Tea Party and Objectivism

I doubt most TP folks are big readers.

Generally speaking, of course.
Really? And you base this ass plucked opinion on what? Usually I find the converse true from those Tea Partiers I've spoken to. Many have read little summer fluff books like The 1000 year leap, Atlas Shrugged, Road to Serfdom, The Real George Washington... lots of books off of Glenn Beck's reading list.

Of course, they don't read much. Maybe some bodice rippers in between watching Inside Edition, TMZ and Judge Joe Brown. It's how they stay so informed about legislation, policy, politics and current news events.

All of Rand's work is shit from a literary perspective. Care to read some proof?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_atlasreview.pdf
Books: The Solid-Gold Dollar Sign - TIME
Whittaker Chambers -- Big Sister is Watching You

Her characters are wooden, her plots are ridiculous, and her writing is overly dramatic (although it still manages to be fucking dull...). Perhaps, if her writing was better, I wouldn't despise Rand and her ilk so much. I think its the fact that the books are so bad, combined with the fact that people just like them because they provide an intellectualization for unchecked greed and amorality.


And here I thought her work provided a guideline for self reliance, resistance to idealogues and the nobility of the human striving for something better.

The definition of art is that it causes a second creation in the audience after the first creation by the artist.

Rand obviously create very different things in each of us. Does this make her work art?
 
I doubt most TP folks are big readers.

Generally speaking, of course.
Really? And you base this ass plucked opinion on what? Usually I find the converse true from those Tea Partiers I've spoken to. Many have read little summer fluff books like The 1000 year leap, Atlas Shrugged, Road to Serfdom, The Real George Washington... lots of books off of Glenn Beck's reading list.

Of course, they don't read much. Maybe some bodice rippers in between watching Inside Edition, TMZ and Judge Joe Brown. It's how they stay so informed about legislation, policy, politics and current news events.

All of Rand's work is shit from a literary perspective. Care to read some proof?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_atlasreview.pdf
Books: The Solid-Gold Dollar Sign - TIME
Whittaker Chambers -- Big Sister is Watching You

Her characters are wooden, her plots are ridiculous, and her writing is overly dramatic (although it still manages to be fucking dull...). Perhaps, if her writing was better, I wouldn't despise Rand and her ilk so much. I think its the fact that the books are so bad, combined with the fact that people just like them because they provide an intellectualization for unchecked greed and amorality.
Wow. do some background on your 'impartial critics'. You gave me the equivalent of the Nazi Press Corps talking about how bad Churchill is for England.
 
Really? And you base this ass plucked opinion on what? Usually I find the converse true from those Tea Partiers I've spoken to. Many have read little summer fluff books like The 1000 year leap, Atlas Shrugged, Road to Serfdom, The Real George Washington... lots of books off of Glenn Beck's reading list.

Of course, they don't read much. Maybe some bodice rippers in between watching Inside Edition, TMZ and Judge Joe Brown. It's how they stay so informed about legislation, policy, politics and current news events.

All of Rand's work is shit from a literary perspective. Care to read some proof?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_atlasreview.pdf
Books: The Solid-Gold Dollar Sign - TIME
Whittaker Chambers -- Big Sister is Watching You

Her characters are wooden, her plots are ridiculous, and her writing is overly dramatic (although it still manages to be fucking dull...). Perhaps, if her writing was better, I wouldn't despise Rand and her ilk so much. I think its the fact that the books are so bad, combined with the fact that people just like them because they provide an intellectualization for unchecked greed and amorality.

Just an FYI, opinions are not proof.

Mencken thought her first novel admirable, her first Broadway play had both critical and popular appeal, and "The Fountainhead" was hailed as masterful by the NYT. For every disparaging criticism of her literary style you can find a rave review that cites the same points. Intelligent people understand this, and form their own opinions.
And we all know how reliable the critics are.

Star Wars anyone?

The Salt Shaker

Just one example of a 'lackluster' review on a brief summer's entertainment.
 
really? Are they now?

Walter Duranty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While Duranty has been criticized generally for deferring to Joseph Stalin's and the Soviet Union's official propaganda rather than reporting news from Moscow, the major controversy regarding his work is his reporting on the great famine of 1932–1933. Since the 1970s, Duranty's work has come under increasingly harsh fire for reporting there was no famine, even while it was clear from his personal exchanges that he was fully aware of the scale of the calamity.

  • Robert Conquest has written several books, starting in the 1970s including The Great Terror and Harvest of Sorrow, most recently Reflections on a Ravaged Century in 1990, which have been critical of Duranty's reporting from the Soviet Union.
  • Political commentators such as Joe Alsop and Andrew Stuttaford have criticized Duranty.[9]
  • American engineer Zara Witkin (who worked in the USSR from 1932 to 1934)[10] and UK intelligence[11] have shown that Duranty knowingly misrepresented the famine.
Duranty has also been retrospectively criticized for defending Stalin's notorious show trials.

Are they better?
 

Forum List

Back
Top