Atlas Shrugged

That is ironic.

I appreciate your feedback and I'm impressed you took the time.

Thanks.

 

I read it a few years back, because my wife read the book when she was very young and liked it alot back then.

Book is like a fantasy novel where the real industrial giants are the most ethical entities in this universe with only purpose of perfecting their work. And then there are parasites of the society; the guys who joins hands to have a word in how things done so that they can apply their petty politics to make more money at cost of ruining the perfect work of these wonderful rich industrialists.

Then those great people decide not to carry the parasites anymore and let the world collapse in its own dirt.

Book is based on the assumptions that;
1. Real rich and successful people are idealists who only care for perfecting their work. They never sacrifice quality of their work for more profit (duh)
2. All the lobbies and fair trade laws are made only for preventing further success of these great people, and they try to stop their progress so that the shitty products made by the rest of the parasites can still sell.

Also author never heard of the concept of monopolizing a market. She thinks one guy owning everything is a good thing, because anyone who can be as rich to be able to do that, ought to be a very perfect person who will make things wonderful for the world.

You probably heard of white romance novels, where the guy who loves the woman is so perfect and loves her so much that etc. etc...
This book is a grey romance, where the successful industrialists are so perfect and committed to the quality of their work that etc. etc...


The movie? I purchased the DvD of the first movie, and as someone who already read the book after 40 mins I said "WTF is this movie about? Who are these people?". I dont know how they did it, but feels like someone read the book, told to his summary to the director, director told his understanding of characters to the acters and they filmed it.

Book was childish and romantised, but still it had a feel about it. Film... total waste of time.

 

Thanks, that saves me even reading it.

I rate my books like this:

Readability: all the usual measures of literature; language, plot, characters etc.

Cleverness: how smart the author seems to be. Not merely education but insight and emotional maturity.

Value to the world: whether in balance it is a force for good or evil.

Each quality is ranked out of five and averaged out for a final score.

Terry Pratchett is usually five stars, for example, while Arthur C Clarke is about two, despite having written some excellent novels.

The worst books are the best written ones which also bring out the worst in people, but it sounds like Rand is not that dangerous.

 

Well, I never read the Quran or Atlas Shrugged, and I skipped over big chunks of the Bible too.

If we could guarantee that people actually examined these infectious ideas closely, in the context of a broad education, then the problems would disappear.

But reading the books doesn't give you the whole picture about how they are (mis)interpreted. That's why I like to ask people what they think, because you never know.

I mean, is it just me, or does the Gospel of John explicitly state that Jesus and John are in a gay relationship? The text itself is usually less than half of the story.

 

Technically, the book doesn't explicitly state anything about John, since the Gospel according to John doesn't explicitly state that "the disciple whom Jesus loved," referred to as the author of the book, was the apostle John. Authorship debates aside, you're not the first to float the idea of a homosexual relationship between beloved disciple and Jesus, but that's not the mainstream interpretation even amongst critical scholars.

 

Well, that's my point, that reading the books doesn't in itself give you all the information to judge the people who interpret it. You have to consider the political and cultural effect as a distinct phenomenon.

Otherwise, y'know, one might confuse the gospels as the story of a black, gay, communist buddhist instead of being about the blue eyed poster boy for patriarchal fascism and blood sacrifice for our immortal souls which we know it to be.

 

One certainly could make that incorrect assumption, just as one could get the idea that your sarcastic remark was meant as a mean-spirited insult to the intelligence of anyone who takes a more traditional view of the Bible. But we all know that's not the case, because you're a nice guy, right?

 

No, I'm not really a nice guy, but it's not meant as an insult to your intelligence either.

It probably was mean-spirited, though. Sorry. God knows I have wasted enough years apologising for fundamentalism in my time.

Nowadays, I honestly don't care what people think of reality, what matters to me is ethics.

I've noticed only two kinds of people in the world, and it doesn't matter what book they read. Either they are selfish or they are selfless.

Dude, if you are honestly a disciple of Jesus, then I deeply respect that. I couldn't care less about the facts, the effect of the story is real.

 

It's all good. I'd usually turn the other cheek and say nothing, but it's Monday.

 

Re:

If that's the case, I've noticed only one kind of person.

 

Ha, good point.

 

Wow, Tim Minchin sure does look different with short hair and no mascara.

 

That's what I though, then I watched the video. Minchin looks scary like Seether.