The worst book you've ever read
Gary Thorn
Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
disbelief at how awful they are.
I'd say the worst I've ever read was Richard Brautigan's "The Hawkline
Monster." Amateurish, dull and pointless. A total shame, because I love
Brautigan. (I've heard Brautigan's "Willard and His Bowling Trophies" is
even worse, but I haven't read it.)
--gt
km...@top.monad.net
> ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn) writes:
> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
> read (or tried to read).
>>>>
became famous. All the while I kept waiting for the spin on all the obvious and trite
material, and it just never came. It just really is that stupid.
William Grosso
> ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn) writes:
>
> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book
> you've ever read (or tried to read).
_Lolita_ by Vladimir Nabokov. Talk about your dreary,
pallid imitations of life. Henry Miller covered this
area and, imho, did it much better.
Cheers,
Andy
Silke-Maria Weineck
Andy, my dear, you're joking, please? You're trying to get somebody's
goat, yes?
I nominate "American Psycho" for worst torture scenes.
Silke
William Grosso
(apul...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
Laura A. Miller
Great idea -I'll say first off that you can learn as much (or
more about writing and reading through bad books as through great ones).
My nominee is "Lizzie Borden" by Arnold R. Brown. It theorized that
Lizzie Borden didn't kill her parents and the way the book "proved" its
point was through saying constantly "now if we theorize that Lizzie ISN"T
the killer, then....". It was like reading propaganda, the way Brown
ignored anything against Lizzie Borden and jumped on tiny details to
prove his point. The book was even listed as non-fiction. In addition,
the author took the most condescending tone I have ever seen. He used
the word "we" more often than any writer since the eighteenth century.
It was fascinating, but simply awful. He kept referring to the
characters in strangely chummy ways. I loved reading this book just
because it was so darned awful and unrealistic. Also, the author
included pictures of Abby's dead parents. horrible. My "favorite" part
was when brown says "Lizzie Borden took an axe/Gave her mother forty
whacks" and then "scientifically" disproves this by saying the woman is
Lizzie's STEPmother and that the number of whacks is inaccurate. I
laughed at this "journalism". It's a verse, not testimony! worth
reading if you love bad books. They don't come any worse. -Laura
patty paton
In <4p25i7$p...@mark.ucdavis.edu> ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn)
writes:
>
>Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
boring;
>others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
>disbelief at how awful they are.
>
No contest..."I'm with the Band" by Pamela Des barres
The BOOK?? begins in the voice of a giggly 15 year old and amazingly
enough, never changes. The woman drivvles on and on in a paroxym of
self-aggrandizement. It reaches a peak during the passages where she,
under the wing of Frank Zappa forms the group GTO (girls together
outrageously) and doesn't ever catch on that it's a all a joke. SATIRE
ms. Des Barres. The worst part o all of his is that there is now a
sequel. This opf course will not stop me from going to see her in store
appearance in the SF area later next month. I'm in awe of shallow
icons.
Richard H Clancey
Whatever it was I tried to read by Henry Miller. In 1968 he
was being pushed as one of the Literary Titans whose work was being
supressed by The Establishment because the Nixons of the world did not
know Greatness when they stumbled on it. The book, probably one of
the *EXUS series, appeared to deal exclusively with a randy old man
who liked degrading sexual encounters with young high society ladies
in the stairwells of fancy hotels.
I was working in a bookstore at the time, and probably took a
peek at all of his books, and noted a certain similarity of theme
running through them.
irina.bondarenko
In article <4p2s6d$1...@news.monad.net>, <km...@top.monad.net> wrote:
>> ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn) writes:
>> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
>> read (or tried to read).
>>>>>
>became famous. All the while I kept waiting for the spin on all the obvious and trite
>material, and it just never came. It just really is that stupid.
>
Oh yes.
Francis Muir
Andy Grosso writes:
LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov. Talk about your dreary, pallid
imitations of life. Henry Miller covered this area and, imho,
did it much better.
If "this area" is the code phrase I take it to be, then surely Miller
left it uncovered?
Philomath
Susan Lewis
>>>>>
>The Bridges of Madison County is certainly a front-runner for me. I read it before it
>became famous. All the while I kept waiting for the spin on all the obvious and trite
>material, and it just never came. It just really is that stupid.
I've just tried to forget I ever wasted my time with that one. I have yet to
understand the appeal of that story to anyone. Seems to be one of those books
that's like Howard Cosell - you either love it or hate it.
***********************
Susan V. Lewis
le...@abn.unt.edu
***********************
Jael McHenry
irina.bondarenko (ir...@cbnews.cb.att.com) wrote:
: In article <4p2s6d$1...@news.monad.net>, <km...@top.monad.net> wrote:
: >> ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn) writes:
: >> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
: >> read (or tried to read).
: >The Bridges of Madison County is certainly a front-runner for me. I read it before it
: >material, and it just never came. It just really is that stupid.
: Oh yes.
I third this one.
Martin Amis' _The Information_ also causes me mental pain, as does that
much-loved high school lit classic, _A Separate Peace_.
This is a fun thread. More contributions! More!
Jael
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I got a twenty-dollar gold piece says there's nothing I can't do
I can make a dress out 'a feedbags and I can make a man out 'a you..."
-- Peggy Lee, "I'm a Woman"
Estelle Souche
Among the worst books coming to my mind:
-some dagger and cloak books of Paul Feval fils, which
were more or less sequels to his father's books, but
really really worse (but I was so stupid and exaggerated
it almost became fun reading...)
-Montherlant's "Les Jeunes Filles".
ES
Doug Turnbull
In article <4p25i7$p...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary
Thorn) wrote:
> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
> read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
> others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
> disbelief at how awful they are.
>
There are two SF books that rank at the top of my all time worst list.
The first is _The Number of the Beast_ by Heinlein. One of the main
techniques of this book was to communicate women's emotional state by
describing the hardness of their nipples. (I'm not kidding. I think one
phrase used was "little pink spigots," but my memory is thankfully hazy.)
The book also lacks anything resembling a plot. This removes the pesky need
for a resolution, so Heinlein just ends the book at a random point.
The other one is _Starburst_ by Pohl. In this classic, we find out
that if you send a group of really smart people off in a spaceship, they
will develop phenomenal mental powers, destroy the earth, and set up their
own utopia, which involves growing human babies in plants and other
wondrous advances.
Doug Turnbull
Jeff Solomon
Andy,
>_Lolita_ by Vladimir Nabokov. Talk about your dreary,
>pallid imitations of life. Henry Miller covered this
>area and, imho, did it much better.
That's an interesting comparison. Which work by Miller do you
believe resembles _Lolita_?
jeff
davemarc
Themes do run through Miller's books, but if you mean the theme of "a
randy old man who liked degrading sexual encounters with young high
society ladies in the stairwells of fancy hotels," you may well be
thinking of another author. I don't think any of his books contain
any such instances. Furthermore, most of Miller's books feature little
or none of the raw sex and "frank language" that became associated with
him as a result of the censorship of his books for decades, beginning in
the Thirties.
davemarc
the Robot Vegetable
Gary Thorn (ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu) wrote:
: Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
: read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're
: boring;
: others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
: disbelief at how awful they are.
_The Rainbow Trail_ by Zane Grey leapt to mind as I read this.
It is the sequel to _The Riders Of The Purple Sage_ and I found it
to be tedious, boring, and predictable. _TROTPS_ is excellent.
veg
Randal Morris
Hmmm...let's see.
_The Talisman_ by Stephen King...Ugh.
_The Difference Engine_by William Gibson and Bruce Sterling
I Like this topic, also. Keep it going.
Ranman
Jennifer Bales
> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
> read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
> others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
> disbelief at how awful they are.
The Firm. I kind of liked the movie though.
Sincerely,
Jennifer
Mario Taboada
For me, it's a tie between Julia Kristeva's "Black Sun" and Dinesh
D'Souza's "The End of Racism". However, I found them bad for very
different reasons. Kristeva's book struck me as a tightly packed
collection of drivel, completely unbearable; Dinesh's pamphlet I
found just plain revolting, insidious, and fascistic.
As regards fiction, I have not encountered a really bad book for a
long time; re-reading D.H. Lawrence, however, I was amazed to realize
that what I had assumed to be strengths 15 years ago now seem mere
mannerisms. This was more noticeable in the novels than in the short
stories, most of which hold up very well. "The woman who rode away" is
terrific.
Regards,
--
Mario Taboada
* Department of Mathematics * University of Southern California * Los Angeles
e-mail: tab...@mtha.usc.edu
Kathryn Lively
>> read (or tried to read).
>>>>>
That would have to be "Flavor of the Month" by Olivia Goldsmith. I only
read it because I liked her first book "The First Wives Club" and thought
perhaps "Flavor" would have the same wry humor and characterization. Big
mistake! "Flavor" makes "Valley of the Dolls" look like Pulitzer material.
K--
William Grosso
In <4p4jem$e...@mizar.usc.edu> jsol...@mizar.usc.edu (Jeff Solomon)
writes:
Well, I was thinking more of the movie scripts Miller
wrote (pseudonymously, during the McCarthy era). In
particular: both _Summer Stock_ and _Shane_.
