Atlas Shrugged

[devonin]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

It was much worse as a novel than a manifesto. She's a -terrible- writer.

[dragonmegaXX]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

It was much worse as a novel than a manifesto. She's a -terrible- writer.

Can you tell me how?
I think it's great and engrossing.

[Avree]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

How can you force your written opinions on someone? You can just stop reading if you don't like what she's saying.

True, but a writer can express one's opinions as opinions, or fact. I was wondering if she expressed her ideals as fact or as her opinion. I don't mind books even if I disagree on a character's opinions as much as I do when all of the characters agree as to one statement (which should be an opinion) as being fact. If that makes sense.

That being said, I've never read any of her work so I really don't know what she's like. I have a feeling that I'll have to read it to understand and make my own decision, as there are severely differing opinions here.

Although I'm curious, like dragonmegaXX - what makes her such a terrible writer?

[devonin]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Can you tell me how?
I think it's great and engrossing.

It's incredibly dull, boring, monotonous...how many more words can use to say the exact same thing over and over...because that's what she does...for 1200 pages.

When your entire book contains a summary INSIDE THE BOOK of the whole book, you're a bad writer.

[irionman]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Summary of book:

Sucks

[dragonmegaXX]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Summary of book:

Sucks

Care to actually make your opinion valid and say why?

It seems like a lot of people are acting very immature towards a book; Saying it sucks when it's better than anything they could create.

[devonin]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Pretty sure I gave you a completely cogent reason why I think it's a poorly written book. It's basically the same book written 5 times in 5 slightly different ways, and the best of them was a 60 page summary of the plot where you could have read that and ignored the entire rest of the novel, and come away with the exact same content.

Also, "Lets see -you- do better" is actually the most immature comeback to "I didn't like it" that I can think of.

The whole point of fiction is the enjoyment of the reader. If a reader doesn't like the book, then to that reader it is a bad book, and even if they themselves aren't a -writer- of sufficient skill to produce a better work, the truth of it is that the quality of books is measured by the skill of -readers- not -writers-

[irionman]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Care to actually make your opinion valid and say why?

It seems like a lot of people are acting very immature towards a book; Saying it sucks when it's better than anything they could create.

Why would I waste my time replaying my memories of a book I was ordered to read over 10 years ago?

I would rather read Garfield comics than Atlas Shrugged.

[dragonmegaXX]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Pretty sure I gave you a completely cogent reason why I think it's a poorly written book. It's basically the same book written 5 times in 5 slightly different ways, and the best of them was a 60 page summary of the plot where you could have read that and ignored the entire rest of the novel, and come away with the exact same content.

Also, "Lets see -you- do better" is actually the most immature comeback to "I didn't like it" that I can think of.

The whole point of fiction is the enjoyment of the reader. If a reader doesn't like the book, then to that reader it is a bad book, and even if they themselves aren't a -writer- of sufficient skill to produce a better work, the truth of it is that the quality of books is measured by the skill of -readers- not -writers-

There's a difference between saying it's bad and you didnt like it versus "Oh god this book sucks burn it"

I will agree with your first point though, a lot of stuff is repeated several times. Maybe I enjoy repetition I dont know.

[devonin]

Re: Atlas Shrugged

Except that she was influential enough, and important enough that legitimately intellectual people ought to have at least a working understanding of Objectivist philosophy, and the ways in which Rand is a further development of and an increasing departure from the moral objectivism of Nietzsche.

If your entire foray into moral philosophy is "I read Atlas Shrugged" then yes, there's a problem. But that doesn't mean that understanding what she's going on about is a waste of time.