The "Who Is John Galt?" Thread

[William33 110]

Here is one for you - Handbook of "Loss prevention and Crime Prevention, fourth edition...

Edited March 6, 2010 by William33

[Calypso 465]

Here is one for you - Handbook of "Loss prevention and Crime Prevention, fourth edition...

You meant for me? If you were the author, I'd have to think more than twice.

[Ban Hammer 14,664]

Here is one for you - Handbook of "Loss prevention and Crime Prevention, fourth edition...

sounds like a cure for insomnia

[luckytxn 2,265]

I stumbled across the book in my early years of work, a salesgeek told me that his manager made em all read it .

Each company that I touch, it becomes required reading material, from managers up to President level.

Seems to have made a difference, these 15+ years.

GoGoGadget MidasMulligan !!!

ps - if you've just stumbled into this thread, do, please, read the book? Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. If yer an older fella, ya, it does come in big print, at the library.

Her earlier book The Fountainhead may be even better and both should be required reading for everyone.

[William33 110]

sounds like a cure for insomnia

Indeed....I am almost finished with that "coaster".... on Pg. 470 of 502....

Edited March 6, 2010 by William33

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Indeed....I am almost finished with that "coaster".... on Pg. 470 of 502....

I have the Cliff Notes version.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Yes, I've read my fair share of Hemingway (whom I like), Faulkner (whom I dislike) and Joyce (whom I despise), as well as most of the other twentieth century literary classics...but I still consider Atlas Shrugged to be my favorite novel for both its content AND writing style. I'm not an Objectivist, and I hate the legions of people who treat AS like it's a bible or a sacred text. But it DID and DOES have a very personal impact on me in a way I can't really explain. The problem is that it has often been held up as a Republican text or a big-L Libertarian text, when really it's neither. It's its own thing. Rand herself was dogmatic, but for whatever reason, I've always found her novels (even her first one, We The Living) to be beautifully written social commentaries.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yes, I've read my fair share of ... Joyce (whom I despise),

Blaspheme!

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is one of the very few books I have ever thrown across a room in disgust. I loathed the title character, mainly because I just HATE weak, insipid people like that. I feel no sympathy for them whatsoever. In a way, I guess Joyce is kind of the anti-Rand of writers, which would explain why I loathe his work. Dubliners and Portrait... was enough to convince me of that. Admittedly, I didn't even touch Ulysses...but I suspect that if I disliked the other two of his novels, THAT one wouldn't do anything for me either.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man is one of the very few books I have ever thrown across a room in disgust. I loathed the title character, mainly because I just HATE weak, insipid people like that. I feel no sympathy for them whatsoever. In a way, I guess Joyce is kind of the anti-Rand of writers, which would explain why I loathe his work. Dubliners and Portrait... was enough to convince me of that. Admittedly, I didn't even touch Ulysses...but I suspect that if I disliked the other two of his novels, THAT one wouldn't do anything for me either.

Ah, ok. I think I'm beginning to see Rand's appeal to you and why you don't like Joyce. Rand was an atheist and Joyce's belief in God played an important part of his story telling.

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Ah, ok. I think I'm beginning to see Rand's appeal to you and why you don't like Joyce. Rand was an atheist and Joyce's belief in God played an important part of his story telling.

It's quite possible that you're right. But I typically dislike MOST books and movies with main characters that are weak or uncertain of themselves. I'm drawn to decisiveness and self-reliance in characters.

Let's take Joyce's young man for a moment -- in phys. ed., he would surely shy away from most sports and sourly muse at the unfairness of the class and the horror of those around him calling him a pansy. In a Rand novel, the young man would be a brilliant athlete, of course, but fiercely independent, doing it for the sake of the challenge, for his OWN sake, with little regard to the fawning admiration (of often jealousy and spite) of the class. I prefer the latter character by far, though I'd be happy with a character who may not even be all that great at phys. ed., but at least TRIES hard and doesn't whine and mewl about it.

[Peikko 1,575]

Not everyone likes sport. Not liking sport, not being interested in that type of physical exercise does not make you by definition weak, or even physically weak for that matter.

Ah, ok. I think I'm beginning to see Rand's appeal to you and why you don't like Joyce. Rand was an atheist and Joyce's belief in God played an important part of his story telling.

Someimes you are a right knob Steven. I like Joyce, a lot, and although I haven't read any Rand, I doubt it would be very appealing to me from what I have learned so far.

