Topic: Bitcoin and Atlas Shrugged - page 2. (Read 3146 times)

What ever happened to the hunting Atlas thread?

I certainly wasn't bored at any point during the novel. Science fiction (and this definitely qualifies) is the fiction of ideas. The medium itself exists to get ideas across whilst entertaining. She (like you, at times) used excess verbiage. This is neither good, nor bad. It simply is. Some people may not like her writing style, some enjoy it. I enjoyed the story, but am not a very big fan of her writing style.

Maybe the only goal wasn't to get a point across, but to provide a novel for people to read? Novels wouldn't exist if their only goal was to get a point across. Power Point presentations can do that.

If all of Atlas Shrugged's would be fans think it was too long, then it must have been boring. If it was boring, then perhaps it just wasn't enjoyable. If it wasn't enjoyable, then I suppose all one was looking for was to have someone make a point. If you just wish to be the recipient of a point, look elsewhere.

Why, yes, yes I am.

btw: Above comment is extremely funny if read in his voice:

Hey! Are you saying that Russians use way too excessively long writing styles that can carry on for way more than needed just to get their point across in a too detailed manner, doing it to make sure that the reader understands what is being talked about, but aiming it at people who may be smart, or who may need some longer explanations to understand some otherwise simple, or at least grade-school level, concepts?  

For the same "Holy crap, this is about now" sensation, but with a slightly less chest-denting size, look into Alongside Night.

Atlas Shrugged is a good story, but It was written by a Russian, which means that it's way longer than it needs to be to get the point across. Lots of preaching and monologue.

Get the audio book version. The story is interesting, and the characters are really well developed, but it's true, there is a lot of monologues (There's a whole 50 page chapter of nothing but a single guy's monologue), and having someone else read it for you (especially with voices) makes it easier to slog through.

It's hated because it poses the idea that when people work in their own self interest (selfish), they earn wealth by providing things for people that they want, and will pay for, thus making everyone better off; while when people work in everyone's self interest (socialist government types), they tend to bring down the inventors and dreamers, and make things horrible for everyone. Basically, selfishness stemming from "I want to create this thing and let people buy it from me, rules be damned" is good, and selfishness stemming from, "I want to get into a position of power through politics, and make everyone's lives better by using rules and taking things from everyone else" is bad. That's not a popular idea in heavily socialist countries.

BTW, there's a bit of an irony in the way the haters interpret it, too: Atlas Shrugs goes pretty heavily into corporate corruption and corporations getting together with government regulators to fuck up the little guy. I.E. It's blasts the hell out of specifically the problems the Occupy Wallstreet'ers are complaining about. But because the overall theme of the book is "Capitalism good," democrats and occupier types totally miss that part. If you read it from that understanding, the book is actually pretty much center of politics (libertarian), blasting both extremes of communism and fascism (governments and corporations working together) equally.

I've always found this funny myself. I believe people force themselves to finish any given movie or novel just to see how the ending goes; only then can they make a valid conclusion whether or not it was good or bad, by looking at the matter as a whole, completed piece. But this seems like behaviour reserved for professional reviewers; one reason why I never finish the books I start. If I'm not enjoying myself, there's not a lot of point. It ceases to be entertainment and becomes a chore--which is funny, because people are so accustomed to chore, so I suppose it's not surprising, knowing this, that people reason to finish books they're not enjoying.

Or maybe they're criticising it through the eyes of a writer, which would be a valid criticism; some books have too much filler. By assuming different roles, is it possible to enjoy a novel as a reader, yet as a writer, believe it did not meet the punch in a timely manner?

So it was a bad book? I never read it myself, nor do I have any interest to.

As Roger Ebert said, no good movie is too long, and no bad movie is too short.

Therefore, if you thought it was too long, then it was a bad book. Fiction is to enjoy. If you think the book was too long, then you didn't enjoy it, clearly. Which begs the question, why did you bother finishing it? Life is short. Spend it on books you might enjoy.

I despise the idiot movie critics (or book critics) who claim a movie or book needed editing - i.e needed to be trimmed, cut, etc. Such individuals are not writers or filmmakers. What they mean to say, is not that the movie or book was too long, but that it was simply bad and unenjoyable.

For if you were enjoying a book or movie, why would you not want it to continue?

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, by Robert M. Pirsig, is one of my favorite books. I've been rereading it every 3 or 4 years for the last 20 years. A few years ago I was so enamored with the book I decided to google it - to see what others had to say. What I found was different from my understanding. Not good or bad but just different.

In the words of Stephen King, the posts I read "shrink things that seemed limitless when they were in your head to no more than living size when they're brought out."

I then realized that books are like paintings. We each choose to take something different, something personal from the story. I think when the author's story speaks individually to the reader, transcending even what the author (painter) was trying to convey, that's when a great story is born.

This is a book that bored the hell out of me but fascinated me at the same time. I could read it 10 times again without pain and still find new gems in it. It's hard, it's rough and I very much like it.

You will sense a strange kind of connection if someone tells you he's going Galt, understanding exactly what he means.

I take it this is the kind of novel I'd be interested in

Truer words have never been spoken.

For the same reason that many people seem to hate Bitcoin, I guess.

That sounds like a good premise for a book.  So that only leaves the question: why's it getting so much hate?

Think for yourself. Be yourself.

I've heard extraordinarily bad things about this book; anyone care to explain what it's about in a couple of sentences?

I read it a few years ago - its about 1000 pages too long!

The story is interesting, but the dialogue is awful - far too many monologues!

The whole story could have been written in a fraction of the words, and it would still have got the point across!

However, I fully agree with the OP - Who is John Galt?

Refreshing with some ideological input in between all the price hype.

Nice to be reminded about why we got into this in the first place!

Must read that book.