*bum bum* IN A WORLD . . . *bum bum* . . . FULL OF NASTY MONSTERS . . . *bum bum* . . . WHO EAT PEOPLE AND BREAK INTO CASTLES . . . *bum bum* . . . TH*bum bum* IN A WORLD . . . *bum bum* . . . FULL OF NASTY MONSTERS . . . *bum bum* . . . WHO EAT PEOPLE AND BREAK INTO CASTLES . . . *bum bum* . . . THE BEASTLY GRENDEL LURKED LONG OVER THE MOORES . . . *bum bum* . . . BUT NOW . . . *Cut to scene of monster ripping someone's face off with his teeth*
(silence. black screen.)
*Unknown warriors approaching*
"Who are ye, then, ye armed men, mailed folk, that yon mighty vessel have urged thus over the ocean ways, here o'er the waters?"
*bum bum* . . . ONE MAN . . . *bum bum* . . . ONE LARGE MAN . . .*bum bum* . . . OF NOBLE BIRTH AND LONG, LONG SWORD . . . *bum bum* . . . IS THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN SAVE THEM.
"Hither have fared to thee far-come men o'er the paths of ocean, people of Geatland; and the stateliest there by his sturdy band is Beowulf named. This boon they seek, that they, my master, may with thee have speech at will: nor spurn their prayer to give them hearing, gracious Hrothgar! In weeds of the warrior worthy they, methinks, of our liking; their leader most surely, a hero that hither his henchmen has led."
"To Hrothgar I in greatness of soul would succor bring, so the Wise-and-Brave may worst his foes, -- if ever the end of ills is fated, of cruel contest, if cure shall follow, and the boiling care-waves cooler grow; else ever afterward anguish-days he shall suffer in sorrow while stands in place high on its hill that house unpeered!"
*Everyone looks around at each other, wondering what the fuck he's talking about*
*Exciting symphony, something along the lines of "O Fortuna." combat shown as Beowulf tosses Grendel down, gets Grendel in a headlock, pokes him in his eyes. Beowulf takes his shoe off and starts hitting Grendel on the top of his head with it.*
*Music stops. Shot of Beowulf on the shore, hand on his hilt.*
"Tis time that I fare from you. Father Almighty in grace and mercy guard you well, safe in your seekings. Seaward I go, 'gainst hostile warriors hold my watch."
BEOWULF. PG-13, Parents Strongly Cautioned. Contains Monsters Biting People's Faces Off, Graphic Far-Fetched Violence, and Shots of Beowulf's Bare Chest.
Beowulf is totally the precursor to Conan, and Rambo. He's mothafuckin' badass. And you know how, since the Rambo movies are so old, they come out in boxed sets now? Think of this slim volume as a trilogy:
BEOWULF BEOWULF II: MOMMY DEAREST BEOWULF III: BEOWULF VERSUS A BIG-ASS DRAGON
While often trilogies get worse as they go along, this one actually improves. And it's safe to say that a fourth sequel will never come out about Beowulf after he gets old and out of shape. . . although that might be what BEOWULF VERSUS A BIG-ASS DRAGON is.
If you like football, Stallone, Escape From New York, and can't get enough of Arnold Schwarzenegger, this is THE classic is for you. ...more
Before I read this book, I thought the synopsis on the back smacked of Douglas Adams pretty hard. The comparison holds up after reading The Color of MBefore I read this book, I thought the synopsis on the back smacked of Douglas Adams pretty hard. The comparison holds up after reading The Color of Magic, but not at all to Pratchett's detriment. I can't say exactly why, but I found the first Discworld novel much harder to put down than anything I've read by Douglas Adams so far.
I think the main reason for this is, in some bizarre way, Pratchett seems to have consistency. Although the slapstick action never lets up, it doesn't seem as entirely random and directionless as the Hitchiker's series. I got the sense that I was really exploring a fantasy world (schizophrenic as it may be) and not just bounding from sketch comedy scene to sketch comedy scene.
Also, I loved the characters. Rincewind is a hopelessly unlucky and bitter sorcerer with no talent whatsoever. He's traveling around with Twoflower, an accountant from a distant land visiting Ankh-Morpork and being just as annoying as a tourist should be. Hilarity ensues.