Mind you, the only author I can't read is Swift. I HATE Swift

My dislike of Swift has nothing to do with eating babies either!!!!!!!!!!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's quite possible that you're right. But I typically dislike MOST books and movies with main characters that are weak or uncertain of themselves. I'm drawn to decisiveness and self-reliance in characters.

Let's take Joyce's young man for a moment -- in phys. ed., he would surely shy away from most sports and sourly muse at the unfairness of the class and the horror of those around him calling him a pansy. In a Rand novel, the young man would be a brilliant athlete, of course, but fiercely independent, doing it for the sake of the challenge, for his OWN sake, with little regard to the fawning admiration (of often jealousy and spite) of the class. I prefer the latter character by far, though I'd be happy with a character who may not even be all that great at phys. ed., but at least TRIES hard and doesn't whine and mewl about it.

Interesting. Joyce, like Faulkner, focused on the internal struggles of the main characters which was a big departure from previous writers who focused on external conflict. To me, I find that style of narrative much more appealing because the main character(s) aren't just some kind of archetype but dimensional and complex. Flannery O'Connor was another great writer in the same vein as Joyce and Faulkner.

Edited March 7, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

Interesting. Joyce, like Faulkner, focused on the internal struggles of the main characters which was a big departure from previous writers who focused on external conflict. To me, I find that style of narrative much more appealing because the main character(s) aren't just some kind of archetype but dimensional and complex. Flannery O'Connor was another great writer in the same vein as Joyce and Faulkner.

Yeah, Rand is frequently criticized for having characters that are too "perfect" to be real, though it was done completely on purpose -- her books are idealistic in the truest sense of the word. I DO find it interesting that very few feminist groups have latched on to Atlas Shrugged as a bold statement of strong womanhood. The main character is a female captain of industry, after all...

I can understand the allure of Joycean internal conflict, since it was clearly something very real and very acutely experienced by Joyce himself. The book must have been downright cathartic the first time he wrote it...prior to burning it, that is, before writing it again. Catharsis can be quite incredible to behold, much in the same way as epiphany and revelation are. But it's rarely my cup of tea, personally. If I want catharsis, I'll read a Plath poem. I won't read 200 pages of someone hating himself then finding himself while still somewhat disliking himself... But honestly, to each their own. There's a very good reason why Joyce is almost always considered to be near the very top of the literary canon, while Rand is often several rungs below.

[luckytxn 2,265]

I read Joyce too and didn't care for his writing. Faulkner and Hemingway were both great authors for sure. Rand' books were more my cup of tea as I like and am like people that go and do things and not just talk about it. Usually the people that talk about it are the ones that criticize the ones that succeed. Like making that better steel girder. He tried many things and over and over till he succeeded. It was the best and he knew it. It took a lot of money and effort and stress but trial and error showed him the way to succeed. After all that then everyone else including his wife criticized him that he didn't just give it away to society as a gift.

Maybe my fave author was Michener. I read all of his books. My grandmother gave me a book bu him when I was 13. (She was a retired English teacher) I didn't want to read it as I was into Louis Lamour then but I did. Years later I started reading his other books after I met him at the southwest writers conference in Austin, Tx. Since then I decided to read all the classics and every author I can. Many are good in their way, some great.

I guess the books that have made an impression on me the most were the authors that could not only tell a tale but paint a vast picture that I could actually see. Like Les Miserables, War and Peace and for sure the Tolkean trilogy and Hobbit. Of course I was shocked that I could read a book like Watership down and it become a fave but hey it is now required reading in some schools for a reason.

Then of course there are books that are tedious to read but required reading for some things. Like The Republic and other works. The Republic starts off interesting but bogs down and then gets interesting again. That is a book that is easy to toss for good reason. Who knows why I have read it 3 times. The rise and Fall of the Roman empire is a nice read but after half way through the books you want to stop but keep on because you started it and invested all that time till then so may as well finish the damn thing. Different tack was the Rise and Fall of the Third Reicht. I learned a lot from that.

Of course being an ex military guy I have read about every battle and military history I can get my hands on. I read many biographies. I read most of every philosophy and religion I could to try to understand things but frankly every philosophy I have read is pretty much the same as the earliest philosophers. Read the early ones and you have it all in a nutshell.

I usually read the Pulitzer prize winners every year but have been slacking the last few years. Most are good reads by pretty good authors but frankly I find the runner ups sometimes better in my opinion. School was very easy for me and I aced everything because I was a avid reader and could stay ahead of others. Main reason I finished school early and so on. I like and trust more others that also will read a book and not get their ideas and thought from TV or movies.