The "Who Is John Galt?" Thread

[mawilson 2,133]

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]

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.

LOL...this is a great conversation. A rare thing in OT these days.

I suppose all art though, is a form of catharsis, if it is authentic. How about a character like Willy Loman from Miller's, Death of a Salesman? Those are the kinds of characters that I find most interesting, even though it is sometimes painful to watch them struggle with their inner demons.

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

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.

Very cool. There's nothing quite like a good book...and no movie, no matter how good of an adaption, can capture the richness of the written word.

[Ban Hammer 14,664]

i thought you lived in new york?

[scandal 951]

[luckytxn 2,265]

Very cool. There's nothing quite like a good book...and no movie, no matter how good of an adaption, can capture the richness of the written word.

For sure. A good book and well written is a pleasure. Never have seen a movie that was as good as any book. Case in point is Blackhawk Down and When We Were Soldiers. Both really good movies and I have seen each several times but the books were many times better. Reading them made me go "Wow."

[Wyatt's Torch 45]

LOL...this is a great conversation. A rare thing in OT these days.

I suppose all art though, is a form of catharsis, if it is authentic. How about a character like Willy Loman from Miller's, Death of a Salesman? Those are the kinds of characters that I find most interesting, even though it is sometimes painful to watch them struggle with their inner demons.

That's actually a great point regarding Death Of A Salesman. I love the play, and have had the fortune of having read it, seen it on stage and seen the excellent filmed stage version from the '80's with Dustin Hoffman as Loman and John Malkovich as Biff. I guess the difference (for me) is how the characters are portrayed. Going back to Joyce's Artist..., you get the sense from how it is written that you're supposed to empathize with the main character. You're supposed to feel bad for him and rail against the world that makes him feel as he does. But for whatever reason, I just couldn't feel ANY sympathy for him, nor could I empathize with his plight. The character of Loman, on the other hand, is written in a different way -- you KNOW that he's a weak man, but the tragedy of Loman is that beneath all the bravado, HE knows he's a weak man too! You feel sympathy for him because he's reached this stage of his life where he's no longer effective at the one thing he was good at, and he knows it and can't do anything about it. Scratch that...he CAN and DOES do something about it, in an act that has an odd air of nobility to it, given that it was one major thing that was in his power to do.

I guess it comes down to portrayal and perspective with tragic characters. Maybe it's because the Artist didn't HAVE to be a tragic character, yet was...while Willie Loman was fated to be a tragic character? It's a good question, but you've certainly got me thinking about it...why I despise one character, but feel legitimate sympathy for the other.

I'm not sure if I agree with you about all authentic art being catharsis though. I think that's a bit of a myth, personally, but that's admittedly just my opinion.

[luckytxn 2,265]

That's actually a great point regarding Death Of A Salesman. I love the play, and have had the fortune of having read it, seen it on stage and seen the excellent filmed stage version from the '80's with Dustin Hoffman as Loman and John Malkovich as Biff. I guess the difference (for me) is how the characters are portrayed. Going back to Joyce's Artist..., you get the sense from how it is written that you're supposed to empathize with the main character. You're supposed to feel bad for him and rail against the world that makes him feel as he does. But for whatever reason, I just couldn't feel ANY sympathy for him, nor could I empathize with his plight. The character of Loman, on the other hand, is written in a different way -- you KNOW that he's a weak man, but the tragedy of Loman is that beneath all the bravado, HE knows he's a weak man too! You feel sympathy for him because he's reached this stage of his life where he's no longer effective at the one thing he was good at, and he knows it and can't do anything about it. Scratch that...he CAN and DOES do something about it, in an act that has an odd air of nobility to it, given that it was one major thing that was in his power to do.

I guess it comes down to portrayal and perspective with tragic characters. Maybe it's because the Artist didn't HAVE to be a tragic character, yet was...while Willie Loman was fated to be a tragic character? It's a good question, but you've certainly got me thinking about it...why I despise one character, but feel legitimate sympathy for the other.

I'm not sure if I agree with you about all authentic art being catharsis though. I think that's a bit of a myth, personally, but that's admittedly just my opinion.

I think all art can be cathartic but it differs from each person as the art differs from each other. It can tell a lot about someone by what he sees as cathartic. Also it can be generational or a national difference. Death of a Salesman is something that Americans can understand but Joyce' writings are very foreign to most Americans. Death of a Salesman is not seen as that great to the newer generations as they have no way of identifying with him. Sometimes a modern adaptation can overcome the generational gap.

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

That's actually a great point regarding Death Of A Salesman. I love the play, and have had the fortune of having read it, seen it on stage and seen the excellent filmed stage version from the '80's with Dustin Hoffman as Loman and John Malkovich as Biff. I guess the difference (for me) is how the characters are portrayed. Going back to Joyce's Artist..., you get the sense from how it is written that you're supposed to empathize with the main character. You're supposed to feel bad for him and rail against the world that makes him feel as he does. But for whatever reason, I just couldn't feel ANY sympathy for him, nor could I empathize with his plight. The character of Loman, on the other hand, is written in a different way -- you KNOW that he's a weak man, but the tragedy of Loman is that beneath all the bravado, HE knows he's a weak man too! You feel sympathy for him because he's reached this stage of his life where he's no longer effective at the one thing he was good at, and he knows it and can't do anything about it. Scratch that...he CAN and DOES do something about it, in an act that has an odd air of nobility to it, given that it was one major thing that was in his power to do.

I guess it comes down to portrayal and perspective with tragic characters. Maybe it's because the Artist didn't HAVE to be a tragic character, yet was...while Willie Loman was fated to be a tragic character? It's a good question, but you've certainly got me thinking about it...why I despise one character, but feel legitimate sympathy for the other.

I'm not sure if I agree with you about all authentic art being catharsis though. I think that's a bit of a myth, personally, but that's admittedly just my opinion.

That's an interesting take on Willy Loman's character. I see him as not a tragic hero, but as someone who is tragically consumed by delusion. He couldn't come to grips with the fact that his whole outlook on life needed to be re-examined and when he eventually succeeds in ending his life, he is not regarded a hero, but a coward. The greatness of the character and the story is that it is so relevant to today's hero, whose transformation doesn't happen from some external event but from coming to grips with our ideas and attitudes, through self reflection and re-examination. It becomes tragic when that transformation doesn't happen because we are consumed by our own delusions.

[Calypso 465]

For you Steve, Curtis, and Shaun.

We have Miller's "Death of a Salesman" here at home. I missed out some parts years ago so I might just read it again.

Have you read "A Streetcar Named Desire" by Tennessee Williams? I will look for the film adaptation of that. It makes me remember Henrik Ibsen's "A Doll's House." Both plays were a good shock to the world when they were exposed in their own time.

I have always liked quotes and I started noting down whatever I find when I was 11. One of the first few that I have listed was: "Geniuses are born but writers are made."

It was only in college when I really understood the real meaning of that line.