He goes into so much detail about training to become an astronaut, his first spaceflight, training and planning for the Apollo missions, and talks about so many of the details and complexities of spaceflight that I had no idea about before.
For example, in the early space walks, they didn't consider how difficult it is to use simple tools in microgravity and without a surface to sit/stand on. The astronaut got completely exhausted just keeping himself still while turning a wrench, because when you turn the wrench, it pushes you and starts moving and spinning you, and when you try to correct it, you'll most likely overcorrect and then have to correct that, and then correct that overcorrection, etc.
And the level of planning and training for the off-nominal scenarios is crazy. They picked the top 30ish most likely failure scenarios and practiced the responses to them in simulators until they're muscle memory, and have detailed checklists for hundreds of other ones (which they also practice, just not as much). For example, when Neil and Buzz land on the moon, they'd be awake for about 10 hours, so they had to decide whether the plan was for them to open the hatch and walk on the moon right after landing, or get a night of sleep and do it "next morning". The problem with doing it immediately was that, if something went wrong, they'd have to abort and get back to the command module, but then they'd end up being awake for 20 hours while handling an emergency. On the other hand, they realized that they wouldn't be able to get sleep right after landing on the moon anyways.
His writing style is awesome: it's easy to read, explains technical details in a really easy to understand way, and quite funny.
I lucked into this in my high school library, and need to re-read it. I've read a lot of books on Apollo, this is one of the best.
FWIW, my other favorite is 'Apollo: Race to the Moon', Murray and Cox, which focuses on the engineering and management effort, and the politics, behind Apollo. Their discussion of the development of the F-1 engine in the Saturn V's first stage is amazing, among dozens of technical and managerial excellencies.
These threads often end up, with everyone trying to prove they are literary scholars.
I prefer junky fantasy books. I'm really too old and cynical to give a damn what y'all think of me.
I probably liked David Edding's Belgariad series, along with the Mallorean series, the most. I reread them, regularly, and go through all ten books, in a couple of weeks. They are an easy read.
Also, Glen Cook's Black Company books are awesome. It's a toss-up, between them. Eleven books, in that series. His Garret PI series are fun, but really kind of "filler."
> These threads often end up, with everyone trying to prove they are literary scholars
I see a wide variety of answers ITT. Some are very "literary" fiction e.g. Ulysses, others are lighter fare like Harry Potter, there's also a wide variety of non-fiction works from self-help to electronics manuals to philosophy. Have you considered that other people might actually have different tastes than you, and aren't trying to "prove" anything?
People are trying to posture and prove all kinds of things.
Of course folks have different tastes (I'm the redneck engineer, in my family. Most of my other siblings think James Joyce is da thang, but they are also into posturing).
But it also intimidates folks into not sharing some really good stuff.
I quite enjoyed David Eddings books when I was younger as well. It came as a shock when I learned that he and his wife had been jailed for child abuse, which only became known after he died:
These threads often end up, with everyone trying to prove they are literary scholars.
Good point. I have to admit, I have some disdain for academic literary criticism, and I care very little about reading/liking the books one is "supposed" to like. Now of course I do in fact like some of those books, just by happenstance. But I don't define myself by seeking out the "blessed" books and reading and endorsing them.
And I like a lot of "low brow" / pulp-fiction stuff. Lots of horror (Dean Koontz, Stephen King, Clive Barker, etc), plenty of action/adventure novels by Lee Child, David Baldacci, Robert Ludlum, etc., and all sorts of sci-fi by authors of no particular note. And I don't mind admitting it. :-)
There were a lot of scifi mass market paperback titles back in the day where unless you know the exact title and author its lost to time.
There was this one scifi book I've been trying to find forever but no records (going on several decades now).
Two main characters were astronauts that crash landed on a earth-like planet with civilization in the middle ages. One became a trader, the other became leader of a militant order, where they had special techniques/knowledge that let them do amazing physical feats like hang by their fingertips on the edge of cliffs for several days.
I couldn't get enough of the Goosebumps series when I was a kid. Just encountering the books and looking at the covers was an experience. I would get them from the school library.
I loved the _Belgariad_ and _Mallorean_ years ago, and re-read them many times. Eddings then came out with a new series, whose name I've surprised; I read the first book and hated it.
And then, as I got older, I started to realize that most of the "good guys", other than Garion, were deeply-flawed awful people who would not be nearly as funny or heroic in real life as they were made out to be in the book. (Picture Polgara smashing everything in sight as she has a tantrum. Belgarath's no better.) And then I couldn't read them anymore, which is a pity.
It's not that I "outgrew" the genre by the way. I read as much fantasy as ever. But not this.
When I was a kid, what got me into reading novels was Weis & Hickman's Darksword Trilogy. I loved the heck out of that series. I re-read it about once a year well into my 20s. Re-reading it in my 40s, it's definitely kind of cringe, but even now I still think it has some cool ideas.
The thing is, those books got a kid into reading. Now I've read thousands of books, but all my later pretentions to literacy started from that one experience which everyone else in the world would judge as junky.
I don't claim they're the best by most metrics. But as a catalyst for reading, they're right up there.
I second the Black Company. I recently turned some friends onto it and got back in as a consequence. It was such a great twist on how a dark fantasy reads. Totally agree for Garret PI.
I'll have to add my other fantasy favourites : The Kingkiller Chronicles (though be prepared to be left hanging) and the Stormlight Archives are truly excellent.
This is exactly the opposite of what GP wants. N.K. Jemisin does not write page turners. He's looking for compulsive schlock at the Edgar Rice Burroughs end of the spectrum.
I've read all 20+ of the Jack Reacher books, some multiple times. Best bedtime reading I've found. Fun enough I actually want to go to bed. Shallow enough that if I miss a page or two because I'm drowsy, no big deal.
Same! I think they're great. But that's "great" when you appreciate them for what they are. I wouldn't compare, say, The Killing Floor to Nineteen Eighty Four or anything. But I'd say they're both great - in their respective ways.
Sometimes escape is just what people need, especially when they work in high stakes professions. The series was written well, though there were parts that were unbelievable, and the author's writing style was geared more towards children. If you look closely at his writing he often makes use of a technique at the time using double/synonym adjectives to describe important details. Kids pick the one they know, while reading making it more cohesive, quite subtle.
I tend to not like stories where the crux of the plot is a god/wizard did it but that is more personal preference. I'm a big fan of character development and growth through struggle. Superman/Thrice Blessed Man stories don't really appeal.
Personally I thought the Blue-rose Saga/Sparhawk series was much better, and had characters you weren't sure you liked at first (gritty han-shot first types).
Ever read Echoes of the Great Song (bit of a one-hit wonder from the author)?
