where salonista's book reviews get pimped

the old book review thread is here.

You know New Year's is startin' off right when the indomitable wisewoman, incomparable Ganeshaka, and irrepressible richardderus are all simultaneously on HR with exceedingly exceptional reviews, all three....

A New Year's toast to you all...(**clinkclink**)

Porius, slick, have you seen this?

yes, EF, there's little of RD I haven't read.

Thanks for the pimp action and the invitation to join, which I have done, Mr. Freeque.

This looks like a very interesting group and I look forward to joining in on some of the reads, if I can.

I also just joined the Readers/Writers group, where I saw a few of the same names.

Glad to be a member here.

Can I pimp my own? I so like Naguib Mahfouz, and I saw somewhere that le salon considered him for a group read at some point. I would love to see Cairo Trilogy as a group read, but if not, then one of his shorter books. So I would like to recommend Midaq Alley as a good intro to Mahfouz which is a pretty quick read. My review is here: http://www.librarything.com/work/38605/reviews/43893504

And if I can't pimp my own, I hope the punishment is not too severe!

Is this for individual reviews only..or can i do some Big Pimpin' for my lowly Blog....where everything ends up in the wash..sooner or later???

http://jayditreader.blogspot.com

Big "oops" if i have erred..but i am only human *snort*

J

(oh, everything on Da Blog..is also on LT..maybe in slightly different form)

Pimp away! Your own, others, everybody's.

Bless you, LaFreeque....
J

Can one self-pimp? I mean, like, ontologically? I imagine myself saying to myself "Martin, you best have my money. Don't make me go upside your head," and replying "Martin baby, don't worry, I got it, you know I won't do you wrong," and something just doesn't seem right.

Martin, don't you ever talk to yourself? You know: "I said to myself, 'Self . . . .' Well, self, of course you are right . . . ". Try it--less disagreement and extremely erudite conversations.

And isn't a pimp just a promoter, really? No reason one can't promote oneself! Cheaper that way.

Lisa: Self-promotion! That I understand. Thanks for shepherding me through this dark night of the soul.

As for talking to myself, I think I always pretend I'm talking to an absent friend, who changes as appropriate to the matter at hand--my girlfriend, my mom, F. Scott Fitzgerald: "Buck up, friend! Have another gin and tell me all about it. You know, make it a double--and get one for me too."

This could turn into a real postmodern discussion thread. I like it. I used to talk to myself a lot to, when I had sockpuppets to keep me company. Speaking of which, isn't it interesting how so many new members to le salon find le salon on the very day they joined LibraryThing? Take the newest member to le salon who just joined today, for example. As Fran Tarkenton used to say on NBC, "THAT'S INCREDIBLE!!!" I'll momentarily welcome this new member, over on the appropriate thread, and the one arrived before them, though I'm not sure what to say about the most recent one, except "welcome" as there's no books, no groups, no self-identifying features to focus on. Is "welcome" enough, I wonder, for such users? Or should I just make up stuff? Oh the behind-the-scenes daily dilemma's we salon owners face.

5> Fabulous review, btw, Lisa. Should've mentioned that first.

Wisewoman did a very nice review of the first book in Elizabeth Peters' "Amelia Peabody" series, Crocodile on the Sandbank. I loved this series and read the whole thing. Elizabeth Peters is a very prolific author and I think the series has started to really slide in quality for the last few books, but the first several books were really great and I really loved the family of characters.

I agree, Wisewoman's review is spot on. WW, you'll definitely enjoy reading the rest of the series. The later ones are not as good, but they get better before they get worse.

Thanks guys :). I've gone on a spree requesting them over at BookMooch and look forward to the rest. But they are sadly skewing my reading plans this year... mysteries seem to be taking over.

Edit: While I'm here, I'd like to point to a review on another mystery from a once and future salonista, Porua, for The Innocence of Father Brown: http://www.librarything.com/review/51714800. She hits on everything that makes Father Brown unique and fun.

Martin has already reviewed Miss Lonelyhearts. Well worth your time if you are at all interested in that book.

Thumbs up on both Martin and Porua. Yo, Porua, you're not even a member anymore and yet you're getting pimped by wisewoman (thanks for that WW!). Yes, I'm putting you on the spot and I don't care: don't you think it's about time you, the salon's prodigal daughter, returned to the salonista fold and behold the many blessings awaiting you?

Everyone, give Porua some much needed love. The more embarassing the love, the better. Let's embarass her into rejoining....

Wait...Porua isn't a salonista anymore?

Well.

I herewith tender my resignation. No Porua, no me.

>18 absurdeist:.

Love++ (which is like the addictive Japanese DS game "Love Plus," to whom a man actually got married, only more addictive).

Wow, also, (self-pimp) my review of The Canal is through tha rizzle.

Deservedly.

Nice review by Banoo http://www.librarything.com/work/1094203

good work pyro.

also, ncgrahm is hot w/arguably, his finest review yet: http://www.librarything.com/work/18596/reviews/54831493

oh, and grahm, I won't kill you now, because I believe metrosexuals rock!

Yes, and Freddy Standen the rockingest metrosexual ever. (I believe I just invented a word!)

Thanks muchly for pimpin' the review.

One of wisewoman's finest imo: The End of the Affair.

>27 absurdeist: Stunning, Wisewoman. Thank you. I wanna revisit this book all of a sudden. I want to take solace from it. I really like how you connected it to Brideshead. Great review!