Cheers,
Andy
zed
ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn) wrote:
>Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
>read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
>others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
>disbelief at how awful they are.
This thread comes up every minute or so, and, since no one's mentioned
the periodic winner yet, let me.
_Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand is the worst book I have ever read.
Lobotomized monkeys could write better than this. It is below most
pornography and sweepstakes descriptions, below junk mail and below
even _The Eye of Argon_.
----
one man on a lonely platform one case sitting by his side
two eyes staring cold and silent showing fear as he turns to
hide we fade to grey feel the rain like an english summer hear
the notes from a distant song stepping out from a backdrop
postcard wishing life wouldn't be so long
whilma boyce
On 4 Jun 1996 20:16:07 GMT, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn)
wrote:
>Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
>read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
>others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
>disbelief at how awful they are.
>
I hesitate to claim it as the worst book I've *ever* read, because my
memory isn't up to scratch, but 'Complicity' by Iain Banks must rate
as one of the most disappointing and distasteful novels I've read in
years.
Disappointing because I've been a fan of Banks for many years and I
read Complicity straight after Crow Road which I very much enjoyed. I
wouldn't want to spoil the plot for anyone, but it does involve
utterly disgusting - deliberately obscene and gratuitous - ways of
killing people - I thought after a bit that the book seemed to have
been written with a future screenplay in mind and it would require
the services of a Tarantino-style gore-master to get it on film.
--
will
Randal Morris
Jennifer Bales wrote:
> The Firm. I kind of liked the movie though.
>
> Sincerely,
> Jennifer
Ugh... I agree. _The Pelican Brief_ was bad as well.
I also forgot to mention _Hideaway_ by Dean Koontz(?), did not wish to
see the movie version of this one. Oh, and _Nightflight_(?) by Stephen
Coonts(?). Why I picked these books up was beyond me.
Ranman.
Sandra Loosemore
z...@airmail.net (zed) writes:
_Atlas Shrugged_, by Ayn Rand is the worst book I have ever read.
Lobotomized monkeys could write better than this. It is below most
pornography and sweepstakes descriptions, below junk mail and below
even _The Eye of Argon_.
Lobotomized monkeys, huh? You know, as much as I dislike the Randroid
propaganda that crop up on this newsgroup from time to time, I'm
convinced that the ravings of the anti-Randroids are even more
obnoxious. :-) The fact that this novel can incite such strong
opinions on either side says something to me about the power of its
writing. If it really *were* complete trash, why would people get so
worked up about it?
(Personally, I enjoyed it, thought some of the plot twists were
cleverly conceived and handled, and found some of the
characterizations compelling and even inspiring, but at the same time
I recognize that the book is quite flawed both as a work of fiction
and as a philosophical statement.)
-Sandra the cynic
whatever
In article <d-turnb-05...@obiwan.ccsm.uiuc.edu>,
d-t...@students.uiuc.edu says...
>
>In article <4p25i7$p...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu
>Thorn) wrote:
>
>> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've
ever
>> read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because
they're boring;
>> others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading
in
>> disbelief at how awful they are.
>>
>
i had to read this crap for a satire class at univ of texas and i
think the satire was the teacher's for making us wade through this
garbage. it was really aweful! other candidates (distantly behind) are
Moby Dick and Heart of Darkness (the latter i noticed was on someone's
best of all time top 5).
Grant Robinson
In article <31B6F5...@utmb.edu>,
Seconded. Had I not been trapped on a plane with this book, it
never would have even made it as far as my "worst book ever read."
Lowlights: When a sleazy reporter attempts to bed the protagonist,
5 days after seeing her lover blown to bits, and on the run for her
life, she apologizes to him: "I don't think I'm ready just yet" or
some such tripe.
Going out on a limb, a book which sees many hearty recommendations but
that I would never recommend to a friend is "The Alienist" by C. Carr.
Not a worst book ever read, but I found it average at best, insipid
at worst.
Cheers,
--
Grant Robinson, VP of Sales
BATS, Inc.
http://www.bats.com
408.743-9702 gr...@bats.com
Bill Murray
"Thinner" Stephen King writing as Richard Bachman
Bill "Not the comedian" Murray
bmu...@voicenet.com
Visit "Hard Boiled" at http://www.voicenet.com/~bmurray/index.html
Just 'cause you're paranoid, it doesn't mean they ain't out to get ya!
DHCano
All the way through to the end? Atlas Shrugged. Long ago when I was
young I heard it spoken of so admiringly that I read through the whole
thing ("there must be a pony in here somewhere", said the optimist locked
in the roomful of horseshit) looking for the reason for the admiration.
Valuable experience. Never again have I felt obliged to finish a piece of
poor writing/poor thinking because it received much public notice. The
rest of the 'worst books' are the ones I didn't read...for long.
DC
Christopher J. Henrich
> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
> read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
> others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
> disbelief at how awful they are.
>
I've read some awful rubbish in my time, but I think the worst of all was a
short book titled something like _Tolkien, A Look Behing The Lord of the Rings_.
It was published about 1970, and the author's name sticks in my craw^H^H^H^H
memory as Reedy. Pompous, full of fatuous generalizations, and insufferably
condescending (to Tolkien! And almost more so to C. S. Lewis and Charles
Williams).
--
Christopher J. Henrich
chen...@monmouth.com
Jeanne Ewert
In article <4p742e$e...@ka.worldbank.org>,
bc...@worldbank.org (whatever) wrote:
> without a doubt The Ordeal of Richard Feveral (sp) by George Meredith!
> i had to read this crap for a satire class at univ of texas and i
> think the satire was the teacher's for making us wade through this
> garbage. it was really aweful! other candidates (distantly behind) are
> Moby Dick and Heart of Darkness (the latter i noticed was on someone's
> best of all time top 5).
Having included _Moby Dick_ and _HD_ on your worst list, you make me
seriously doubt your assessment of Meredith, also. I'll have to go find a
copy now.
Cheers!
Jeanne
-------------------
Jeanne Ewert
jew...@netdepot.com
Steve Brewster
whilma boyce (wi...@whilma.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: I hesitate to claim it as the worst book I've *ever* read, because my
: memory isn't up to scratch, but 'Complicity' by Iain Banks must rate
: as one of the most disappointing and distasteful novels I've read in
: years.
Well, you're not alone in that opinion, though for what it's worth
I don't agree (I thought _Complicity_ was one of the most authentically
frightening books I'd ever read; not on account of the gory bits,
but on account of its depicition of the slow destruction of a man's
world. The gore was probably overdone, and it distracts from the
moral core of the book.)
_Whit_ was rather disappointing, with an uncaptivating narrator and
precious little to laugh at.
Hmm, seem to have gone off-topic here. Err, how about _The Fourth
Protocol_ by Fredrick Forsyth? Very stupid plot - Soviets plan to
explode a small nuclear device near a USAF base in southern England
(making it look like a small American nuke has gone off by accident)
during the 1987 general election campaign, and hence create a wave
of anti-American feeling which will result in a landslide victory
for the Labour party, hence enabling the secret Communist core of
the Labour party to overthrow their dim and guileless front-man
Neil Kinnock, seize Britain and nationalize all the newspapers,
kill the Queen, etc. etc. etc.
This is reputed to be the only book Margaret Thatcher read during her
11 years in office. Figures.
--
<Steve.B...@Bristol.ac.uk> ... http://zeus.Bristol.ac.uk/~masjb
It's either real or it's a dream; there's nothing that is inbetween.
Michael Carley
ma...@zeus.bris.ac.uk (Steve Brewster) writes:
>Hmm, seem to have gone off-topic here. Err, how about _The Fourth
>Protocol_ by Fredrick Forsyth? Very stupid plot - Soviets plan to
>explode a small nuclear device near a USAF base in southern England
>(making it look like a small American nuke has gone off by accident)
>during the 1987 general election campaign, and hence create a wave
>of anti-American feeling which will result in a landslide victory
>for the Labour party, hence enabling the secret Communist core of
>the Labour party to overthrow their dim and guileless front-man
>Neil Kinnock, seize Britain and nationalize all the newspapers,
>kill the Queen, etc. etc. etc.
How about Henry Kissinger's `Diplomacy'? Probably the
worst book I haven't read. I opened it at random, found
someone described as `not sufficiently strong enough'
and decided life was too short to waste time on illiterate
thugs. Then again, maybe Mrs T.'s memoirs are the worst
books I haven't read.
--
"You got your highbrow funk, you got your lowbrow funk, you even
got a little bit of your pee-wee, pow-wow funk" (Dr. John)
Michael Carley, Mech. Eng., TCD, IRELAND. m.ca...@leoleo.mme.tcd.ie
<A HREF="http://www.mme.tcd.ie/~m.carley/Welcome.html">Home page</A>
Littledan2
What a great thread!
2 boks I really hated:
Tommyknockers - Stephen King. This book knocked me off of my King phase
in middle school and early high school. 400 pages of digging at a UFO.
digging digging digging. People turn weird... diggin digging digging.
Fly away in the ufo. Horrible. And while I'm on King, the Stand was so
well written- real characters well developed, interesting plot. Until the
end when THE HAND OF GOD kills the bad guys off with a nuke. Weak, weak
ending.
