Have you read her works? What did you think?
I am of the opinion between The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, there is some of the greatest inspiration characters ever to enter literature. I can read these books time after time and never get bored.
Also, perhaps the only truly scintillating sex scenes in 'good' literature I've read so far.
As a teen I enjoyed her writing. I didn't find anything in there particularly inspirational though. It's easy to be a hero when you're surrounded by caricatures. Suspension of disbelief wasn't forthcoming either.
Rand has been flogged to death earlier here: http://4-ch.net/book/kareha.pl/1140644553/
Ayn Rand is epic fail and anarchist insanity.
Finding "inspiration" in Ayn Rand's writing really only shows an utter lack of maturity on the part of the reader. Her so-called philosophy is nothing but childish selfishness dressed up in pseudo-intellectualism.
It seems like everybody goes through this phase during thier teen years where they "discover" either Ayn Rand or Lovecraft or Hunter S. Tompson and adopting those author's philosophies. By the end of college they either discard thier author inspired ideas or they hang on to them and become a real prick.
...I was a Lovecraftian.
Fortunately, I was none of these. Maybe it's not always so bad to not read a lot, eh? Or maybe it's just the pseudo-intellectuals who have that sort of behavior? No offense, or anything. At least you grew out of it, right?
For the most part, yes. I still have an itch to read "Quest of the Unknown Dream Kaddith." But yeah, Lovecraft's purple prose is all clear to me now. The man has some good ideas, but....
He has no idea as to how people talk in real life.
No female protagonists, or women of any sort, really.
An exessive need to write about every little detail in a scene.
Wooden characters.
And general Poe/Anglophile fanboy faggotry.
Since then, I've gone to read the works of Lovecraft's buddy, Robert E. Howard. Howard writes about the exact same character, but he does some ripping good yarns.
Oh yeah, I was just thinking of more pseudo-intellectuals that teens seem to gravitate to.
Let's add Chomsky, Niche(sic), George Cartlin, Jane Austin, Richard Bach, Dali, the Dali Lama, and Neon Genesis Evangelion for the weeaboo crowd.
I don't think Jane Austin ever claimed to be an intellectual. She wrote sap.
True, she writes nothing more than chick lit, but it's OLD chick lit. For that reason alone, housewives and lonely college girls read to make themselves feel smart.
Did I miss the memo about how it's cool to look down on everyone for liking certain things?
I can understand if the person's an asshole or just a complete retard about the works, but jesus christ people...
I think it's OK to still like Rand, Chomsky and Dali even after highschool.
How the fuck did elitism replace receptiveness?
>>12
It's never OK to like Rand.
The other stuff is fine, but people have to make temselves feel big somehow.
Funny fact #8943: when you say "fuck offfff Ayn Rand is for immature people lullllz", you're just repeating a mindless mantra made up by a shadowy group of crypto-marxists. Chances are that you've never read her work, and most certainly you didn't understand it because your American ADD fails you at prose more complex than Harry Potter.
BTW AYN RAND SUXXXXXXXX GO SUCK COCK YOU RANDROIDS!!!!!!!!!!
Rand: Yes, pseudointellectual. Not much to defend there, although if you read her texts as romance novels there is much to discover
Chomsky: Your judgement is completely wrong. A better choice would have been Howard Zinn. Chomsky is actually ridiculously brilliant (Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, anyone?) His politic views may be extreme, but they're all rigorously logical, even if he has some rather unique premises. And he does make some very valid critiques of our current system. (Which makes sense, as language and cognition are both very related to mass political systems.)
Nietzsche: Just because a philosopher is fun and invigorating to read doesn't mean it's any less worthwhile. I'd take Nietzsche over Kant or Heidegger or any of those pretentious bastards any day.
Dali - Are you talking about Salvador? His art was pretty cool and his movie pretty intense, especially for the time. Not sure what your angle is here.
George Cartlin - who???
Richard Bach - wtf? Teens don't gravitate to him, middle-aged housewives who collect longenberger baskets do. And they don't even pretend to be intellectual.
Neon Genesis Evangelion - As with any other deliberately obscure and pretentious work, it offers many oppurtunities for deconstruction and analysis. Nothing wrong with doing so.
To summarize this thread:
Anyone who disagrees with me is a faggoat.