PLease allow me to pimp my review of Eugene Onegin. Yes, I know, it's very long and very dense, but it does have two duels and some rather gorgeous poetry!!

http://www.librarything.com/work/50852

Tomcat, it seems that Lermontov anticipates his own "death - in - a duel" too in an eery poem written some time before it actually happened.

yes, do you have the reference there, Mac?

at your service

The Dream
By Mikhail Yurevich Lermontov;
translated from Russian by Vladimir Nabokov

In noon's heat, in a dale of Dagestan
With lead inside my breast, stirless I lay;
The deep wound still smoked on; my blood
Kept trickling drop by drop away.

On the dale's sand alone I lay. The cliffs
Crowded around in ledges steep,
And the sun scorched their tawny tops
And scorched me -- but I slept death's sleep.

And in a dream I saw an evening feast
That in my native land with bright lights shone;
Among young women crowned with flowers,
A merry talk concerning me went on.

But in the merry talk not joining,
One of them sat there lost in thought,
And in a melancholy dream
Her young soul was immersed --
God knows by what.

And of a dale in Dagestan she dreamt;
In that dale lay the corpse of one she knew;
Within his breast a smoking wound showed black,
And blood ran in a stream that colder grew.

You really outdid yourself in that Eugene Onegin piece. I keep thinking there's no way you can surpass your previous work, only to witness that you've upped the ante once again. How doooo you do it? And I don't mind broadcasting my ignorance in learning from your review that Eugene Onegin is considered the work from which all modern Russian Lit. sprung. I'll need to read it. Maybe we'll all need to read it in '11, eh?

I'm curious, tomcat, if perhaps a thread here or over in the Amateurs might be appropriate for discussing how and where in the subsequent Russian works of literature Eugene Onegin displayed it's influence, particularly with Dostoyevski of course. Just a thought, an idea....

Onegin as literature, yeah maybe, but it was one lousy opera.

In any case, Tomcat has brought to light what I usually consider a minor disconfort : the problem of bad translation !

I have been struggling with that Johnston translation while it becomes evident that the Falen translation which Tomcat supports is way better.

I'll order more carefully in the future

Thank you everyone for your comments.

I will be happy to expand further on EO's connection with Russian lit any place you think fit Enriiiique. I have a nasty bout of stomach flu at the moment, and can't really think straight about how to organise my threads. (My customary annality has been somewhat... disturbed....)

I love that Lermontov poem, Mac, thanks for posting it. Another spooky coincidence: Pushkin's opponent D'Anthes also brought a pair of pistols to the duel -as was the custom- but they were not used. This set of pistols -made by Ulbrich of Dresden- were subsequently used by Lermontov in a duel in February 1840. No one was hurt in that duel, however.

Richard, it would amuse to you to hear how Nabakov in his commentary to EO lambasts Tchaikovsky's opera. He is very scathing about it, and consistently spells the composers name Chaykovsky, I think to remove some of the Romantic grandeur associated with the more conventional spelling of the name.

re translations: I have read:

Johnston
Hofstadter
Nabakov
Falen
Deutsch

and have still a new one by Mitchell to read. The Falen is by far, by far the best. It has moments of real beauty in it. I thoroughly recommend that one for new readers of EO.

Go lie down sheesh! Hope you called in sick man. Take 'er easy. Feel better quick.

"Eugene Onegin is considered the work from which all modern Russian Lit. sprung"

Dostoevsky appears to reserve some of the honour for Gogol', when he says: "We all come out from Gogol's 'Overcoat'" (“Все мы вышли из “Шинели” Гоголя”). But that is, of course, just an opinion.

yes, absolutely he did.

Let's continue this discussion on my club read thread, so the pimps can get back to their pimping.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/80887#1715173

Do the old timers among us remember Pummzie? Pummzie, you may recall, of London England, was one of the original BTUers (Brave Team Ulysses-ers) way back when....Well, she's back, after an absence of like...forever and it's as if she never left, what with her review of Swann's Way, a must read, and an open door for all of you to welcome her back where she rightfully belongs: both here in le Salon and on Hot Reviews!

Woohoo Pummzie!

The most insightful review of a David Foster Wallace book yet written in LibraryThing?

http://www.librarything.com/work/23037/reviews/54679141

If not, then please direct me to one more insightful.

We are in good hands, come Infinite Jest time, with pyrocow.

>41 absurdeist: That was a helpful review. Thanks, pyrocow. Having never read anything by DFW and knowing very little about him, I approach this group read with excitement, but also trepidation. Looking forward to it, though.

I am desperately trying to resist hopping on this wagon--there is so much else going on--but you are making it very difficult. For one thing, how can I resist reading a book by a guy from central Illinois?

A little self-pimping here......I'll probably pimp over at the group read site. I'm hopeless.

Miss Lonelyhearts by Nathaniel West
My Review on the book's home page:

Another great one blackdog! You feel free to self-pimp your stuff anytime you like, all right? It's impossible for me to keep up with everybody anyway (back when this group had 20 people it was relatively simple).

May I quote a very astute observation of yours from your review? Hope you won't mind:

Miss L misunderstands the cripple’s purpose and runs into the man’s arms, finally embracing the human suffering that he so long avoided. And it kills him.

Thanks Mr.Freeque!

