![r/books icon](http://web.archive.org./web/20240803070007im_/https://styles.redditmedia.com/t5_2qh4i/styles/communityIcon_d77x0sszups01.png)
![A banner for the subreddit](http://web.archive.org./web/20240803070007im_/https://styles.redditmedia.com/t5_2qh4i/styles/bannerBackgroundImage_90hg4t73wcgd1.jpg?format=pjpg&s=a6b3e03b133f07c142405236f9f39a77fa705979)
This is a moderated subreddit. It is our intent and purpose to foster and encourage in-depth discussion about all things related to books, authors, genres, or publishing in a safe, supportive environment. If you're looking for help with a personal book recommendation, consult our Weekly Recommendation Thread, Suggested Reading page, or ask in r/suggestmeabook.
I don't understand how it became so popular, because it was terrible. I was only able to read it for the reason that it is divided into three parts, otherwise I would have thrown it out long ago. What's wrong with that? I will tell.
About the plot. Bad socialists are destroying the country's economy, the heroine is trying to save the business and along the way find out where most entrepreneurs and creative people have gone.
So that you understand this is the plot of the book, which was divided into three parts, where each has 400+ pages. How did it happen? And it's simple, most of the books are monologues and a love triangle. I'm not kidding, she just repeats her ideas, without presenting anything new in them, and they are all based on "Objectivism is good, Capitalism is cool, and the rest is shit on the sole."
There are two ideas that are being preached here. I like the first one: "Love what you do." This is a good idea, but I absolutely don't like the second one, namely the philosophy of objectivism. In short, what it means: "Spit on everyone, think only about your success, the rest is just a hindrance, and that's when you'll be the best." There's nothing wrong with the idea itself, but here's how it's presented. All people who come up with their ideology and philosophy have one distinctive feature, their worlds work only if there are ideal people and work only on paper. That communism sounded good only on paper, that objectivism works only under "superhumans" and convenient circumstances.
There are no characters here, only puppets who speak the author's ideas. And she used a cheap move. All the positive characters are all handsome in a row, they seem to have come out of fashion magazines, and all the negative ones (I repeat all) are ugly and scary, like ugly bastards from Hentai. And at the same time, I also think that the economy in this world is collapsing because of the positive characters, because they just reveled in how great they are, and they did not bother to train their workers. So that you understand, they fixed all the problems themselves, not the workers. Of course, the economy will collapse from such leaders.
The text here is bad. He looks like a man with no experience in writing, trying to be like the thinkers of the 20th century. And if you thought the sex scenes from "50 Shades of Grey" were terrible, you just haven't read this book.
This book is terrible. It was written by a woman who didn't understand economics, who thought she was a philosopher. She claims that without Atlanteans, the world will collapse. So let's see, the creator of the TVs died, but they still exist and they have progressed, Steve Jobs died, and the Apple campaign is still there and making good money, everyone who created the light bulb died, but they still exist. Most of the things created a long time ago are still there, and their creators "Atlanteans" have long died. I wonder why our world hasn't collapsed yet. And the best answer to the idea of this book is the game "Bioshock", which showed what would happen if such a world existed.
P.S Guys, I didn't know that you have such posts published monthly. I just read the book and shared my opinion about it, I didn't know there were hundreds if not thousands of them here. And I am not a communist, not a socialist, not someone to be offended by opposing views that do not correspond to any philosophy or economics. It's just a review of a book that I don't like.