Kindle books like that are what fill in the gaps in my free time. One recent fantasy series I liked was The Good Guys/The Bad Guys by Eric Ugland. Somehow kept me turning pages.
some others (not fantasy) Infinity Gate by M.R. Carey; Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin;
But sometimes there is a lot of dreck to wade through.
Been thinking of making a "stop reading and discard book" list like:
- main character has unknown/dead parents, is secretly "the chosen one"
- no plot, character goes there, minimal opposition, gets all the stuff.
The problem with a "kill list" like that is that most of these overused tropes are overused because originally, they worked really well. E.g. if you strictly followed the first item on your list, you'd miss out on the Belgariad, which is really quite good (in my opinion, and that of the GP poster, at least. I'm personally less sold on the Malloreon, it's a bit too much of a retread for my taste.)
That said, I do agree that too many red flags like that and I will put down a book. And some are stronger than others; I'm 100% with you on the harem thing because any book like that is most likely just an excuse for all the sex scenes.
David Eddings' books are also my favorite of all time, agree about Belgariad and Mallorean. That reminds me that I should start them again. Thanks for bringing back a great memory!
In this vein, junkie Kindle Unlimited sci fi hits that spot for me too.
Currently reading a huge series with easily digestible books by Ryk Brown The Frontiers Saga.
Also anyone remember the old Sten books? There’s a modern rip off that’s very good, amusing and has cartoon violence it’s called the Undying Mercenary series by BV Larson.
And finally, Taken to the Stars and Backyard Starship get honorable mentions but really there is pretty much infinite versions of this shiz.
I'm midway through my second reading through the Discworld series. Several years ago I discovered that they were just the right mix of interesting enough to read yet sedate enough to not raise my adrenaline that I could read them and reliably fall asleep within 5-15 minutes of going to bed. This was a godsend because prior to discovering this, it took my brain anywhere between 1-2 hours EVERY night to settle down enough to actually fall asleep, if it ever happened. Lifelong chronic insomnia solved!
(I'm not sure this is the glowing review that most authors aspire to, but here we are.)
Anyway, MOST Discworld books are well worth the time. A few are difficult to follow because Pratchett tried a bit too hard to rely on context. And he often reuses major plot points. But the narration and dialogue are more than clever enough to make up for any of these.
I'm with you! I've always had a hard time finding Literary Works anything but a total slog. Recently I tried The Road by Cormac McCarthy and just couldn't get through it. Far too grim for my taste.
Anyway, if this is where to share our trashy fantasy guilty pleasures, I recently discovered and devoured the Cradle series by Will Wight. Fun if you're at all into "progression fantasy" (also known as LitRPG) where the characters go through a very clearly-delineated "leveling up" process.
Also the only books I've ever run across with outtakes at the end, which I thought was fun.
My all time favorite fantasy series is Malazan - not a light read though, and probably not a series for anyone new to fantasy. One of the few series I will read again.
It isn't hacker news until I see a reference [1] below the text, an unneccessary italicized portion, and some word salad about how we've been doing it all wrong but suddenly this simple change will revolutionise things moving forwards.
Henry George’s Progress & Poverty conducted what can only be described as a coup on my worldview, and I am not alone in that experience.
It is an incredible argument that will just utterly transform how you understand a walk down the street.
If you’ve been seeing references to the Land Value Tax (LVT) here on HN, this is the book that originated the concept. Like most conceptual breakthroughs, it didn’t emerge solely from George with no related ideas in the vicinity, but this is definitely “the book” behind it.
In a similar vein, when I first got an e-reader I downloaded the old English version of Adam Smiths The Wealth of Nations. It was eye opening. While I’ve forgotten a large amount of the detail the overall themes are embedded in my mind.
How is Wealth of Nations surprising for a modern reader? My (perhaps incorrect) intuition is that these sorts of old foundational books tend not to be too surprising because their ideas have permeated society already, which is why I’m curious to hear your take.
Taxing land is definitely not a revolutionary concept. What made George famous is that he wrote a manifesto that blamed the "rich" land owners for all the ills of society, and proposed that solving the problem would be as simple as levying another tax. It sounds good but has little substance or relation to actual economics.
An economic thinker that can garner praise from democratic socialists like Einstein to neoliberal ghouls like Milton Friedman has to have something going for it.
It's transformed my worldview as well, if nothing else by underlining that free markets and capitalism are not the same thing at all.
The Consolation of Philosophy by Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius.
It is a profound synthesis of classical philosophy and personal reflection on the human condition. Boethius, writing in prison while awaiting execution, blends Stoic, Neoplatonic, and Christian ideas to address timeless questions of fate, fortune, happiness, and virtue. It transcends religious dogma and focuses on rational inquiry into how one can find inner peace and intellectual clarity amidst an almost total inversion of fortune.
Unlike Marcus Aurelius, writing at the peak of his power, Boethius wrote his at the bottom, and did so with more skin in the game. Marcus gave us Commodus and the Decline, Boethius gave us Aristotle and the Rebirth.
Thanks for this brief endorsement. I'll add it to my list of books to read... Currently, running a rather high tsundoku...
My own fav is also called Consolation of Philosophy but it's by Alain de Botton, one of my fav contemporary writers. His prose is fine, and the writing's a treat. His book is of course a modern treatment of Boethius. Recommended!
The truth is, if you ask me this 100 times, you'll probably get 100 different answers, because it's impossible to really pick just one (well two, separating by fiction/non-fiction). But for today I'll go with:
The Selfish Gene gave me lots to think about during my escape from the influence of religion in my life. That book gave me a solid idea that a lot of mystery could be explained by very simple concepts over a long period of time.
Haven't read The Selfish Gene, but reading the summary it looks like it touches on some very similar themes as Stephen Pinker's How The Mind Works, which I thought was also a great book. Gave me a good intuitive understanding of how the human neural system evolved, and I found so much of the book to be prescient and timely in our current "AI era".
I've tried twice to read this, but it looses me about 10% in for some reason. Is it worth continuing past that? Does it get "better"? Or does that just signal that the whole book isn't for me?
I was in your boat. I revisited later and powered through and it does indeed get better. The narrative forms into something more cohesive and you start being less exhausted by all the lingo because you've learned it. You settle in. You have to sort of try to immerse yourself. I'd recommend trying to read in larger chunks of time and really absorb the aesthetic of the world.
Neuromancer definitely has a unique prose style that Gibson came up with. And a lot of people do find it to be something of a turn-off. Me, I enjoyed it on the first read 30+ years ago and still enjoy it on re-reads. But it's hard to say whether or not somebody else will find it enjoyable. All I can say is that I/ve enjoyed Neuromancer enough to read it 4 or 5 times and will probably read it again at some point.