Keeping up with folks is the hardest part of LT for me. I have really reduced my LT surfing time because it got out of hand last year and cut into my reading and writing time. But there are so many interesting people, who have turned me on to such great reads.

wisewoman's awesome review of To Kill a Mockingbird:
http://www.librarything.com/work/3092/reviews/54614291

blackdogbooks has a very nice review of a book by R. Preston, the guy who wrote The Hot Zone which I loved:
http://www.librarything.com/work/32522/reviews/55714545

Gosh, thanks Anna-in-pdx....a pimp from a friend. I appreciate the attention. For those of you who dabble in the Non-fiction genre, The Devil in the Freezer was a very literate story.

R. Preston has a brother, Douglas, who is half of the Preston/Child writing team which bring us wonderful action/adventure thrillers starring Aloysius Pendergast, as well as many other high tech thrillers.

I, too, thought The Hot Zone was an excellent book. Just a little slime on the walls of a cave in Africa...

Yes, Douglas Preston also published a great non-fiction true crime book that I read two years ago, the Monster of Florence. It is a wonderful expose on the Italian justice system and has a truly realistic, if ambiguous, ending.

So......Mr. Freeque said I could......

The Creed of Violence by Boston Teran.

My Review on the book's home page.

This is a favorite read for me for the year. I think Teran has a real gift for language.

>53 blackdogbooks: Five bones!!!!!

Yee-ikes! Cool down there, BDB! With enthusiasm like that you run the risk of a Trasient Ischemic Accident.

Wishlisted and thumbs-upped.

53, 54> I was hoppin' over here to pimp Lisa Curcio's review of an Ishy novel that's presently on HR: http://www.librarything.com/work/3035/reviews/55073670, and now I'm off to see what this 5 bones business is all about!

Okay I'm back.

Everyone, just as the first sentence of a short story or a novel can become iconic and memorable, so it is, I believe, with the review. If you don't think the review can become something of an art form, and display all the creativity and vibe and energy of the book being reviewed, then you haven't read the first sentence - a stunner - of blackdogbook's review of The Creed of Violence:

"Boston Teran’s new novel of political intrigue, The Creed of Violence, shimmers like a mirage on the baking desert floor, threatening to combust at any moment, and constantly evaporating into new shapes."

Thanks for the high praise, Mr. Freeque and Mr. Richard.

From the salon's Master of the Blurb (as in book jacket blurb), comes a rare full-length review from him of Miss Lonelyhearts.

Existential...yes! Great insights.

C'mon out here now and take your bow. I do know how much you love the attention!

Every once in a good long while, an LTer who's not a member of this salon, writes such a review so significant to le Salon, that I feel it's only right; no, more than that - that it is my duty - to alert the salonistas of its existence.

Here it is: The Greatest Achievement in History, Atlas Shrugged.

Once upon a time, I would've championed In Search of Lost Time, or War and Peace, or The Brothers Karamazov, etc. et al., (but not Ulysses - definitely not Ulysses), as being the greatest literary achievement in History. However, after carefully considering the complete ramifications of the content of the review above, I'm not sure I can put Proust, Tolstoy, and Dostoyevski, in the same elevated company of Rand anymore. Thoughts anyone?

Well, there are 150 other reviews. Did you read those too?

Robert

59: Are you kidding?

Also, did you read his review of Ulysses?

'Rique darling, I know you're looking to up the activity in here, but this tactic just seems dangerous. I hope you have quick reflexes--I'm sure the rotten fruit will be headed your way at any moment...

DUCK!!!

60> I have read many of the other Rand reviews, Mr. Durick, thank you for asking, and in my opinion, they're way off base and mean-spirited, many of them. All they do is make fun of Atlas Shrugged as if - as if! - it did not belong in the canon of the world's greatest literature. Ludicrous.

61> No, I'm not kidding. That's not how I operate. Have you seen my review of Ulysses?

62> If the tomatoes (pronounced: "toe-may-toes") get flying at me, Medellia luv, why then I'll just make me a nice batch of spaghetti sauce. Mmm...yummers!

63: Wow! That's really disturbing.

63> I'm sure that author is just biased!

59: All I know is that I felt wonderful pleasure when I read it.

61: I actually think his reviews are fun reads. He can put a sentence together and where the sentences he puts together go is often surprising.

63&65: That Hickman deal is wow. On a similar but not Rand related note re: delusional maniac killers that are admired by people who ought to know better (here Colin "The Outsider" Wilson): http://ireadoddbooks.com/?p=94

No one anywhere can take seriously a writer whose main contribution to world literature is the line, "Who is John Galt?"

No one.

I thought the review showed the touch of brilliant satire, however it was too short to thoroughly develop the comedic tone.

If the author was serious, heaven help us.

IMHO we should stick to Joyce, Proust, Mann and all the fine classics we have been discussing in these pages...

especially Joyce...

> Colin "Spider World" Wilson may have the literal weirdest oeuvre in literature.

As for Ayn Rand, I guess one day I'll have to actually read this lady, because based on what you hear one would have to be a gas-huffing baboon to give her the time of day, and Enrique's far from that (or at least I have a high opinion of his literary choices; whether he's secretly a baboon, who's to say? This is the internet.)

I've never subjected myself to this book--it's too damn long and life's too damn short--but I thought the sex scenes in particular were infamously wretched. That lends the review that touch of satire, but then he lists her as a favorite author, so...that's distressing.

@63, holy hell, that was horrifying.

I did not want to get involved in this discussion and was going to privately thank EnriqueFreeque for the invitation to do so---but I do have to say something about message #63.

