Michelle

To me?

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o"). Ba'al Chatzaf Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective". From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion. So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian. Right. Michelle: I think it might be wrong to do this but I am so confused, I have no standard to make a decision. I am lost. Help! Should I not do what Phil wants or should I? Where is xray maybe she can guide the youthful, like yourself, and the ancient like myself with insight and guidance on this critical metaphysical problem. And stop that asshole with the cartoons! Adam Phil very nicely made a very simple request: "Could you guys -please- not quote twenty or more lines of nested replies within replies followed by one or two lines of your own thoughts?" (emphasis mine) As I'm a large-hearted woman, I plan on honoring his request. I don't believe I am in violation right now, as I only see nineteen quoted lines. We should all kindly agree to quote no more than nineteen lines at a time in order to allow Phil a more pleasant web experience.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o"). Ba'al Chatzaf Always go for the premises. So I'd ask him/her first to define "objective". From where I stand, "objective" is simply offering a conclusion derived from the facts as exist independently of any personal preference regarding said conclusion. So this person would have to explain what is "objective" about being a Christian. Right.

I'm doing quite fine without your brainwashing, thank you very much.

I don't know where you saw that, just want to make sure people know it's not mine. Zazzle randomly adds link to products from throughout their marketplace, I suspect that's what you saw. Thanks Bob I didn't think you made it, as it was made by someone called "xuberalles." It's pretty clearly visible here: http://www.zazzle.com/patriot_resistance/favorites Second row down. To complement the message, it has a charming little illustration of an iron right smack in-between the words. Now, what I found notable about it was that it was in the favorites section. I've never run an online store before, but wouldn't a "favorites" normally have... well, the favorite products of the customers in it?

I have not read those two works, though I've been meaning to. Stapledon is one of the early lights of the sci-fi world. Catcher is decent, but it never really connected with me. Franny and Zooey and his short story collection Nine Stories are both much more memorable, for me. My memories of Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and Seymour: An Introduction are slightly fuzzy, but I remember not caring for the two novellas much. I remember Seymour: An Introduction being the better of the two novellas.

Cute. Although the fact that the "Hey Hillary, Iron My Shirt!" T-Shirt is listed as a site "favorite" is a bit disturbing to me.

More wacky fun with xray, I see.

Thanks for the recommendation, Phil. In another thread I talk about how I enjoyed the Apollo 11 article. It is fantastic. Best piece of non-fiction writing by her that I've encountered so far. Many people seem to go to the fiction in order to graduate to the non-fiction, but as a writer (and avid reader), Rand's fiction was (and still is) far more interesting to me, just on a purely literary level. The philosophy is fun to learn and discuss, of course, but I wasn't drawn to that so much as I was to the portrayals of human excellence in her novels. I think this might explain why I enjoy FOUNTAINHEAD more than ATLAS, as well. FOUNTAINHEAD is very focused on this theme of individualism and personal excellence, whereas ATLAS, while still maintaining a lot of that focus, is more concerned with Rand's political ideas. I love both novels, of course, and some of her earlier work to a lesser extent (still haven't read We the Living for whatever reason, but I have read some of her short stories, Anthem, and Night of January 16th), but in a desert island scenario I'd probably choose FOUNTAINHEAD over ATLAS. I was in college before I moved to Tennessee with my family. We're working to get back on our feet, and then I'll return to college.

Be nice. After all, he doesn't) insert random br(ackets into his posts like cummings did in his "poems"

Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying Christians shouldn't be exposed to Objectivism, or that there is anything wrong with Christians who have Objectivist leanings or Objectivists who have Christian leanings. But to identify as a "Christian Objectivist" is disingenuous and an insult to both Christianity and Objectivism. Like I said, they can call themselves that if they want to, but I won't be expected to reinforce their delusions. On one level, it is smart for FOX to play up both moralities, as the majority of its faithful viewers are likely both conservative and Christian. But when someone, like Michael Moore, goes on and plays on these contradictory standards, whoever is unfortunate enough to have to bear the brunt of the consequences (in this case, Hannity) is made to look either weak or foolish or both as a result. I don't know that she "sucks," but her soul was in fiction writing. Her essays just don't do it for me. That isn't to say that I dislike ALL her nonfiction writing. I found the article on the shuttle launch to be incredibly moving, as it reminded me of my childhood. When I first learned about the moon landing, I felt something that I've rarely felt as strongly since: a sense of the sacred. What I was supposed to be feeling in Church on Sundays. The sense that, had those men died on the way back, it would have been no great loss, because they had already participated in something so great that even Heaven would be a let-down from that glorious mission. Of course, this is just me trying to articulate in retrospect what was, at the time, experienced only as a great, almost paralyzing emotion. I had a period of severe religiosity after that, thinking that I'd somehow tapped into a great cosmic connection to God Himself. I wanted to re-experience that emotion, no matter what the cost. It took me some time to figure out that religion was a dead end, in that regard.