I love Neuromancer specifically for the first third or so, so maybe the latter?
IMO the first part of the book is peak cyberpunk vibes. In particular I read it almost like I would read poetry, late at night when I can't sleep, sometimes jumping back and forth between pages.
Neuromancer is by far my favorite novel. On first reading, it felt to me like someone was finally describing the world in a way that I saw it, but couldn't articulate myself. I come back to it every couple of years and it never fails to entertain me.
That's why it's an interesting question worth asking andbthinking about.
It's fine that it's hard to answer, or the answer changes. The goal is not to actually determine the correct answer but to explore the possible answers and the reasoning that produces them, and the differences that different people produce.
A lot of the appeal is aesthetic / stylistic. Yes it's "hard to read" compared to more "traditional" works, but it has its own unique appeal... an appeal that resonates with some people and not-so-much with others.
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams. It's hilarious, absurd, and surprisingly thought-provoking. There are many philosophical questions and lessons that are not really presented as such (though they aren't hidden, either).
I read it when I was young, it really shaped my sense of humor and got me thinking about some of life and the universe's big questions.
Me too. I still cherish the black hardcover I got on my first trip to the US for $20 (must've been around 2006). This one: "The Ultimate Hitchhiker's Guide: Five Complete Novels and One Story".
So much this. I too read the book when I was very young, and enjoyed it for its awesome mix sci-fi, absurdity, dry humour and absolute classic one-liners.
What I love about it now is how it presents a view of life in the universe as entirely random, but mostly harmless and fun, and that interplanetary exploration is something you would do as a hitchhiker on an adventure, rather than a conqueror chasing resources.
That vision really lifts me when contemplating the future and our place in it when we reach for the stars.
"The best book I've ever read was Atlas Shrugged in 8th grade. Changed my life."
Not because I remember anything about it, or believe anything it espouses, or even like it all that much, but because it's a useful filter for obnoxious people in meatspace.
If someone I don't know too well asks me what my favorite book is, I say Atlas Shrugged. If they react inappropriately, I'll be cordial and treat them with respect, but I don't want to be friends. If they're way too supportive - the same rule applies.
If they're critical in a way I can appreciate, then I know they can either tolerate ideas they hate or have the social accumen to not go too hard in the paint early on in a relationahip. Really, I'm just looking for people who won't jump down my throat on a faux pas.
Later on in the relationship I'll tell them my actual favorite book, "A Canticle for Leibowitz", or "Neuromancer", or "The Dying Earth" (my opinion changes based on my mood).
> I think you're dismissing the people such as myself that would note you as an idiot without comment and move on wanting nothing to do with you.
> Edit: tests ... with people you just met is an ineffective way to navigate the world. My 2c
Do you see the irony here?
I wouldn't personally run the kind of test OP is running, but I think that even in your case the test succeeded: they've successfully separated themselves from someone who is inclined take one aspect of who they present themselves as and immediately put them in a box, label them, and dismiss them. They don't have to know that you're that kind of person for the filter to be effective.
> I think you're dismissing the people such as myself that would note you as an idiot without comment and move on wanting nothing to do with you.
Not OP. But I would say the filter is working. If you would treat somebody like an idiot for liking a book you don’t like, I indeed, would want you filtered out of my circle of friends.
> Edit: tests and trick questions with people you just met is an ineffective way to navigate the world. My 2c
Then it sounds like you won't ask someone their favorite book and write them off entirely if they say it's a raunchy romance novel about industrialists?
For a test to be effective it doesn't have to be 100% effective every time. Just because it doesn't filter out rare individuums like yourself it doesn't mean it doesn't filter out 90% of them. If someone asks a question it's not unwise to assume they'll have a comment on that.
I am having trouble seeing how this doesn’t just, one way or another, filter for people unfamiliar with both the literary and philosophical merits of Atlas Shrugged.
Possibility 1: A too-enthusiastic reaction. Filtered.
Possibility 2: A too-negative reaction. Filtered.
Possibility 3: a neutral-enough reaction to not get filtered, but at least some parts of their opinion just shifted toward the negative and wary. If not filtered, at least now distant for some time.
Possibility 4: a neutral-enough reaction because they have low familiarity with the book. Only pairing that passes unscathed.
I’d recommend saying Twilight instead. It doesn’t come with garbage-politics implications (at least, simply liking the book doesn’t)
[edit] hm. But then people being enthusiastic fans of it isn’t as useful a filter. This is tricky. Having it be something big fans of which are usually unpleasant is a benefit for filtering the other people, but sends false negative signals about yourself.
Have you considered that someone who hears Atlas Shrugged is your favourite book might react similarly?
I'd be polite, but note you down as either an immature thinker or someone who likes to provoke. With a little more prodding, possibly also one of those people who has to be right about everything, and this is their hill.
I guess I'm on passive radar and you are on active.
> Have you considered that someone who hears Atlas Shrugged is your favourite book might react similarly?
I'm not the author of the post you're replying to, but that line of reasoning reminds me of an hiring bias that I read a while ago: avoiding a bad hire is more important than getting good hire.
In this context this could mean that the tb_technical really cares about avoiding people with extreme viewpoints, even if that means missing a few people they might get along with.
> I'd be polite, but note you down as either an immature thinker or someone who likes to provoke. With a little more prodding, possibly also one of those people who has to be right about everything, and this is their hill.
Weirdly enough, to me (as a third person) it seems you're proving tb_technical's point anyway: you still have some strong views on the matter, you just would not express them. Still somebody that, according to tb_technical's writing, they wouldn't like to be friends with. The main difference here is that the feeling is reciprocated by you.
The more comments I read, the more tb_technical's idea sounds good.
If I met someone who said that any book was their favorite book, and then didn't remember anything about the book or had any value for the ideas that it advocated for, then I'd have to consider that person a bit of a manipulator.
Being disingenuous is just a bad first and only data point to give someone about yourself.
I know almost nothing about Atlas Shrugged, besides that it is very political, but this seems a strange and deceptive way to interact with people. I can't imagine it is very good for establishing trust with someone even if they "pass the test". I would think that many level-headed people you seek to select for would not appreciate being tested in this way, but I suppose you are selecting for a very specific kind of person who would find these kinds of social games and tests interesting.
It is political, but it is also not a good book. Like, it has a gigantic monologue in the middle where one of the main characters just stands there and expounds on the theme of the book, for many pages. It is not well written.
If somebody said they liked… some books by Heinlein or whatever, there’s a guy with some Political Opinions. But he can write. It is believable, picking a Heinlein book isn’t an obvious political test.
Regardless of political opinions, that monologue in the middle of Atlas Shrugged is some quite poor writing. TBH if someone said their Atlas Shrugged was their favorite book, I would assume they were making some sort of political statement, which seems like a bit of an intrusion on what otherwise ought to be a fun chat about books.
