3 ms·

That's not my impression, I think it's generally considered terrible writing with one dimentional shallow characters. It's popular for its philosophy, not its q

That's not my impression, I think it's generally considered terrible writing with one dimentional shallow characters. It's popular for its philosophy, not its quality as a book. I immediately lose a bit of respect for anyone who claims to like that book.

quaunaut 14y ago
Congratulations, you're an absolutist who thinks it is valid to sum someone up by a single opinion in the sea of human complexity.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  How is one to refine their expectations of other people's abilities, if not by updating on available evidence? Pot, kettle, incidentally. Compare parent's "I immediately lose a bit of respect" with your "you're an absolutist who [...]" The latter makes a much broader claim based on a similarly small piece of information.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  You should work on your reading comprehension since I did nor said no such thing. Losing "a bit of respect" is not equivalent to summing someone up by a single opinion, it's not even close.
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  I don't get it. Are you arguing that one should not be able to adjust their respect for a person based on that person's political leanings and/or lack of literary taste?
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
wccrawford 14y ago
I like the book. I lose respect for anyone who just dismisses it out of hand because they think that's the cool choice. But I agree that the plot and characters are shallow. The book was designed to showcase her philosophy and it does it well. I don't believe it was ever intended to be realistic, and I think it fell a little short of being entertaining a lot of the time. It was far too long. It was still far better than a lot of other fiction books I've read. What I get out of the book (which I've read 3 times) is a different look on self-worth and self-sacrifice than all the rest of society gives. I believe people would be better off if everyone acted in a rational manner to promote their own interests. (It's not actually rational to hurt others to promote yourself. In the long run, that's a losing strategy.) I also believe that this will never actually happen, and so compromises are in order. I believe that book has helped me form a better sense of my own worth, and was at least partially responsible for me leaving a job and getting a 40% raise at the next one. It's not the only factor, but it helped to be able to objectively assess my value to the company, as well as how much I value my own time. Does that mean I'm a card-carrying Objectivist who doesn't give to charity? No. It means I'm a more rational person who evaluates things a little more clearly. In fact, I actually give to charity more now than before, so the book can hardly be said to have hurt that. I do give for slightly different reasons now, though. Before, I gave because it was the thing to do. Now, I give because I want that charity to work. If I give to the Red Cross, it's because I want them to help sick or hurt people. If I give to Child's Play, it's because I want sick children to find a little bit of joy in their lives. Those things may seem obvious, but they weren't. A good example is United Way. I don't give to them. Why? Because all they do is slice off a large percent (13% apparently) and give the rest to an actual charity. Before, I had never really considered this, and just bought into their propaganda. "Of each dollar United Way collects, over 87 cents goes directly to valuable community services. " - http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm They used to be very vocal about how much went to a real charity, pushing that statistic in front of you like it was a good thing. That is not good. That 13% could be going to a real charity, too, and actually helping people. So in the end, don't lose respect for people merely because they like something. You might not be seeing the whole story.
- andyjohnson0 14y ago
  "It's not actually rational to hurt others to promote yourself. In the long run, that's a losing strategy." Just a hint: there might be other reasons than "that's a losing strategy" to avoid hurting others to promote yourself.
  - wccrawford 14y ago
    Oh, I don't deny that. I was just addressing the typical argument that if people acted in their own interest, they'd screw over everyone else. I don't think that's the case, even without all the other reasons not to screw people over.
- gnaritas 14y ago
  > But I agree that the plot and characters are shallow. The book was designed to showcase her philosophy and it does it well. Which is what I said. And I lose a bit of respect because her philosophy is terrible, she's basically a sociopath; the book and her philosophy entirely lack empathy. > What I get out of the book is a different look on self-worth and self-sacrifice than all the rest of society gives. Because society doesn't normally promote sociopathy. If you took something good from it and didn't come out admiring the objectivist view, good for you, you're the rare exception, but the fact is nearly everyone I've ever met who likes that book likes it because they like the objectivist view and all think they're the John Gaults of the word. Rand makes them feel good about their complete lack of empathy and this book is an excellent thermometer for me to quickly avoid wasting time getting to know people I'm very likely not going to get along with anyway.

