Has anyone read her? What's she like? What is a good book to start with?

(If there's already a thread on this, I'm sorry. The search didn't show one. If someone could bump the other thread if there is one, I'd appreciate it.)

i tried reading atlas shrugged when i was in highschool. i didn't get to finish it and i've forgotten what it was all about. i only read it because my mom wanted me to read it.

Read Fountainhead several years ago...

I enjoyed it as I recall...

I think it reminded me of Wuthering Heights as far as lust and angst and stuff...but with a modern edge to it...modern being like 1940's I think?



You would probably like it...

I read Atlas Shrugged. The feeling of the book kinda reminded me of Citezen Kane. Really industrial. I liked it, but if anyone throws a 50 page speach at me after already reading 800 pages again, I'll hunt them down. (And yes, I did actually read the speach, and I didn't skip a word).

I tried to read her, but couldn't get past page three.

Hmmm ... you think I'll like her Nel? I didn't like Wuthering Heights or Citizen Kane (yeah, shoot me.)

But I guess that's what the library is for. If I don't like it, I can just return it.

Oh...well if you don't like those Gina than maybe not...

It's very...melodramatic.... if I recall.

If you don't go for that than you might want to steer clear...

Thanks for the advice, Nel.

I just feel like I'm missing out if I don't read these books everyone talks about.

Which is why I've tried three times to get through Anna Karenina. Haven't yet, but I'm bound and determined to.

I've read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and some of her shorter stuff like Anthem. That was back in High School and it really fit me, really changed the way I looked at the world. I think it often fits with a certain group of people during a certain point in their life, but then you just grow out of it, or you become a fascist. I still think that The Fountainhead is a very readable book (unlike Atlas Shrugged) but not sure whether I could read it again any time soon. Maybe in another 20 years, just to revisit my journey...

I've been listening to the abridged Atlas Shrugged, but have yet to finish it. I never had to read her in high school or college, so I figured I'd give her a go. It's pretty interesting, a lot of social commentary, and yes, a lot of industry. I can't imagine trying to read it; and because I haven't yet even finished listening to it yet (I haven't played it in 3 weeks) I'm not sure the audio is any better--though the narrator is good.

I've finally decided to give her a shot. Cross posted from my blog:

I've avoided reading Ayn Rand up until now because I'd heard she has Offensive Views. Call me ignorant or common or just plain stupid, but I don't like to be offended when I'm reading something for pleasure. I want my pleasure reading to be, well, pleasurable.
I told The Boyâ„¢ this a few months ago when he asked me if I ever read her. He told me she does have Views, but they're Views I'd probably agree with. So when I stumbled upon a cheap copy of The Fountainhead in the used bookstore, I thought I'd give it a shot.

I'm about halfway through it right now, and I'm kind of feeling the same way I felt when I first read The Handmaid's Tale: I'm wondering when it gets shocking, or if I'm just missing something. I like to think I'm the sort of person who can see things from other people's points of view. I'm just not seeing what anyone would find offensive in this book. Maybe I just haven't gotten there yet? Or was it more shocking when it was first published than it is now?

Has anyone else read this? Do you know what I'm missing?

After seeing the Fountainhead with Gary Cooper, I read the book, almost all of it. It's one of the few books I had to put down. I felt Ayn Rand was in the room with me and she was preaching self indulgent crap about her higher thinking, while trying to scatter a story around it. Honestly, I gave it a shot, I just thought she could have told the story well enough, in several less pages.

I'm not seeing what her higher thinking is, I guess. I don't feel like she's favoring either character more than the other, or saying which point of view is right over the other.

quote:

Originally posted by Giabow:
I'm not seeing what her higher thinking is, I guess. I don't feel like she's favoring either character more than the other, or saying which point of view is right over the other.

It's not a favoring of character, good vs evil thing, that I was talking about.

I'm sure if I picked up Fountainhead again, I could pick out some examples for you, especially her wordiness. I'm not about to do that though. What made me put it down was, I never got a sense she was telling a story, as much as she was promoting her school of thought.

In all, I think it's just purely a matter of individual taste, like it, love it, hate it, or meh.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mr. Chadtastic,

I think by the end you'll find why its shocking. Its not so much what happens but the ideals. They aren't ideals we are supposed to cheer for but by the end you kind of are. You want Roark to succeed. I don't want to spoil it for you.

I found myself hating and liking and then hating most of the characters all the time.

I absolutely adored the book. I thought it was fantastic!

Except that I kind of wanted Roark to succeed from the beginning. I wouldn't have done it, but he's sticking to his ideals and not doing what he doesn't believe in just for the money.

I'm not really getting the sense that she's forcing her ideals on the reader, any more than any other author does. The story seems a little slow going, but it feels more like a character development sort of novel than a plot-based novel.

To her credit, I like the individuality aspect of Roark. It definitely goes against the herd mentality of the liberals and conservatives.

yes. the idealism is admirable but its to the extreme. just wait for the speech at the end.

*spoilers*

the fact is, they espouse a sort of individualism that has no boundaries. not sympathy with the rest of the human race. most of the characters were kind of extreme in their own way. like tooey and his idea of subsuming the individual to the greater good. there was no balance of having your goals and your individualism tempered with sympathy for the rest of the world. they could only exist in the world on their terms and they suffered and were fairly cracked. like the whole rape scene with dominique. its a bit cracked, both their attitudes towards the relationship.

we want roark to succeed because of his individualism and because he's being surrounded by all sides in his fight. but really, its really quite frightening if you were faced by a world of howard roarks.

It is, but would you want to be in a world full of Peter Keatings who stop at nothing to get what they want?

I see and agree with what you all are saying. I just don't see how that's so *shocking* that it would upset people. She's sort of doing a character study to the extremes and you have to just take it as it is.

The Fountainhead's more readable, Atlas Shrugged more significant.

Rand's actually against Byronic/romantic angst, that's why Roark and Galt are such smug, boring, soulless robots. It's useful to think of Rand's stories as allegories, and the characters are like deployed one-dimensional chess pieces, the Aristocrat, the Populist, etc.

Rand's a good place to start, maybe better than most, but an alert thinker should move past this stuff after a while. [plug] Nancy Kress wrote that her more challenging and human Beggars trilogy was an unsuccessful attempt at synthesizing Rand's cold self-righteousness with Ursula Le Guin's heart. What do we owe the philistines? Noblesse oblige? Grim duty? It's a hard question, worth asking.