Granted, it is a little early for me to judge whether any of the scenes in this book will stick with me as long as the best moments of the Hitchiker's Guide. But, I think it is a worthy goofball fantasy novel. And, yes, I realize I just spent this whole review comparing it to another novel. But, the comparison has to be made. And, judging by Goodreads, just about everyone has read the Hitchiker's Guide anyway. ...more
I probably shouldn't even talk about this book considering I didn't read the entire thing...what would VirJohn think? But, I will have the self-restraI probably shouldn't even talk about this book considering I didn't read the entire thing...what would VirJohn think? But, I will have the self-restraint to not give it a star rating. Instead, I'll just respond to it.
I've read a few of the most applicable chapters from this book, and have adapted it into a lit review, but I might be missing aspects of Birkerts' argument. However, this is what I've picked up from what I read: Birkerts isn't optimistic about what the internets are going to do to teh litrature! NOT TEH LITRATURE! AAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Because, you know, once writers can do stuff like randomly link to other texts in the middle of a piece of writing, and redirect you to other texts, the linearity, and to a certain extent, the control of the author is moved increasingly into the hands of the reader. The reading experience is, in Birkerts' opinion, less linear, less challenging (because you can change gears more quickly).
But yo. How many of us read everything straight through? When I'm about halfway through a book, I flip to the end and read the last sentence, and ponder how we'll get to that sentence from here, or what that sentence might reveal. When I'm reading anything academic...like Birkerts' book....I flip around in a self-serving fashion, not especially concerned with taking in everything homeboy says chronologically. THIS IS HOW PEOPLE READ: HOWEVER THEY FLIPPIN WANT TO. So, the distinction Birkerts and many other scholars are making seems entirely superfluous to me.
But, what do I know? I'm such a goddamned anarchist it's not funny. I say, teach the highschoolers Tupac and Snoop Dogg if it can teach them to think critically. Hell, teach them Angelic Upstarts and Cockney Rejects, too. As this website illustrates very clearly, you can think critically about crap, and you can think uncritically about Literature. So, I think of literature as a bit of a myth, generated for simplicity: certain things are worth reading, while others aren't. This makes things much easier for English majors, and it perpetuates the need to print books that are of a higher quality, but don't sell as many copies. Don't get me wrong: this is a good thing. But...where am I going with this. Okay, I was tangenting. Back on topic.
The idea that critical thinking comes from viewing certain forms of art and not others is a myth. Kat proves this with her reviews, as does Keely, as do many other people on goodreads. And, it's this same sort of mentality of valuing the familiar over the unfamiliar that perpetuates the myth that you only learn while reading that which is academically approved. Fuck the academy, and fuck anyone who thinks they can point out what really counts as "literature" and what doesn't.
This book is very funny and unusual. As well as I can remember, the main character is a hoodlum who spends most of the book doing unsavory things...anThis book is very funny and unusual. As well as I can remember, the main character is a hoodlum who spends most of the book doing unsavory things...and it has a happy ending that works. I'm only giving it three stars because I can't remember it very well, and if it had been extra-special, it would be more firmly etched into my brain. ...more
Excessively readable and informative, this book is full of fun Buddhist stories and jokes to help clarify the meaning of various sutras and the differExcessively readable and informative, this book is full of fun Buddhist stories and jokes to help clarify the meaning of various sutras and the differences between types of Buddhism. This is probably the most accessible book about Buddhism I've read to date....more
The question is rhetorical, and I can't say that I know the answer better than anyone else. I've done research, I've tDo you know what you're eating?
The question is rhetorical, and I can't say that I know the answer better than anyone else. I've done research, I've thought long and hard about which ethical issues matter to me the most, and we've changed the way we buy food. But, can I say we aren't contributing to the big food companies that operate in dishonest ways in order to control the U.S. food industry? I still can't know for certain.
It works like this: Monsanto is a huge company that contributes a lot of money to political parties. Political parties (both of the big ones), as a way of saying "thank you," ignore the fact that genetically modified foods--which are on the shelves of almost every grocery store in the U.S.--haven't been scientifically tested to any reasonable extent.
This is an issue that is glossed over completely by the press in the U.S., but it isn't an issue ignored around the world. These products aren't on the shelves in numerous countries, from Canada to India to France, because they've been banned due to a lack of research. To give a sense of how tied the U.S. government is to GMO foods, emails have surfaced through WikiLeaks that show some members of the government think we should retaliate against France for not allowing Monsanto's modified products to be sold there.
