...Did the entire Scientoligist community vote on the readers section? I noticed that theres a much higher ratio of Science Fiction/Fantasy books in the readers section as well. And as for Ayn Rand... *shudder* Im with speed on this one pretty much, even though I've only read Fountain Head and Atlas Shrugged.
Random House's Top 100 Books of the Twentieth Century
- Thread starter Black Winter Day
- Start date
Ulysses is one of those books no one has ever actually read. Its funny because everyone knows the name, yet I dont actually know anyone else who has read it. Same with Gravity's Rainbow although I havent even read that.
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
speed said:
Oh, I hate her personality cult, too, and her characters are not human beings. I was talking about her actual writing style. Her simple presentation and interesting dialogue. She writes in a way that few people can actually speak. I find it endearing, and I write in a similar style, so it's good to know I'm not alone.
Black Winter Day said:
not where sheer fuckin wit is concerened. Im not even comparing how good there writing is and stuff, Adams is just the wittiest mother fucker EVER.
Eh, I laugh out loud more at Vonnegut. Douglas Adams is just an imitator of stuff KV's been doing since the 60s (not that he doesn't have some interesting ideas of his own, though).
hmm, well really I don't even think of them as that simuler? To me KV is really serious, with humor thrown in of course. DA is just complete humor to a most rediculous extent.
That's the beauty of Vonnegut: even when he's being serious, he's still making you laugh your ass off.
If you like the sci-fi wit of Adams, I HIGHLY suggest you read The Sirens of Titan.
If you like the sci-fi wit of Adams, I HIGHLY suggest you read The Sirens of Titan.
lizard
Member
yup the translator can make all the difference. I ran into that when I briefly was infatuated with Japanese writing in general and Shusaku Endo in particular. Mia from Kayo Dot was telling me that translating from Japanese to English is easy but the reverse is much more difficult because of the degrees of nuance.
iow Japanese culture is cultured, whereas we are hairy gaijin
iow Japanese culture is cultured, whereas we are hairy gaijin
I love the American language, and I LOVE our usage of slang for some reason. I love how every different "group" of people have distanct slang etc etc. And it just becomes suge a huge part of the "American" language, more so then other languages in my opinion...
lizard
Member
well sure, there are so many regional differences as well, its awesome. you should read "Made in America" by Bill Bryson, a surprisingly amusing look at american english; kind of a sequel to his book "Mother Tongue", which is about the development of English itself.
but I know what Mia was saying, Japanese is an amazing complex language, kinda like eskimo/inuit/whatever, where they have 873 words for snow.
but I know what Mia was saying, Japanese is an amazing complex language, kinda like eskimo/inuit/whatever, where they have 873 words for snow.
KILL TULLY said:
IMHO you are not really a tru American until you can take a song from Jay-Z for example, dissect the lyrics and not only understand them on the surface but also understand the dozens of references to pop culture, etc. they make.
lizard
Member
or study Vanilla Ice and analyze genius rhymez like "You're amazed by the VIP Posse, steppin' so hard like a german nazi."
NAD
What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
Yeah, it is a lot of fun. So many places in the country you can go and everyone is speaking English, but a completely different language. Accents are a blast too.KILL TULLY said:
Reign in Acai
Of Elephant and Man
Nice to see that readers have great taste! Speed, if you think Ayn Rand is a horrible writer you truly are an idiot. Now if you just bashed her philosophies...then that is just a matter of opinion. But the fact is, her writing style is simply mind blowing. It's like a fellatio for the soul!
Only idiotic ultra conservatives reading Ayn Rand? I don't see where you come up with that stereotype. Seeing as that Ayn Rand has no care for a government who meddles in a person's affairs. And being an athiest doesn't fit the ultra-right wing conservative description. (Last time I checked atleast) How can you argue with her ideals? Do you live your life for others? Selfishness is the greatest virtue a person can have, aslong as it's not at the expense of others. Explain some of your beliefs so I can know where your coming from.
Objectivism summed up simply by Ms Rand.
How can you not agree with a person who is promoting free thought? Ye simply can't!
As for the comment stating that the characters are ideals that have no human qualities. True, all those characters hold greater ideals than anybody you would find in this shithole of a society. They are token pieces to what this world could be. (If everyone would stop looking for a government hand out and go do something with their insufferable lives.) Living for you're own satisfaction of achievement, as opposed to toiling meaningless like the man to your right. For fuck sakes. What are you a fucking communist?
Capitalism > Communism (Unless you're a lazy shit who preaches equality on the sole premise of knowing you will never achieve anything greater than your neighbor.)