Lord Of The Flies - William Golding. This book may be great, but I hated
the point he was making that we'd become a pack of animals killing off the
weak. And my high school teacher tried too much stupid symbolism: Piggy's
pink brain on the rocks stands for...
Dan
Francis Muir
Jeanne Ewart writes:
Whatever writes:
without a doubt THE ORDEAL OF RICHARD FEVEREL (sp) by
George Meredith! i had to read this crap for a satire
class at univ of texas and i think the satire was the
teacher's for making us wade through this garbage. it
was really aweful! other candidates (distantly behind)
are Moby Dick and Heart of Darkness (the latter i noticed
was on someone's best of all time top 5).
Having included MOBY DICK and HD on your worst list, you make me
seriously doubt your assessment of Meredith, also. I'll have to go
find a copy now.
Cheers!
And Cheers! to you. I suppose it should not matter that Meredith was a
dyspeptic screw-up whose chief claim to permanent fame is that he modeled
Chatterton in the painting THE DEATH OF CHATTERTON while the artist was
making a cuckold of him. Oh well, just wanted to get that off my chest.
Philomath
The Laughing Madcap
Only coming through in waves, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn)
wrote:
>
>> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
>> read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
>> others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
>> disbelief at how awful they are.
This one should be of no surprise to many people in the newsgroup:
Joseph Heller's Something Happened
The worst essay I ever read was Kurt Vonnegut's book review of his
best friend Joseph Heller's Something Happened.
___________________________________________
http://www.cswnet.com/~twebb/cafewest.htm
___________________________________________
The Woody Allen FAQ:
http://www.cswnet.com/~twebb/woodyfaq.htm
___________________________________________
If you'd like to receive The Paleontologist
(a quarterly Classic Rock newsletter)
free via e-mail, send me a message. Back
issues are available at
http://www.cswnet.com/~twebb/clasrock.htm
___________________________________________
Colin Rosenthal
On Thu, 06 Jun 1996 20:16:05 -0400, Christopher J. Henrich <chen...@monmouth.com> wrote:
>In article <4p25i7$p...@mark.ucdavis.edu>, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary
>Thorn) wrote:
>
>> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
>> read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
>> others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
>> disbelief at how awful they are.
>>
>short book titled something like _Tolkien, A Look Behing The Lord of the Rings_.
>It was published about 1970, and the author's name sticks in my craw^H^H^H^H
>memory as Reedy. Pompous, full of fatuous generalizations, and insufferably
>condescending (to Tolkien! And almost more so to C. S. Lewis and Charles
>Williams).
William Ready, I think. Tolkien _really_ hated this book.
My vote goes to Peter Ackroyd's "The House of Doctor Dee" - just
worthless drivel that promises to go somewhere and
ends up going nowhere. Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast" is, of
course, the worst book ever written, but since I didn't finish it it
doesn't quite qualify under this heading.
--
--Colin Rosenthal | ``Don't smell the flowers -
--rose...@obs.aau.dk | They're an evil drug -
--http://www.obs.aau.dk/~rosentha | To make you lose your mind''-
--Aarhus University, Denmark | Ronnie James Dio, 1983 -
Arthur Wohlwill
In article <4p9aev$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> littl...@aol.com (Littledan2) writes:
>From: littl...@aol.com (Littledan2)
>Subject: Re: The worst book you've ever read
>Date: 7 Jun 1996 09:22:39 -0400
>What a great thread!
>Tommyknockers - Stephen King. This book knocked me off of my King phase
>in middle school and early high school. 400 pages of digging at a UFO.
>digging digging digging. People turn weird... diggin digging digging.
>Fly away in the ufo. Horrible. And while I'm on King, the Stand was so
>well written- real characters well developed, interesting plot. Until the
>end when THE HAND OF GOD kills the bad guys off with a nuke. Weak, weak
>ending.
While we are on Stephen King, I thought "IT" was incredibly stupid. Plus, it
was more than twice as long as "Tommyknockers". I have liked some Stephen
King i.e Salem's Lot, the Stand (way too long though) and short stories like
"The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption."
I once read something by Robin Cook that was really, really badly
written--cant remember the title though.
Arthur Wohlwill Adwo...@UIC.EDU
--
bob storti
University of Illinois at Chicago
E-Mail: rvst...@uic.edu
tw...@cswnet.com
Only coming through in waves, dhc...@aol.com (DHCano) wrote:
>All the way through to the end? Atlas Shrugged. Long ago when I was
>young I heard it spoken of so admiringly that I read through the whole
>thing ("there must be a pony in here somewhere", said the optimist locked
>in the roomful of horseshit) looking for the reason for the admiration.
Don't judge all of Rand's books by that one experience. I'm a fan and
have read all of her novels and plays, but I didn't really get into
Atlas. Try Anthem and The Fountainhead (in that order) followed by We
the Living and you'll see that Rand could write good fiction. Her
heroes are still role models in my life, though they are rather
impossible to measure up to.
Scott Promish
In article <31B617...@utmb.edu>, randal...@utmb.edu says...
>
>Hmmm...let's see.
>
>_The Talisman_ by Stephen King...Ugh.
Kind of suprised to see this, since it's a lot of people's favourite, but I
agree. The only King novel I didn't like at all.
Jeremy Dombroski
In <31b8e6a8...@ksts.seed.net.tw> tw...@cswnet.com writes:
>
>Only coming through in waves, dhc...@aol.com (DHCano) wrote:
>
>>All the way through to the end? Atlas Shrugged. Long ago when I was
>>young I heard it spoken of so admiringly that I read through the
whole
>>thing ("there must be a pony in here somewhere", said the optimist
locked
>>in the roomful of horseshit) looking for the reason for the
admiration.
>
>Don't judge all of Rand's books by that one experience. I'm a fan and
>have read all of her novels and plays, but I didn't really get into
>Atlas. Try Anthem and The Fountainhead (in that order) followed by We
>the Living and you'll see that Rand could write good fiction. Her
>heroes are still role models in my life, though they are rather
>impossible to measure up to.
Impossible? What characteristic of which character is impossible to
measure up to? The level of economic success? The living by one's
principles? The confidence in thought and action? Or all these at
once? If you think it impossible to one day achieve like success of
the role models you admire, why bother? Why would men bother to get to
the moon, if they thought it impossible? Seems to me like spending
your life trying to achieve something you believe to be impossible to
attain is a waste your time.
If you don't think that such noble characteristics are possible in man,
why strive for them?
-Jeremy
Sibyl
It was called something like "The Roaches Have No King." I can't
remember exactly because I was so mad that I actually read the whole
thing that I threw it away (I don't think I've ever thrown a book away
before).
this book was told from the point of view of a roach who liked to have
sex with women (yes, human women, not female roaches) while they were
sleeping.
it was recommended by the staff at Powell's in Portland, so I kept
reading it, thinking that I just didn't get it and it was probably a
brilliant work of satire and that eventually a lightbulb would go on
over my head and I would be amused.
By the end of the book, I realized it was just a disgusting piece of
trash.
William Grosso
In <4parf5$9...@sjx-ixn3.ix.netcom.com> si...@ix.netcom.com(Sibyl)
writes:
>It was called something like "The Roaches Have No King." I can't
>remember exactly because I was so mad that I actually read the whole
>thing that I threw it away (I don't think I've ever thrown a book away
>before).
>this book was told from the point of view of a roach who liked to have
>sex with women (yes, human women, not female roaches) while they were
>sleeping.
For the record, Sibyl completely misread the book in question.
Not once did the narrator have sex with a sleeping female
(of any species).
Most of the comments about human females and sexuality were
made from the perspective of the cockroach. E.g. the roach
noted one female's ample haunch, prottective padding, and
enlarged egg-laying area and wondered why she wasn't
attractive to human males (especially since the woman was an
above-average pheremone emitter).
_The Roaches Have No King_ wasn't a great book (I certainly
didn't like it much), but it did not indulge in graphic
descriptions of insect-human mating...
Cheers,
Andy
Carole424
"Venus" Envy by Rita Mae Brown.
Lesbian comes out of the closet with help from the goddess Venus and her
pals.
Jeanne Ewert
In article <4p9hvq$7...@morrow.stanford.edu>,
fra...@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Francis Muir) wrote:
Certainly it should matter. It makes it even more offensive that "whatever"
lumped Melville and Conrad into the same category.
-------------------
Jeanne Ewert
jew...@netdepot.com
James P. DeRossitt IV
One of the worst classics I've ever read is Lawrence's Sons and Lovers.
The writing is simply awful, from page one, though I know that Lawrence
was only twenty-six when he wrote it.
whilma boyce (wi...@whilma.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: On 4 Jun 1996 20:16:07 GMT, ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn)
: wrote:
: >Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
: >read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
: >others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
: >disbelief at how awful they are.
: >
: I hesitate to claim it as the worst book I've *ever* read, because my
: memory isn't up to scratch, but 'Complicity' by Iain Banks must rate
: as one of the most disappointing and distasteful novels I've read in
: years.
