The book contains a detailed analysis of numerous works and authors. For this reason alone, I will suggest this book to anyone who wants to write. (A part of me knows we all do!)

Interesting to see an author explain why they made the choices they did and to defend their overall views on literature.

Безумовна, ця книжка була мені корисна. Читалося довго, але це пов'язано лише з тим, що я весь час переключалася від неї на художню літературу. Я отримала багато корисної інформація, книга допомогла сформулювати певні позиції щодо якості художніх творів.

I like Rand so I wasn't coming to this book with that frothing hostility that leftists tend to display but this was such massive waste of time, probably the worst book on writing I've ever read and I've read over 30 at this point. Trying to combine writing advice with general philosophy, it dabbles in both but does not dive deep enough in either. Not technical enough where it should be and too specific when abstraction would suffice. Too long irrelevant quotes as examples when none is needed if the explanation of the technique is sufficient. It feels like a stream of consciousness instead of a systemic presentation of the subject. I was really hoping for more from Rand; maybe her Romantic Manifesto will be better.

I still make reference to it when I write.

Ayn Rand confuses philosophy with technique.

When she says "do this", she is usually giving excellent advice on technique. The philosophy manifests as "don't do that because it's not real writing". Specifically Rand states that the only fiction she cares to read shows her "people and experiences she wants to see". Satire, escapist fantasy, horror, and black humour are all dismissed.

On the other hand I thought her discussion of subconscious writing was inspired. Rand rightly points out that the act of writing, like reading, is subconscious. The writer's subconscious should therefore be primed with all relevant material, furthermore, "relevant material" implies that the writer should have an idea of the intent or purpose of their work prior to beginning. It's an interesting argument against the "no surprise for the writer, no surprise for the reader" philosophy.

If you are interested in improving your fiction writing and you liked The Fountainhead / Atlas Shrugged, you should read this book.

Even more than before, I'm looking forward to reading We the Living now that I have read Rand's own reflections on the writing of fiction.

Very self-important. She only uses examples from Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead so not very helpful if you haven't read them.

This is a collection of Ayn Rand's informal lectures to an audience back in 1958 conducted in her own living room. Given the extemporaneous (I love typing that!) nature of her lectures, this has been edited for this publication and fit into 11 chapters on the art of writing fiction.

I find some of the chapters particularly helpful and insightful. In 'Theme and Plot', she stressed the importance of a central theme that had to be tied to a plot. Events included in a book that has no purpose and do not advance the plot in any way are pure fluff. What matters is choice, and how the main characters in your book make them and how it clashes with their values. She then went on to give examples from her own novels and other famous books such as Victor Hugo's Les Misérables.

Some chapters were a miss for me: the chapter on 'Writing and Subconscious' asked you to train your subconscious into absorbing as many abstracts as possible so that when you begin writing, the words will flow from them. I find this slightly ridiculous and perpetuates the myth that writing is a purely intuitive process and give authors the excuses not to finish their books (I am looking at you, George!).

Overall though, I find Ayn Rand's lectures bordered on arrogance and condescension. She was a proponent of the Romanticism school over the Naturalism where everything needs to be dramatized. She opined that in order to have a great characterization and plot, the characters need to be in great turmoil and their internal values have to be constantly challenged. She also scoffed at various forms of literature such as fantasy, which can only be considered rational if they have some abstract purpose applicable to reality. In her own words, 'Fantasy for the sake of fantasy is neither valid or interesting.' I beg to differ. Fantasy may sometimes be an abstraction of real world events, but they need not be in order to make good literature. She also did not touch on worldbuilding: a crucial aspect of fantasy novels. By the end of this book, I was shaking my head a lot and disagreeing more and more with her advice. Read this for the little nuggets of wisdom interspersed throughout the book, but I would not recommend this book over others.

Although I don't agree with a lot of her views on fiction, Ayn Rand was a woman ahead of her time. I like how she thoroughly explains her ideas and provides reasoning for them. We need more thinkers like her.

this seemed more an excuse to brag about her greatness and tear down other authors than actually teach - perhaps one day i will read atlas shrugged just to rate it a one star, suck on that ayn rand.

It's a guide to what makes good writing written by Ayn Rand, which is basically exactly what you'd expect it to be in the best way possible. Some gems: “I think I myself am the best writer today”, "I know of no ghost or horror stories that I would classify as valid", and after critiquing the improper use of symbolism, this parenthetical: "(It is proper, however, in musicals. In musicals, anything goes, the only rule being imagination.)"