Michero

I miss liking Ewan Mcgregor I used to be so in love with him; I have like all his movies on dvd. Many artists I used to like seem so have dropped off my respect radar lately. I used to be obsessed with Iggy Pop and now I can't remember the last time I listened to one of his records.

The woman is my favourite actress Katherine Hepburn-- if you want a great james taylor album I'd buy "Live James Taylor" and I never ever recommend live albums, but James' background info on the songs is great and he sounds just as good live as in studio (which is another rare utterance of mine)

I read Tobias for the first time last year during a writing course that was titled "plot and story" (a complete misnomer by the way). ANyway maybe it was because we were reading wretchedly horrible monstrously bad writing such as "jesus' son" and others but I thought Tobias' stories at the very least had plots that were logical. No matter how much he claims to have broken away from Rand fandom he apparently has retained something subconsciously.

I've got to say whenever I'm feeling down, I can throw on some Joel tracks or James Taylor and my I always feel uplifted. Billy Joel is also what I like to call "soul food" music. You know how people say a certain meal or fragrance will evoke a feeling of childhood memories or warmth in the soul? Well certain music does that for me like Led Zep due to childhood familiarity with the music. ANyone else have that going on--soul food music I mean?

You think Magnolia was bad, brotha you'd better never watch Mullholland Drive. When I saw it, I couldn't sleep until I'd seen another good film--like washing a really bad taste out of my mouth. This was before I'd ever heard of Ayn Rand. I think if I watched it today I really would go insane.

A joke is funny but more than not I find myself a little pissed off at Ashton taking it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too far. I'm just waiting for the day one of his cronies gets beat up or maced or something. Although I have to say I liked the Zach Braf (spelled right?) episode with the little punk ass kids who spray-painted his new car. I liked how he didn't at all care that the kid was like 11.

When it comes to plot (not style) this is something I, as a writer had trouble understanding at first, about Rand's writing. Meaning I had trouble with the fact that her hero characters became predictable once their philosophies were exposed. I thought (due in part to too much modern reading and college writing courses) that writing "predictable" is bad writing. What I didn't get was that the heroes weren't predictable, they were logical. And the crucial difference between good hero writing and bad hero writing was Rand's use of the hero's own values as sources of conflict. The hero himself has no flaws, but the things he values, such as his lover or work may be a source of conflict for him. If the story was just about a hero doing his work and finding love without problems it'd be nice, but a bit boring, which is why Rand's works haFve characters that are temporarily flawed like Dagny and Dominique and Reardon etc. They give the hero the conflict that show his heroic nature dramatically--not in a boring way. As Roark wanting to see his buildings built (which urged him to enter into a less than perfect agreement), or Dagny's desire to continue her railroad (which forced her to help the looters, the hero's values bring them into conflict with the outside world. Those flaws make the hero and his struggles more dramatic, better drama and that to me is great writing. Being able to write a hero in an interesting way without taking away from his heroic nature, but in fact adding to it makes her one of the greatest writers in my opinion. Hmm didn't mean to get preachy there.

I stumbled into what I can only describe as an anti-ayn rand website, where (like an accident on the side of the road) I found myself perusing the titles and descriptions of the links. If your interested I've posted the link to said web page at the bottom. To get to the point, I noticed many references to Rands "bad" writing. This is something I"ve heard before but always brushed off because I like her style and never really cared why others didn't, but now I'm curious. Because I've never heard the critics explanations as to why exactly they consider her writing bad, I want to know...why? Have you ever heard anything that resembled a reason--or do you agree (I realise this is unlikely) with the position that her style of writing was flawed? The reason I ask in this forum and not an anti-rand forum is because...well-- I don't want to talk to them. I never get a straight answer when I try. http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

Is that true? I mean. if we are talking about actors who have talent and not Paris Hilton types who are simply famous for being famous. What about actors who are good and that's the reason they are hired for movie work? They didn't exactly choose to be famous--nobody can ever guarantee that a movie will be popular. Obviously actors in movies grant the production company permission to use their image to promote the movie. But I don't see how an actor himself needs publicity and thus grants the paparazzi the right to use his image. The movie, the actor's product needs advertising of course, but not the actor himself. A person who cuts hair and advertises on TV or in magazines, they also depend on publicity in a way right? So does that mean magazines can start printing pictures of the hairdresser when she goes out dancing?

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Specifically in reference to celebs and the stalking paparazzi. Isn't it a violation of property rights (if you consider your own body, your property) to use one's name or image to sell things like newspapers? Girls who are in those "girls gone wild" videos have to sign contracts so that they can be used in the video tapes, so why is it different for actors/directors etc?

I've come across this question before and I won't address the Fountainhead sex scene because I see that as being different from the others (and Ayn has already commented on that one) but the other fictional sex scenes such as Kira and Leo in We the Living aren't rape. It's simply men in very masculine roles and sexually masculinity is forceful. When a man wants a woman he takes her. Not against her will obviously, but he is the initiating sexual force.

WOW I had no idea that P&T were so rational! I really wish I had showtime now after perusing their website.

Bryan Larsen's paintings make me happy. I especially like "How Far We've Come" and "Just the Beginning". I can't wait to have these hanging in my home some day. His cityscapes are great too--are those new?

This is something I've thought about a lot. I smoke but usually only when I want to celebrate, or I need to clear my head and think about something important. I understand that if I chain smoke long enough there will be repercussions. I know because I have been through periods where I've smoked several cigs a day and I noticed that my stamina dropped when I was jogging. That's when I decided to limit my intake to special occasions. Whoever said it was right, it is a cost-benefit analysis. How much joy to I get from smoking? How much does worrying about my health detract from my enjoyment? How bad are the actual health consequences? I'm sure Ayn did the same thing.

Spooks ---(or MI5 depending whih country you're in) During the first season I would have consider one of my favourite shows. It centered on Tom Quinn a prodigious MI5 agent and his crew as they protect Britain from various threats. (MI5 is sort of like the FBI of the UK)

Well Terry, in a way I'd agree with your friend. The hidden message I always see is the director/writer's secret ideal. Without knowing that they are doing it consciously they are showing us what they think is the ideal, how people should live their lives what they should value. So if a director/writer valued altruism he might make a movie where self sacrifice is painted as heroic and wonderful. In that way I can see a message. But you're right it isn't hidden, it's just not (always) stated explicitly, it's there if you look. That a movie's only purpose should be to influence society can most certainly be disputed. That is not the way I or an Objectivist should view a work of art. If a movie's sole purpose is to influence, it is not art. It is propaganda. Art is an end in itself. A movie's purpose is to be the best movie it can be, to tell a story in the most effective and entertaining way. If someone wants to influence society, they may as well make documentaries.