That article, if one can call it that, takes statements so far out of context and so willfully misinterprets them that it can only be described as dishonest. It's the most ridiculous smear job I've ever read against anybody. The author clearly has a grudge against Ayn Rand, possibly because of her rejection of Christianity which he focuses on rather irrelevantly toward the end. (All I can say is, if not being a Christian puts someone outside of the intellectual mainstream, so much the worse for the mainstream.)

As for the rest of the content of the article, Ayn Rand never did admire murderers (and if you read between the lines of that piece it's obvious that even then Rand merely admired a statement or two made by the man, despite what he had done, not because of it). She was absolutely, unequivocally NOT an admire of Hitler, as the author so hyperbolically attempts to insinuate. Anyone the least bit interested in understanding her philosophy or appreciating her literature can find in her writings some of the most compelling arguments and passionate statements against victimizing others ever written. This is the woman who wrote, "Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent." She was a great defender of individual rights, and identified their violation by the initiation of physical force against others as a major moral (and legal) crime (her arguments for which became the basis for the libertarian movement, of which she disapproved). Incidentally, her philosophy is far from (really antipodal to) Nietzsche's, as any serious scholar of either of them can tell you, and she had in fact consciously rejected his philosophy and distanced herself from it at least by the time she wrote The Fountainhead.

But don't take my word for it. Don't come to a conclusion based on anyone's say so, neither mine nor that article's author's nor anybody else's---but (if you're interested) study the issue by reading the relevant primary sources, and judge for yourself.

Just to be clear, I don't care whether anyone agrees or disagrees with my review. I'm happy to discuss it with anyone who is seriously interested, but I don't consider posting links to nonsense like that article to be a valid method of debate. Frankly, it's intellectual hooliganism. This will be my only statement on the subject.

67: Thank you.

P.S. For those of you who think it's horrifying that Ayn Rand wrote in her private journals as a young immigrant before the beginning of her professional writing career that she admired a statement made by a murder suspect, may I suggest that it would be interesting for this group to discuss the late, mature works of, say, Leo Tolstoy. You might begin with "The Kreutzer Sonata", for example, in which he advocates husbands murdering their wives, because he believed (going one better than Saint Paul who thought that marriage was a necessary evil) that marriage was institutionalized adultery. Now there's crazy fucked up evil for you (not to mention pure Christianity).

>73 AshRyan: mildly interesting post, except for two things: you mention Randy Annie's literature and her philosophy. She produced neither.

@73 Honestly, I've not read her (beyond Anthem which I had to read in 9th grade and found her trite and tedious even then, thus have no interest whatever in spending 1000 pages more inside her weird little mind when there are such more interesting minds I could spend that time in), but I really have a hard time understanding exactly how she could have written what she clearly did write if it was not the case that she "admired murderers" (as you pretty well admitted at the end of your post despite denying it earlier). She seems to have been intensely indignant at society's vilifying him, to have more-or-less completely ignored the fact that he committed an utterly horrifying crime, and to have distinctly ignored the actual crime that he committed in favor of however he supported her weird political philosophy. It's perhaps an interesting imaginative exercise to consider exactly how she could have written what she wrote and meant anything other than something totally horrifying. I find the argument that she was very young when she wrote this to be pretty unimpressive since I am about that same age right now and I am, or at least I like to think I am, pretty well beyond this incredibly adolescent mindset.

I feel it necessary to add that I'm completely uninterested in her attacks on Christianity. I'm not a Christian, I'm not an apologist for Christianity, and I'm nothing if not unoffended by attacks on Christianity. I also feel it necessary to add that I don't give a shit about Tolstoy (yeah, I'm a goddamn plebe, I've never read him) and you can't defend your hero by attacking someone else's.

'Pity for the guilty is treason to the innocent' From what I know of her politics, I'm highly skeptical that we have the same opinion of who's guilty and who's innocent, and thus that this is anywhere near as sympathetic a statement as you portray it to be.

Also, lest you think I'm just some kind of obsessive anti-Randroid (I'm not, I'd take the time to read her if I were)--politics aside, I loved some of your other reviews, particularly the one about the 'New Atheism', of which I'm probably a part myself.

And since I have entirely no interest in reading any more of her than I've already read, I should probably waste no one's time with any more of my opinions on this subject.

but your opinions are far more logical, coherent thought- through and knowledgable than either Rainy Andy's and the poster in 73, so I'd rather read you than them. Don't stop, I beg you.

Well said pyro !!

I might not agree with ashryan (I don't agree with a lot of people and visa versa) but his reviews are well-written, even if the Atlas Shrugged review is a bit over the top.

Also, I must say his response here is nearly a model for polite but strong disagreement in internet forums.

> 63
Pyrocow, my brother and I have been having a very lengthy discussion on Rand. He's of the opinion that she means well and takes the most gentle interpretation of her very severe declarations. I'll have to show him this and see what he thinks.

Long time no post. How'ya been bokai?

75: Fair enough. But since the issue is apparently still not quite clear, I will add a couple more comments.

"She seems to have been intensely indignant at society's vilifying him, to have more-or-less completely ignored the fact that he committed an utterly horrifying crime, and to have distinctly ignored the actual crime that he committed in favor of however he supported her weird political philosophy."

