You know, I have been experiencing a real problem with reading for the last three years. The thing is that I gave up reading paper books for the electronic. It is so XXI but when I am in front of my PC or holding my mobile then literature faces a great competitor for my attention: INTERNET!
It is so hard to me to remain in a reader app when internets are only one click away that my reading speed had reduced significantly and my books shift seldom.
I am telling my story with reading because I want to talk about a book that I haven’t finished yet and I understand clearly that I will cetainly forget my current questions if I wait now.
There is a great number of discussions devoted to “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand but taking a glance over them I didn’t manage to find the point argued that troubles me most: why Rand is so loyal to inheriting while being so negative to receiving from the government?
All the positive characters she describes (well, all the positive characters appeared in the part of the book that I have read by now) had quite an opportunity to succeed receiving education - btw, mind the episode with Dagny talking to Dan Conway to ensure author’s attitude to the education role – and (what a trifle!) industrial empires to rule. Of course it’s the almost only way for a protagonist to be a global decision maker in her thirties how it is required by the plot but still I don’t get the fundamental difference between inheriting money and power and receiving “unfair socialistic benefits”.
And of course all the goodies are slim and sexy that is described in details but yes it’s only nature - they don’t care about it at all, silly flesh even annoys them! A rather cheap method for literature but a common hold for propaganda.
Aspects above and some other moments I find very funny to discover in the book that is believed to be “serious business”. But still I am exited with further reading because there are fragments that I liked very much, i.e Hank Rearden and Paul Larkin “bad press” dialog – man, that’s WORD!