|
|
Post by gregslagel on Oct 19, 2003 16:44:21 GMT -5
I have heard a lot of people attack Dominique. I thought I understood her position pretty well. She and Roark are definitely Literary Characters, archetypes that don't exist in the real world. But from that point of view, I can get down with Dominique.
Except that she was blonde. That never sat well with me. Every time it mentioned her hair (rarely) I got shocked out of my mental picture and was forced to overlook it.
IMDB. I never used it, but have seen my friends on it before. Today I wanted to find Fountainhead on there, but couldn't remember what 4 letter combination I wanted.
Now I know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Oct 20, 2003 19:44:33 GMT -5
I was going to prepare a long apologetic defense of the modern Simpsons seasons, but eh, it's not worth it (not that it's not worth defending, it's just not worth getting anyone riled up over). But I didn't want to let it slip by without someone saying something positive about the recent seasons: I've really enjoyed them. Really. It's changed, yes, but not as much as the old school people want you to think. There's been great writing, tons of excellent quotes, and it's always better than 99% of what's on the tube.
Fin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Oct 20, 2003 19:59:18 GMT -5
BTW, I e-mailed the address that Homer uses in one episode and got a response (I asked him to visit MRFH):
From : Chunkylover53@aol.com
To : bigbanana@hotmail.com
Subject : Re: hey homer
I'm too drunk.
-- Homer
|
|
|
|
Post by gregslagel on Oct 20, 2003 22:53:40 GMT -5
Yes, I'm not one to get riled up over much, certainly not Simpsons and certainly not in forums.
I do admit that its mostly my bias built from the old stuff that keeps me from really appreciating the new. And yes, it is better than a lot of what's on TV.
But some of the episodes really let me down. I recall one from fairly recently (I think last season) where homer got sentenced to death. And it just felt so sloppy and heartless compared to old days. And Maude dying... that bugged me. And so many plots revolve around Homer taking on some crazy job or another. And how many times has that dog run away...
Also, I can always use a little more bumblebee man.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on Oct 21, 2003 9:54:22 GMT -5
I really can't say too much about the new Simpsons since I haven't watched them. The problem is that I'm generally working on my computer around then, and my computer is no longer near the TV. But if I ever get near the TV again at the appropriate time, I'll have to check them out again.
And Greg- I can appreciate what you're saying (and I think it's an accurate summation) that Dominique is more an archetype than a true character. To be honest, she didn't bug me so much until I read Atlas Shrugged and came across Dagny. Oh well.
Liss
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 21, 2003 13:41:46 GMT -5
I always, always hated the Simpsons courtroom episodes. They just so totally ignore basic rights. Appeals courts? Nonexistant. And you'd think the ACLU would have leapt at the chance to crush Judge Harm for her cruel and unusual punishments. The other judge screws things up too much as well--a county (at best) judge shouldn't be able to ban all refined sugar and pass all those other judgements. Of course, the real courts are getting just as bad (the ninth circuit can kiss my hairy yellow butt).
|
|
|
|
Post by Head Mutant on Oct 21, 2003 15:14:17 GMT -5
Ah, yes... the courtroom eps are the only ones that dare stretch the boundaries of solid reality by being goofy and satirical.
|
|
|
|
Post by gregslagel on Oct 22, 2003 0:00:00 GMT -5
: )
ouch! Do I detect a little sting there?
|
|
|
|
Post by DocD83 on Oct 24, 2003 6:48:08 GMT -5
Hey I like the absurd as much as the next guy, but when stepping on such important things it had better be damn funny to compensate--and it usually isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on May 2, 2005 13:57:21 GMT -5
Back to Ayn Rand. I'm in the midst of reading Atlas Shrugged right now. I've never read any of Rand's work before, though I know she's regarded as a libertarian icon.
I've really been forcing myself to read it, but it is getting better (I'm at the point where the John Galt Line is proving to be a success). I am liking Dagny Taggart, but I'm not a fan of Rand's views of sexuality. It just seems like too much of a cliche for a strong woman like Dagny to want some man to dominate her.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on May 10, 2005 21:24:44 GMT -5
Yeah. Well, Rand's got a major domination thing. In every work, EVERY first sexual encounter seems more like a rape than normal sex. It's kind of scary, actually.
I really liked the book between the John Galt Line and the radio speech. (You'll know which speech I mean. When you get to it, SKIP IT unless you like philosophical text. It's basically saying "here's the point of the last 800 pages of story.")
Good luck finishing!
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on May 11, 2005 14:38:00 GMT -5
I got to the speech last night (I knew about it ahead of time, because I am one of those people that flips ahead). I did skip it, only because I really need to finish it. It's now 9 days overdue, and I can't renew it because there's a waiting list.
I'm rather cynical about Libertarianism. I can see why it appeals to some people, but in my opinion, the free market doesn't account well for positive and negative externalities. Therefore, someone who's purely capitalist is not likely to be very concerned about good working or environmental conditions. Also, rationalism is a big part of her objectivist philosophy, but I think we know plenty of people who are not very rational. I suppose a die-hard objectivist could argue that the reason people are not rational is because we don't have a laissez-faire economy or something like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Al on May 11, 2005 23:05:14 GMT -5
::watches can of worms open, quickly dives back into the safety of detective noir::  |
|
|
|
Post by Lissa on May 13, 2005 20:33:05 GMT -5
Well, not quite, but you're really close.
A rational capitalist WOULD be concerned about working conditions and environmental conditions, because they would consider consequences as well. What good is spewing pollution into the air if it will give you and people you care about and innocent people cancer? Or destroy the drinking water supply? What good would be skimping on laborer salaries when you find that you can't hire a decent worker to save your life and therefore your product doesn't get made? But the second part of what you say is very true- not everyone acts rationally.
A large part of Rand's philosophy incorporates responsibility and consequences into rationality, and when you do THAT, then it makes a lassaiz-faire capitalist system much more ideal, in more senses than one. I'd love to live in a world like that, and I also think it's dreaming.
But why don't people act rationally? I think it's often because of one of two things (both of which she addresses in Atlas Shrugged):
1.) They are not taught to act rationally, and to consider the consequences (or worse, they are taught things that are untrue or destructive),
or
2.) They are not forced to face the consequences of their actions. Now, Rand kind of implies that someone always bails them out, but I think it's also true that some consequnces- like environmental ones that you cite- take too long to kick in.
Personally, I think objectivism is excellent personal philosophy, but I think there are times that a person has to realize that the whole world doesn't act that way. ::Sigh:: Too bad on many counts!
|
|
|
|
Post by Magill on May 17, 2005 10:59:00 GMT -5
Well, I finished it. Going away from the philosophy angle (my brain hurts right now), I thought I'd comment on more mundane aspects of the book:
-It was definitely written in a different time. I thought the ode to cigarettes was quite poetic ("fire in a man's hands"), but imagine it being written today!
-I really wanted Dagny to end up with Francisco. I liked him the best. Hank Rearden had too much of the Madonna/whore complex for my tastes, and John Galt never really made much of an impression. Maybe it's because we don't meet him until the book's nearly over whereas Francisco got a whole chapter to himself early on, but I liked him much better.
|
|
