Posting mode: Reply
[Return]
Name
E-mail
Subject []
Comment
File
Password(Password used for file deletion)
  • Supported file types are: GIF, JPG, PNG
  • Maximum file size allowed is 3072 KB.
  • Images greater than 250x250 pixels will be thumbnailed.
  • Read the rules and FAQ before posting.
  • このサイトについて - 翻訳
    • File : 1272692286.jpg-(28 KB, 306x500, atlasshrugged.jpg)
    28 KB Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:38 No.616815  
    I've been looking around here for a few months now /lit/, and I must admit that something has always confused me.

    What exactly is it that you dislike about Atlas Shrugged? I'll admit, it's not my favorite book, nor is it without flaws. However, I wouldn't exactly classify it as being a "bad" book.

    The story wasn't terribly well written, but it was interesting enough to hold your attention. The situations and points were thought provoking, though admittedly extreme. The characters were well developed and interesting.

    So, is it just Rand's philosophy? Or do you have a legitimate dislike for an aspect of the book itself?
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:41 No.616830
    cf. rule #4: http://www.4chan.org/rules#lit
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:43 No.616832
    >>616830

    A discussion on the literary devices at work in Atlas Shrugged is not a discussion on Ayn Rand or her philosophy. This is what confused me - any (troll) threads on Atlas Shrugged de-evolved into a Rand bashing thread within one post.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:44 No.616836
    If wooden acting had a writing equivalent, this would be it. Also, her "philosophy" is just an excuse for masturbatory selfishness.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:45 No.616840
    Don't read Ayn Rand. Just play Bioshock instead.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:47 No.616846
    fígh+ tHe IN+ErN3t [3nSòR5hìP http.// À+ : KÌMMÓà , sE / FIgHT tHe InteRn€+ <eñ$òr$H|P
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:48 No.616848
    >>616811
    FÍGHT The íñ+€Rñe+ <eñ50rShip H++P;// AT : kÌMmóA ; $3 / FIGht +H€ ÌNT3Rñ3t CENSOR5h|P
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:49 No.616851
    Eh I agree with OP. Atlas Shrugged is . . . okay. There are worse books out there.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:56 No.616878
    >>616840
    This
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:58 No.616883
    Well developed?

    These are some of the shallowest sons of bitches literature has to offer.
    And the worst thing is, Rand changes their personalities on the drop of the hat just to showcase her own views.

    Good writing this is not.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)01:58 No.616885
    >>616812
    FIghT th€ InTerñ3+ <3ñ$òRshÌP HTtP:// ÀT , kìmmo@ : S3 / FÌGht +he ínTern3+ Ceñ5òrsHÌP
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)02:03 No.616905
    >>616883

    What were some specific instances of drastic personality shifts? I honestly can't even think of one off the top of my head. The main characters were well fleshed out. Hell, even the side characters were fairly well developed.

    Her prose is a legitimate issue, it is certainly not the best. However, is that really enough to consider it "bad."

    What I'm trying to point out to people is that their dislike of Atlas Shrugged is based on Rand's philosophy, not the book itself. The book itself is mediocre-good.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)02:15 No.616952
    >>616905

    Considering the book and characters were made solely to push her philosophy, yeah I'd say it is a pretty damn reasonable to dislike the book based on its' philosophy.

    And those characters were not well fleshed out. I can't even remember 2 good traits for any of the characters.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)02:20 No.616967
    The reason that Ayn Rand is banned from being discussed here is because in the first few weeks of /lit/, some dickhead(s) decided to spam pictures/content of Ayn Rand and her novels in pretty much EVERY thread.

    Not because the philosophy behind the work sucks, if that was the case, it would defeat the purpose of 4chan. You know, censoring things for anonymous.

    Maybe you just had to be here at the time.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)02:20 No.616971
    >>616905
    the characters have no flaws, it is purely good vs. evil, as if those 2 things even exist. They think in purely mathematical terms and have no emotion. It is not realistic, we are not logical beings.
    >> Anonymous 05/01/10(Sat)02:21 No.616974
    HAND REARDEN

    HOWARD ROARK

    HR ROSELVENT, SEE THE FUCKING CONNECTIO>

    [Return]
    Delete Post [File Only]
    Password
    Style [Yotsuba | Yotsuba B | Futaba | Burichan]
    Watched Threads
    PosterThread Title
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous
    [V][X]Anonymous