However, there is a pervasive arrogance that is not only distasteful but calls the integrity of the work into question. She tries to stuff everything into boxes.

Ayn thinks she is the best novelist she knows. And it shows.

It's really hard for me to give Ayn Rand 5 Stars because I really really dislike her. For one thing, I think a lot of the things she says are absolutely off the wall crazy (and that's being nice)... I still question whether or not most of her adoring fans have ever actually read her books. All in all, I find her to be one of the most narrow and overrated authors of the twentieth century. But I'll tell you why I enjoyed this book: It challenged me - And that's what a good book should do.

I found so much to disagree with, that reading this book helped me to strengthen what it is I (personally) believe about writing and what I don't believe.

Ayn Rand has a very black and white personality. She's a very opinionated (which is fine), but writing is such a subjective process that getting a glimpse into another authors creative process is a wonderful thing...

And that's what Ayn Rand does here... she gives you a glimpse into her process for writing fiction. I found pieces of it to be unique, valuable, and insightful (if you can get over her "This is the way everything should be done" type personality).

So if you love Ayn Rand, then read this book... And if you hate Ayn Rand, then take it from me - It's still worth reading.

When people asked why I was reading this I told them that I wanted to learn what not to do. Actually, it's a great primer for how to construct conflicts, plot, and other elements.

In general terms, Ayn Rand offers us some pearls of wisdom. In specifics she becomes didactic, paints everything as either black or white and tempts me to rename her Ayn Rant. And when she discusses other writers" work I lose patience with her altogether because she is so opinionated and criticises them without understanding them. As for her own prose, I found that overworked and laboured.

Es una recopilación de ideas expresadas en sus conferencias, charlas y seminarios. Muy bien editada. En cuanto al contenido es interesante tanto para escritores, como para lectores que quieran comprender los entresijos de la creación literaria, me parece una buena guía para construir narrativa, consejos útiles. Aunque la autora tiene una carga ideológica muy fuerte y la deja entrever siempre que puede, tal vez eso pueda molestar a algunos lectores (no es mi caso). Mi nota: 8,5/10

This book contains some useful advice for aspiring writers, but the pompous self assurance of Ayn Rand and her self-invented "objectivism" philosophy made me sick, more than once.
She considers herself a romanticist and goes out of her way to prove that her "romanticism" is endlessly better and deeper than "naturalism" of such second rate and shallow (in her opinion) writers as Lev Tolstoy and Sinclair Lewis. Her hatred of "Anna Karenina" is on the verge of obsession. She also uses Victor Hugo a lot -- he is honored to be in the same boat with Ayn Rand and labeled romanticist, but still he is not as deep and perfect as she is.

The introduction says that the part on literary style "is tour de force of this book" -- in my opinion it is tour de weakness.All the examples she provided of how her own style is better and even more realistic than the style of naturalists convinced me on the contrary.

Oh, and I forgot: according to Ayn Rand, Gertrude Stein has no right to exist and James Joyce is a despicable phenomena, a complete waste of time and paper.
My personal conclusions from this book are:
1.Read/reread Lev Tolstoy, Fyodor Dostoevsky, Victor Hugo, James Joyce, Gertrude Stein.
2.Never again read anything by Ayn Rand.

Pure Gold!
Must read for every aspiring fiction writer.

Reading this book is like reading the Nietzsche of writing guides: her ego is large, her points are sharp, and you will need to wrestle with her if you disagree with any of her positions.

Some of her terminology seems off. Sometimes she uses the term romanticism when I believe she means naturalism, and then she uses the term naturalism when I believe she means realism. Perhaps the terms weren't so precisely defined back then? After all, the naturalists, like Faulkner come a bit later.

This book has a philosophical bent, that In many respects, is similar to Flannery O'Connor's Mystery and Manners--though clearly Ayn is coming from the opposite end of the literary spectrum.

When reading the book, it is important to keep in mind that many of these chapters are lecture notes on her own writing. So be prepared to read Ayn Rand giving commentary on her own work. I'm sure if she would have penned this book, she would have done more commentary on the works of others.

I found the book stimulating and insightful and I will definitely read it again.

Rand is direct, blunt, confident, and unequivocal. And she is almost always right, whether we want her to be or not. Her insights in The Art of Fiction are consistent with this characterization. She doesn't waste time on cosmetics, she doesn't hold back when examining samples of poor writing, and the reader grasps exactly what the point is that she is conveying. She strives for clarity and achieves it.

Her insights are also refreshingly unique and inspiring. Even for someone who only has a vague idea of the book they want to write, or bits and pieces they're not sure how to put together, Art of Fiction furnishes the essentials for developing the idea and growing the pieces until they're large enough to connect into a solid narrative.

As indicated by the title, the book engages in literary criticism at some parts and at others offers practical advice for how to avoid bad writing and plan a compelling, meaningful story.

Personally, I would have loved to see her demolish the Michael Chabons and Joshua Ferrises, who epitomize how bad award-winning contemporary fiction has become, how childish its themes are, how unsophisticated its prose is, and how overall cowardly the authors themselves are in submitting to the standards of today.

این کتاب مجموعه یه سری صحبتا از این رانده که به شکل کتاب در اومده، فکر میکنم‌ ممکنه اسمش اموزشی بودن کتاب رو برسونه و با وجود اینکه مطمئنا از لحاظ اموزشی هم میتونه مفید باشه محتوای کتاب بیشتر در مورد نگاه این راند به فیکشن و به صورت کلی تر هنر هست، یه سری از بخش های کتاب رو باهاش موافق نیستم و یه سریاشم کاملا با طرز فکر من زاویه داره، این مشکلو با "فیلسوف" های متعدد دیگه ای هم داشتم، بنظر میرسه که مغز درست اطلاعات رو پردازش میکنه ولی یسریا از صحبتا این رو میرسونه نویسنده اطلاعات کافی در اون موضوع نداشته یا شاید در زمان نوشته شدن کتاب کلا اون اطلاعات موجود نبودن.ولی به طور کلی کتاب یه زیربنای خیلی قوی در مورد ماهیت فیکشن و هنر ، و تفاوت بین فیکشن خوب و بد و شخصیت پردازی و پلات... ارائه میده و با اینکه ممکنه خیلیا باهاش مخالف باشن یه انسجام کلی بین پروسه فکری این راند دیده میشه و حداقل در یه فضای واحد تعاریف خودش رو ارائه داده، بخش مورد علاقه من اینه که این کتاب احتمالا هم برای خوانندگان فیکشن کلاسیک هم فیکشن های مدرن در تمام سبک ها و همچنین فیکشن ابسترکت تا حدی زننده خواهد بود، نویسنده توش با قاطعیت از تعاریف خودش صحبت میکنه و به جز اون چیزی رو حتی به عنوان فیکشن واقعی در نظر نمی گیره که خب اگر عادت به خوندن متن های اینطوری نداشته باشید میتونه زننده باشه.

It’s Ayn Rand. What do you want from me?

Couple good ideas for craft. Mostly a lot of rambling about how great she is and having read The Fountainhead, it amuses me how egotistical she is.

I don’t see myself reading that much of her work in the future.

I admit I am an admirer of Ayn Rand's works - therefore, my opinion may be biased. But this book has truly helped me to better understand the process of writing a sound, properly structured, and lengthy story. I would definitely recommend this book to an aspiring author or avid reader who would like more insight into the conception of a novel. After reading The Art of Fiction, I do see my previous literary works as somewhat patchworked and written without strong intention or forethought. I agree with most everything Rand says in this book, with the exception of some overly strong opinions or criticisms. One of my biggest take-aways is that "the purpose of all art is to objectify values."