I was a teenager when I read her books, and these days mostly disagree with her politics. It was a while ago, but I vaguely remember The Fountainhead being a better read than Atlas Shrugged.
The best part of the monologue is in-universe, it supposedly takes 3 hours, but everyone on YouTube takes 4-5 hours, which means John Galt was speaking at 1.5x speed.
Honestly Ayn Rand's sexual politics are more interesting than her economic politics. The books are mostly about masculinity and its definition. The ideal men in her books are immutable flawless beings, and the (good) women learn to define themselves by dating progressively better men.
In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny goes from Francisco d'Anconia (no ambition playboy) to Hank Rearden (ambitious steel magnate that's a slave to the state) to John Galt (genius that refuses to compromise on anything). Dagny achieves fulfillment by collecting personality traits from the people she dates—which ultimately leads to her realization she is the one responsible for her own self-actualization (kind of contradictory lol).
The Fountainhead engages with this more, because the conformist Keating is portrayed as more harmful than the physically abusive Roark.
I'm convinced Ayn Rand defined the "sigma male" and she'll get no credit for it as a woman. She engages with the concept much more than the manosphere, because her sigma males end up poor, homeless, and societally unsuccessful because of their inability to compromise.
Contrast the dream sold to young men on social media, which is "not compromising on anything will make you rich and attractive!"
I don't agree with Rand's value system but she accurately describes what happens to people that hate compromise. The only reason why one would be a sigma is if one prioritizes "being right" over every other aspect of one's life.
That monologue was PAINFUL. My god not just the length of it but what an absolute blowhard to deliver such a self-righteous diatribe. I forgot about that until you mentioned it!
The idea that the people are not ready for certain technologies strongly resonates with me. Every day I find myself falling further and further out of touch with new technology.
I think you just proved his point. This response is clearly quite aggressive and over the top and thus falls in the camp of being unlikely friends vs. someone who takes a more cordial approach.
I didn't read it until I was well into my 30s, but I very much enjoyed it.
Not the best I've ever read, but I have read it a few times now.
I don't agree with a lot of it, and I can't relate to some of the characters personally, I just think it is extremely well written. The characters and their motivations are very well laid out, and we get to go on a journey with them.
I was pretty similar. I heard so much about it that I figured I should read it, but that wasn't until my late 20s. I feel weird telling people I liked it because of how it's used as a categorizer. It's obviously a flawed philosophy and I don't agree with huge chunks of it -- but its a book that just sticks in your head and the ideals it espouses are attractive.
Honestly I think of it as a piece of media similar to superhero movies. The practical reality of superheros implemented literally would likely be a complete catastrophe. But watching fictional superheros do acts of good is inspiring.
Congratulations on your independence. May I recommend her other novel The Fountainhead, which is about the war between individualism and collectivism within a person?
What happens later in the relationship when you reveal you lied about your favorite book as some weird social vetting process? It seems the insincerity would turn a lot of people off.
As someone who also hates extreme non-nuanced views, and seeks people who are thoughtful and emotionally level, I don't think I would be put off at all.
In fact I'd guess that if you really did talk with tb for a while, you would probably pick up that Ayn Rand is not a fit for the beliefs they convey.
So, you will lie about your favourite book to socially engineer people? That would be the end of any friendship even if your favourite books are actually good reads. Why would I want to be friends with someone who will lie to qualify me? I don’t put up with that amongst mobile device salespeople and that’s a small investment.
How much one likes Atlas Shrugged may depend on age as well. When I read it at age of 20, it was the best book I had ever read and almost a Bible for me. At 25, it had some great points that were worth adopting. At 30, it was mostly a fantasy, but entertaining. At 38, it is just not worth the time.
15 years ago I had a colleague who was obsessed with Ayn Rand. I didn't know anything about Ayn Rand and her philosophies. I was/am good friends with that person.
Fast-forward a decade and I know who Ayn Rand is and her philosophies. I know generally what type of people adhere to her philosophies and they are the opposite of who I would normally associate myself with.
My opinion of my friend has not changed now that I am more familiar with Ayn Rand. It provides additional background for some of the values that my friend has, but does not change who that person is or my ability to be friends with them.
I think that a lot of times it is easy to distance yourself from someone who has opposite beliefs from you, but at the end of the day, I don't think that is the only criteria in determining if someone is worth associating with.
I found Canticle kinda "meh" personally. It was a great premise, and the 1st third was somewhat interesting, but the rest fell flat for me. I'd say it was a book I wanted to like a lot, but the execution let me down.
I have a twisted collection of semi contradictory beliefs that I feel fairly strongly about and make it so I don't really fit in with right wing, left wing, or centrists, though I am really accepting of other people with opposing viewpoints. This failure to fit well in a bucket has caused the loss of quite a few friends, and so having a filter for people who can't tolerate opposing viewpoints is pretty useful.
>Not because I remember anything about it, or believe anything it espouses, or even like it all that much, but because it's a useful filter for obnoxious people in meatspace.
Nietzche fills this role for me. Thinking he was right is a big red flag. But not knowing of him makes your opinions on philosophy meaningless.
I find a good follow up question is oh? what do you think he's all about? And if they start talking about master/slave morality or the ubermensch, then change the subject and move on,
The ol' treating social interactions as a chess match... I could have definitely related to this in my 20s, but I cannot relate to this anymore. At this point in my life it sounds truly terrible to me for multiple reasons. At some point I learned that it takes much longer than a conversation to truly get to know someone. People I was unimpressed with at first have turned out to be a really great friends a few months later. This has happened enough that I usually just give people a pass now regardless.
I just have to say, "A Canticle for Leibowitz" shook me for a really, really long time afterwards. I'm not saying it's a bad book, it's quite thought provoking, but I took about 99 points of psychic damage from it.
What about people who are critical in a way you'll never know? Personally I might check off a "don't ask for book recommendations" box in my head and never mention it to you again
"but because it's a useful filter for obnoxious people in meatspace"
It is surprising that a book can become such a barometer. I liked the book originally, it isn't a bad introduction to some ideas. But even when I was young was able to poke holes in it.
But then many years later, it has become something like a 'flag' or 'rally cry' for certain segments of populating that either haven't read it at all, or have horribly miss-interpreted it, or most likely only idealized it by reading the first half.
Go ahead and say Mein Kampf then. If people react in "bla bla bla" way you can go ahead and judge them for not taking the time to think you might actually be playing mind games and not being a total idiot. :D
“I lie to people’s faces to conduct a test around a mundane question in order to safeguard myself from the ‘meatspace’ ruffians that don’t like Ayn Rand” is a hilarious strategy.
