31–40 of 100 posts
It works intellectually, but it is best used for inspiration. How often do you find a piece of literature for $12 that MAY change your life.
All the Ayn Rand you'll ever need is in Anthem. Much shorter than Atlas Shrugged, and better literature to boot. I'm a long-time fan, after finding one of her books at a flea market when I was a kid (bought it coincidentally at the same time as Walden Two, a socialist manifesto by B.F. Skinner...one was delightfully rational and rang true while the other's greatest feat of intellectual brilliance was the use of glass…
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are magnificent. To suggest that anyone -not- read them (for the sake of brevity, no less) is to suggest a reader not experience great, life-changing literature. Her objectivist philosophy may be a bit overt in the latter, but never for a second could I sleep well knowing I'd proposed that others -skip- these books.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but Jeffrey Archer and Jackie Collins are popular .
OK. And because of this Rand isn't?
I presented two cases where I assert popularity /\ !talent = T, ie. !popularity \/ talent = F, to show that !(popularity => talent).
Your response: "so you claim that Rand does not have popularity".
Er, wtf?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK. And because of this Rand isn't?
You said "popularity => talent" (ie. !popularity \/ talent = T). You also said "Rand has popularity". I presented two cases where I assert popularity /\ !talent = T, ie. !popularity \/ talent = F, to show that !(popularity => talent). Your response: "so you claim that Rand does not have popularity". Er, wtf?
Can we just end this thread here before we get to the inevitable anticlimactic conclusion that people differ in opinion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said "popularity => talent" (ie. !popularity \/ talent = T). You also said "Rand has popularity". I presented two cases where I assert popularity /\ !talent = T, ie. !popularity \/ talent = F, to show that !(popularity => talent). Your response: "so you claim that Rand does not have popularity". Er, wtf?
I see. In all your arguments it is talent as judged by you. Therefore you are the arbiter of talent? Can we just end this thread here before we get to the inevitable anticlimactic conclusion that people differ in opinion?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see. In all your arguments it is talent as judged by you. Therefore you are the arbiter of talent? Can we just end this thread here before we get to the inevitable anticlimactic conclusion that people differ in opinion?
I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see. In all your arguments it is talent as judged by you. Therefore you are the arbiter of talent? Can we just end this thread here before we get to the inevitable anticlimactic conclusion that people differ in opinion?
I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Fountainhead was written in 1943. Depeche Mode saw it's first success in 1981. If even one of the best economic minds in 2045 cite Depeche Mode as their influence then you have a point. 2007 - 1943 = 64 1981 + 64 = 2045
You're taking what I said waaay too literally. But if we're gonna go there (and this is all in jest), I see it like this: in 1981 Depeche Mode were a bunch of drama-whoring junkies with Casio keyboards, yet they managed to express the same basic ideas in far fewer words, plus a catchy euro-pop beat. I appreciate some aspects of Ayn Rand's thought, but find her books a chore to read. Alan Greenspan considers Ayn Rand…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.
But isn't it popularity among the elite (that is, critical popularity) that traditionally decides a writer's talent?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're misunderstanding him. He's simply pointing out that you said something false: that popularity is evidence that someone is a good writer.
Popularity isn't proof that someone is a good writer, but it certainly is evidence of same.
Only a small percentage of people buy books regularly. So to make a big bestseller you have to write a book that gets bought by that huge majority of people who don't read much. And usually their decisions are dominated by random extraneous factors: i.e. it's a biography of someone they admire, or is related to some doctrine they subscribe to, or contains facts they need or gossip they want to know about.
Think of the books you find in the houses of people who have hardly any books: the Bible, the Guinness Book of World Records, a Chilton car repair manual, a racy biography of Princess Di, a book of popular mysticism, a book about how to make money or lose weight. Those are the really big sellers.