quaunaut 14y ago

Congratulations, you're an absolutist who thinks it is valid to sum someone up by a single opinion in the sea of human complexity.

dllthomas 14y ago
How is one to refine their expectations of other people's abilities, if not by updating on available evidence? Pot, kettle, incidentally. Compare parent's "I immediately lose a bit of respect" with your "you're an absolutist who [...]" The latter makes a much broader claim based on a similarly small piece of information.
gnaritas 14y ago
You should work on your reading comprehension since I did nor said no such thing. Losing "a bit of respect" is not equivalent to summing someone up by a single opinion, it's not even close.
jamesaguilar 14y ago
I don't get it. Are you arguing that one should not be able to adjust their respect for a person based on that person's political leanings and/or lack of literary taste?
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

wccrawford 14y ago

I like the book. I lose respect for anyone who just dismisses it out of hand because they think that's the cool choice. But I agree that the plot and characters are shallow. The book was designed to showcase her philosophy and it does it well. I don't believe it was ever intended to be realistic, and I think it fell a little short of being entertaining a lot of the time. It was far too long. It was still far better than a lot of other fiction books I've read. What I get out of the book (which I've read 3 times) is a different look on self-worth and self-sacrifice than all the rest of society gives. I believe people would be better off if everyone acted in a rational manner to promote their own interests. (It's not actually rational to hurt others to promote yourself. In the long run, that's a losing strategy.) I also believe that this will never actually happen, and so compromises are in order. I believe that book has helped me form a better sense of my own worth, and was at least partially responsible for me leaving a job and getting a 40% raise at the next one. It's not the only factor, but it helped to be able to objectively assess my value to the company, as well as how much I value my own time. Does that mean I'm a card-carrying Objectivist who doesn't give to charity? No. It means I'm a more rational person who evaluates things a little more clearly. In fact, I actually give to charity more now than before, so the book can hardly be said to have hurt that. I do give for slightly different reasons now, though. Before, I gave because it was the thing to do. Now, I give because I want that charity to work. If I give to the Red Cross, it's because I want them to help sick or hurt people. If I give to Child's Play, it's because I want sick children to find a little bit of joy in their lives. Those things may seem obvious, but they weren't. A good example is United Way. I don't give to them. Why? Because all they do is slice off a large percent (13% apparently) and give the rest to an actual charity. Before, I had never really considered this, and just bought into their propaganda. "Of each dollar United Way collects, over 87 cents goes directly to valuable community services. " - http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm http://www.forsythunitedway.org/faq.cfm They used to be very vocal about how much went to a real charity, pushing that statistic in front of you like it was a good thing. That is not good. That 13% could be going to a real charity, too, and actually helping people. So in the end, don't lose respect for people merely because they like something. You might not be seeing the whole story.

andyjohnson0 14y ago
"It's not actually rational to hurt others to promote yourself. In the long run, that's a losing strategy." Just a hint: there might be other reasons than "that's a losing strategy" to avoid hurting others to promote yourself.
- wccrawford 14y ago
  Oh, I don't deny that. I was just addressing the typical argument that if people acted in their own interest, they'd screw over everyone else. I don't think that's the case, even without all the other reasons not to screw people over.
gnaritas 14y ago
> But I agree that the plot and characters are shallow. The book was designed to showcase her philosophy and it does it well. Which is what I said. And I lose a bit of respect because her philosophy is terrible, she's basically a sociopath; the book and her philosophy entirely lack empathy. > What I get out of the book is a different look on self-worth and self-sacrifice than all the rest of society gives. Because society doesn't normally promote sociopathy. If you took something good from it and didn't come out admiring the objectivist view, good for you, you're the rare exception, but the fact is nearly everyone I've ever met who likes that book likes it because they like the objectivist view and all think they're the John Gaults of the word. Rand makes them feel good about their complete lack of empathy and this book is an excellent thermometer for me to quickly avoid wasting time getting to know people I'm very likely not going to get along with anyway.