In short, the very few studies that have been done on GMO foods have shown they have unpredictable nutritional value and also unpredictable side-effects in mice (including death).
So, that's one of the major health risks. Another is the fact that, once this new modified version of corn is introduced, it quickly becomes impossible to keep track of where this corn is. In other words, if we finally start investigating this food and discover side effects, it will be extremely expensive to eliminate the modified plant or animal from the food supply--if it is still possible. This isn't a theoretical problem: it has already happened. Several European countries refuse to buy modified vegetables from the U.S., and shipments of U.S. corn have been halted because it has been discovered that modified forms of corn were mixed in with the rest.
And, despite this impossibility to segregate corn crops, it is ILLEGAL FOR FARMERS TO USE MONSANTO'S SEED if they aren't paying Monsanto for it. In other words, a farmer can be sued if seeds blow from a Monsanto crop into his crop. Because of this, numerous farmers who tried to avoid using genetically modified food have been driven out of business, and then the property has been bought up by Monsanto.
Maybe it's just me, but it doesn't make sense that you can copyright something that's alive.
So, the policies of both the U.S. government and Big AgriBusiness are working together to make it easier for the food market to be monopolized in the same way as the news, Hollywood, and essentially every entertainment industry. Do you want to know why this consolidation of power is bad for us? Have you SEEN how shitty most movies and popular CDs are? Do you want your food to suck that badly?
If not, do the little research into the food you eat. Verify that I'm not just making stuff up. Read this book, learn about the food industry. It doesn't take a lot of research to realize you're taking an unknown risk when you eat food that has had untested changes performed on its DNA, and the government has declared that it's illegal for companies to advertise that they use only non-GMO products...apparently, this would be bad for business, because it would raise the question of whether modified foods are safe.
It's theoretically possible they're safe. From the tiny amount of investigation that has been done, it doesn't look like they are. This has health implications. It has ecological and economical implications. It has political implications, as another industry consolidates into the hands of the very few, pushing out family farmers and reducing variety in the supermarket.
If you want to avoid genetically modified foods, you can. But, it isn't as easy as looking for a warning label...unless you look FOR a label that says "organic." If it says organic, it's GMO-free.
And, since you endured my whole review full of pessimism and frustration, here's a pair of otters playing in a bathroom:
So, let me tell you what kind of person Brian is. (Brian the bird, not that other Brian.) Brian is the kind of person who invites you out to lunch, and engages you in entertaining conversation for HOURS, and when the waitress brings the bill, SNATCHES it away, not even letting you buy him a BEER. (Not until later, anyway.)
Then, later on, when you're hanging around and drinking on the couch and talking some more, and the subject turns to books, he says he'll "send you a couple books." So, in your innocent, inebriated state, you give him your address.
And THEN, a couple weeks later, you get a package in the mail with "a couple books" BRAND FUCKING NEW from Amazon.
So, that should tell you what kind of person Brian is.
This isn't a book review, although I have read the book. This is more of a political tirade. Continue at your own risk.
A friend recently sent me a liThis isn't a book review, although I have read the book. This is more of a political tirade. Continue at your own risk.
A friend recently sent me a link to one of Chuck Norris's articles, "What if Mother Mary Had Obamacare?", an article just as inane as its title. It might surprise many of you to learn this, but I was a pretty big Chuck Norris fan before discovering this side of him (solely based on his skills as a martial artist and his place in martial arts history, not AT ALL based on his acting). So, this was a bit more aggravating for me than the time when I discovered Orson Scott Card was a far-right wackaloon . . . I didn't have much of an investment with him. (And I don't think everyone on the right is a wackaloon. Just the wackaloons among them.)
I just couldn't resist. Part of it was wanting to let him know how shameful what he's doing is. Part of it was hoping to make him see a little bit more reason in his thinking. And part of it . . . well, part of it was just me thinking it would be really cool to throw down the intellectual gauntlet with Chuck Norris, yet still be hidden well enough that he can't just roundhouse kick me.
Anyway. Here's the email I sent in response to his article, for any of you curious enough to keep reading.
