What are you reading? (11 Viewers)

[Consigliere]

I actually read The Fountainhead when I was a teenager too.

I get what you're saying though - most of Rand's writing is quite "wordy". Many people ditch reading beyond the first couple of chapters (in discussions I have had) because Rand often uses a whole paragraph (or more) to describe something like a feeling, other authors cut to the chase, so to speak. I think I understand why she does this even though her actual grasp of the thing she is trying to describe is beyond her.

I finished the one about the architect. Atlas or Fountain. Don't remember, don't care.

The only thing I enjoy about Rand is the delicious irony of politicians bragging that they love her books in front of audiences that would be horrified if they actually knew what Rand wrote and believed.

 

[Bayouboy]

Looking for nonfiction recommendations. Interests include spy/counterintelligence, psychology, true crime/investigative techniques, science (general), biographies of interesting people, historical events.

Ready for more recommendations. Just finished American Prometheus - the Oppenheimer biography.

 

[tenordas]

Finally finishing the Gap Cycle by Stephen R. Donaldson: "This Day All G-ds Die."

I've enjoyed the series. He's a good writer and I assume he will wrap it up well. It's an interesting series. The initial novel is based on an idea of switching tropes where the villain, victim, and rescuer switch places during the course of the narrative. The series than expands into an allegory based on Wagner's Ring Cycle, but set in space with the addition of an alien race bent on assimilating humans through introducing mutagens into the DNA. However, while they are the main threat, they are not the main villains. The main characters from The Ring Cycle are obvious, though at least one character is a mix of more than one of the Ring characters.

I recommend the five book cycle. He draws his characters very well. No one is cardboard, they all are interesting and complicated people.

 

[tenordas]

I finished the one about the architect. Atlas or Fountain. Don't remember, don't care.

The only thing I enjoy about Rand is the delicious irony of politicians bragging that they love her books in front of audiences that would be horrified if they actually knew what Rand wrote and believed.

Atlas Shrugged is needlessly long (and rather boring), which is why I think relatively few people have actually read it. However, while I agree Rand was an extremist, I generally chuckle at Hollywood actors, directors, and producers who vilify her concept of exceptionalism, and how it benefits society.

That's so funny to me because the film industry is the perfect example of how exceptionalism works. People pay money to see exceptional actors and stories, which in turn employs thousands of people in the production of them. Without those stars, those films don't get made, and all those "unknown" people don't work. Professional sports is the same prime example of exceptionalism in action. It's simple math. People flock to see the exceptional athlete, star, etc., and whole industries exist because of that.

It's just weird how the people in the middle of industries built on the very concept don't even see it.

 

[Devildog]

My wife got me Shattered Sword by Jonathan Parshall and Anthony Tully. It's about the Battle of Midway and everything leading up to it and the aftermath. A lot of the source material is from Japanese accounts that survived the war.

 

[Bleu Raeder]

Ready for more recommendations. Just finished American Prometheus - the Oppenheimer biography.

I am re-reading Cryptonomicon. You might like that.

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

I just finished the TV show Dark Matter based on the book by Blake Crouch
it's gotten me interested in his stuff and I might start Recursion next

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Atlas Shrugged is needlessly long (and rather boring), which is why I think relatively few people have actually read it. However, while I agree Rand was an extremist, I generally chuckle at Hollywood actors, directors, and producers who vilify her concept of exceptionalism, and how it benefits society.

That's so funny to me because the film industry is the perfect example of how exceptionalism works. People pay money to see exceptional actors and stories, which in turn employs thousands of people in the production of them. Without those stars, those films don't get made, and all those "unknown" people don't work. Professional sports is the same prime example of exceptionalism in action. It's simple math. People flock to see the exceptional athlete, star, etc., and whole industries exist because of that.

It's just weird how the people in the middle of industries built on the very concept don't even see it.

