>>925347
We are not technically allowed to speak of Ayn Rand on this board, but, if we were to have this conversation, hypothetically speaking of course, I would say that while I do not necessarily prescribe to her ideals I appreciate her writing and found both books enjoyable, if preachy.

>>925347
I actually found the lack of character development endearing and consistent with her message.

But that is neither here nor there, this thread is against the rules.

Oh her character's evolve, your missing the points where it happens. Now I'll give you this, some characters don't change, like John Galt,who is really meant to be an illusionary character, I don't even think Ayn Rand meant for him to exist. He is the ideal, not the reality, so he should never change. Hank Rearden does change, he finally accepts that he has no obligation to his wife, who is, well, a bitch, or his family, who just suck in general. You know what? Damn near everything I would have to say would go in spoilers. Finish the damn book, then come back and talk. You really have to read the whole thing. It kinda drags on, and she gets a bit crazy with the adjectives at times, but I found the book to be great. Just watch out for a speech being made by the main characters, read the first one and screw the rest, they are all saying the exact same things, and they all go on for 15, 20 pages.

>>925355
Wait, what? I don't come here often, so if there's a rule for this, I missed it, but Ayn Rand isn't to be mentioned? The hell?

>>925380
Nevermind, I found the rule, I would say oh the irony, but fuck it, this isn't worth the hassle.

a shame we cant an intellectual conversation on atlas shrugged without the flaming. The book on a literary note is not very good with its stale characters and lack luster ending, but its symbolic importance is huge.

>>925392
Iy's not even flaming, the rules for the board (and there are only 4 rules!) specifically state no discussing Ayn Rand. Maybe I can understand that it used to cause flame wars, alright, but for them to ban all discussion, you mean I got to go to /b/ to talk about her work, really?

>>925392
Yes, I would agree, this is a shame. Ayn Rand aside there are a great number of things I would like to have conversations about without getting flamed and inciting green-text wars but sadly the level of maturity on this board and website have deteriorated into something almost unusable.

While Ayn Rand has a rule set in officiality most other taboos remain unspoken, although this singling out seems justified as evidenced by nearly all previous attempts. Real shame.

http://vocaroo.com/?media=vCU6FI4G2zYOZas6r

>>925431
summer.

How can you guys even read something that is so poorly written? I ragequit Fountainhead, it felt like reading a cliched and bad fantasy novel.

I'm one of the few people who enjoyed her book, although I have a feeling that Ayn Rand would hate me, so she can go suck a fuck. Anyway, aside from the redundancy, I found the novel pretty entertaining throughout. And I found myself wanting to meet her characters in real life.

fratlas chugged

Rand's characters are all flat because if they even began to resemble real people, all of Rand's theories would fall apart instantly

>>925347

Fuck Rearden.
Start pretending you're fucking Ragnar Danneskjold, because then you will be a fucking pirate and you will shit gold brix and give them to people likes its fucking nothing.

Danneskjold is fucking god-tier awesomeness.

>>929005
/cheer

i enjoyed it

>>925347

I, hypothetically, see your point, OP. And I understand how you could feel this way while reading the books. For Atlas Shrugged specifically, I have two comments.

For some characters, any sort of development will not come until later in the book (I'm looking at you, Rearden). Also, the development that I noticed myself is almost entirely on a philosophical level, and overall affects the characters relatively little.

Either way, the book does pick up near the last third.

>>929005

Well said. I enjoyed Danneskjold's character the most, because he took actual physical actions towards reaching his goal. Arguably, Galt and the strikers did the same, but I'd rather not argue such a thing.

I liked the Rearden character. He reminds me of myself.

It was good but I can't help thinking I would have enjoyed it more if it wasn't written by Rand.

The characters are unrealistic and lack development because they're just vehicles for certain ideologies or archetypes. Rand meant them to be that way. If she wanted to create realistic characters in realistic situations, she would have. She's not the best writer of the 20th century by a long shot, but she's better than some who aren't forbidden on /lit/.

Read Siddhartha when you're done, that's what I did, and it was a trip. As a warning, Rand had a talent for getting motivated, privileged people to believe her sociopolitical ideas without thought of the implications.

I live in Galt, lol.