I remember reading an autobiographical book you wrote some years ago---The Secret Power Within---wherein you wrote about a time when a young man approached you, angry and wanting to fight. You wrote about how all it took to dispel his anger was to sit down and talk with him and treat him with respect---and, by showing him respect, you earned his.
I'm disappointed because it doesn't look like you afford people the same level of respect in politics.
In one of your most recent columns, you refer to an editor at the New York Times writing, "The Founding Fathers were paranoid hypocrites and ungrateful malcontents," and then use that as an example of the 'liberal' media's attitude toward the constitution. However, you leave out the fact that this quote was part of a book review, and was clearly the editor's summary of another author's belief. This lack of honesty in your presentation of the facts shows a lack of respect for your readers and for the editor who wrote that book review.
But what I'm most concerned about is your column about how President Obama's Christmas address didn't express enough Christian fervor. You then go on to make unfounded assumptions that the founding fathers intended us to be a Christian nation, and that religion is necessary for ethics. Out of respect for you, I'll assume you really believe both of these assumptions. I'm going to tell you why, in both cases, you're wrong.
Concerning our founding fathers, you give quotes from John Adams, George Washington, and Benjamin Rush where they indicate morality and religion are important to the sound running of government. Did you notice that not one of them said "Christian religion?" I believe this to be intentional. While we're quoting, we can look at a quote by Thomas Jefferson---also one of the founding fathers, and later a president. "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." This was in a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.
Since you quoted John Adams, let me offer up something else he said, this time in a letter to John Taylor (where he wouldn't need to cater to his audience quite as much): "The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes."
But, while I could quote the founding fathers to make my point, let me quote an actual U.S. treaty, the 1796 treaty with Tripoli, written while Washington was in office and then signed by Adams: ". . . the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." Pretty cut and dry, isn't it?
Feel free to learn more about any of these if you don't believe me. In context, their meaning doesn't change.
Secondly, I take issue with what you said about religion being necessary for ethics. I am an Atheist and have never been a Christian. I was not raised in a Christian household. Yet my parents taught me the difference between right and wrong, and everything I needed to know in order to live an ethical life. I'm no less patriotic than you; I say the national anthem and believe in freedom and pay my taxes and donate to charities. I don't need a religion of any kind to do the right thing. There's a reason all societies agree that stealing, rape and murder are bad things: because they are. Not because one religious book says they are.
I think that, if you really analyze your own views, you'll find YOU don't use the Bible for many of your moral beliefs. Do you think slavery is a sin, even though the Bible indicates otherwise? Why? And don't you agree that murder is worse than working on the sabbath? Why?
Because we understand suffering, and because we can empathize with others, most of us are moral. It has nothing to do with religion. Some of your beliefs about right and wrong are based on ideas from the Bible, but not all of them.
That said, it sounds as if you see this country as a "Christian" nation, and I wonder what you think a Christian nation would look like. When I think of countries where religion holds more sway over government than secular law, I think of Iraq, Iran, and the Middle East in general. I think it's intensely anti-American for you to think your religion has a special importance in a country where religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. That freedom is protected just as much for me, an Atheist, as it is for you.
I hope that you have the opportunity to read this message. If I've misunderstood your argument, or if you believe I'm wrong and have reasons why, I'd be happy to hear back from you and debate these important issues. I honestly believe that our country will continue becoming more and more divided along political party lines unless we are willing to talk to those we don't agree with, and resist the urge to dismiss the other side as idiots, socialists, fascists, or anything else, other than Americans with different views from ours. Thanks for your time.
Of course, after sending the email, I got an automatic message saying Chuck was out of the office and didn't receive my email. I should've guessed he'd be unreceptive. ...more
So, this is book number 2 in my epic quest to learn as much as possible about life in the fifteenth century. (I'm broadening my goals: Italy won't beSo, this is book number 2 in my epic quest to learn as much as possible about life in the fifteenth century. (I'm broadening my goals: Italy won't be the only place I research.) If you have any recommendations, please shoot them my way.
"April Blood" is the story about the political climate, and the political fallout, surrounding the attempted double murder of Lorenzo and Giuliano de' Medici that happened on Easter Sunday, 1478. The subject is fascinating because Lorenzo was essentially pulling the strings of Florence's government, despite the fact that Florence was a republic with a constantly shifting group of people in power.