As an aside, it kind of seems like Atlas Shrugged actually is your favorite book. You don’t appear to care what others think about Neuromancer or The Dying Earth but you literally require a specific and narrow set of feelings about Objectivism to pass The Test. (And obviously, it is the feelings that you mandate, not the lack of social graces, as you have noted that you don’t mind if others politely stop talking to you even after passing The Test. They do not feel positively enough toward Ayn Rand and as such are not worthy of your time)
I don't like Atlas Shrugged and you can't convince me otherwise. The most interesting paragraphs in that book were rants about cigarette brands, and even that was a total bore.
Neuromancer is enjoyable, but mostly because I enjoyed cyberpunk inspired media before reading it. Seeing all the influences Neuromancer had on books, movies, anime/manga, and even half life mods was a real treat. That and I empathized with Case - in my youth I was addicted to amphetamines, and it was a really nasty habit to kick.
As for Dying Earth, although the first wizards story is a little bit of a slow burn, seeing the elf sisters come back for their own pieces in the anthology was a real treat. Seeing the disturbed one overcome her sickness and find love was a fun triumphant end for her character arc. I'm also a DnD player, so seeing the early inspiration for the spell slots mechanic was a really cool experience for me.
But, really, what really annoys me about what people like you do is interrogate people for purity. I lost too much time in my youth trying to keep people, who I thought were my friends, like you happy.
That sort of stress isn't worth it. People who act this way are not a positive influence on my life, and I just don't have the time for it. And it's perfectly acceptable not to want to be friends with people who accuse other people of being too chuddy.
Responding to a genuine question of interest with some sort of test says a lot about you. I guess your filter works both ways, because I would not want to associate with someone who does this.
Edit: Watching my points go up and down on this one has been interesting! I didn't realize people were so divided on whether or not it's okay to lie and test people as some sort of friendship filter.
It is somewhat odd to ask someone about their favorite book and instead get a lie that's intended to test whether or not you'll be a good friend. It's also completely offtopic for a discussion about folks' favorite books.
So you’re using a book as a political filtering mechanism. I don’t see how that particular book has any relevance to this discussion then. You might as well just switch it out with “The Turner Diaries” or something similar.
Can you summarize what kind of responses you get? I'd like to believe I'd quickly figure out this too-on-the-nose response wasn't serious and it'd lead to a laugh and more interesting discussion
> _Not because I remember anything about it, or believe anything it espouses, or even like it all that much, but because it's a useful filter for obnoxious people in meatspace._
This made me chuckle wryly... :)
In a previous life, I might have been on who got along very well -- at least intellectually -- with those who loved Atlas Shrugged and swore by it as the bible of their lives. Now, with some age and wisdom, it's the exact opposite.
I myself wouldn't use a book as a filter for all things in social life... (for it generates way too many false positives), but I sheepishly admit to doing the same every now and then...
Now I'm left wondering how well this would work substituting in different books.
Different religious texts? Especially if you pick one that is not part of the primary religion of the area you are located in.
A Modest Proposal? Probably the worst choice. Most won't recognize it and the few who do will assume satire in your response. (Also, essays aren't books, but who is counting.)
A certain book by Nabokov?
What about someone who seriously considers the question, but then says that they've read many books but don't really have one they consider the best? Too much of a non-answer?
> "The best book I've ever read was Atlas Shrugged in 8th grade. Changed my life."
The obvious followup question is how did it change your life? Under this gambit of yours I wonder how you'd respond?
I'm not interested in Ayn Rand or her bizarre fanboys but I think if someone said that to me I'd honestly be curious enough, not out of empathy but out of anthropological interest, to ask the question
So your approach to a social situation with a new acquaintance is to give a dishonest answer to test whether they are willing to put up with your obnoxiousness in the future?
I'm sorry but if someone disregards you at that stage I wouldn't say that they lack "social accumen to not go too hard in the paint early" as you say, rather that they have sufficient experience with difficult people and just chose to willingly ignore you for their own good.
Even admitting to doing this is already off-putting to me.
Wouldn't this only be a functional recommendation if you were planning on being the sole determinant in whether the relationship moved forward because your response could pretty obviously be used as their filter just as easily?
Whenever I hear about that author the only thing I can think of is her adoration of a strong man in the person of a killer who kidnapped a little girl and propped up half her body in a car to ransom her back to her father then pushed the half a corpse into the street and drove off with the money. Then I think about her retiring on welfare.
> "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
It's not a fair comparison but when someone says their favorite author is Rand I have a similar response as if they had said "Hitler". I can tolerate ideas I hate but see little profit in trafficking too much with sociopaths. Perhaps you don't either else why do you avoid those who are "way too supportive"
> Wouldn't this only be a functional recommendation if you were planning on being the sole determinant in whether the relationship moved forward because your response could pretty obviously be used as their filter just as easily?
This is a really good point, actually, but I am counting on this. What I'm trying to select in strangers is patience (also humor). If someone gives me shade in a silly enough way, everything is permitted.
Also, a nitpick, being friends with someone is solely up to you. If either you or someone else don't like each other, a relationship effectively cannot happen (although, there are exceptions, first impressions can be overcome).
So rather than even trying to predict what someone else is thinking, I just don't try (and pretend it's not a factor). I go with my gut, and most of the time it works out great for me.
I'll add some context though, most of the time I do this in dingy dive bars and small town pubs. People aren't typically very cerebral there, so it works.
So let me get this straight, you present yourself as a caricature of an obnoxious pseudo-intellectual, then "filter out" people who react against that? What a bizarre way to interact with people. Not only is it dishonest, you're also... making yourself look unappealing on purpose. I fail to see how this benefits you.
I tolerate different ideas just fine, but anyone over the age of 20 who tells me "The best book I've ever read was Atlas Shrugged in 8th grade. Changed my life." will immediately strike me as a person I probably have little interest in being friends with.
> you're also... making yourself look unappealing on purpose. I fail to see how this benefits you.
My more-depressing interpretation of this is the value comes as an explanation for being written off by others. Rather than being a way to filter others out, a person with multiple socially off-putting habits or a generally disagreeable demeanor can do This One Weird Trick to then point at their cleverness as the reason why they are standing in a room fun of people that don’t want to talk to them.
There is no need for self-reflection if everyone else is simply too gauche to understand how actually pro-social your nakedly anti-social ruse is.
Steppenwolf By Herman Hesse. It's remarkable how a fictional character written by someone a century ago can resonate so deeply with a modern person. But then again, that's a common thread amongst great literature. I recommend this book to anyone struggling with loneliness or feeling like they haven't found their footing in this world.
“Learn what is to be taken seriously and laugh at everything else.”
