What is this thread all about?
Just a place for general discussion. A place to unload whats on your mind and talk about anything - personal, health, help needed, achievements, daily highs and daily lows, theories, predictions and what have you.
Does not need to be Q related.
Interesting reply, I do remember this gist now, thru my CRS.... So clearly we're talking about AS in particular. I dunno on the unnecessary length part, since the thing is plot-driven and everything that happens or is described advances the plot, and quite a lot happens - yes the basic story could be told but there are intracacies to all the subplots - I don't know what I'd really excise personally in terms of "plot chunks." Even the lengthy speeches (in both TF and AS) are part of the plot. Seemingly minor subplots serve functions, like underscoring the moral bankruptcy of antagonist characters for example (Mrs. Rearden comes to mind).
I almost want to reread these as it's been some years to see what I'd edit, or where I go "yeah that could have been better."
Now, like I say, I already admitted she's not the most literary in terms of style - this does not bother me as I'm more an engineer type in this regard anyway I guess. I do think sometimes it's a bit herky-jerky and like I said already AS has a couple plot issues that are forced to make her philosophical point. TF is more focused (and shorter of course) and works better in this regard.
Now, ego/all that she thought she was - I'd say yes/but yes she was, and probably then some. Her body of nonfiction is where this really becomes clear, as any criticisms of novel style or editing or whatnot fall by the wayside and no philosopher has integrated the ideas of those that came before her into such a complete, non-contradictory system. She also excelled at not just presenting a topic and discussing it, why it's so etc, but also anticipating questions or criticisms of it and including that in the same essays. She was quite the advanced thinker.
(Now, this is of course independent of her personal oddities and hypocrisies (e.g. sex life/affair stuff) but unlike many where you have to (I will not) separate an artist's beliefs/actions from their art to enjoy the latter, at least she wasn't actually evil.)
Test to see if past allowed comment depth
Edit: OK a couple perspectives - she may well be the best author from a literary perspective for many because they often aren't necessarily into fiction. I haven't read any Dostoevsky (or Hugo, for that matter - cited by Rand as a favorite of hers), for example. (So perspective that I'm "well-read" should probably be more "read some interesting things" heh.)
Another one is that very few get to the root of the problem (looters in charge controlling us as slaves) as well as AS does, or favor the individual uncompromisingly so well either - so for many (me, certainly) discovering her stuff is like FINALLY (like put the book down and wander around the house going "YES!"). (The only other I've read who is fairly consistent around liberty is Heinlein - BUT the caveat is I've only read a few of his things. At least he's pretty emphatic about it in "Harsh Mistress" though I wish he could avoid blubbering on the topic of Women.)
This is not to say there aren't tools as cited that read AS (or, likely more typically, know about it) and act like they Understand Everything Now - ironic, right? On one hand yes it concretizes a shit load that's wrong with the Corporate Feudal State (as Devo put it), but on the other hand it's NOT a philosophical textbook so to really get her ideas it's really just the starting point.
Now, I have to disagree on the whole "and also" part. So I get the response, but I'd say look at this in a different way. They are not trying to leave society ultimately. They aren't trying to destroy it, but to save it. Rand observed over and over that capitalism is cooperative, as all human endeavors must be (vs using force with each other). Well, what can you do when all mankind is enslaved by the "elites"/looters? Those who don't produce but only rule and steal? Well you can take them out, if possible (works on small scale, temporarily - see US Rev war for instance). Or you can withdraw your participation in the system. The protagonists of the book see that the business owners, the providers of the ideas and drive for not just their prosperity but the entire system's and its functioning, can strike and force the issue - and note that it does not take long, you say the ending of the book is unsatisfying but they've already basically won.
So, let's consider one example. How many times on here have we seen "quit or let them fire you before taking the vax." What are the consequences of this? Depending on the role, could affect a lot of people. Maybe places go out of business even because of lack of workers. Maybe those that were trying to stay employed and got vaxed end up screwed. And so on. Yet, we saw how quickly it forced the hand of many employers after all.
Now, back to "what can you do" - well another option is of course, if you are in the position to do so, to put a plan in place to root out the problem, worldwide, over decades. In the process it is going to be impossible to save all the normies, and in fact many of them will likely be lost, but does this make the planners evil or the plan bad? After all, THEY didn't start the problem.
I actually see big parallels between the strike in AS and the Plan.