Only idiotic ultra conservatives reading Ayn Rand? I don't see where you come up with that stereotype. Seeing as that Ayn Rand has no care for a government who meddles in a person's affairs. And being an athiest doesn't fit the ultra-right wing conservative description. (Last time I checked atleast) How can you argue with her ideals? Do you live your life for others? Selfishness is the greatest virtue a person can have, aslong as it's not at the expense of others. Explain some of your beliefs so I can know where your coming from.
Objectivism summed up simply by Ms Rand.
How can you not agree with a person who is promoting free thought? Ye simply can't!
As for the comment stating that the characters are ideals that have no human qualities. True, all those characters hold greater ideals than anybody you would find in this shithole of a society. They are token pieces to what this world could be. (If everyone would stop looking for a government hand out and go do something with their insufferable lives.) Living for you're own satisfaction of achievement, as opposed to toiling meaningless like the man to your right. For fuck sakes. What are you a fucking communist?
Capitalism > Communism (Unless you're a lazy shit who preaches equality on the sole premise of knowing you will never achieve anything greater than your neighbor.)
Ok we have a Rand zealot. If I disagree with the hag i am a commie. Fine, i have two reasons why Rand 1) is a bad writer, and 2) a shallow misled philosopher.
1) Like you said Atlas shrugged, her characters are nothing more symbols for her ideals; action in her books is to support these ideals, not the characters or any actual realistic action. Thus, she is quite like a Classical writer, her characters are only present to support a moral a idea, etc. This is the reason she is a awful writer. If she had the capacity to understand humanity, and to translate her ideals into realistic characters and action like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy; then she would be a great writer. But she doesnt even do a good job at what she does; it is so transparent, so forced, so plastic, she should have stucked to writing philsophical treatises.
2) She is obviously a product of neoclassical economics, her writings are but an extreme philosophical extension. She actually believes man can be totally rational; ie make a rational decision based on all the information confronting him. This is a fallacy, that has been disproven by even very conservative economists like Hayek. Second, neoclassical economics-although in a upswing now- failed. It created a depression. People need a government, no matter how bad it is. People need welfare, they need support. If it wasnt for the United States government how many would own homes? Would we have cars if the gov didnt build roads? Would anyone even have jobs? Without your family, how far do you think you and your rationality would go? Come on, its not as black and white as rand thinks.
No man is a island, and no man is superior to another because of rationality. how ridiculous.
1) Like you said Atlas shrugged, her characters are nothing more symbols for her ideals; action in her books is to support these ideals, not the characters or any actual realistic action. Thus, she is quite like a Classical writer, her characters are only present to support a moral a idea, etc. This is the reason she is a awful writer. If she had the capacity to understand humanity, and to translate her ideals into realistic characters and action like Shakespeare, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy; then she would be a great writer. But she doesnt even do a good job at what she does; it is so transparent, so forced, so plastic, she should have stucked to writing philsophical treatises.
2) She is obviously a product of neoclassical economics, her writings are but an extreme philosophical extension. She actually believes man can be totally rational; ie make a rational decision based on all the information confronting him. This is a fallacy, that has been disproven by even very conservative economists like Hayek. Second, neoclassical economics-although in a upswing now- failed. It created a depression. People need a government, no matter how bad it is. People need welfare, they need support. If it wasnt for the United States government how many would own homes? Would we have cars if the gov didnt build roads? Would anyone even have jobs? Without your family, how far do you think you and your rationality would go? Come on, its not as black and white as rand thinks.
No man is a island, and no man is superior to another because of rationality. how ridiculous.
anonymousnick2001
World's Greatest Vocalist
speed said:
Agreed.
The fucker didn't even believe in God. Her philosophy was so anti-communist that it made the same mistake communism makes: it goes against human nature. It is the nature of humans to live for one another. At least, I think so. If the ego is the fountainhead of human achievement, why do I feel as if I'm only achieving something when I'm helping others? Altruism is not the social evil she says it is. She's bastardized the entire definition of words like "collective" and "individual."
I still like her wriitng style. Her presentation. Vonnegut and Fitzgerald and Palahuik all seem so pretentious in comparison, IMO.
Let me get this straight: Kurt Vonnegut is pretentious but Ayn Rand is not.
x 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999
x 999,999,999,999,999,999,999,999
NAD
What A Horrible Night To Have A Curse
So humans are robots, or at least capable of being robotic, making fully rational decisions? Basic instincts perhaps, but not daily activity. There's no way.
Similar threads