High praise. Which of his stories do you most recommend, or are they in order? Not really. I tend to prefer character-oriented fiction, myself. He's written several conventional novels, but only Last and First Men and Starmaker, the two forementioned future histories, have stuck. The reason I say they go "all the way" is because they're not stories in the traditional mold: there are no characters. They're literally fictional histories. Think Tolkien's Silmarillion, only way more vast in scope. Last and First Men is about the evolution of the human race over two billion years. Star Maker has something of a narrator, but we learn nothing about him, from what I recall. The point of that book is the evolution of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE. Stapledon approaches a lot of Big Ideas in the process. Star Maker might be seen as a sequel to Last and First Men, but there is no real connection, so it makes no difference which one is read first. In general, Last and First Men was well-received and is still considered a great classic of science fiction, but Starmaker is considered his masterpiece. This gels with my own memories: Last and First Men was a mixture of boredom and fascination for me, in turns. But Starmaker was dazzling all of the way through. Both of these book were written in the 1930s and an incalculable number of concepts in modern science fiction can be traced back to these two works. If you only choose one, make it Star Maker: it is THE science fiction novel.

He is. Good man. Does a lot of work with the troops. Passionate, but repetitive, tedious and not skilled at debate at all. The problem is that he, and most of the people on FOX NEWS at large, try to cater both to Christian and pro-capitalist morality. But these two approaches can easily contradict oneanother, and thus we're left with the spectacle of Michael Moore running circles around him.

Jumping in and out of "God-mode" is usually characteristic of novelists who are, to put it diplomatically, not among the best ones, if the author doesn't signal in some way that the point of view is moving from specific character to God-mode--and I don't think that the shift was really signalled. If you want a good example of how to do it well, try Mansfield Park, which is told sometimes from the point of view of Fanny, and sometimes from the point of view of the Author, with a few variations along the way--stray incidents seen through the eyes of Sir Thomas and Mary Crawford, and some things narrated to Fanny by other characters (such as Edmund describing his final meeting with Mary Crawford). You know when the POV has shifted, and it stays shifted for at least a few pages. Moreover, the shift was totally unneeded. Almost the same exact description could have been narrated through Eddie's eyes, with the addition of perhaps one or two sentences at the most. For instance: As he came into the office, he saw James Taggart at his desk, and saw for a brief moment not as the man he was used to, as the man he grown up with, but as a newcomer would have seen him: with the look of a man who had passed directly from adolescence into adulthood, and missed youth entirely... and so on with the rest of the description. (Of course, that just one possible way of phrasing it. I don't plan on rewriting Rand in toto.) However, half a chapter does not a novel make. So I'll leave it for now, I just wanted to give some input on what a first time reader might think of it as they began the novel. But I must confess that your reference to Olaf Stapledon's works did tempt me to make a snarky reference to AS. But I gallantly resisted Edit to add: Lest I be thought to be too negative, I should comment that even with all her supposed flaws as a novelist, Rand is a lot better than most of the novelists who now populate the best seller lists. (Dan Brown, I'm looking at you!) But I still maintain that her best work, from the literary point of view, was her non fiction: she's a great essayist, up there with Charles Lamb and others. No need to be diplomatic: just say what you mean fully and clearly. If someone else should get offended, that is their business. But she doesn't jump in and out of the mode. She stays in the mode. I shouldn't have said "head-jump." I meant: character jump. Real literary head-jumping can be seen in something like Bohjalian's Trans-Sister Radio, where the narrative alternates between four different first-person viewpoints. We follow different characters, and are sometimes given some indication as to the direction of their thoughts (think the opening pages of ATLAS, or the lengthy flashback Dagny has to her childhood with Francisco), but analyze the writing and you see that the viewpoint is always and firmly from God's point of view (that is, Rand's, as she is the God of her fictional universe, albeit one who never intervenes). If this style is unchallenging, it isn't inherently weakening to a story. ATLAS SHRUGGED was written in the only way it needed to be written. One half a chapter does not a novel make, but ATLAS is a unified whole in terms of style and substance. If you don't like the first half-chapter, chances are you won't like the rest of the book. Dan Brown? Ouch. The writing in ATLAS SHRUGGED ranges from beautiful to stilted to downright purple. But I always find it engaging. Far superior, in my mind, to the dryness of Melville or the suffocating Schopenhaurian molasses of pretentiousness and sentimentalism that is Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu. Or, hell, the incoherency of Beckett and Joyce (after Dubliners: that work was just god-awful boring. At least Portrait of the Artist is interesting to read). My favorite literary stylist is weird fiction writer Thomas Ligotti, although his negativity would put Aickman and Lovecraft to shame. Overall, though, I'd say ATLAS deserves a place among the great works of world literature, even if it isn't the most well-written. Now, see, I read her Virtue of Selfishness recently, and I found her essay work to be subpar. Especially that opening essay, which just seemed to go on forever. I LOVE her fiction, but I'm not sold on her non-fiction. I'll try Return of the Primitive next.