: Disappointing because I've been a fan of Banks for many years and I
T.M. Scheeler
In article <4pb612$j...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, dr...@ix.netcom.com (Jeremy Dombroski ) wrote:
{snip: writing of Rand's characters]
>Impossible? What characteristic of which character is impossible to
>measure up to? The level of economic success? The living by one's
>principles? The confidence in thought and action? Or all these at
>once? If you think it impossible to one day achieve like success of
>the role models you admire, why bother? Why would men bother to get to
>the moon, if they thought it impossible? Seems to me like spending
>your life trying to achieve something you believe to be impossible to
>attain is a waste your time.
>
>If you don't think that such noble characteristics are possible in man,
>why strive for them?
>
"If you don't think you can, your can't"
Tom
Mary D. Brown
ez04...@dale.ucdavis.edu (Gary Thorn) wrote:
>Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
>read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
>others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
>disbelief at how awful they are.
For me it was "Geek Love," the only book I can remember in my entire
life not finishing. However, I've also seen "Geek Love" included on
someone's list of favorite books, so it just goes to show:
de gustibus non est disputandum
Mary D. Brown
Michael J. Hollerich
Little Dan 2> What a great thread! Tommyknockers - Stephen King. This
Dan> book knocked me off of my King phase in middle school and early
Dan> high school. 400 pages of digging at a UFO. digging digging
Dan> digging. People turn weird... diggin digging digging. Fly away
Dan> in the ufo. Horrible. And while I'm on King, the Stand was so
Dan> well written- real characters well developed, interesting plot.
Dan> Until the end when THE HAND OF GOD kills the bad guys off with a
Dan> nuke. Weak, weak ending.
Arthur Wohlwill> While we are on Stephen King, I thought "IT" was
Arthur> incredibly stupid. Plus, it was more than twice as long as
Arthur> "Tommyknockers". I have liked some Stephen King i.e Salem's
Arthur> Lot, the Stand (way too long though) and short stories like
Arthur> "The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption."
I read "Thinner" and "The Running Man" by Stephen King. I thought
that "Thinner" was rather dull, and had a lame ending. "Running Man,"
on the other hand, was witty and delightful. I thought the end was
pretty cool -- he flies the plane straight into the building, blowing a
big ol' chunk of it off.
The worst book I ever read, though, was Larry Niven's
"Crashlander." I enjoyed the concepts in "Neutron Star" and "At the
Core," but all the rest of the stories bit! Page after page I
discovered a new kind of torture, each one more boring than the last!!
I definitely do NOT recommend this book unless you want something to
put you to sleep.
Will
bl...@vnet.ibm.com
In <U55850.18...@uic.edu>, U55...@uic.edu (Arthur Wohlwill) writes:
>In article <4p9aev$1...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> littl...@aol.com (Littledan2) writes:
>>From: littl...@aol.com (Littledan2)
>>Subject: Re: The worst book you've ever read
>>Date: 7 Jun 1996 09:22:39 -0400
>
>>What a great thread!
>
Now, this entry _could_ be biased by the fact that I was sixteen
when I read this book, and it _could_ also be biased by the fact
that I had to read it for an English class (IMO books are always more
difficult when you're being forced to read them). Anyway, the
book in question is Melville's _Billy Budd_. My friend and I thought
it was so bad that we started writing, believing we could do better.
Brian
barrym
Jeremy Dombroski (dr...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: Impossible? What characteristic of which character is impossible to
: measure up to? The level of economic success? The living by one's
: principles? The confidence in thought and action? Or all these at
: once? If you think it impossible to one day achieve like success of
: the role models you admire, why bother? Why would men bother to get to
: the moon, if they thought it impossible? Seems to me like spending
: your life trying to achieve something you believe to be impossible to
: attain is a waste your time.
All of the above. As for going to the moon, do you really think it was
just to get to the moon? Wasn't it really just the start of a larger
trip? A trip that science says can never be completed. I don't say that,
science does.
: If you don't think that such noble characteristics are possible in man,
: why strive for them?
Why bother to only strive for goals you know you can achieve? This
sounds boring and self limiting to me.
Barry
Littledan2
Thought of another worst novel:
Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe. Painful reading -no character names, no
chapter breaks leads to incessant blabbering about a whore...
Dan
Tom
Poem recalled from my childhood, author unknown, grammatical lapses in
the original:
As I was laying on the green,
A small English book I seen.
Carlyle's Essay on Burns was the edition,
So I left it lay in the same position.
--
--t...@panix.com | Hey, I'm as much of a nonconformist
http://www.panix.com/~twp | as the next guy....
| --Mike Hess
Jennifer Halla
In the postings I've read, no one mentions the obvious choice of anything
by Jackie Collins. "Rock Star" was particularly heinous.
A book I just hated reading was "Heart of Darkness" (sorry Conrad fans).
I just could never muster any feeling other than contempt for the main
character which made it difficult to read.
Jen
paul ilechko
si...@ix.netcom.com(Sibyl) wrote:
#>It was called something like "The Roaches Have No King." I can't
#>remember exactly because I was so mad that I actually read the whole
#>thing that I threw it away (I don't think I've ever thrown a book away
#>before).
#>this book was told from the point of view of a roach who liked to have
#>sex with women (yes, human women, not female roaches) while they were
#>sleeping.
#>it was recommended by the staff at Powell's in Portland, so I kept
#>reading it, thinking that I just didn't get it and it was probably a
#>brilliant work of satire and that eventually a lightbulb would go on
#>over my head and I would be amused.
#>By the end of the book, I realized it was just a disgusting piece of
#>trash.
hmm, I enjoyed that book - BTW, you misrepresent the contents of the
book drastically - what you imply is the main thrust of the book is
actually a single isolated instance, and is quite funny, rather than
disgusting.
The worst book I read recently was Smilla's Sense of Snow, by some
blond aryan or other. Now that is an offensive book, because the prose
is manipulative at or beyond the level of a chrichton/king, but the
book is disguised as "literary". Dont be fooled.
Paul.
This story is fiction, not a report. It describes a reality
which is not necessarily that of the reader's own experience...
Ken MacIver
pa...@superlink.net (paul ilechko) wrote:
>The worst book I read recently was Smilla's Sense of Snow, by some
>blond aryan or other. Now that is an offensive book, because the prose
>is manipulative at or beyond the level of a chrichton/king, but the
>book is disguised as "literary". Dont be fooled.
>Paul.
My neighbor, whose judgment & taste I respect, lent me Smilla last
year & I spent all winter trying to read it, finally conceding that I
just didnt' like it after wading through several hundred pages.
Ken
Joe Varo
Arthur Wohlwill (U55...@uic.edu) wrote:
: While we are on Stephen King, I thought "IT" was incredibly stupid. Plus,
: it was more than twice as long as "Tommyknockers". I have liked some
: Stephen King i.e Salem's Lot, the Stand (way too long though) and short
: stories like "The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption."
Actually, I kind of liked _IT_ ..... up until he got to the pre-pubescent
gang-bang in the sewers.....completely gratuitous and poorly written, IMO.
Joe Varo
Here's my entry: _A Severe Mercy_ by Sheldon VanAucken [sp?]. I had to
read it in college for an advanced comp course taught by a born-again
christian. It was truly awful.
I also really despised _The Scarlet Letter_, _The Red Badge of Courage_,
and _The Old Man and the Sea_.
Mark D. Filiatreau
WORST: Daughter of Earth by Agnes Smedley. Pure propaganda;
disingenuousness; required by professor of required class. Bound for Glory by
Woody Guthrie showed the gray underbelly of impoverished AMerica with much
more integrity.
Gerry Clough
tw...@cswnet.com wrote:
>Only coming through in waves, dhc...@aol.com (DHCano) wrote:
>>All the way through to the end? Atlas Shrugged. Long ago when I was
>>young I heard it spoken of so admiringly that I read through the whole
>>thing ("there must be a pony in here somewhere", said the optimist locked
>>in the roomful of horseshit) looking for the reason for the admiration.
>Don't judge all of Rand's books by that one experience. I'm a fan and
>have read all of her novels and plays, but I didn't really get into
>Atlas. Try Anthem and The Fountainhead (in that order) followed by We
>the Living and you'll see that Rand could write good fiction. Her
>heroes are still role models in my life, though they are rather
>impossible to measure up to.
Actually, "Atlas" is wonderful for those with the attention span and
intelligence to persevere
Ted Samsel
THE ATLANTIC ABOMINATION by John Brunner.
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net *1996* Year of the Accordion~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Home of the brave, land of the free,
I don't want to be mistreated by no bourgoisie."
AAFOUF# 0000003 Huddie Ledbetter
Kendall Clark
In article <4pilgt$4...@crl8.crl.com>, paro...@crl.com says...
Worst 'classic': Richardson's _Clarissa_
Worst contemporary scholarly work: Elaine Pagel's _Adam, Eve, and the
Serpent_
Worst contemporary non-fiction: anything by the twit who wrote _Men are from
Mars, Women..._
Worst book by the wife of a U.S. President: H. Clinton, _It takes a Village_
--kendall g. clark
Southern Methodist University
Ted Samsel
Littledan2 (littl...@aol.com) wrote:
: Thought of another worst novel:
: Moll Flanders by Daniel Defoe. Painful reading -no character names, no
: chapter breaks leads to incessant blabbering about a whore...
