• AZERTY@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    67
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Atlas Shrugged.

    It’s a massive paperback and looks impressive on a bookshelf but it’s a dull narrative. I got about 200 pages in and was like fuck all these people and these stupid trains.

    • paddirn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      ·
      1 year ago

      That was legit one of the few books I read halfway through then put down in disgust at how banal, ridiculous, and repetitive it was. The first part was okish because there’s something of a mystery, but the “revelation” that all the industrialists moved to a sort of entrepreneur’s shangri-la and that life without government created this perfect utopian society, it was just such a stupid thing and I was so tired of all the dead horse beating. Anybody who says they like this book is either lying or has mental problems.

      • i_love_FFT@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        23
        ·
        1 year ago

        When the completed manuscript exceeded 600,000 words, Cerf asked Rand to make cuts, but backed off when she compared the idea to cutting the Bible.

        Wow, I didn’t know this author, and it seems I wasn’t missing much.

        • paddirn@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          26
          ·
          1 year ago

          Her writing is simplistic, but conservatives and libertarians have pushed her as an “intellectual” because it gives them a well-known writer that supports their trash values. She was strongly against the welfare state and altruism, yet she herself received social security, so she was a bit of a hypocrite as well.

          • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            She was also an unabashed atheist, which is why she was able to promote the idea of selfishness being good.

            What’s funny is it’s the mostly Christian right-wing which has embraced her.

            I guess they’re okay with atheism as long as its playing for the right “team.”

            • paddirn@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              ·
              1 year ago

              I mean, they’ve elevated Trump as their God-Emperor and he’s very likely an atheist, had multiple affairs, and paid women to get abortions, but whatever, none of that matters when you’ve been conditioned all your life to believe impossible things. Next to Jesus walking on water and two of every animal fitting on a boat, the rest of it is child’s play.

            • richieadler
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              She was also an unabashed atheist, which is why she was able to promote the idea of selfishness being good.

              What the hell is this non-sequitur?

              • Hot Saucerman@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Nearly every religion preaches to be giving and kind to those in need. It’s absolutely not a non-sequitor to admit that a large number of atheists don’t believe there is any guiding morality to the universe and that we have to come to our own conclusions about morals and ethics. Moral relativism is a generally accepted thing among many atheists. This does not mean all atheists are selfish, I would classify most as Humanists. Rand was mostly an outlier.

                She was able to promote the idea that selfishness could be good because she didn’t ascribe to any religion that defined that as a sin.

                • richieadler
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  She was able to promote the idea that selfishness could be good because she didn’t ascribe to any religion that defined that as a sin.

                  So basically she profited from existing bullshit to promote her own brand of bullshit. That’s even worse.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not an atheist and even to me, that’s a really transparent dig at people who believe something you disagree with. You don’t need religion to be altruistic as you are implying.

                  • richieadler
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m not implying that, the OP was. (Or so I thought. Apparently they are saying that Rand was riding on that idea.)

        • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          1 year ago

          She wrote anotehr novel, ‘The Fountainhead,’ with all the same ideas but much easier read. I finished ‘The Fountainhead,’ but it was mostly WTF comes next kind of book. There’s an old B+W movie that sums up her ideas pretty well.

          • richieadler
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            As a teenager I had a crush on Dominique Françon and her sexual assertiveness until I understood how deeply perturbed she was.

    • TxTechnician@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Read the whole thing. It’s OK.

      The worst part of the book is that stupid chapter in the last third. Which summarizes the previous 2/3.