• batmaniam@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    I was lucky enough to read it young before I knew it was “a thing”.

    I loved the stream punky Sci fi stuff (yes I loved bioschock when it came out).

    I enjoyed the rugged individualism stuff, but like, in the same way I enjoy James Bond committing extra judicial killings, Indiana Jones, cheesy ghost movies , or Hell in a Cell.

    I was really confused when I found out it’s got a cult. I just enjoyed my nifty train story.

    The writing is dry, voluminous but not really good. I personally enjoyed getting lost in that much volume, but that’s not going to be everyone. The philosophy stuff isn’t bad or wrong within it’s own universe, it’s just not really applicable to real life. Basing a world view on it is like reading/watching the silo series and thinking that’s how you should live in present day, rules about going outside and all. The conclusion isn’t totally wrong, but the premise its valid under is so narrow it’s useless, and that’s how it got it’s cult.

    • solidstate@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Yeah I don’t know, I remember something about extra super steel in the beginning, where it was kind of like “assertive entrepreneur makes eggheads do the impossible”. That is just not how anything in engineering works at all. Was kind of a turn-off for me also.

      But I am glad that this stuff made it into a cool train story for you. I like your sentiment.

      • batmaniam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Haha thanks. There were parts I enjoyed and I don’t get a chance to talk about them much without people thinking I’m crazy, or worse, in the cult.

        Re: The super engineer. I also was lucky there that I read it before my technical education, now it would probably bug me. Still, the escapism of being the superman “I CAN do it all!” can be fun, but it is just that: escapist fantasy. Problems arise when people forget that.

    • thisorthatorwhatever@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Read it when young as well, though I was luckily enough to read a quick bio of her. Escaped Communism, worked in Hollywood.

      Felt that this was more a rant about trying to be passionate when stuck in a system, be it the horrible Communist system, or an uncaring bureaucratic one.

      • batmaniam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Right, like that’s definitely a read of it. That’s kind of what I was getting it in that the philosophy makes sense in the world she created, it just doesn’t have all that much in common with the real world.

        That take makes sense, but it’s definitely not what the author intended. She very much wanted it to be applied to modern times. Whether or not you can separate the authors intent from the book itself involves some “death of the author” type conversations that, despite knowing some $5 lit terms, I’m not super versed in. Even then, I think the energy is better spent on more interesting examples, like how “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” kind of changed significance over time.

        I’m close with a family that lived through the collapse of the USSR. Based on what I’ve heard alone, Rand’s reaction is really understandable in my opinion. It doesn’t make it correct, but I do get the reaction.