Back when whores were more interesting?
Steve Reed
ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) writes:
>The simple fact is that Atlas Shrugged is a touchstone of the soul (in a
>realistic sense, the "essence" of one's personality and consciousness, not in
>any religious sense.) I think that the degree that one recognizes greatness
>(to whatever extent it exists in oneself or to the extent that one admires it
>in others) is the extent that one loves Atlas.
This becomes idolatry of a book. Applying the concept of "love" to a work of
art, however worthy, is misplaced. Love is a matter of volition and personal
qualities. These cannot be taken up by any re-creation of reality. You must go
to the actual reality to experience it fully.
One could certainly "love" the personal abilities of judgment and reasoning,
or the emotions affirming life and achievement, that a book like "AS" can
create. But one finds those qualities embedded in one's own spirit or in the
personalities of others that one sees as worthwhile.
If Oliver is saying that those who recognize greatness must respond positively
to "AS" as a work of art, that isn't the case. Esthetic response and sense of
life are shaped by many decisions and parts of one's background. I've known of
several people, all creators and achievers, whose preferences in fiction ran
to widely different styles from that of Rand's romantic realism. They couldn't
comprehend what I saw in Rand's books, not necessarily because they disliked
it (though a couple of them did), but because it didn't fit with the styles
and motives of fiction that they'd been used to. Most of them who gave a
second try to "AS" found they appreciated its artistry and characterization,
though I wouldn't say any "loved" it.
Even those who admire Rand's work with deep passion may not "love" this novel.
I see it, in its integration of story lines, far more complex and successful a
juggling act than was "The Fountainhead" ... but that doesn't make it more
powerful. The storytelling in "TF" came back to center upon the compelling
image of Howard Roark at every notable turn. This was diffused among four
characters in "AS": Dagny, Francisco, Hank, and (belatedly) John. Rand's focus
on even one of these characters is worth more than what hundreds of novelists
do with an entire book -- but even with that, the story is pulled, for me, in
one too many directions by the time one finishes 1,100 pages.
Does this mean I don't admire "AS"? On the contrary. It's a superbly fashioned
narrative in its own right. It portrays one of the richest and most subtle
emotional lives of a female character (Dagny Taggart) in art history. But it
doesn't match, in narrative power of concentration and subtle variations on a
character's theme, any of these books -- my own five favorites, in order:
1 "The Fountainhead," Ayn Rand
2 "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress," Robert Heinlein
3 "This Perfect Day," Ira Levin
4 "The Choiring of the Trees," Donald Harington
5 "The Rainbow Cadenza," J. Neil Schulman
"AS" is number six. Its virtues of plot-theme and character integration are
light years ahead of other novels -- but these five, for me, are simply, and
complexly, better told stories.
Art, as Rand dissected it for us, is a philosophical composite. It doesn't
become a tract, nor can it be created in disregard of the world's truth. But
it does take up both reality and one's reaction to reality in its creation,
and draws on both factors in the person who appraises it. And one part of this
balance may be more subtlely and clearly fashioned than the other.
To dismiss anyone who doesn't "obviously" see the virtues of a work of art is
perilously akin to the current orthodox Objectivist emphasis on "inherently
dishonest ideas." Moral status isn't transparent in what conceptual chains one
has created. Neither is it self-evident in the titles of the books sitting on
one's night stand.
§ § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § § §
Steve Reed ... jsr...@interaccess.com
Piece of Sky Consulting, Chicago
Windows assistance and fine type crafting
Phil Oliver
In article <4pb612$j...@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>, dr...@ix.netcom.com (Jeremy Dombroski ) wrote:
>Impossible? What characteristic of which character is impossible to
>measure up to? The level of economic success? The living by one's
>principles? The confidence in thought and action? Or all these at
>once? If you think it impossible to one day achieve like success of
>the role models you admire, why bother? Why would men bother to get to
>the moon, if they thought it impossible? Seems to me like spending
>your life trying to achieve something you believe to be impossible to
>attain is a waste your time.
>
>why strive for them?
The simple fact is that Atlas Shrugged is a touchstone of the soul (in a
realistic sense, the "essence" of one's personality and consciousness, not in
any religious sense.) I think that the degree that one recognizes greatness
(to whatever extent it exists in oneself or to the extent that one admires it
in others) is the extent that one loves Atlas. Would you expect Wesley Mouch
or Dr. Stadler to love Atlas? They see their corrupt souls bared ("tearing the
lid off of hell and letting men see inside" to quote Francisco in the context
of a clever plan foiling collectivists in Mexico). Their real life soul-mates
(quite a few of them are attracted to a.p.o. in order to vent themselves)
*hate* Atlas--with the net result being a torrent of rationalizations designed
to try to hide its truth and meaning. In the words of Rand, it is not *her*
soul that they betray (that is not possible): It is simply their own.
Patrice Roussel
GOOD BENITO by Alan Lightman. Because:
- boring form (we know that he can write in English, but mothing
else)
- mediocre fiction (you feel that he worked really hard to try to
be imaginative)
- characters so artificial that it impossible to believe in them
- even worse, characters you don't even care of
- perfect book for people who never read and feel guilty of (it is
short and does not burn too many brain cells to read)
Worst book? No. Worst book I recently read? Yes, and by far.
Patrice.
--
Patrice L. Roussel
prou...@ichips.intel.com
Doug Turnbull
>
> The simple fact is that Atlas Shrugged is a touchstone of the soul (in a
> realistic sense, the "essence" of one's personality and consciousness, not in
> any religious sense.) I think that the degree that one recognizes greatness
> (to whatever extent it exists in oneself or to the extent that one admires it
> in others) is the extent that one loves Atlas. Would you expect Wesley Mouch
> or Dr. Stadler to love Atlas? They see their corrupt souls bared ("tearing the
> lid off of hell and letting men see inside" to quote Francisco in the context
> of a clever plan foiling collectivists in Mexico). Their real life soul-mates
> (quite a few of them are attracted to a.p.o. in order to vent themselves)
> *hate* Atlas--with the net result being a torrent of rationalizations designed
> to try to hide its truth and meaning. In the words of Rand, it is not *her*
> soul that they betray (that is not possible): It is simply their own.
Ah, so anyone who doesn't like _Atlas Shrugged_ has no recognition of
greatness and fear its baring of their corrupt souls? That's one of the
more artogant presumptions I've ever heard. Does Rand teach one how to
dehumanize and demonize all who hold different beliefs, or did you come up
with that yourself? It's nice to know that the objectivist championing of
freedom doesn't extend to respecting others' freedom of thought and
opinion.
Doug Turnbull
The Laughing Madcap
Only coming through in waves, gcl...@rt66.com (Gerry Clough) wrote:
>Actually, "Atlas" is wonderful for those with the attention span and
>intelligence to persevere
I found the actual story (it is a novel after all) rather weak. The
entire book seemed like a setup for John Galt's big radio address. The
characters of Howard Roark, Dominique Francon, and Prometheus held my
interest a lot better than John Galt, Henry Reardon and Dagny Taggart.
Actaeon
Well of Loneliness
Kate
Jennifer Halla wrote:
>
> In the postings I've read, no one mentions the obvious choice of anything
> by Jackie Collins. "Rock Star" was particularly heinous.
>
> A book I just hated reading was "Heart of Darkness" (sorry Conrad fans).
> I just could never muster any feeling other than contempt for the main
> character which made it difficult to read.
>
Thank you! I had to read HOD in two different literature classes and I
despised it both times, for the same reason.
Besides that, the worst book I was ever forced to read was *When the
Legends Die* I don't recall the author (another college literature
class). Worst book I ever picked up with the intent of reading for
pleasure was. . .was. . .damn, I must have blocked it out.
--
WPCF
Michelle Dick
In article <d-turnb-13...@obiwan.ccsm.uiuc.edu>,
Doug Turnbull <d-t...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>Does Rand teach one how to dehumanize and demonize all who hold
>different beliefs, or did you come up with that yourself?
Actually, yes, Rand does teach that. The idea being that all
sufficiently intelligent people will come to the same conclusions
concerning every issue (even, ultimately, art). A result of this is
that if you disagree with Rand you are ipso facto not sufficiently
intelligent. The scariest tenet of Randism, if you ask me, and what
has sustained her cult of personality to this day.
Contrariwise, I am of the opinion that if two people agree on every
issue then at least one of them isn't thinking for themselves.
That said, I enjoyed _Atlas Shrugged_ (and all her novels for that
matter), though I found the sermons in it to be superfluous, and
therefore skipped them. Sufficiently intelligent people get her point
from the story, they need not have it spoon-fed.
--
Michelle Dick art...@rahul.net East Palo Alto, CA
Kelly Torrance
Michelle Dick (art...@rahul.net) wrote:
: Actually, yes, Rand does teach that. The idea being that all
: sufficiently intelligent people will come to the same conclusions
: concerning every issue (even, ultimately, art). A result of this is
: that if you disagree with Rand you are ipso facto not sufficiently
: intelligent. The scariest tenet of Randism, if you ask me, and what
: has sustained her cult of personality to this day.
