We the living

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

此记录保留了作者、时间和来源链接，请打开 HN 阅读完整上下文。

…o not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." So she modeled her initial Randian Hero after the psychopath. In the original version of her first novel We the Living: "What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" Sounds Jokereqsue, no? Of The Fountainhead's hero, Howard Roark: He "has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world." And: The editor also provides the briefest and most detail-free synopsis of Hickman's crime possible: "He was accused of kidnapping and murdering a young girl. He was found guilty and sentenced to death in February of 1928; he was hanged on October 20, 1928." As far as I can tell, this is the one and only re…

…acters, settings, events, or something else -- remain recognizable from reality. But very little in Atlas is, certainly nothing key to the story. We the Living is a much better book than Atlas Shrugged, for what it's worth.

…ence. See above. The books in which I could have located a reference are long gone; but it's in one of her short essays (if pushed, I'd suggest that it might be found in For the New Intellectual... but wouldn't want to be held to that). > What definition do you like? From wikipedia: "Different philosophers have had varied ideas about the nature of reason, and there is also disagreement about the subject matter of philosophy." If not even the people who do it professionally can agree on a definition, it would be presumptuous of me to try. Nonetheless, you misread my objection. I am objecting to the assertion that Rand's work is without question philosophy, using the definition of philosophy by which Rand identified herself as one. It's tautological; it begs the question. Likewise, my criticism of Rand is not that her conclusions are not re…

…e" is also wonderful, though I don't see that "Anthem" was a ripoff...it's just another take on the same idea, which many others have taken a stab at over the years. And Brave New World and 1984 are completely different from the former to, and from each other. I love dystopian fiction, so I've read tons of it. My current favorite writer in the genre is Margaret Atwood ("Handmaid's Tale" and "Oryx and Crake"). So I guess if you don't really enjoy reading speculative fiction with a gloomy outlook on the future, maybe you only need to read one of them (probably 1984, since it's the one everybody knows), but otherwise, they're all a lot of fun. "We, the Living", I didn't care for. The language is stilted (even more than Atlas and Fountainhead). It was her first real writing in English, and it shows. I never recommend WTL to folks who don't al…

…lp polemic, but I do retain a soft spot for WTL. But 'Anthem' was ripped off from 'We' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_%28novel%29 ) and can't hold a candle to either 'Brave New World' before or '1984' after; its only use is the same as that of 'The Communist Manifesto' (the two works are even as humourless as each other).