by nobodypanic » Tue 15 Feb 2011, 17:34:49
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Outcast_Searcher', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('nobodypanic', '[')and oh yeah, she's a bad writer too.

Do you have anything specific to back that up, or are you mouthing soundbites by the many leftist idiots who can't stand to read a philosophy different than their own, so they attack the source? (I don't mind intelligent criticism backed by ideas or data, but just empty LAZY criticism about her writing only helps make one of her points).
The most common complaints about Rand's writing in novels like "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead" I've seen (seemingly endlessly), but almost always with little meaningful substance are:
1). One dimensional characters
2). Repetition
As one who has actually read much of her work, and related work, and carefully pondered it, I'm convinced that:
1). As to the first complaint, her characters are symbols. Especially the primary characters. They represent ideals. They are shown to CONSISTENTLY represent the concepts the symbols stand for.
Excellence, intelligence, a good work ethic, productivity, morality, and respect are some examples of values of her "good" or "heroic" symbols. Sloth, whining, and stupidity are examples of her "evil" symbols. Tellingly (IMO), greed and/or selfishness are attributes of both types of symbols -- in different contexts, of course.
All the supposed "literary experts" that fail to see this blindingly obvious concept make me believe that either THEY are the hacks, or that they let their political emotionalism override their brains (or their honesty) when reading/reviewing Rand.
2). Sadly, in most of the first world, the ideas of capitalism - of merit, of earning one's way, of building something to benefit the society which raised and protected you and your family -- are so alien and so roundly attacked by such a huge proportion of a society -- that, IMO, Rand needs to repetitively bash the reader over the head with the main ideas to have much of a chance of their getting through -- vs. the noise from those who want something for nothing. So she does - mercilessly.
The critics just fuss about this without even acknowledging the POSSIBILITY that there is a valid reason for it -- even if they disagree with it.
So again, I ask -- do you have any meaningful thoughts of your own on this backed by actual data or passages in her book(s)? Have you actually thoughtfully READ entire books of hers like "Shrugged", or are you just copying endless drivel from "whine-bites" from unhappy reviewers on places like Amazon?
to be profound (i am not making a claim on her ideas in this post, just her writing). and by that i mean that the strain is apparent. one can see her reaching, and it comes across as somewhat second rate, overly dramatic, and pretentious.
i can see where she got that stylistic propensity. just go read some nietzsche. except, in his case, there is no strain: his writing is effortlessly profound; his prose is poetic and dramatic, filled with refined subtlety and depth, things rand lacks. (don't take this to mean i agree with N. i am just admitting his talent in prose and thought).