Great recommendation. I think the magic for me is that you begin to read a strange narrative of characters in 1920s Germany. It is a tall tale of alienation.
SPOLIER ALERT - Then, slowly, and in the end, convincingly, you come to know he is writing about you the reader. That is a miracle of writing and time and space.
P.S. I think Catcher in the Rye also does that, if you are late teen, but is a far inferior work, and does not bear reading if you are past 20.
GBG has that dream-like Kafkaesque frustration of having a concrete objective, but not be able to achieve it, even though it should be simple and tangible.
However, in GBG it is all meta: the game is unspecified, the objective is unspecified, the adorable miraculous winning play is unspecified. It is meta-Kafka, which is incredibly doubly frustrating...
SPOLIER ALERT: then, slowly, awkwardly, painfully, a realization creeps over you - GBG is life.
Not sure how I feel about the on-going vanishing of efforts to create The Glass Bead Game as a computer interface/programming methodology.
I want it to be something workable which helps folks in their use of computers, but the more I work with node programming interfaces and so forth, the more I worry that the fact that there is no universally agreed-upon answer to the question:
>What does an algorithm look like?
and that such systems are strongly-bounded complexity-wise by screen size, that they simply aren't workable beyond small/toy problems and educational usage, i.e., Blockly.
Narcissus and Goldmund is great. It feels like he's re-approaching themes from Siddhartha, but that notion of paths taken is worth exploring again and again.
I like Hesse and I like Steppenwolf even though neither is my favorite -- but there is a fragment in Steppenwolf that I will never forget, that I have used often, and that anchors the love side of my love-hate relationship with the German language:
"...um im Gasthaus [...] das zu trinken, was trinkende Männer nach einer alten Konvention »ein Gläschen Wein« nennen."
English: in order to drink in the pub that which drinking men, according to an old convention, call "a little glass of wine."
Readit News
He goes into so much detail about training to become an astronaut, his first spaceflight, training and planning for the Apollo missions, and talks about so many of the details and complexities of spaceflight that I had no idea about before.
For example, in the early space walks, they didn't consider how difficult it is to use simple tools in microgravity and without a surface to sit/stand on. The astronaut got completely exhausted just keeping himself still while turning a wrench, because when you turn the wrench, it pushes you and starts moving and spinning you, and when you try to correct it, you'll most likely overcorrect and then have to correct that, and then correct that overcorrection, etc.
And the level of planning and training for the off-nominal scenarios is crazy. They picked the top 30ish most likely failure scenarios and practiced the responses to them in simulators until they're muscle memory, and have detailed checklists for hundreds of other ones (which they also practice, just not as much). For example, when Neil and Buzz land on the moon, they'd be awake for about 10 hours, so they had to decide whether the plan was for them to open the hatch and walk on the moon right after landing, or get a night of sleep and do it "next morning". The problem with doing it immediately was that, if something went wrong, they'd have to abort and get back to the command module, but then they'd end up being awake for 20 hours while handling an emergency. On the other hand, they realized that they wouldn't be able to get sleep right after landing on the moon anyways.
His writing style is awesome: it's easy to read, explains technical details in a really easy to understand way, and quite funny.
Sounds like trying to take lug nuts off a tire you've jacked off the ground. but in space the whole car is off the ground...
FWIW, my other favorite is 'Apollo: Race to the Moon', Murray and Cox, which focuses on the engineering and management effort, and the politics, behind Apollo. Their discussion of the development of the F-1 engine in the Saturn V's first stage is amazing, among dozens of technical and managerial excellencies.
I prefer junky fantasy books. I'm really too old and cynical to give a damn what y'all think of me.
I probably liked David Edding's Belgariad series, along with the Mallorean series, the most. I reread them, regularly, and go through all ten books, in a couple of weeks. They are an easy read.
Also, Glen Cook's Black Company books are awesome. It's a toss-up, between them. Eleven books, in that series. His Garret PI series are fun, but really kind of "filler."
I see a wide variety of answers ITT. Some are very "literary" fiction e.g. Ulysses, others are lighter fare like Harry Potter, there's also a wide variety of non-fiction works from self-help to electronics manuals to philosophy. Have you considered that other people might actually have different tastes than you, and aren't trying to "prove" anything?
People are trying to posture and prove all kinds of things.
Of course folks have different tastes (I'm the redneck engineer, in my family. Most of my other siblings think James Joyce is da thang, but they are also into posturing).
But it also intimidates folks into not sharing some really good stuff.
https://thewertzone.blogspot.com/2020/05/it-has-been-reveale...
Deleted Comment
Good point. I have to admit, I have some disdain for academic literary criticism, and I care very little about reading/liking the books one is "supposed" to like. Now of course I do in fact like some of those books, just by happenstance. But I don't define myself by seeking out the "blessed" books and reading and endorsing them.
And I like a lot of "low brow" / pulp-fiction stuff. Lots of horror (Dean Koontz, Stephen King, Clive Barker, etc), plenty of action/adventure novels by Lee Child, David Baldacci, Robert Ludlum, etc., and all sorts of sci-fi by authors of no particular note. And I don't mind admitting it. :-)
I also liked the Murderbot Diaries by Martha Wells.
There was this one scifi book I've been trying to find forever but no records (going on several decades now).
Two main characters were astronauts that crash landed on a earth-like planet with civilization in the middle ages. One became a trader, the other became leader of a militant order, where they had special techniques/knowledge that let them do amazing physical feats like hang by their fingertips on the edge of cliffs for several days.
Maybe someone knows it.
And then, as I got older, I started to realize that most of the "good guys", other than Garion, were deeply-flawed awful people who would not be nearly as funny or heroic in real life as they were made out to be in the book. (Picture Polgara smashing everything in sight as she has a tantrum. Belgarath's no better.) And then I couldn't read them anymore, which is a pity.
It's not that I "outgrew" the genre by the way. I read as much fantasy as ever. But not this.
That was probably The Elder Gods series (Crystal Gorge, et al).
It is awful. I suspect it was written while he was dying of cancer, and his wife had a great deal of input.
The Redemption of Althalus is ... bearable, but not his best.
I enjoyed The Elenium and The Tamuli series. They had a lot of the character of The Belgariad, but bloodier.
The thing is, those books got a kid into reading. Now I've read thousands of books, but all my later pretentions to literacy started from that one experience which everyone else in the world would judge as junky.
I don't claim they're the best by most metrics. But as a catalyst for reading, they're right up there.
I'll have to add my other fantasy favourites : The Kingkiller Chronicles (though be prepared to be left hanging) and the Stormlight Archives are truly excellent.
Same! I think they're great. But that's "great" when you appreciate them for what they are. I wouldn't compare, say, The Killing Floor to Nineteen Eighty Four or anything. But I'd say they're both great - in their respective ways.
