calls himself a Randian libertarian or once did, read the deviant woman's books as an adolescent. Some grew out of it, some didn't. But certainly Sirota and Saunders have a point: having the mind of a precocious spotty boy herself, Ayn Rand's books are tailor-made to appeal to precocious spotty boys. Like, oh, Paul Ryan.
Ayn Rand was a mentally disturbed anti-commie female who had no sense of morality, committed adultery with her friend's husband and thought nothing of it, and who was a prolific writer of books that make excellent alternatives to sleeping pills. I had to read one of her books in college, The Fountainhead. I think having my teeth pulled would've been more interesting and enjoyable. The characters were dead, the dialogue was dead, the story was the most incredibly boring pseudo-psychological bs, it was completely unrealistic, taught nothing of use to the reader, had no moral, no lofty meanings, no anything, and (the coup de grace), it was so frikkin' long, you could've started a huge bonfire with the number of pages it had.
Maybe she left some big money around to continue the propaganda of her pseudo-philosophical ideas? I can't imagine why anyone would bother to read such $$$t, or why they're still touting it. I certainly don't understand why there are groups of right wing young males wishing to lick the heel of her corpse's boot. It baffles the h*ll out of me.
Also, I once caught part of the movie, and that wasn't much better than the book. Thank goodness for remote.
Most that attack Rand's writings have never actually read any of her books. The get their marching orders from a little blog post and run with it. Many seem to have a real problem making their own decisions and count on someone telling them what to say...and think.
I did! Reading Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was a definitive moment for me. Prior to reading it, I believed that once a person started reading a book, one had some sort of obligation to finish reading it. It was while reading that dung heap of words that I gave myself permission to cease and desist trying to finish any books that were boring, idiotic, nonsensical, taught absolutely nothing, and were complete failures as books.
Ayn Rand jumped on the happy propaganda bandwagon of the Joe MacCarthy commie-hunters of the world, and despite her books being pure, brain-numbing, unadulterated sh**, they were pushed forward by the commie hunting clubs onto publication and into subsequent worship by the needleheads of the U.S., in the same way that that famous high school 1960s textbook was which was called, "Americanism vs. Communism." Oh my God, what a fine piece of stupefying propaganda that was too!
But carry on worshipping all the corpses prior commie-hunters you'd like. Hey, everybody has to have a hobby!
I did! Reading Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was a definitive moment for me. Prior to reading it, I believed that once a person started reading a book, one had some sort of obligation to finish reading it. It was while reading that dung heap of words that I gave myself permission to cease and desist trying to finish any books that were boring, idiotic, nonsensical, taught absolutely nothing, and were complete failures as books.
I think The Fountainhead was garbage, too. I think she wrote it during the "Rosebud" era.
Here, try one of her better books:
"We the Living is the first novel published by the Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand. It was also Rand's first statement against communism. First published in 1936, it is a story of life in post-revolutionary Russia. Rand observes in the foreword to this book that We the Living was the closest she would ever come to writing an autobiography. Her working title for the novel had been Airtight. We the Living was first completed in 1934, but, despite support from H. L. Mencken, who deemed it "a really excellent piece of work," it was rejected by several publishers until 1936, when George Platt Brett of Macmillan Publishing agreed to publish her book. Rand later said that Brett was unsure whether the novel would turn a profit, but he thought it was a book that ought to be published. It has since sold more than 3 million copies."
Personally, almost everyone I've ever met who either still calls himself a Randian libertarian or once did, read the deviant woman's books as an adolescent. Some grew out of it, some didn't. But certainly Sirota and Saunders have a point: having the mind of a precocious spotty boy herself, Ayn Rand's books are tailor-made to appeal to precocious spotty boys. Like, oh, Paul Ryan.
I think The Fountainhead was garbage, too. I think she wrote it during the "Rosebud" era.
Here, try one of her better books:
"We the Living is the first novel published by the Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand. It was also Rand's first statement against communism. First published in 1936, it is a story of life in post-revolutionary Russia. Rand observes in the foreword to this book that We the Living was the closest she would ever come to writing an autobiography. Her working title for the novel had been Airtight. We the Living was first completed in 1934, but, despite support from H. L. Mencken, who deemed it "a really excellent piece of work," it was rejected by several publishers until 1936, when George Platt Brett of Macmillan Publishing agreed to publish her book. Rand later said that Brett was unsure whether the novel would turn a profit, but he thought it was a book that ought to be published. It has since sold more than 3 million copies."
However, since my life on earth is limited by mortality, I'd rather spend it reading the works of people I admire, not the works of a woman I find to be amoral, an opportunistic little piranha, and boring as well.
Are you attempting to censor my views of an amoral "writer?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackalope
It's not literary criticism when you start making the insulting comments that have been made about her or the people who have read her works.
NOW you want to sound like you're a New York Book Critic instead of a ten year old on a playground. It's a little late for that.
You can't. First, because everyone is entitled to an opinion. Second, I find that reading the works of someone utterly amoral, and whose life was not a life dedicated to anything of value, a waste of time at best. Third, those who advocate the works of someone completely amoral and valueless, by their very support are stating that they, too, are completely amoral and valueless.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thanks