I do like Stossel. And Glenn Beck is cute, witty, and makes a lot of damned good points. When I had cable (been about six months without... I really should get it back) he was the only reason I watched FOX. Otherwise, I watched MSNBC (yes, yes, gasps of horror). I used to avoid Olbermann like the plague, though, because it seemed like every time I tuned into his show he was ranting about President Bush or O'Reilly.

You're not going to find a lot of first-rate commentary on FOX NEWS. I don't know michelle i think that oreilly has some very witty banter with his guests and he has a few objectivist viewpoints he isnt the nicest and certainly not the most intelligent person on syndicated news channels today i mean no dan rather but he gets the job done and isnt afraid of whos toes he steps on whilst getting the job done I don't care for O'Reilly. He doesn't seem to think critically, instead preferring to speak in a language of buzzwords and slogans (although not to the degree Hannity does). His philosophy is severely limited (consider how he seperates people into one of two camps: "traditionalist" or "secular progressive." Where the hell does that leave libertarians, Objectivists, religious progressives, etc.?) He constantly lets his emotions usurp his rationality and bullies his guests unfairly to the point where I begin to feel sorry for them even when I think O'Reilly is in the right.

The novel is well-written and was innovative for its time, but the lack of any worthwhile characters killed it for me. If I want to read something vast and epic in scope which sacrifices character development for plot and theme, I'll just go all the way and read one of Olaf Stapledon's future histories.

Have you read Salinger's "Franny and Zooey?" Oh, and, as regards Hinton, Tex was one of my favorite books when I was young.

"The service was to be attached to the President's United We Serve campaign, a nationwide federal initiative to make service a way of life for all Americans. ..." Sounds like it'll be the white house itself that'll get the gold-red treatment next time they decide to wish Communist China a happy anniversary.

You're not going to find a lot of first-rate commentary on FOX NEWS.

No. Nations rise and fall, and philosophies come and go with the ages, generally. Some survive, and some don't. The ones that do survive either do so through cultural inheritance or through surviving manuscripts, which is why Peikoff wanted to run around the world burying Ayn Rand's literature in caves, if I'm not mistaken.

Jeffrey: Rand adopts Stream-of-Consciousness techniques on occasion, but not in that first bit with Eddie and not in the way authors like Joyce and Beckett do. In the first few scenes with Eddie, Rand, in her permanent position of third-person omniscient, only narrates his thoughts. We don't actually experience the 'flow.' We never follow Eddie for too long. Since Rand is in authorial God Mode in her fiction, she head-jumps with no problem. And as Rand is in God Mode, the description of James Taggart is her own. Not Eddie's perception. Even if Rand never formally interrupts the flow of the narrative (a practice she opposes), she is as much a character in the novel as anyone else. Just read the descriptions of the passengers in the train-wreck scene and tell me that Rand isn't commenting on those people. If I recall correctly, she goes so far as to call one man a "sniveling little neurotic." The mannered style you mention ties into Rand's aesthetic judgment that everything included in a novel, down to the most simple detail, should tie into the novel's core theme in some way. The theme of a Rand novel is like DNA, present in every part of the book, from the title to the chapter titles to the slightest punctuation mark in the shortest sentence, holding the thing together, and giving even a sprawling epic like ATLAS and almost obsessively focused quality. The result, of course, is that a character cannot so much as move their pinky finger without it being suffused with deep philosophical meaning. Some like this style, some don't. But it is what makes Rand distinctively Rand.

Thanks I can only lament the fact that my absence was only due mostly to purposeful reasons.

That is hysterical! Darrell I read the first two pages using the book preview function on Amazon.com. It occurs to me that if Ellsworth Toohey were to write a novel himself, he'd produce something more readable and praiseworthy than this bit of self-enclosed mediocrity.

What if a person claims to be an objective Christian? (note the lower case "o"). Ba'al Chatzaf That depends upon how you define "objective Christian."