I tend to not like stories where the crux of the plot is a god/wizard did it but that is more personal preference. I'm a big fan of character development and growth through struggle. Superman/Thrice Blessed Man stories don't really appeal.
Personally I thought the Blue-rose Saga/Sparhawk series was much better, and had characters you weren't sure you liked at first (gritty han-shot first types).
Ever read Echoes of the Great Song (bit of a one-hit wonder from the author)?
Kindle books like that are what fill in the gaps in my free time. One recent fantasy series I liked was The Good Guys/The Bad Guys by Eric Ugland. Somehow kept me turning pages.
some others (not fantasy) Infinity Gate by M.R. Carey; Tomorrow, and Tomorrow, and Tomorrow by Gabrielle Zevin;
But sometimes there is a lot of dreck to wade through.
Been thinking of making a "stop reading and discard book" list like:
- main character has unknown/dead parents, is secretly "the chosen one"
- no plot, character goes there, minimal opposition, gets all the stuff.
- anything harem
That said, I do agree that too many red flags like that and I will put down a book. And some are stronger than others; I'm 100% with you on the harem thing because any book like that is most likely just an excuse for all the sex scenes.
The Black Company is great, especially the first book.
Currently reading a huge series with easily digestible books by Ryk Brown The Frontiers Saga.
Also anyone remember the old Sten books? There’s a modern rip off that’s very good, amusing and has cartoon violence it’s called the Undying Mercenary series by BV Larson.
And finally, Taken to the Stars and Backyard Starship get honorable mentions but really there is pretty much infinite versions of this shiz.
(I'm not sure this is the glowing review that most authors aspire to, but here we are.)
Anyway, MOST Discworld books are well worth the time. A few are difficult to follow because Pratchett tried a bit too hard to rely on context. And he often reuses major plot points. But the narration and dialogue are more than clever enough to make up for any of these.
Anyway, if this is where to share our trashy fantasy guilty pleasures, I recently discovered and devoured the Cradle series by Will Wight. Fun if you're at all into "progression fantasy" (also known as LitRPG) where the characters go through a very clearly-delineated "leveling up" process.
Also the only books I've ever run across with outtakes at the end, which I thought was fun.
I love this.
That’s the best part! Coming back to the simple life on Faldors farm again.
Deleted Comment
And if we're feeling crazy, __Some of this__
It is an incredible argument that will just utterly transform how you understand a walk down the street.
If you’ve been seeing references to the Land Value Tax (LVT) here on HN, this is the book that originated the concept. Like most conceptual breakthroughs, it didn’t emerge solely from George with no related ideas in the vicinity, but this is definitely “the book” behind it.
That’s a good shibboleth for “never have actually engaged this idea.”
It's transformed my worldview as well, if nothing else by underlining that free markets and capitalism are not the same thing at all.
It is a profound synthesis of classical philosophy and personal reflection on the human condition. Boethius, writing in prison while awaiting execution, blends Stoic, Neoplatonic, and Christian ideas to address timeless questions of fate, fortune, happiness, and virtue. It transcends religious dogma and focuses on rational inquiry into how one can find inner peace and intellectual clarity amidst an almost total inversion of fortune.
Unlike Marcus Aurelius, writing at the peak of his power, Boethius wrote his at the bottom, and did so with more skin in the game. Marcus gave us Commodus and the Decline, Boethius gave us Aristotle and the Rebirth.
Found it on Standard Ebooks, in case that helps someone else:
https://standardebooks.org/ebooks/boethius/the-consolation-o...
My own fav is also called Consolation of Philosophy but it's by Alain de Botton, one of my fav contemporary writers. His prose is fine, and the writing's a treat. His book is of course a modern treatment of Boethius. Recommended!
2. Chaucer's translation is referenced in the OED as the first use of the word "twitter" in the English language
Fiction: Neuromancer
Non-fiction: The Selfish Gene
I'm starting to feel old on a more and more frequent cadence.
I've tried twice to read this, but it looses me about 10% in for some reason. Is it worth continuing past that? Does it get "better"? Or does that just signal that the whole book isn't for me?
IMO the first part of the book is peak cyberpunk vibes. In particular I read it almost like I would read poetry, late at night when I can't sleep, sometimes jumping back and forth between pages.
Then I read a big plot summary I found online and read it again and I really enjoyed it.
Also, there is an excellent BBC audio drama made from the book. It's on Youtube.
It's fine that it's hard to answer, or the answer changes. The goal is not to actually determine the correct answer but to explore the possible answers and the reasoning that produces them, and the differences that different people produce.
I read it when I was young, it really shaped my sense of humor and got me thinking about some of life and the universe's big questions.
What I love about it now is how it presents a view of life in the universe as entirely random, but mostly harmless and fun, and that interplanetary exploration is something you would do as a hitchhiker on an adventure, rather than a conqueror chasing resources.
That vision really lifts me when contemplating the future and our place in it when we reach for the stars.
Then at some point I decided to re-read the whole thing and it was decidedly underwhelming. A let down even.
Has anyone else experienced that?
The absurdity and slant on looking at things helps keep life in perspective (wasn't trying reference the Vortex there).
I remember occasionally when really get absorbed in it, that strangely the absolute absurdity almost starts seeming plausible.
And, I start seeing the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation all over the place now....
Not because I remember anything about it, or believe anything it espouses, or even like it all that much, but because it's a useful filter for obnoxious people in meatspace.
If someone I don't know too well asks me what my favorite book is, I say Atlas Shrugged. If they react inappropriately, I'll be cordial and treat them with respect, but I don't want to be friends. If they're way too supportive - the same rule applies.
If they're critical in a way I can appreciate, then I know they can either tolerate ideas they hate or have the social accumen to not go too hard in the paint early on in a relationahip. Really, I'm just looking for people who won't jump down my throat on a faux pas.
Later on in the relationship I'll tell them my actual favorite book, "A Canticle for Leibowitz", or "Neuromancer", or "The Dying Earth" (my opinion changes based on my mood).
"huh, ok"
> Really, I'm just looking for people who won't jump down my throat on a faux pas.
I think you're dismissing the people such as myself that would note you as an idiot without comment and move on wanting nothing to do with you.
Edit: tests and trick questions with people you just met is an ineffective way to navigate the world. My 2c
> Edit: tests ... with people you just met is an ineffective way to navigate the world. My 2c
Do you see the irony here?
I wouldn't personally run the kind of test OP is running, but I think that even in your case the test succeeded: they've successfully separated themselves from someone who is inclined take one aspect of who they present themselves as and immediately put them in a box, label them, and dismiss them. They don't have to know that you're that kind of person for the filter to be effective.
