Ayn Rand's Original Novel to be Published

Mainecoons wrote:I've turned libertarian...

...with an overwhelming control-freak impulse. No hypocrisy there.

Thank you for demonstrating your gracious personality for us once again, with an overwhelming compulsion to be unpleasant when you can hide behind your keyboard.

Rosa Venus wrote:

Mainecoons wrote:I've turned libertarian...

...with an overwhelming control-freak impulse. No hypocrisy there.

Good observation Rosa.

Zedinmexico wrote:Kill this none are going to be convinced by the others.  Waste of time.

Z

What are you,the new hall monitor?

Mainecoons wrote:Thank you for demonstrating your gracious personality for us once again,

Rosa Venus' posts here and on other forums have never been ungracious,al contrario,they're almost always intelligent,witty and gracious,I wish there were more posters like Rosa.

Yeah, like yours, LOL.

You two and several others will probably die early from drowning in your own bile.

Mainecoons wrote:Personally speaking, I've found that both of those political parties are responsible and I've turned libertarian in my old age.

"libertarian"

A title given to only the most brilliant. Flawless in thought, impeccable in credibility, simply without error.

But hates other "libertarians" that feel they have a rite to make loud noise at any time of day or night.

Ought to move this thread to the Octagon area so that we can *really* start ripping new orifices.

viajero wrote:

Mainecoons wrote:Thank you for demonstrating your gracious personality for us once again,

Rosa Venus' posts here and on other forums have never been ungracious,al contrario,they're almost always intelligent,witty and gracious,I wish there were more posters like Rosa.

Mainecoons wrote:Yeah, like yours, LOL.

No,I was referring to Rosa Venus' posts,not mine.

Mainecoons wrote:Thank you for demonstrating your gracious personality for us once again, with an overwhelming compulsion to be unpleasant when you can hide behind your keyboard.

Do you really think that anyone wouldn't say what they have to say to you, to your face.  Not me, buddy boy.
Just PM me and we'll set up a time for me to verbalize in person, anything I have to say or said.

Regarding the posting by Pogo(which I have enjoyed many of his postings)
A trial by jury is forsaken when a person committing a criminal act,
refuses to submit to Police direction(put your hand up.etc) , and
attacks a Police Officer, or, for that matter any man that has a gun whether he is on the side of the Law, or another criminal

Mainecoons wrote:Some of you and Pogo may find this an interesting read:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/how-to-reduce-police-violence-eliminate-nanny-state-crimes/?utm_source=wysija&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Mailing+List+Saturday+9+AM

Too many laws?  IMO, yes along with way too much government in general.  Sadly, it seems Mexico is rapidly headed in the same direction along with jacking up taxes at every turn.

Personally speaking, I've found that both of those political parties are responsible and I've turned libertarian in my old age.

I agree. And I find the following a fascinating observation: "Whether or not these laws are frequently enforced, Husak’s concern is that they exist — and potentially make felons of us all."

"But this is not the takeaway that fans of Rand get from reading her "dreck," as it was so accurately described earlier in this thread. To them, Rand offers a philosophical rationale to justify their own greed and selfishness."

My point precisely. Because those critics of Rand are often uneducated and unskilled in the simple technology of reading and understanding a book, they often come to an ignorant and erroneous conclusion as to what was said in the book. Worse still, they frequently defend their ignorance by insisting that they 'have a right to their opinion.' Well yes, they have a right to their opinion, no matter how ignorant it may be. But, first of all, that does make their opinion authoritative or correct; it is only an uninformed opinion. And second, their right to have an opinion does not then give them the right or justification for bashing, trashing or crucifying the author. Turn it around and try it out. Have you ever been misunderstood about what you said, and then been criticized and judged unfairly for what you supposedly said - but didn't? Not much fun, is it? Especially if it leads to serious consequences for you. My point, then, is that it is not okay to misread, misunderstand and misinterpret what a person says and then call it "dreck" and call the person names and in other ways try to defile them and their assertions when you haven't got the knowledge or skill to understand them in the first place. That is a little too Orwellian to be good for us - if you know what I mean.

It's difficult to imagine a reader not understanding her main theme since she bludgeons us with it over and over and over again, especially in Atlas Shrugged but also in the Fountainhead and her other books. (And I agree your summation communicates it very well.)

Pogo wrote:My point, then, is that it is not okay to misread, misunderstand and misinterpret what a person says and then call it "dreck" and call the person names and in other ways try to defile them and their assertions when you haven't got the knowledge or skill to understand them in the first place.