This book falls slightly into the Anti-Medici camp--that is, he paints the Medici in a mostly negative light. (It isn't that hard to do.) "Medici Money" by Tim Parks has a much more even-handed approach to the Medici, and it's nice to see the family from both these points of view. However. . . well, they were douche bags, weren't they? I mean, political intrigue was pretty rampant in the city anyway, but the Medici made it practically a dictatorship.
It's fascinating to see a republic where, to the outsider, everything seems to be fairly equal and unbiased, yet a small group of the wealthiest men are really controlling every decision... whereas here in the US, it's a group of the wealthiest men AND WOMEN. Ah. Progress.
Some sections of this book were fascinating. Martines includes a few letters discussing potential brides. One was written from a mother to her son, and describes the physical appearance of the bride in cruel, excrutiating detail. She then goes on to discuss the significance of the woman's familial ties, and the potential assets she might bring. She then mentions the dowery she expects the bride to come with. All this goes on for several pages. Finally, in the last sentence of the letter, she offhandedly mentions the girl's name.
Much of the political intrigue went a bit over my head since Martines takes it for granted that you have a fair amount of knowledge going into the book. Savonarola, a fire and brimstone priest who was quite an exciting character, is brought into the story without any background or context. He doesn't even mention the guy was a priest and just begins discussing his political dealings. If I hadn't just read Tim Powers's book, I would've had no idea what he was talking about. Unfortunately, much of the time I HADN'T heard of the people, and this made parts of the book carry much less impact than the author intended them to. My eyes glazed over on occasion and I thought about switching to Joe Abercrombie (the other book I was reading at the time).
So, I don't regret choosing this book, although it wasn't as clear or entertaining as "Medici Money." I did like the fact that Martines didn't hide his impression of the Medicis, and I definitely agree with his perspective. I mean, Lorenzo was a money-obsessed banker who also wanted total control of his city and was willing to exile entire family lines to get it.
If you have a little background in Florence during this time period, this is a four-star book. If you don't have any background, though, it's a three, or maybe a two. The subject is fascinating, but the book could've been a lot easier to follow with about 100 pages more detail clarifying the people and the culture.
I have some seriously mixed feelings about this one. Here's why.
It's good. It's effective. It wrestles with big ideas. And, I think the author hates sI have some seriously mixed feelings about this one. Here's why.
It's good. It's effective. It wrestles with big ideas. And, I think the author hates science. WAIT! Don't swear at me yet! Read my review, THEN you can start swearing. Trust me, you'll have a lot more ammunition.
For those of you who haven't read this sucker yet, it tells of a time in the future, after mankind has mostly killed itself off with nuclear bombs. Following this event, the common people (now calling themselves Simpletons, as a way of showing their hatred of the intellectuality that lead to the science that destroyed so much of the world) do away with scientists and just about anyone else with an education. Books are burned, of course. About the only educated people who are allowed to live are members of the church, who then take it upon themselves to preserve the books and knowledge that remain.
As time passes, most of this knowledge loses its meaning. Our story takes place in a temple for Saint Liebowitz the Engineer. Sacred relics such as the holy grocery list, the enigmatic temple called "Fallout Shelter", and a blueprint of a squirrel cage, are the fragments of the past that remain. The priests patiently preserve many relics of the past, and we see the passage of time at this temple as the world changes yet again. Science begins being harnessed by man again, and eventually science goes beyond what it was even before the last nuclear disaster.
This is a story about knowledge and the fear of it. It is about the shared ground between religion and science as well, and the ways these two systems of thought diverge. This book MADE ME ANGRY, especially in the last of the three sections. But it is quite good, and a lot of that strength comes from the weighty issues involved. Don't get me wrong, though. This isn't just a book of ideas: it's also steadily funny, full of strong imagery, highly inventive, and it successfully spans centuries in just 300-some pages. It's one of the better SF books I've read, period.
Now that we've got all that out of the way, here's why I wanted to kick Walter Miller in the balls while I was reading it. Everyone else seems to agree that he tried to portray both the scientists and the priests in a fair light. They are wrong.
