Randall, author of the webcomic XKCD, takes another stab at making fun of Ayn Rand. Or rather, her fans.
Bookshelf: A secret room behind the library shelf tells a reader he has bad taste for trying to pick up Atlas Shrugged.
Comic: http://www.xkcd.com/1049/
Discussion: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=83811
Here's the earlier attempt.
Sheeple: Five people on a subway train all think they're the only thinkers around.
Comic: http://xkcd.com/610/
Discussion: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=42498
I was disappointed by both comics. I often like XKCD, so the anti-Objectivist attitude is jarring, if unsurprising.
I admit that the Sheeple comic contains a respectable joke, though I hate the word "sheeple". Kudos to the commenter who quoted Life of Brian: "we are all individuals". The rotating bookshelf gag is nice too; I just wish it had been poking fun at some other book. Ideally, something by L. Ron Hubbard, or some idiotic self-help book about how a positive attitude makes good stuff happen.
Twilight also seems like low-hanging fruit, though I don't think it deserves as much hate---or love---as people have for it. Any bestseller generates such opinions. The Da Vinci Code would have made an easy target a couple of years ago. Randall chose to mock something classic instead of something trendy, but that doesn't mean he's not taking a cheap shot.
The irony, of course, is that Randall is arrogantly mocking people he thinks are arrogant. Whoops. But wait, if I mock Randall, am I making the same error? Hm... Better not mock, then.
The message board discussions for those two XKCD comics are as chaotic and stupid as most message board discussions, so it's not like it even does any good for Randall to get people talking about Rand. Okay, maybe some good does come of it, who knows, but to me it just looks like a bunch of people saying "is not!" and "is too!" over and over.
Conclusion: Randall's just trolling. Or expressing sincere dislike of Rand fans because he's met some obnoxious ones or because he "just doesn't get it" or both.
The Zits comic from Sunday, December 3, 2006 is benign in comparison. Zits is less snarky and more playful and childlike in general. The comic in question merely says Atlas is really long, so long that it's intimidating to read. It says nothing about whether it would be worthwhile to do so.
To paraphrase the comic: Pierce takes Atlas Shrugged off the library shelf, and his friend Jeremy questions his choice because the book seems quite thick. Pierce says: "If I use anything thinner I get a neck ache." Then he takes a nap using the book for a pillow.
Sorry, you want the image? It's $5 (well-spent!) to register for a 1-year member account to access the Zits archive: http://www.zitscomics.com/user/register
The comic could almost as easily be making fun of people like Pierce who don't bother to read the book as mocking the author for having written the thing.
Monday, April 30, 2012
Monday, April 23, 2012
Everything is a business
People complain about money as a motive, especially in the context of artistic pursuits such as writing.
Well, news flash: writing is a business. In fact, everything is a business.
(Okay, not everything is a business. But everything that isn’t a business should be. Like roads and sex, for example. Healthcare in the US is going the wrong direction.)
Money may not be the only or even the primary reason someone writes a book, but the author still has to eat, and so do the people who design book covers, edit books, typeset books, print books, sell books, etc.
I'm not sure I'd even like art that was produced "for art's sake" without concern for its potential for commercial success. We trade money for stuff and experiences. If an artist creates a thing or an experience that no one wants to trade for, then... what value does it have? Personal value only, like the crayon drawings of one's own child.
Conclusion: children make art for art's sake; adults make art in the hopes of providing pleasure to other people in exchange for the means to better their own lives.
That is, authors write for money.
Well, news flash: writing is a business. In fact, everything is a business.
(Okay, not everything is a business. But everything that isn’t a business should be. Like roads and sex, for example. Healthcare in the US is going the wrong direction.)
Money may not be the only or even the primary reason someone writes a book, but the author still has to eat, and so do the people who design book covers, edit books, typeset books, print books, sell books, etc.
I'm not sure I'd even like art that was produced "for art's sake" without concern for its potential for commercial success. We trade money for stuff and experiences. If an artist creates a thing or an experience that no one wants to trade for, then... what value does it have? Personal value only, like the crayon drawings of one's own child.
Conclusion: children make art for art's sake; adults make art in the hopes of providing pleasure to other people in exchange for the means to better their own lives.
That is, authors write for money.
Weird choice
“Are you a Christian?” asked an 8-year-old of me. We were talking about Santa and elves.
“My parents are, but I’m not.”
“Why? That’s weird!”
“Yes. I know.”
I have read The God Delusion. In it, Dawkins goes on and on about evolution and science, history, ethics, holy books, holy people, holy wars, etc. However, the newest and most valuable idea I got from him came from the preface to the paperback edition. Thank goodness I didn't read his work in hardcover.
Dawkins says: "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only the child of Christian parents."
In other words, only an adult can be said to belong to a religion. Anyone not an adult should be thought of as undecided and thus as yet unclaimed.
I don't think I'd ever been confronted with exactly this idea before. It felt very liberating. The implication was: I did not leave the faith; I simply was never part of it. I betrayed nothing; I simply took the proverbial path less traveled.
My choice to part ways with my religious upbringing was both difficult and inevitable. For some, it is difficult and not inevitable at all. For some, it is impossible.
I hope people listen to Dawkins. I hope people repeat the message. I want more children to believe that they have a choice (and that they should try and consciously make one). I want more adults to respect the choices they make, no matter what those choices are.
And then maybe, someday, my choice will not seem weird.
“My parents are, but I’m not.”
“Why? That’s weird!”
“Yes. I know.”
I have read The God Delusion. In it, Dawkins goes on and on about evolution and science, history, ethics, holy books, holy people, holy wars, etc. However, the newest and most valuable idea I got from him came from the preface to the paperback edition. Thank goodness I didn't read his work in hardcover.
Dawkins says: "There is no such thing as a Christian child: only the child of Christian parents."
In other words, only an adult can be said to belong to a religion. Anyone not an adult should be thought of as undecided and thus as yet unclaimed.
I don't think I'd ever been confronted with exactly this idea before. It felt very liberating. The implication was: I did not leave the faith; I simply was never part of it. I betrayed nothing; I simply took the proverbial path less traveled.
My choice to part ways with my religious upbringing was both difficult and inevitable. For some, it is difficult and not inevitable at all. For some, it is impossible.
I hope people listen to Dawkins. I hope people repeat the message. I want more children to believe that they have a choice (and that they should try and consciously make one). I want more adults to respect the choices they make, no matter what those choices are.
And then maybe, someday, my choice will not seem weird.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)