Atlas Shrugged

[dragonmegaXX]

Originally Posted by irionman

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]

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]

Originally Posted by dragonmegaXX

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]

Originally Posted by devonin

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.

[Roy565]

The train should have crashed instead of breaking down in the beginning. That would have definitely proved more interesting. Plus, it would've been 1190 pages shorter.

Ayn Rand's work has been, and will always be, used as a shield for the intellectually impaired to "prove" them as more than just, well, intellectually impaired. Sure, she did not intend on this following, but it was inevitable near the very start.

[devonin]

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.