Can you give some evidence in support of this? This idea has
absolutely nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy.
Kelly Torrance
Ed Faith
R. Lawrence wrote:
> Michelle Dick <art...@rahul.net> writes:
> >Actually, yes, Rand does teach that. The idea being that all
> >sufficiently intelligent people will come to the same conclusions
> >concerning every issue (even, ultimately, art). A result of this is
> >that if you disagree with Rand you are ipso facto not sufficiently
> >intelligent. The scariest tenet of Randism, if you ask me, and what
> >has sustained her cult of personality to this day.
> Rand never taught this in any of her published works, and made some
> statements that indicate the contrary. She may have acted with this
> attitude at times (particularly in her personal life, if some of her
> biographers are to be believed), but it is not a part of her publically
> stated philosophy.
In fact, treating anyone who disagrees with you as a dunce is such
a common failing, especially in these newsgroups, that I'm surprised
anyone's making an issue of it in the case of Rand. It certainly
is not a philosophical teaching. It hardly needs to be taught,
arising as it does in each new generation spontaneously.
R. Lawrence
Michelle Dick <art...@rahul.net> writes:
>
>Doug Turnbull <d-t...@students.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>Does Rand teach one how to dehumanize and demonize all who hold
>>different beliefs, or did you come up with that yourself?
>
>sufficiently intelligent people will come to the same conclusions
>concerning every issue (even, ultimately, art). A result of this is
>that if you disagree with Rand you are ipso facto not sufficiently
>intelligent. The scariest tenet of Randism, if you ask me, and what
>has sustained her cult of personality to this day.
Rand never taught this in any of her published works, and made some
statements that indicate the contrary. She may have acted with this
attitude at times (particularly in her personal life, if some of her
biographers are to be believed), but it is not a part of her publically
stated philosophy.
>Contrariwise, I am of the opinion that if two people agree on every
>issue then at least one of them isn't thinking for themselves.
>
>That said, I enjoyed _Atlas Shrugged_ (and all her novels for that
>matter), though I found the sermons in it to be superfluous, and
>therefore skipped them. Sufficiently intelligent people get her point
>from the story, they need not have it spoon-fed.
One might think that the story was enough to get her ideas across, but
in fact she was and is frequently interpreted in ways totally contrary
to her expressed ideas. I believe that the increasing explicitness of
her philosophical comments in her novels (and the number of speaches in
them) is a reflection of the misrepresentation of her previous works by
reviewers. Read the contemporary reviews of _The Fountainhead_ and
_Atlas Shrugged_ and it should be very clear that in spite of the
"sermons," a lot of people (who were apparently "sufficiently
intelligent" to write for national magazines and newspapers) still just
didn't get it.
Michelle Dick
In article <4pt2ci$i...@dfw-ixnews6.ix.netcom.com>,
>>sufficiently intelligent people will come to the same conclusions
>>concerning every issue (even, ultimately, art). A result of this is
>>that if you disagree with Rand you are ipso facto not sufficiently
>>intelligent. The scariest tenet of Randism, if you ask me, and what
>>has sustained her cult of personality to this day.
>
>Rand never taught this in any of her published works, and made some
>statements that indicate the contrary.
>
>in fact she was and is frequently interpreted in ways totally contrary
>to her expressed ideas. I believe that the increasing explicitness of
>her philosophical comments in her novels (and the number of speaches in
>them) is a reflection of the misrepresentation of her previous works by
>reviewers. Read the contemporary reviews of _The Fountainhead_ and
>_Atlas Shrugged_ and it should be very clear that in spite of the
>"sermons," a lot of people (who were apparently "sufficiently
>intelligent" to write for national magazines and newspapers) still just
>didn't get it.
Quite telling: that they came to different conclusions concerning her
work is only natural. That you say her response was to be more
redundant and explicit is my point: she could not bear the thought of
disagreement. Some is flat-out misinterpretation, but some reflects
honest understanding but expressed in an unflattering light. And I
don't know if it is still the case, but I recall the FAQ of one of the
objectivists newsgroups saying something like: if you do not agree
with every tenet listed, do not call yourself an "objectivist". I
also note that more than one Randist in this thread suggested that
those who did not like AS might just not be very smart. Similar
debating tactics are often used by the Scientology camp, and betrays
that even if Rand did not explicitly mandate agreement on all issues,
many of her followers do. Perhaps you could tell me where this view
comes from, if not from Rand herself?
Kenneth Rosenberger
rand's worst? take your pick. personally, i think the phrase "rand's
worst" is redundant.
dogmatic capitalists suck! german humanists with syphilis rule! out!
Michelle Dick
In article <31C228...@aol.com>, Ed Faith <epf...@aol.com> wrote:
>In fact, treating anyone who disagrees with you as a dunce is such
>a common failing, especially in these newsgroups, that I'm surprised
>anyone's making an issue of it in the case of Rand. It certainly
>is not a philosophical teaching. It hardly needs to be taught,
>arising as it does in each new generation spontaneously.
Well, let's take the issue at hand: book reviews. I've seen many
books panned in this thread concerning worst books, and the only ones
which garnered responses casting aspersions on the intellectual
capabilities of the critiquers were those putting down Rand's books.
And rather vociferous they were, too. In the panning of _Snow Falling
on Cedars_ I didn't see the same reaction. Instead there seems to be
acceptance that some don't like it, or at the worst, counterarguments
why the book was liked by others.
Certainly it is true that it is a common failing, but Rand cronies
seem quicker than most to employ that attack. And I say this as
someone who *likes* her novels and even agrees with a goodly portion
of her views.
R. Lawrence
>>>
>>>Actually, yes, Rand does teach that. The idea being that all
>>>sufficiently intelligent people will come to the same conclusions
>>>concerning every issue (even, ultimately, art). A result of this is
>>>that if you disagree with Rand you are ipso facto not sufficiently
>>>intelligent. The scariest tenet of Randism, if you ask me, and what
>>>has sustained her cult of personality to this day.
>>
>>Rand never taught this in any of her published works, and made some
>>statements that indicate the contrary.
>>
>>One might think that the story was enough to get her ideas across,
>>but in fact she was and is frequently interpreted in ways totally
>>contrary to her expressed ideas. I believe that the increasing
>>explicitness of her philosophical comments in her novels (and the
>>number of speaches in them) is a reflection of the misrepresentation
>>of her previous works by reviewers. Read the contemporary reviews of
>>_The Fountainhead_ and _Atlas Shrugged_ and it should be very clear
>>that in spite of the "sermons," a lot of people (who were apparently
>>"sufficiently intelligent" to write for national magazines and
>>newspapers) still just didn't get it.
>
>Quite telling: that they came to different conclusions concerning her
>work is only natural. That you say her response was to be more
>redundant and explicit is my point: she could not bear the thought of
>disagreement. Some is flat-out misinterpretation, but some reflects
>honest understanding but expressed in an unflattering light.
To say that "she could not bear the thought of disagreement" is a
stronger claim than is warranted by what I said. If you believe that
you are being misunderstood, one obvious response is to try to be more
explicit. That hardly means that one can't bear the thought of
disagreement.
>And I don't know if it is still the case, but I recall the FAQ of one
>of the objectivists newsgroups saying something like: if you do not
>agree with every tenet listed, do not call yourself an "objectivist".
>I also note that more than one Randist in this thread suggested that
>those who did not like AS might just not be very smart. Similar
>debating tactics are often used by the Scientology camp, and betrays
>that even if Rand did not explicitly mandate agreement on all issues,
>many of her followers do. Perhaps you could tell me where this view
>comes from, if not from Rand herself?
Three points in response to this:
1) As is true with almost any intellectual movement, there are some
ideological "purists" among those who follow Rand's philosophy. It
appears to be especially common among those who knew her personally.
To a certain extent I think that these people believe that they are
defending Rand and her ideas, both of which were and are viciously
attacked by many people. (One reviewer of AS accused Rand of wanting
to send people to gas chambers, which is more than your usual level of
literary criticism.) And some of the purism did come from Rand
herself, but this was an aspect of her personality, not her expressed
philosophy.
2) I've never seen a FAQ on an objectivist newsgroup (the only
objectivist newsgroup I even know about is alt.philosophy.objectivism),
so I can't really comment on what one might have said. As for people
making insulting comments on Usenet, I might point out that a recent
anti-Rand poster wrote the incisive comment, "dogmatic capitalists
suck!" on this very newsgroup. Ill-considered, irrational, and
downright rude comments are unfortunately all too common on Usenet.
This is particularly true when topics run toward political or moral
issues (check out alt.atheism or alt.politics.homosexuality, for
example). Because Rand was also a philosopher, discussion of her
novels is subject to this tendency.
3) All of the above aside, an idea is not responsible for who believes
in it, or even who originated it. Even if Rand and every last one of
her "followers" were obnoxious bastards, her ideas would still deserve
consideration on their own merits. The same applies to the literary
value of her novels, plays, etc.