The author of that article acts as though the editor of her journals tries to downplay the whole thing, as though he had something to hide. If that were the case, why bother publishing those entries at all? That piece focuses very much on the grisly details of the crime, and implies that Rand ignored them---in fact, relies on this to make what she wrote seem so much more callous. However, it's not clear that Rand knew all those details at the time of her entries. The trial hadn't happened yet, and all the facts had not come out. Her indignation was apparently at what she saw as (and this was basically the point of her journal entries on the issue) society's condemnation of the man without a trial, based simply on an inordinately vehement hatred of his defiant attitude. I don't claim to know if she was right or wrong about that. I don't know enough about the situation at the time---and if I don't, I'm fairly sure that no one else here does either. Even if she was wrong, surely it was mistake nowhere near the level of what the author of that absurd hatchet job attempts to make it out to be. But however bad an error of judgment it may have been, anyone who has read any of her later writings can clearly see that she must have learned from her mistake.

And anyway, even the author of that piece quotes her as saying that it wasn't the accused murderer himself, but merely what he suggested to her; it was really mostly that she admired just that one statement of the man (who had not yet been proven guilty at the time). (Not quite sure where you get that I "pretty well admitted" that she "admired murderers.") Obviously, she didn't condone murdering little girls, nor was she willing to overlook the fact simply to "support her weird political philosophy" (what she thought about it really had little, if anything to do with politics, but that's another issue; her political philosophy was essentially that of the American founders, particularly Jefferson and Madison, but if you think that's weird, well, okay then). To suggest that she did just seems like a desperate attempt to slander her by someone who can't argue against her actual ideas.

Speaking of which...

74: If that's the level of argument employed by Rand's detractors, then those of us who admire her clearly have nothing to worry about.

79: Thanks again.

P.S. Rand hardly ever discussed Christianity, much less attacked it. She had better things to do. It was the author of that piece attacking her who (interestingly) brought it up.

Rand was a narcissistic, self-involved, sociopathic control freak who, as a writer was a hack at best. Her "heroes" are all whiny assholes to the manner born, having the greatest entitlement of them all, Daddy's money. They reject the rule of law and order when it comes to themselves, after all, they are the subjects of their own worlds. The only real heroes in Atlas Shrugged (that and Anthem are the only things I've read by Rand) are the faceless crowds that populate it in various places, making headway, day-by-day against the imaginary world Rand attempts to build, populated with thieves, thugs, radical individualists and criminals, and those are just the heroes. Following Rand's philosophy is what has brought us to the point we find ourselves. Piss on everyone else, I got mine (errr...Daddy's). What a wonderful philosophy with which to govern a country.

Not to mention the fact that both books were shit from cover to cover as far as her skill at writing. Twenty/thirty page rants about how all the little people (weak business men, labor unions, government hacks, take your pick) were in the way of GREAT THINGS. Those pesky Chileans or whoever they were wanting to use their copper to support their own country. How criminal! Or the putative star of this epic, a guy who didn't like the rules so he took his balls and went home. What a lesson to teach, if things aren't to your liking pitch a hissy fit and run away. Yes, John Galt is a self-absorbed (all the heroes are self-absorbed) cry-baby and quitter. Most heroic! Thank God for whats-his-name Riordan, the only one of the bunch who was not a second generation, born-on-third-and-thought-he-hit-a-triple sponger. Oh, but he was simply someone's idea of a real person. Not quite! And Dagny what's-her-name is nothing more than a two bit whore and groupie, whoring herself out to the self absorbed little twits that occupy this tome. I want my daughter to follow Dagny's example. Right! If I met any of these self-centered bastards on the street I would have a hard time not slugging them just on general principle.

I've often entertained an idea that some people are born bereft of the "social organ", or empathy, as it is more rightly known. In my experience the people I know who follow Rand mostly have no "social organ" and it shows. They tend to be judgmental, strict, closed-minded, their way or the highway, law-and-order mavens (except when fearless leader takes over in which case they can do no wrong, after all, laws are meant for the unwashed multitudes, that's you and me, not the heroes. I want to gag every time I think of Dick Cheney thinking himself above the law) following those who have set themselves apart. Mark Sanford is a classic example of all this. The Tea-Baggers have a good deal of True Believer in themselves as well.

The most ironic thing about this book, this homage to selfishness, is the sanctuary for all these unique people is a regimented society run by a control freak who requires certain behaviors from the residents. Of course he's not a control freak, he's just exercising his strong abilities to be a jerk. Her characters have no social organ, just as she hoped they wouldn't. How crazy is that? Build a whole philosophical (?) system that requires its followers to be sociopaths. Wonderful!

I could go on like this for a while, but I don't want to influence anyone else's reading of Rand.

Suffice it to say, people who follow after Ayn Rand would do well to read Conservatives without Conscience and The True Believer. The people in her book are the people running the US right now. How's that working out for US?

I truly wish all those who aspire to "Go Galt" would hurry up and go and leave the rest of us to the business of trying to govern effectively. Maybe when they go they can take the bankers, the rulers of the world, with them. Fantasy worlds such as those created by Ayn Rand make a poor guide to governance. The heroes all know best and it is our duty to follow them. Wrong!

Wasn't Rand a speed freak?

You all are forcing me to bring out this internet classic.

> 83 sounds like Sarah Palin description ... cut and kill, dig and drill !

Enrique: Did you initiate the hijacking of your own thread?

This is good stuff. I was about to take my usual late afternoon nap, but I think I'll lurk instead.