I feel this makes a lot of the same over-broad assumptions Rand made
in particular movies are not an example of exceptionalism - sports kinda sorta maybe but also not really
an excellent performance in a movie is contingent on SO many moving parts coming together just so
funding, directing, writing, editing, scene partner, sound, lighting, et al
an exceptional performance is a collective effort (and a mediocre performance can be made much better with excellent elements around)

athletics comes a bit closer - but even then there's so much opportunity/availability, (often) financial ability, proximity, et al

I'm sure we can all acknowledge that before integration, MLB wasn't an example of exceptionalism - many barriers have been lifted, but many subtler ones remain

--
and further even if we can get close to an idea of exceptionalism - and believe me when I say that I do not have issue with elite ability (in all of its forms) - is that we apply the notion in all sorts of bizarre ways -- bc someone was an above average college coach, we think they can govern a state -- bc someone is an exceptional QB, we think they can coach a team
we tend to way overestimate the transitive property of exceptionalism

 

[tenordas]

I feel this makes a lot of the same over-broad assumptions Rand made
in particular movies are not an example of exceptionalism - sports kinda sorta maybe but also not really
an excellent performance in a movie is contingent on SO many moving parts coming together just so
funding, directing, writing, editing, scene partner, sound, lighting, et al
an exceptional performance is a collective effort (and a mediocre performance can be made much better with excellent elements around)

athletics comes a bit closer - but even then there's so much opportunity/availability, (often) financial ability, proximity, et al

I'm sure we can all acknowledge that before integration, MLB wasn't an example of exceptionalism - many barriers have been lifted, but many subtler ones remain

--
and further even if we can get close to an idea of exceptionalism - and believe me when I say that I do not have issue with elite ability (in all of its forms) - is that we apply the notion in all sorts of bizarre ways -- bc someone was an above average college coach, we think they can govern a state -- bc someone is an exceptional QB, we think they can coach a team
we tend to way overestimate the transitive property of exceptionalism

Well, that's where we get into extremes. Just because someone is talented at one thing does not mean there talented at another, but certainly that assumption gets made a lot, and often with quite bad results. Sometimes it turns out the person does have a talent in the new area they move into, but seems like most of the time, they do not.

But it doesn't change the fact that people buy tickets to see the exceptional stars play or act.
"His Girl Friday" was a box office winner back when it was made. IMHO, it's not a great film, though. Way too wordy, hard to follow because of it, and the characters aren't very nuanced or interesting. But it starred Cary Grant and Barabara Stanwick, so people flocked to see it. The producers made their money off of it, and lots of cameramen, stage managers, prop people, makeup and hair dressers, gaffers, etc., etc. all got paid well in the making of it.

The producers of movies hire stars because they're talented and they know people will pay the money to watch them. The films still may end up being lousy because of all the other moving parts, as you note, but the initial pitch to the producers will involve exceptional director and actors because the producers will be inclined to back the project due to the star power involved. Broadway does the same thing. When they've got bona-fide stars in the cast, their names are on the Marquee because those names draw an audience. Heck, sometimes the play is being produced because they could get that person to star in it (recent revival of The Music Man as a current example: wouldn't have happened if they hadn't been able to secure Hugh Jackman to play Henry Hill).
Now the end result is most certainly a collaboration of all those efforts, but it all starts based on what the producers believe will sell, so they go for the best people they can get. And if things start looking bad, they fire someone and find someone they think is talented enough to fix it (which may or may not work - we've seen a good bit of that in movies over the last several years).

And people all over the country pay bigger prices at baseball games because Shohei Ohtani's team is in town. Astros' ticket prices are higher when they're playing the Yankees, Red Sox, or Dodgers because people will pay the higher prices to see those teams. Hockey fans spent extra to see Gretzky when his team came to town. People wanted to see Michael Jordan when the Bulls came to their town. On and on. Great bands draw crowds, mediocre to lousy bands don't. It's just basics of how things work because that's how we are as human beings.

I tell my students all the time when they complain about how hard some of the music is that I give them: "Of course it's hard. If it was easy, everybody could do it and no one would care. Do you ever buy tickets to watch someone walk and breathe?"

In the corporate world, those CEOs who make 6 to 7 figure salaries do so because they are exceptional at producing and/or managing. And the corporations expand, giving more people jobs. (The CEOs who aren't good get fired).