I buy that. So long as it remains okay for people who do understand what they've read to conclude that it's dreck.

Rosa Venus wrote:It's difficult to imagine a reader not understanding her main theme since she bludgeons us with it over and over and over again, especially in Atlas Shrugged but also in the Fountainheard and her other books. (And I agree your summation communicates it very well.)

Pogo wrote:My point, then, is that it is not okay to misread, misunderstand and misinterpret what a person says and then call it "dreck" and call the person names and in other ways try to defile them and their assertions when you haven't got the knowledge or skill to understand them in the first place.

I buy that. So long as it is okay for people who do understand what they've read to conclude that it's dreck.

Okay, so you don't like what she said; that's fine. Then it boils down to the ethics, propriety and value of using the "D" word simply because you don't like it. Having a bias is one thing; spreading a bias is another.

Okay, let's lose the "D" word.

Is it okay to question her premises and disagree with her conclusions? Is it ever okay to use "strongly negative words" to describe work that you disagree with strongly?

"I didn't like what she said" just doesn't cut it sometimes.

Beyond that, I'm out. These forums are hardly the venue for literary criticism. Or even serious discussions. We've all proven that!

Rosa Venus wrote:

Mainecoons wrote:I've turned libertarian...

...with an overwhelming control-freak impulse. No hypocrisy there.

Amen

Rosa Venus wrote:Okay, let's lose the "D" word.

Is it okay to question her premises and disagree with her conclusions? Is it ever okay to use "strongly negative words" to describe work that you disagree with strongly?

"I didn't like what she said" just doesn't cut it sometimes.

Beyond that, I'm out. These forums are hardly the venue for literary criticism. Or even serious discussions. We've all proven that!

Yes, Amen and absolutely. We could have a conversation then and I would have a chance to learn something. I'd like that!

viajero wrote:

Zedinmexico wrote:Kill this none are going to be convinced by the others.  Waste of time.

Z

What are you,the new hall monitor?

No but I think the posts that followed proved my point. Note everybody starts kicking Mainecoon when he didn't say anything wrong just indicated a preference for Libertarian views at his old age. By the way for the person who commented about Mainecoon views on Rockets... when one persons rights interfere with other people rights it changes everything. Libertarian doesn't mean anything goes and I should have to tolerate anything and everything. Libertarian means many things to many people but basically smaller government and less intrusive government but it doesn't mean anything goes. Yes Mainecoon irritates many of you and you respond and than he responds and nobody mind is changed as per my original comments about a waste of time. Remember all this is about a stupid book that the author doesn't even want published.

Z

I guess Libertarians can ask for a thread to be shut down if they do not approve of the content.

How do we know that the book is Stupid? Hasn't been published.
And , it is my understanding that the Author wanted the book
published, but decided that it would not have enough acceptance to
be a successful financial venture.

According to the Wall Street Journal:

“’Ideal’ tells the story of a screen actress who is accused of murder and visits six of her most devoted fans to ask for help. In 1934, when she was in her late 20s, Rand first wrote “Ideal” as a work of fiction.
But Rand was dissatisfied with it and set it aside. The same year, she rewrote it as a play. The play didn’t have its New York premiere until 2010 – 66 years after she wrote it.
The original version was rediscovered in 2012 by Richard Ralston, publishing manager at the Ayn Rand Institute, while digitizing the Rand archives. (At 135 pages, it’s been called a novelette and a novella. The publisher is now billing it as a “short novel.”)”

The Guardian gave an idea about the plot:
"Ideal will be released next July, as the first novel from Rand since 1957’s Atlas Shrugged. It is, said its publisher, the story of the “beautiful but tormented actress” Kay Gonda, who goes on the run after being accused of murder. Desperate, she turns for help to six fans who have written to her, “each telling her that she represents their ideal – a respectable family man, a far-left activist, a cynical artist, an evangelist, a playboy, and a lost soul”.

“Each reacts to her plight in his own way, their reactions a glimpse into their secret selves and their true values. In the end their responses to her pleas give Kay the answers she has been seeking,” said the publisher."

Lady Otter Latté wrote:I guess Libertarians can ask for a thread to be shut down if they do not approve of the content.

Stop making things up. It's not lady like.

Z

Ladies don't make things up but otters have been known to stretch a few. Now you mix a Latte drinking otter with a lady and all bets are off.

If you think otters on caffeine are bad, tangle with one going through caffeine withdrawal.

"THERE IS NO PLACE FOR HUMOR IN A DISCUSSION THAT INVOLVES AYN RAND!" - Ayn Rand, 1979