83: Not to get embroiled in this (haven't read Rand, don't have an opinion), but isn't your third paragraph an ad hominem attack? Seems a bit ironic.

Oh, one more point that I forgot to address:

"I also feel it necessary to add that I don't give a shit about Tolstoy (yeah, I'm a goddamn plebe, I've never read him) and you can't defend your hero by attacking someone else's."

That really wasn't my intention. Personally, I think that Tolstoy was a literary genius and one of the greatest writers in history (though god help anyone who would view him as a hero). I was simply trying to point out that there is a double-standard going on in this sort of discussion of Rand: there are plenty of other writers (and artists and thinkers generally) who held some mighty queer ideas (to say the least) at one point or another (this group's precious, precious Joyce included), and with less excuse---but most people are perfectly happy to overlook it in those other cases.

As for geneg's profane rant, it doesn't deserve comment except to note that much of it is factually incorrect (I rather doubt whether he has actually read Atlas Shrugged). His evaluation speaks for itself.

And all of these comparisons of Ayn Rand to today's conservatives and neocons simply demonstrates an utter ignorance of her views. She had stronger criticisms for conservatives than she did for liberals, and the feeling was mutual (William F. Buckley, Jr., for instance, famously hated her guts, which I think is rather to her credit).

I really don't see why we need to discuss Ayn Rand on a thread for pimping book reviews. Enrique, whyyyyy? I wish you could put this genie back into the bottle.
/whine

(to be totally honest, I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged)

59: BTW, I completely agree with you, Enrique, about The Brothers Karamazov being perhaps the greatest literary achievement in history.

Oh my goodness, what happened?! I am appalled at how this discussion has devolved. It was not my intention - not at all! - to induce such vitriol from so many different perspectives. I was just hoping we could all have a good discussion. I certainly didn't see all this drama forthcoming. However, I think it's an important topic and worthy of even more spirited debate. Henceforward, this thread is now the Salon's Official Ayn Rand: Love Her/or Hate Her Thread. Once I'm back in the office, I will happily start a new "where salonistas books reviews get pimped thread II" thread.

Now, Ash, have you read my review of Ulysses? I suggest you do, before you go calling Joyce as being this group's "precious, precious, Joyce." Not everyone here considers Joyce "precious".

89> whenever I hear "ad hominem" come up, it always makes me think of the hominy that my Mom would cook for me. I used to eat hominy with ketchup.

Thank you Ash!

Yes, I've read your review of Ulysses, and didn't intend that as a blanket statement. But it seems we are, unfortunately, in the minority on that topic.

From the argumentation here, it looks like I'll have to do the reading for myself. I don't mind the idea except that I don't like to feel compelled to. In isolation most of the assertions are acceptable, but as part of a dialectic, or if that's too much, a dialogue, they don't add up except to j'accuse....

I have Atlas Shrugged, but I don't know where. I have read Ulysses but so long ago that I'll have to do it again; I have proposed to myself a project in that regard.

Does anybody else feel like their shins are wet?

Robert

My only comment on Rand is - she is a prime example of the often disproportionate impact whether a person agrees or disagrees with a writer's views or lifestyle or her character's views or actions has on a person's aesthetic judgments. I try not to fall prey to that one.

Also, I am amazed at the amount of vitriol expended in political arguments (I am not immune but am getting better). I doubt there is only one adequate real world approach to the solution of any social problem. Vitriol seems like a bigger problem than the competing solutions. I am also amazed at the fanatic response (both ways) summoned by the incantation of Rand and the extolling of the virtue of industriousness (without a corresponding recognition of the validity of the arguably more important question - industriousness to what end?)

On another thread there is a discussion of Rawls in the context of reading the recent work of another philosopher. An interesting thing is that Rawls argument from the original position is a self-interest argument. How do Rawls and Rand end up in such different places? Rawls is a more sohpisticated thinker, I'd argue, but did he ever write a novel? Not to my knowledge!

geneg - I did agree with one thing you said and it bothered me even when I read Rand (voraciously) for a period in what is geting to be, all too quickly, almost thirty years ago. John Galt seemed like a petulant child. I also was bothered by Dagny the maverick's chain/submission fetish. Now that I am older and less naive, I don't think its necessarily so absurd a combination of traits.

>83 geneg: well said Gene, all of it.

I was going to embark on a long post like that to show our fervent admirer of Ayn Rand just exactly how witless and stupid her 'philosophy' is and how terribly bad her' literature' is, but I really can't be bothered. I have other much more important things to do do. Like turning all my socks inside out, stretching them and folding them up again. Like watching paint dry. Like counting how many rice grains I have in my bowl. Like playing patience. Like counting my pubic hair, which I believe, is popular among the usual demographic of Ayn Rand readers.

But I already feel dirty enough reading this thread and thinking about it. By comparing - even mentioning in the same sentence- the rancid fartlings of Rand with Tolstoy shows not only that Ashryan has no taste but that his comments on literature are not to be taken seriously, and that he is probably impervious to reason anyway. I know Ayn Rand was.

You have done nothing resembling reasoning in this thread. You've resorted to abuse, insults, name-calling and all manner of ad hominem attacks out of all proportion to the topic being discussed. This is exactly why I don't like internet forums. I would have hoped that participants on a site for book lovers would be of a higher caliber and capable of rational, civilized discourse---but apparently that is not the case. I feel sorry for you. I certainly won't be participating in this group any further, if you are the sort of person it counts among its members.