Michelle Dick
In article <4ptncp$1...@dfw-ixnews2.ix.netcom.com>,
R. Lawrence <rl0...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>To say that "she could not bear the thought of disagreement" is a
>stronger claim than is warranted by what I said. If you believe that
>you are being misunderstood, one obvious response is to try to be more
>explicit. That hardly means that one can't bear the thought of
>disagreement.
That depends -- I guess I've never seen a statement by Rand indicating
that there was room for rational disagreement of her views or logic,
rather that any such disagreement by its very nature had to be a
"misunderstanding". If one labels *all* disagreements as
"misunderstandings", then I do think that constitutes not being able
to bear the thought of disagreement.
Phil Oliver
In article <jsreed.28...@interaccess.com>, jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote:
>This becomes idolatry of a book. Applying the concept of "love" to a work of
>art, however worthy, is misplaced. Love is a matter of volition and personal
>qualities. These cannot be taken up by any re-creation of reality. You must go
>to the actual reality to experience it fully.
To love something is to place it among the highest items on one's
personal hierarchy of values. Atlas Shrugged fully exists, contrary to the
poster's suggestion. You can go down to the bookstore and get a copy and read
it. What it *is* is a standalone work of Romantic Realist fiction, one of the
greatest in all of human history and one that has benefited me enormously; and
it is a work of art that I _love_. The poster seems to be suggesting that
"love" exists inside of the object of one's love, in usual
altruist/Platonic/intrinsicist fashion. Whether I love my life, a particular
novel, a particular person, it is _I_ who am doing the valuing.
Phil Oliver
Ed Faith
Michelle Dick wrote:
> >In fact, treating anyone who disagrees with you as a dunce is such
> >a common failing, especially in these newsgroups, that I'm surprised
> >anyone's making an issue of it in the case of Rand.
> Well, let's take the issue at hand: book reviews. I've seen many
> books panned in this thread concerning worst books, and the only ones
> which garnered responses casting aspersions on the intellectual
> capabilities of the critiquers were those putting down Rand's books.
That depends on the kind of book. A criticism of a work of art like
Humbert's _Nabokov_ will not upset too many--no one is too upset
by differing tastes. But people get very upset by differing political
ideas, and if anything, Rand is a political writer.
> Certainly it is true that it is a common failing, but Rand cronies
Probably too young to be Rand cronies.
> seem quicker than most to employ that attack.
Not among political discussants, in my experience.
The Laughing Madcap
Only coming through in waves, ken...@ix.netcom.com (Kenneth
Rosenberger) wrote:
Humph. Everything Rand predicted about communism has come to pass (and
pass badly for its adherents), yet the myopic masses still can't see
the truth.
___________________________________________
+http://www.cswnet.com/~twebb/cafewest.htm
+The Woody Allen FAQ: http://www.cswnet.com/~twebb/woodyfaq.htm
+If you'd like to receive The Paleontologist(a quarterly Classic Rock newsletter)
Alayne McGregor
Kate (kate.m...@hsc.utah.edu) writes:
> Jennifer Halla wrote:
>> A book I just hated reading was "Heart of Darkness" (sorry Conrad fans).
>> I just could never muster any feeling other than contempt for the main
>> character which made it difficult to read.
> Thank you! I had to read HOD in two different literature classes and I
> despised it both times, for the same reason.
My most loathed was _Victory_, also by Joseph Conrad, which was inflicted
on my Grade 12 English class. I disliked the style, thought the plot
almost non-existent, and found the main character totally off-putting.
This confirmed a long-standing decision never to study English literature
again. I can't say I've ever regretted it.
I remember strongly disagreeing with my English teacher that year as to
the literary quality of Hamlet. Julius Caesar, Macbeth, the comedies, and
the histories I all loved -- but I thought Hamlet was a useless dweeb.
Some good lines in that play, but if you looked at the play in light of
the theory of melancholy humours, Hamlet's motivation was much too obvious.
My teacher didn't agree.
These days, I generally discard truly bad books after a few chapters -- the
advantages of not having to read for marks any more.
--
Alayne McGregor aa...@freenet.carleton.ca
ala...@ve3pak.ocunix.on.ca
mcgr...@cognos.com
Richard H Clancey
James P. DeRossitt IV (jder...@liberty.uc.wlu.edu) wrote:
: One of the worst classics I've ever read is Lawrence's Sons and Lovers.
: The writing is simply awful, from page one, though I know that Lawrence
: was only twenty-six when he wrote it.
Ditto for everything else of Lawrence that I've seen so far
(and I don't plan to continue). I read "Aaron's Rod" for a class
once, and it's about a free-lance flute player and all around Manly
Guy. The flute, you see, is a penis. As long as you can hold that
idea at the back of your head while you read, the excitement doesn't
stop. But once you say to yourself "Okay, the flute is a penis, so
what?" (and the thought occurred to me around page 3) the rest of the
book was a serious embarrassment.
There was another one with two young married couples. Was
that "Sons and Lovers"? It featured a nude middle of the night
wrestling scene between the two men which was so foolish that it made
the rape scene in "The Fountainhead" seem like good writing.
And "Lady Chatterly's Lover", whose profound plot line was
taken from Strindberg's "Miss Julie", reminded me of porno magazines
devoted to other people's fetishes, ones which don't excite you. If
you really believe in the class system, it must be a real thrill to
contemplate upper class ladies surrendering to unwashed stable boys.
If you don't, though, it's like reading celebrity magazines from
foreign countries. People you never heard of and don't care about are
having an affair!
So how about a special award for Lawrence, who sounds like a
little boy who just discovered caca words and can't stop saying them?
Bob Dierker
Is every generation doomed to go throught the dreary Rand/Branden nonsense?
This is beyond sad in REC.ARTS. BOOKS.
Bob
Steve Reed
ph...@iquest.net (Phil Oliver) writes:
>jsr...@interaccess.com (Steve Reed) wrote, about a contention that a
>productive personality had to "love" Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged":
>>This becomes idolatry of a book. Applying the concept of "love" to a work of
>>art, however worthy, is misplaced. Love is a matter of volition and personal
>>qualities. These cannot be taken up by any re-creation of reality. You must go
>>to the actual reality to experience it fully.
>To love something is to place it among the highest items on one's
>personal hierarchy of values.
I was working from the normal connotations of "love." You were using it in
terms of one's -highest- response, not -among- the highest. Rand herself spoke
constantly of the highest and most intense response being made to the
attributes of another person, wherein she added an additional (and to me,
problematic) term to call it "romantic love." That recognition can only come
from another conceptual consciousness, not from a work of art.
>"Atlas Shrugged" fully exists, contrary to [Reed's] suggestion.
>You can go down to the bookstore and get a copy and read it.
Where did I suggest that it didn't exist? In the list wherein it made number
six on my all-time-best-list of novels? Art -is- a "re-creation of reality."
You respect Rand, so go and examine her esthetics writings again, especially
how she dissects the need for such re-creations in the human spirit.
>What it *is* is a standalone work of Romantic Realist fiction, one of
>the greatest in all of human history and one that has benefited me
>enormously; and it is a work of art that I _love_.
In all human history? Apart from Oliver's personal appraisal, this is an
unsupported assertion, and those in rec.arts.books (especially) are quite
justified in getting tired of admirers of Rand's work not making it any more
than an assertion.
I haven't read any strong analysis of the more subtle elements of "AS," in
plot/theme, character balance, inner resonance, and wide thematic integration,
since Nathaniel Branden wrote about it in two essays in "Who Is Ayn Rand?" in
1962. That shows where Oliver or others could productively spend some time.
>[Reed] seems to be suggesting that "love" exists inside of the
>object of one's love, in usual altruist/Platonic/intrinsicist fashion.
I? You're the one who said that one must "love" this book, in the manner (from
your context) that one would love a human being. I pointed out that the most
intense form of such a response is wasted on something that can't, and won't,
have the capacity to love you back. That includes, by the way, "loving" Rand
herself, as others (not Oliver) have often called for. For those who didn't
know her personally and in detail, this makes little sense.
Chris Loar
Richard H Clancey wrote,
> So how about a special award for Lawrence, who sounds like a
> little boy who just discovered caca words and can't stop saying them?
I certainly couldn't disagree with the criticism of _Chatterly_, and haven't
read any of Lawrence's other novels, but it does seem to me that I've read
several short stories of his that weren't at all bad. Although I'll be
blasted if I can remember the names of any of them offhand.
I do think that _Chatterly_ deserves some sort of award for managing to
make sex sound dull.
--
| One bath
Chris Loar | after another --
cl...@cgsadmpc.cgs.edu | how stupid.
| --Issa
Mario Taboada
Kate X says:
<<Thank you! I had to read HOD in two different literature classes and I
despised it both times, for the same reason.>>
<<HOD = Conrad's Heart of Darkness>>
I couldn't disagree more. This is a masterpiece, even by the exalted
standards of Joseph Conrad.
Someone else made similar derogatory remarks on Conrad's "Victory",
a book which I also esteem highly.
Shall we move on to a separate thread on Conrad? I would like to go
a little more in depth into the reasons why some people dislike
this author...tennis anyone?