*MILD SPOILERS AHEAD*
You see, the scientists in this book are multifaceted. That doesn't automatically mean they're portrayed fairly. These scientists are fairly portrayed like republicans are portrayed fairly in The West Wing. They get a fair shake just like Draco Malfoy does by the end of the Harry Potter septology. In other words, they might not be evil people, but they're fucking dicks. Scientist #1 doesn't give half a fuck about the temple and is just using them for their library. Then, book three builds to a moral battle between a priest and scientist #2 where, let's face it, when the priest punches the scientist in the face, IT FEELS GOOD. This book is not a balanced debate between two sides. In this book, the priests are the good guys, and they get shat upon by the scientists.
Moving on from the portrayal of scientists, lets talk about the portrayal of science itself. There's a lightbulb, powered at huge effort, that is apparently unnecessary since they stop using it after the scientist leaves and replace it with a large cross. Then, in the far future, we have one example of a complex machine, and it doesn't work properly. Even if it did work, it doesn't have that amazing of a function considering the future possibilities of science. Science is portrayed as novelty in this scene. BUT, science does work sometimes, i.e. when you want to create nuclear power and nuke the shit out of Earth.
Of course, you also have the doctors and nurses who are using medicine to save all of the people suffering from radiation sickness and other nasty side-effects of science. These people have genuine good intentions. But, these intentions are undermined since they are giving lethal injections to anyone who is suffering horribly from radiation sickness and definitely going to die. As the abbott makes clear, this evil outweighs the good they are doing. (Because, somehow, it is suicide to let someone else kill you? Isn't that what every martyr does?)
It is true that many centuries ago the church was involved in the development of evolution theory, and for a long time science and the church were homies. That was then and this is now.
In 2010, religious superstition is standing in the way of stem cell research. It is causing endless war in many parts of the globe. It tells us we are more important than other animals and even our environment, and thus entitles us to think only of ourselves. The church wants to make sex as dangerous as possible by making condoms and birth control taboo, even though god is silent on these issues in the Bible (not to mention his now controversial stances on slavery and wearing clothing of mixed materials).
In other words, The view of reality in this book doesn't mesh well with current events. But many other readers who share some of my philosophical beliefs have loved this book, and haven't been frustrated by it at all. So, perhaps I'm overreacting.
Whatever my issues with the book, I have to admit it's very well written, and quite unique. This is considered a classic of the SF genre, and it's easy to see why. If you're a fan of the genre, this book still feels fresh and original 60 years after it was written. ...more
This book does several nifty things. First, it shows how concepts from Buddhism and contemporary scientific studies agree with each other. Then, it diThis book does several nifty things. First, it shows how concepts from Buddhism and contemporary scientific studies agree with each other. Then, it discusses some studies on people in meditation. It turns out that meditation, when done by people who have done it for a long time and are good at it, makes people incredibly happy and peaceful. (This isn't big news, but it's cool to hear how science has proven this.)
Then, the book discusses meditation techniques with a level of detail and clarity that is unsurpassed in...well, in the five or six books on meditation that I've read. I'd never been given permission to meditate for two or three minutes before; I was always under the impression that meditation needed to be a half hour or so in order for it to be valid. According to Yongey, that's not true.
The Joy of Living is a quick, easy to read book that's highly informative. If the subject matter interests you, I'd recommend it. ...more
I read a lot of dystopias in High School; I had a bit of an obsession with them. Long story short, when I started adding ratings to GoodreaUmm, yeah.
I read a lot of dystopias in High School; I had a bit of an obsession with them. Long story short, when I started adding ratings to Goodreads a million years ago, I spent quite a while trying to remember all of the dystopias I'd read. This one I only just now remembered. It was the absolute LEAST memorable of the dystopias I've read (unless there's another forgotten one still waiting to be remembered . . .)
And, on the subject of how lame this book is, how about Ayn Rand? Is there a more annoying author? Subtlety is not a concept she embraces. In fact, she bludgeons you continually with her idealogical views. As someone who most of the time agrees with her, I still want to yell at her, "Okay! Okay! We fucking get it!"
But, lets talk about Anthem.
It's slightly over a hundred pages, and it feels overlong. And, I didn't get anything out of this book that someone else didn't say better either before or after. Despite the book's brevity, it packs as much of Ayn Rand's sermonizing as books seven times its size, although I can't compare it to Atlas Shrugged since I don't think I'll ever feel masochistic enough to read it.
Since brevity is the soul of wit, I'll conclude. If you think Ayn Rand is the bee's knees, read this one. But, if you think her books are closer to propaganda than art, this one ain't gonna change your opinion....more