Incidentally, for any third parties lurking on this thread, I would simply repeat my advice to read and decide for yourselves, if you are interested. But for me, I think considering the behavior of both sides of this debate (if you can call it that) is quite telling. And if I had never heard of Ayn Rand before, well, anything that arouses such virulently over-the-top denunciations out of all proportion to what would be appropriate about a bad writer with whose views one disagreed, I would be interested in reading on those grounds alone---if people hate something that much, it's got to be interesting. Just a thought.

I read, and I decided for myself, and I think AshRyan is right about the ad hominem attacks and non-reasoning reasons hurled around.

None of which makes me a Randista, just honest. Engage with the ideas (such as they are, had to get a dig in) of Rand or ignore the posts. Attacks like this are unattractive and don't speak well of the attackers.

Oh stop your bleating, both of you. I have already said that I am not going to reason with you about something ultimately unreasonable. It is not worth the attempt. Just quickly though, as I don't like to be accused of churlish behaviour towards new members:

1. You write in your review that Atlas Shrugged is the:greatest achievement in history showing thereby that a) your knowledge of history is extraordinarily limited, in fact must be practically non-existent; b) that your sense of achievement is mediocre, to say the least, and c) that your values in what you assign greatness to are petty and, in view of AR's quasi fascist nonsense, of questionable humanity.

2. Further, when you say in your review it is the most spiritually rich work of literature I have ever read you only unwittingly reveal your illiteracy: if you think this is 'spiritually rich', I can only surmise from this remark that your previous reading must be restricted to 'Dear Amy' columns, the National Enquirer or the pseudo spirituality of Paulo Coelho, another junky writer. This supposition about the poverty of your previous reading is only borne out by the way you compare AR with Tolstoy,and Nietzsche in your posts above, an utterly laughable comparison (I assume you mean this seriously and are not pulling our leg?).

3. Further, faced with such ignorance and lack of intellectual nuance on your part, I am supposed to offer 'rational and civilised discourse'? On what? On what basis other than contempt can I communicate with this kind of nonsense? And your whining about how nasty the internet is as a discourse platform when you meet with someone who recognises AR for what she is and doesn't hesitate to let all and sundry know it, is not very cool either. If you are going to put your absurd opinions about a truly terrible writer and her detestable ideas out there in a public forum, you have to prepared to catch the shoes that will be flung at you by those who are better read and better thinkers than you -and she- are.

Grow up. Get over AR. Read some real literature. Read some history. Read some real philosophy. Get a real education.

Fling away. You only prove my point and expose yourself to be the unreasonable, immature, spiritually impoverished boor you so ignorantly accuse others of being.

Notice how tomcatMurr "defends" himself against an accusation of churlish behavior by composing yet another, even longer diatribe of still more personal ad hominem attacks, with yet again not even the slightest attempt made to offer a jot of support for his ridiculous and insulting assertions. He did not offer reasons for his disagreement---he just reiterated it in even nastier terms. I've had enough of his pointless tantrums, and am reporting him to the site's operators for trying to start a flame war and thereby violating its terms of use.

(And in point of fact, not that it matters, I have a degree in philosophy and graduated with honors with a minor in Russian language and literature, and have read a great deal of literature, history and philosophy besides---but I have not bothered to read Paulo Coelho, so on that subject we'll just have to take tomcatMurr's word...for what it's worth. To him, anyone who disagrees with his worldview must be "ignorant" and "lacking in intellectual nuance"...what tremendous presumption!)

>103 AshRyan: to be fair, they're unusually high-quality ad hominem attacks:)

Oh, I wouldn't deny that. He's clearly a remarkably intelligent and eloquent person, and I'm happy to give him his due on that point.

This is a notice that, indeed, the Terms of Use still apply in the Salon. Personal attacks are not permitted.

There are many ways to indicate your disagreement, even contempt, of someone's words without attacking them directly as people. Observance of this subtle distinction is a condition of site discussion.

no no no no, please do not misunderstand me, not everyone who disagrees with my world view is ignorant and lacking in intellectual nuance, just those who think Ayn Rand is great.

And the more you say, the more you prove my point......which is highly gratifying and amusing.

You asked for reasoned and civilised discourse: I gave it to you. (let's leave aside the irony of having a reasoned and civilised discourse about a 'writer' who is neither 'reasonable' nor 'civilised'...) I at least don't need to go running off to the 'grown ups' when the going gets tough.

Anyway! Enough! back to pimping.

... I'm great Mr. Freeque, how're you?!

I don't post much anymore because the group has taken off like a rocket and it's difficult to pipe in when everyone has passed by the topic before you've hit send.

For example, I think Rand, or more particularly what Rand does to people, to be rather fascinating, but since the hornets seem to be meandering back to their nest I'll put down the bat.

I was raised on UUNet and posts like mine and tomcat's just seem like business as usual. Rather tame, in fact.

As for the accusation about my ad hominem attack in the third paragraph, it's my understanding that an attack of that sort must be about an individual or a group and have no reason but to attack. This is not the case with my third paragraph. I don't know AshRyan and have nothing to say about his empathetic situation at all. However, the people I referred to are people I know, some of whom quite well, with the exception of Cheney and Sandford, and enough about their character failures has been published that they are well known enough to make public judgments about them. I know whereof I speak. These are the same people who require a written set of rules from the Max Law Giver in order to know how to act morally. Part of their personality defect, aside from a lack of empathy is no moral compass of their own. They must rely on others for their moral guidance. What conclusion am I to draw when I am told it is impossible to act morally without knowing the Laws in the Bible? I see this as a real problem, not just for them but for the kind of country I live in, as well. That is most important to me.

