I don’t think it has any bearing. She was “psychologizing” him, which is something she warned against as entirely unreliable for anything other than character development in her later writings. Anything he did after his usefulness as a prop ended likely wouldn’t have mattered.
-
-
Replying to @financebroseph @jetsharks and
Okay My point is even if Hickman weren't real and no murder happened in real life, her fictional construct around it is deeply fucked - although the fact that one DID happen and Rand wasn't at all interested, even perfunctorily, in the victim or her family is also fucked
1 reply 2 retweets 47 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @financebroseph and
Her whole ideal of a "truly free man" is inherently and completely fucked The fact that in real life she developed it while getting gooey over an actual factual child murderer just illustrates that fact, but the fact stands on its own
3 replies 4 retweets 56 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @financebroseph and
Just like the demonstration of this fact we're all carefully talking around, that someone invoked Rand to justify her absurd, embarrassing crush on a piece of shit whose only accomplishment in life was jacking up the prices on desperately needed drugs
3 replies 5 retweets 55 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @financebroseph and
The amount of energy you clearly spend hating this woman is more energy that I have put into hating anyone in my whole life. Ok...you do you.
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Replying to @jetsharks @arthur_affect and
Yeah, but that's...writing a novel. It's doing something that's affirmative. Not just tearing into people. I just don't get it. Like, if you hate Ayn Rand, fine. I don't know why you have to make it a mission to destroy anyone who likes some of her work.
5 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ChristieSmythe @jetsharks and
Or some aspects, anyway. Not even the whole work. Like, I skipped over the objectivist rants...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ChristieSmythe @jetsharks and
Aha. See. You didn’t read Galt’s speech. I literally think it’s impossible for any honest person to read the entirety of that speech and not be convinced. AR put over 40 years of experience as a novelist into making it the most convincing piece of art in history.
7 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @financebroseph @ChristieSmythe and
I've read it, although not all the way through in one sitting, because I get bored and need a drink of water and then have a very hard time getting back into it because it's dull as dirt
1 reply 1 retweet 17 likes
I tend to agree with Rand's editors who desperately fought to take it out because it's absurdly long-winded and pompous and just painfully restates ideas that had already been hashed out multiple times in an already very long book
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @financebroseph and
But maybe that's just the servile collectivist outlook I inherited from the superstitious Orient
0 replies 1 retweet 17 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.