Regards,
--
Mario Taboada
* Department of Mathematics * University of Southern California * Los Angeles
e-mail: tab...@mtha.usc.edu
Denise
In article <U55850.18...@uic.edu>, U55...@uic.edu (Arthur Wohlwill)
wrote:
> While we are on Stephen King, I thought "IT" was incredibly stupid. Plus, it
> was more than twice as long as "Tommyknockers". I have liked some Stephen
> King i.e Salem's Lot, the Stand (way too long though) and short stories like
> "The Body" and "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption."
>
> I once read something by Robin Cook that was really, really badly
> written--cant remember the title though.
>
> Arthur Wohlwill Adwo...@UIC.EDU
>
>
> --
> bob storti
> University of Illinois at Chicago
> E-Mail: rvst...@uic.edu
Along the same line: Dean Koontz's "Bad Love". Thought I'd pick up one of
his books and see what all the hype was about.
What a sicko! A hemprodite, cannibal male who has sex with his mother,
the sisters who are having sex with each other...it gets worse. I do not
understand why he is a popular novelist.
Simon Francis Nicol
: >> Hello all--I'm interested in hearing about the worst book you've ever
: >> read (or tried to read). Some books you don't finish because they're boring;
: >> others because they're just plain awful, and some you keep reading in
: >> disbelief at how awful they are.
Ann Rice's vampire books. I read the first one and didn't like it, but
the end was interesting enough that I read the next one. I didn't like it
either, but the ending was interesting enough that I read the next one.
It was the worst. I wonder sometimes why I was dumb enough to persist
with them but I did.
I also read one of my sister's teen romance books just to see what the
appeal was that she had dozens of them lying around. It was awful. I
don't remember the title now but I suspect that one is much like any other.
Simon
John V Ashby
In article 7...@world.std.com, r...@world.std.com (Richard H Clancey) writes:
>
> And "Lady Chatterly's Lover", whose profound plot line was
>taken from Strindberg's "Miss Julie", reminded me of porno magazines
>devoted to other people's fetishes, ones which don't excite you. If
>you really believe in the class system, it must be a real thrill to
>contemplate upper class ladies surrendering to unwashed stable boys.
>If you don't, though, it's like reading celebrity magazines from
>foreign countries. People you never heard of and don't care about are
>having an affair!
Whether you "believe in the class system" or not it existed in the time and
place Lawrence was writing about and it existed for his characters.
Lady C is, first and foremost, a love story, not a f*ckfest. It charts the
development of its characters through the discovery that love could
transcend both class barriers and, eventually, the initial burst of physical
passion. If you don't care about Mellors and Lady C. fine, don't read the
book, and perhaps for you Lawrence has failed. For me Lady C is not his
best book, nor yet his worst, but it is an important book for two reasons
explained below.
BTW Mellors was not an "unwashed stable boy" . He was a gamekeeper, had
served with Sir Clifford and been an NCO (sergeant?) duribg the great war,
was well read and held political views which he could express with a
clarity which if directed properly could have given him almost any career
he would wish for. He gives up just as much for love as she does. Oh yes,
and he washes - he is washing himself when Lady C first sees him, IIRC.
> So how about a special award for Lawrence, who sounds like a
>little boy who just discovered caca words and can't stop saying them?
>
One of Lawrence's aims in Lady C was to reclaim the true meanings of the
"caca words" by preciesely that means - by repetition to the point where
they lose their shock value and can be considered as words so that fuck
is no longer an expletive but adequately and accurately describes an act
of sexual intercourse with overtones of athletic sexuality and expressions
of love. The English language contains no other word for fuck which is not
archaic, clinical, euphemistic or censored by the CDA. To the extent to
which he succeeded I think we owe Lawrence a debt of gratitude.
Another aim. and one which perhaps was the sub-text behind the obscenity
trial, was to break down the class system by illustrating its hollowness.
Again I think we owe him for this. If you "don't believe in the class system"
part of your ability to hold that view is due to the efforts of writers like
Lawrence. It is for these two reasons I call the book important. To understand
more read Richard Hoggart's introduction to the Penguin edition.
john
Lee Evans
My vote goes for -- yes get out the torches -- "The Firm" by John Grisham.
Can't believe this guy is actually a lawyer and actually making a fortune on
his writing. Forget the fact that there is no style, that the story is
completely illogical, the characterizations completely unbelievable not to
mention unsympathetic -- there are more holes in this plot (for lack of a
better word) than swiss cheese.
bl...@vnet.ibm.com
>Along the same line: Dean Koontz's "Bad Love". Thought I'd pick up one of
>his books and see what all the hype was about.
>What a sicko! A hemprodite, cannibal male who has sex with his mother,
>the sisters who are having sex with each other...it gets worse. I do not
>understand why he is a popular novelist.
Not sure about _Bad Love_. In fact, I've never heard of it. I have,
however, read a couple of Koontz' books that are very good, namely
_Watchers_ and _Lightning_.
_Watchers_ is, IMHO, a suspenseful delight, and you'll love the dog. As
for _Lightning_, there are a few twists I didn't expect that caught me
nicely, and the book as a whole delivered the promised suspense and
action.
Hope you'll try these out and find better luck with Koontz.
Brian
Mary D. Brown
bl...@vnet.ibm.com wrote:
>Not sure about _Bad Love_. In fact, I've never heard of it. I have,
>however, read a couple of Koontz' books that are very good, namely
>_Watchers_ and _Lightning_.
I don't like horror AT ALL, but I'll second Brian's recommendation of
"Lightning" by Koontz. It's a time travel story, with a bit of
romance thrown in. Very suspenseful and thought-provoking in that it
addresses some of the problems/questions implicit in time travel (e.g.
what happens if you meet yourself on a previous time-travel journey?).
Mary D. Brown
-----
"A room without books is like a body without a soul."
--Cicero
Jon Hodapp
In article <1996Jun20...@vax.cerritos.edu>, lev...@cerritos.edu (Lee
Evans) wrote:
I thought that the "The Firm" was a great novel, when regarded as YuppiePorn.
I could envision 30-somethings reading the first 100 pages and
groaning in ecstacy as they read the bonuses piled upon Our Hero: "89000$/year
in Memphis!?" *groan* "They paid off his college loans?" *pant* *gasp*
"A black BMW?!?!?!" *ahhhhh* *sigh*
eril...@win.bright.net
Really bad books I don't finish and forget the titles of. There have been
books I disliked violently, but I maintain that it takes a good writer to
really rouse the ire of an intelligent reader. That's my test for "great
authors" I dislike intensely--such as Faulkner.
erilar
Kelly Moss
eril...@win.bright.net wrote:
: Really bad books I don't finish and forget the titles of. There have been
yes, i have the same problem. the last one that i can remember is "forest
Gump", i found nothing funny about this book
kelly
kel...@zipnet.net
--
*********************************************************************
kellym at her own organisation
minds are like parachutes
they only function when they are open
*********************************************************************
Claudia HCQ Sorsby
eril...@win.bright.net wrote:
> Really bad books I don't finish and forget the titles of. There have been
> books I disliked violently, but I maintain that it takes a good writer to
> really rouse the ire of an intelligent reader. That's my test for "great
> authors" I dislike intensely--such as Faulkner.
This is an interesting idea, but I don't think I really agree with
it. I dislike Faulkner too, but he bores me more than anything else.
Reading him always give me the feeling I'm reading a so-so second
draft; it's got some good stuff, but it needs a lot more work before
it's ready to go out.
Marilyn French's *The Women's Room* is easily the worst book I've
ever read, and I certainly don't consider her to be a "great author."
I've never read such a hate-filled book in my life, and I hope I never
do again. She raised my ire not by her writing -- which was mostly
unmemorable -- but by the attitudes she expressed in her story and
characterizations. There isn't a single sympathetic male character
in the book (you think there is, for a while, but he's really a jerk
too) and she actually sinks to the "all men are rapists" level.
The scariest thing was that a friend of mine had recommended the
book -- indeed, pressed it into my hands in a bookstore -- saying
that "it had been terribly important to her," and so she wanted me
to read it too. Given that the friend in question is one of the
gentlest souls I've ever encountered, I was then deeply confused by
what I found.
I kept wondering what would happen if someone had written the same
book, but changed all the evil male characters to black. I'm quite
certain that the author would have been crucified. But, since French
was going after men, it was okay. Even this wouldn't have bothered
me so much, except that the book was so darn popular. The idea
that millions of people ran out and bought this two-bit rant,
and took it at all seriously, is profoundly depressing.
Claudia
DeCoManage
In article <31c08622...@news.cswnet.com>, tw...@cswnet.com (The
Laughing Madcap) writes:
>I found the actual story (it is a novel after all) rather weak. The
>entire book seemed like a setup for John Galt's big radio address. The
>characters of Howard Roark, Dominique Francon, and Prometheus held my
>interest a lot better than John Galt, Henry Reardon and Dagny Taggart.
>
>
In this I agree with you. It is my opinion as well as others I have
discussed this book with that the story did lead up to the "radio address"
in which Ayn Rand displayed much of her philosophy and views. A summary
of what she believed.
Peggy Priest
De-Co Management
The Small Business Owner's Assistant
Unlimited Business Assistance