Gabo

By the way, if anyone here hasn't read "The Pillars of the Earth" and "World without end", by all means do so. Fiction rarely gets any better, and I really cannot imagine an Objectivist not enjoying these novels,.

"Resist" by Rush

Ken Follett, Terry Goodkind, Alan Moore, Arthur C. Clarke I love Heinlein too, but the original question was for authors who have written in the last 20 years.

I will, thank you for the link and for your information. Clearly it would not be the first time that a socialist has written fiction that is completely consistent with Objectivist values (such as Bernard Shaw's "Saint Joan") Nevertheless, Follett really needs to check his explicit philosophy. The case for the free market in World Without End is very strong.

I know Follett is (or was) a supporter of the Labour Party, but the parallels I've found between his novels The Pillars of the Earth and World Without End and Objectivism are striking. It's almost as if he had purposefully intended to dramatize Objectivist philosophy among a Middle Ages setting. The values and motivations of the heroes are typical of Randian heroes: they are courageous in the face of adversity, productive, brilliant, independent thinkers who rely on their reason and experience in the face of stagnant mysticism and useless (and often life-threatening, as in the case of the monk's "medicine" in WWE) traditions and customs. On the other hand, in both books, the villains are the ultimate portrayals of Attila and the Witch Doctor. World Without End also makes a strong case for a laissez-faire economy. It's also curious that in both books, one of the main heroes is a red-haired architect like Roark. On top of that, the last scene of World Without End is practically identical to the last scene of The Fountainhead. Taking this into account, it would be strange for Follett never to have read Rand, don't you think?

Wow, that last one looks really beautiful. Thanks, I'll take you into account for future videos. Thanks also tito for your suggestion.

If you really want to watch the movie but you just can't get it legally (suppose it's unavailable, out of print, whatever), then by not watching you would only be privating yourself from a pleasurable experience. You wouldn't be violating the artist's IPR because, as the product is currently unavailable in the market, he/she cannot get money out of it anyway. At least that's the way I see it, although this can only apply to very restricted cases.

I think it would be better for you not to watch them. You could only make an exception if you find a burned movie that you really want to watch but somehow it's not available legally at the moment (although I don't know if something like that can happen in the USA )

I've just posted video8, "I am the counterculture", showcasing paintings by Michael Newberry. You can view it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKQUt4px3eM

Here is a test video for the song using some of his paintings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKQUt4px3eM I loved them. They really capture the glory of the individual

Thanks, I'll check him out.

As some of you know, I've been releasing a series of music videos through Youtube under the heading "THINK!" They feature songs of mine which tackle different issues from an Objectivist perspective. You can find more information here: http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=12242 e The song for the upcoming video (track 8) is called "I am the counterculture", and expresses the idea that the true revolution can only come from the individual. I think it would be nice to feature original art or pictures by Objectivists in the video, anything that portrays the idea of the individual prevailing upon the group. If you are interested in collaborating, send me a message or just post your work here. Of course you will be given due credit in the video if your work is used. Looking forward for your replies!

The movie looks wonderful, and the graphic novel is sublime. Highly recommended to everyone I agree with what you said: Moore meant to represent Rorschach as a mentally unstable individual, but nevertheless he comes off as a true hero.

Video 7, "Anatomy of Compromise" is here! The song is about the evils and hypocresy of compromise, and the video features cartoons by the brilliant Cox and Forkum. View it at www.youtube.com/user/Gabobjectivist

Video 6, "Tribute to the monkey" is now up. The song is instrumental and the video is about the current crisis in Argentina, result of a corrupt government and the evil myth of income redistribution. www.youtube.com/user/Gabobjectivist

Great news!

Two more have been added: "Between the wheels" and "Marathon"

Probably. Very nice work!

The fifth video from the album is now available at www.youtube.com/Gabobjectivist The song is called "Initializers", and the video uses stunning material from fellow board members matus976 and volco. Here are the lyrics for the song: INITIALIZERS We're the first ones to whom freedom is only a few more steps away We're used to its everrreaching hand just a thing of everyday And though we should always remember, we can easily forget we can lose what we've been born to if we don't recognise that it needs a clear defence The progress we've been making isn't ready yet That doesn't mean it's failing, it's just a proof of its success for those who understand that things don't change from day to day It's a process that needs effort, willingness and work We're not in the final stages of something We're just initializing We're the ones who know the effect without knowing the cause leaving it defenseless, losing by default But the light of reason shines even in the most darkened stages We're not doomed to the Dark Ages, we can turn the tide again While you're the final stage of a failed something, WE ARE THE INITIALIZERS

People, I've recorded two cover versions from Rush, "Subdivisions" and "Closer to the heart". Audio quality is not perfect, but it's the best I can do with what I have right now. Still, I'm quite satisfied with the end product. You can listen to them at www.myspace.com/gabo67

Yes, Mission is unbelievably good.

It also works that way, but probably Ditko's original motivation was what I mentioned earlier. I agree with what Featherwall said. A modern Mr. A comic, taking into account the innovations that the genre has undergone but with the philosophical message intact, would be mind-blowing.

I don't think it's sarcastic, I think it arises from a misunderstanding. The Question's faceless mask, as far as I know, was intended to represent ultimate Objectivity. Truth and justice without any interfering subjectivity. Probably this guy interpreted that as "suppression of ego", though of course that is not a happy thing to say when talking about Ayn Rand.

Wow! I'm a big fan of Mr. Ditko. This is excellent material, thank you very much for posting. These comics are very difficult to get nowadays. If you enjoyed these, I recommend getting Mysterious Suspense 1 starring The Question, which was reprinted by DC Comics a few years ago. It's just as good, and less "bloodthirsty".

Yes, and THAT is exactly the flaw of the movie. The Royalton company was an appropriate villain all right: they were trecherous, they did away with their enemies by the use of brute force, and they fixed races in order to fulfill their purposes. The problem of the film was mislabelling this as "business" or "big business" as if it were intrinsic of a big company to behave like this. But the problem was merely this misconception. The facts of the movie don't necessarily condemn business as a whole, only Royalton. After all, it ends with the phrase "cheaters never win" (or something like that), not "business is evil" So, to sum up my point, I recommended the movie because in spite of this misconception, everything else left me very impressed (that the facts of the story didn't adhere to the misconception helped diminish it for me). Mislabelling and misconceptions unfortunately occur a lot in movies, like in Transformers with "no sacrifice, no victory". While it's an evil phrase, in the context of the movie it meant something like "you won't win if you don't take risks", which is all right. But instead they chose to use the word "sacrifice", which is what many people may remember afterwards. Until we live in a wold where Objectivism is widely spread and accepted, this is likely to keep happening. Meanwhile, one has to be able to take what is good from worthwhile pieces of art.