I generally like Rand but I have serious issues with her extrapolations of her philosophy. It is one thing to say that someone should not be forced to contribute to the well being of another. It is another to say that it is wrong to voluntarily contribute to others well being. Also, she is too atheist for me to really embrace.

Can we agree that overtly didactic literature invariably sucks whatever the viewpoint? I read a comment about Dostoevsky in a recent book review of Coetzee's latest book (comparing Coetzee favorably to Dostoevsky) that I liked. Doestoevky, whose novels, like Rand's, contain long monologues and philosophical discussions and digressions, mastered the technique of never allowing the reader to know for sure the author's own actual beliefs. (Adam does the same thing with his posts, which is one reason I like him.)

Doestoevsky's chapters in the Brothers Karamazov, Pro and Contra, and The Grand Inquisitor, represent perhaps the most powerful philosophical argument ever against Christianity and organized religion. Even more, we feel Ivan the atheist's agony in delivering the argument. For generations Christians have wept in empathy, and we know from Doestoevsky's biography that he was in fact a Christian. It seems Rand (though I've never read her as I have Dostoevsky) clubs you over the head with her one-sided personal perspective. Not good literature or storytelling.

The wild and violent sex scenes sound intriguing, however.

Just read it and tell us what you think. Its a unique story that is really good literature. There is a reason it was voted in the top books by readers in the modern library and random house critics voted it 92 (in the twentieth century) I suspect that you will like it and respect it for being good literature.

She does tend to beat you to death with her viewpoint and therefore is weaker in her presentation of her viewpoint. I agree that the Brothers Karamazov is an excellent piece of literature and makes the arguments against Christianity very well. I've never thought to contrast them.

In short, I like much of Rand's philosophy but was also frustrated by her delivery and extremism. She is also quite the anti-feminist in the classic sense, hating womanly things and believing that a woman must be manly to be successful.

By the way, Ayn's delivery is very reminiscent of yours. I'm surprised you don't like it.

My fiction is more Dostoevsky than Rand.

I don't mind Rand's fiction, but I find her philosophy lightweight.

Here is a good summary why to reject her "objectivism."

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand.htm

An interesting and helpful piece, but the black (metal) background and the yellow lettering were challenging to the eyes.

I'm about halfway through the Fountainhead, and it has finally really pulled me in. It took a while for Rand to set the stage, lay out all the players and their motives, but now the story is really gripping me. Howard Roark is awesome.

So I just finished The Fountainhead. Pretty powerful book, I feel like it's reinforced alot of my core values by making me think about them a bit differently. Great book. Loved Howard Roark's courtroom speech at the end.

Now on to Atlas Shrugged!

I took me six months, but I finally finished Atlas Shrugged. I got sucked into a kind-of last minute opportunity to enroll in a part-time MBA program, so my alot of my free time in the spring and summer was spent prepping my application. Things have been busy with work and school, but I got it done.

I liked the Fountainhead a bit better. It "moved" me more. Atlas Shrugged was good, and I'm glad I read it, but I won't read it again. The ending was a bit anti-climactic.

I picked up a copy of The Brothers Karamazov at Barnes and Noble tonight for $9.99. It'll be slow going, but I'm looking forward to it.