Yes, I am passionate about the narcissism and lack of empathy in Rand's philosophy. I agree we should all be everything we can be, it's just that most of us weren't born with silver spoons and have to take those opportunities available to us. We are not all heroes and that has only slightly to do with our abilities and our station in life. Yes, what a wonderful world it would be to just have to consider number one all the time, it's just not a real world. Nor, given the reality of such a world, is it a world I wish to live in. If you think people are nasty now, wait for Rand's world.

What would you call someone who doesn't like the rules, whines about it, takes their ball and goes home? We used to call them quitters, not heroes. Is this not exactly what John Galt does?

Does not John Galt run Galt's Gulch with an iron hand. Requiring certain behaviors from his residents, requiring certain results? They don't necessarily do what they please, but what Galt pleases. Sounds pretty totalitarian to me, like the way Rand ran her salon.Please, correct me if I'm wrong.

And yes, I have read Atlas Shrugged.

As for Rand attacking Christianity, her entire program is opposed to the Christian message. Its existence is an attack on Christianity.

Its existence is an attack on Christianity.

Point one, and so far only, in its favor then.

When I consider the glory of the Seven Wonders of the World, and ponder how "impossible" the architectural feats of ancient peoples who labored so exactly and scientifically (consider those who built the astronomical buildings of New Mexico's, Chaco Canyon, as seen on PBS last night), and did so without the benefits of modern technologies...;

when I contemplate the innovative advances made in medicine over the past couple centuries, and the tens of millions of lives that have either been saved as a result or whose quality-of-life has been dramatically improved because of the discoveries of compassionate women and men....;

when I consider the unparalled invention of the computer, the internet...;

when I consider Galileo, Einstein, and the invention of the wheel...;

that is, when I consider all these people and their visionary, singular accomplishments throughout World History, as magnificent and humane and life-affirming as they are, they still don't compare - no, they pale by comparison - to what is obviously "the greatest achievement in History," Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

Wonderfully stated. I agree, except for, maybe, Valley of the Dolls. That might have been a greater accomplishment than them all rolled into one.

To repeat: Personal attacks aren't allowed. Call words ignorant. Call an idea ignorant. But don't call a person ignorant.

That a member did so *directly* after my posted warning makes this especially obvious and egregious violation. Please do not repeat it.

Who are you speaking to, Tim?

Oh, okay, just reread the thread.

Salonistas, I've just left a private message with our beloved feline, encouraging, exhorting, pleading with him; because I don't want to see him get suspended since he is dearly beloved around here - amen?! - to not further violate t.o.s in the manner diagnosed by Tim.

I urge all of you, if you care about our beloved feline - who's undoubtedly asleep right now - unaware of the impending doom and danger about to befall him, to let him know you hear him, you commiserate with him, but that, even so, it's still not worth getting suspended over.

Thank you in advance!

fun is over, let's get a drink.

Does anybody here thinks Camus is a great writer ? What about Hemingway ?
Joyce ?

; )

>116 Macumbeira: No, hell no, and once in a while.

Proceed with caution. I think Ernest may be an LT member!

More wisdom from Geneg. Bravo. (wait, is that ad hominem?) And as for all the fuss about ad hominem attacks, thanks tim for your personal warning. I have been warned. Yes, I have, salonistas, I have been warned, I tremble in my little white socks and fear for my safety.

I'm still not sure what an ad hominem attack is, perhaps that's my problem. I mean, how EXACTLY is a word supposed to be ignorant? I don't know AshRyan so I don't know how I can be construed as attacking him, especially when he is in US and I am thousands of miles away on my hilltop in Formosa, and it's the internet anyway, and it's all just words and none of us are who we are, and as Gene says I am used to a rather more cut and thrust debate (you should check out the exchanges between Pushkin and Bulgarin!) than the bland, polite American version -so polite, Americans, even when they invade countries in the Middle East and steal their oil so polite (ad hominem?)...but we must allow Tim to exercise his autocracy, otherwise he might get upset with nothing to do and start crying and weeping and wailing that no one takes him seriously. But any- OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!

WTF?
OMGFGF!!!!
Look at that, SAME INITIALS AS AYN RAND: ASH RYAN= AYN RAND OMFFFGA!!!!! You don't think....

Ok, THAT'S too spooooky, I'm going back under the sofa...

I read a few books by Ayn Rand when I was about 16. There were certain things I appreciated about her: 1. The virtue of selfishness was refreshing to me, having been raised on the idea that one should always give over to other's wishes in the name of selflessness; 2. A certain consistency in her application of her conservative philosophy, which I found lacking in a lot of conservatives, this led her to 3. oppose the war in Vietnam.

I came to disagree with her views on the virtues of selfishness because it ignores the fact (fact according to me) that we are all connected and therefore our self-interest is intertwined.

I also think she is a pretty terrible writer in that her novels are more preachments than dramatizations.

To further contribute to the long overdone Ayn Rand debate: there's a section of The Illuminatus! Trilogy that parodies Atlas Shrugged. It's quite funny. I thought.

Telemachus Sneezed! When I first heard of this Ayn lady I was all "please, Illuminatus did that funnier and first." Youth.