Not OP. But I would say the filter is working. If you would treat somebody like an idiot for liking a book you don’t like, I indeed, would want you filtered out of my circle of friends.
Then it sounds like you won't ask someone their favorite book and write them off entirely if they say it's a raunchy romance novel about industrialists?
Sounds to me like you failed the test.
Possibility 1: A too-enthusiastic reaction. Filtered.
Possibility 2: A too-negative reaction. Filtered.
Possibility 3: a neutral-enough reaction to not get filtered, but at least some parts of their opinion just shifted toward the negative and wary. If not filtered, at least now distant for some time.
Possibility 4: a neutral-enough reaction because they have low familiarity with the book. Only pairing that passes unscathed.
I’d recommend saying Twilight instead. It doesn’t come with garbage-politics implications (at least, simply liking the book doesn’t)
[edit] hm. But then people being enthusiastic fans of it isn’t as useful a filter. This is tricky. Having it be something big fans of which are usually unpleasant is a benefit for filtering the other people, but sends false negative signals about yourself.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment
Dead Comment
I'd be polite, but note you down as either an immature thinker or someone who likes to provoke. With a little more prodding, possibly also one of those people who has to be right about everything, and this is their hill.
I guess I'm on passive radar and you are on active.
I'm not the author of the post you're replying to, but that line of reasoning reminds me of an hiring bias that I read a while ago: avoiding a bad hire is more important than getting good hire.
In this context this could mean that the tb_technical really cares about avoiding people with extreme viewpoints, even if that means missing a few people they might get along with.
> I'd be polite, but note you down as either an immature thinker or someone who likes to provoke. With a little more prodding, possibly also one of those people who has to be right about everything, and this is their hill.
Weirdly enough, to me (as a third person) it seems you're proving tb_technical's point anyway: you still have some strong views on the matter, you just would not express them. Still somebody that, according to tb_technical's writing, they wouldn't like to be friends with. The main difference here is that the feeling is reciprocated by you.
The more comments I read, the more tb_technical's idea sounds good.
But by using a negative to judge the response of the other people, the other people could just as easily be judging him.
Now both parties are looking down on each other. When really they agree.
Being disingenuous is just a bad first and only data point to give someone about yourself.
I really like your radar analogy
If somebody said they liked… some books by Heinlein or whatever, there’s a guy with some Political Opinions. But he can write. It is believable, picking a Heinlein book isn’t an obvious political test.
Regardless of political opinions, that monologue in the middle of Atlas Shrugged is some quite poor writing. TBH if someone said their Atlas Shrugged was their favorite book, I would assume they were making some sort of political statement, which seems like a bit of an intrusion on what otherwise ought to be a fun chat about books.
I was a teenager when I read her books, and these days mostly disagree with her politics. It was a while ago, but I vaguely remember The Fountainhead being a better read than Atlas Shrugged.
Honestly Ayn Rand's sexual politics are more interesting than her economic politics. The books are mostly about masculinity and its definition. The ideal men in her books are immutable flawless beings, and the (good) women learn to define themselves by dating progressively better men.
In Atlas Shrugged, Dagny goes from Francisco d'Anconia (no ambition playboy) to Hank Rearden (ambitious steel magnate that's a slave to the state) to John Galt (genius that refuses to compromise on anything). Dagny achieves fulfillment by collecting personality traits from the people she dates—which ultimately leads to her realization she is the one responsible for her own self-actualization (kind of contradictory lol).
The Fountainhead engages with this more, because the conformist Keating is portrayed as more harmful than the physically abusive Roark.
I'm convinced Ayn Rand defined the "sigma male" and she'll get no credit for it as a woman. She engages with the concept much more than the manosphere, because her sigma males end up poor, homeless, and societally unsuccessful because of their inability to compromise.
Contrast the dream sold to young men on social media, which is "not compromising on anything will make you rich and attractive!"
I don't agree with Rand's value system but she accurately describes what happens to people that hate compromise. The only reason why one would be a sigma is if one prioritizes "being right" over every other aspect of one's life.
Never read The Fountainhead.
I didn't read it until I was well into my 30s, but I very much enjoyed it. Not the best I've ever read, but I have read it a few times now.
I don't agree with a lot of it, and I can't relate to some of the characters personally, I just think it is extremely well written. The characters and their motivations are very well laid out, and we get to go on a journey with them.
Honestly I think of it as a piece of media similar to superhero movies. The practical reality of superheros implemented literally would likely be a complete catastrophe. But watching fictional superheros do acts of good is inspiring.
In fact I'd guess that if you really did talk with tb for a while, you would probably pick up that Ayn Rand is not a fit for the beliefs they convey.
I just know what types of people I like to hang out with - and they're typically people patient enough to put up with my dumb ass.
Fast-forward a decade and I know who Ayn Rand is and her philosophies. I know generally what type of people adhere to her philosophies and they are the opposite of who I would normally associate myself with.
My opinion of my friend has not changed now that I am more familiar with Ayn Rand. It provides additional background for some of the values that my friend has, but does not change who that person is or my ability to be friends with them.
I think that a lot of times it is easy to distance yourself from someone who has opposite beliefs from you, but at the end of the day, I don't think that is the only criteria in determining if someone is worth associating with.
And if I’m drunk I’ll laugh at you.
I found Canticle kinda "meh" personally. It was a great premise, and the 1st third was somewhat interesting, but the rest fell flat for me. I'd say it was a book I wanted to like a lot, but the execution let me down.
I kind of love it.
I have a twisted collection of semi contradictory beliefs that I feel fairly strongly about and make it so I don't really fit in with right wing, left wing, or centrists, though I am really accepting of other people with opposing viewpoints. This failure to fit well in a bucket has caused the loss of quite a few friends, and so having a filter for people who can't tolerate opposing viewpoints is pretty useful.
Nietzche fills this role for me. Thinking he was right is a big red flag. But not knowing of him makes your opinions on philosophy meaningless.
What about people who are critical in a way you'll never know? Personally I might check off a "don't ask for book recommendations" box in my head and never mention it to you again
It is surprising that a book can become such a barometer. I liked the book originally, it isn't a bad introduction to some ideas. But even when I was young was able to poke holes in it.
But then many years later, it has become something like a 'flag' or 'rally cry' for certain segments of populating that either haven't read it at all, or have horribly miss-interpreted it, or most likely only idealized it by reading the first half.
As an aside, it kind of seems like Atlas Shrugged actually is your favorite book. You don’t appear to care what others think about Neuromancer or The Dying Earth but you literally require a specific and narrow set of feelings about Objectivism to pass The Test. (And obviously, it is the feelings that you mandate, not the lack of social graces, as you have noted that you don’t mind if others politely stop talking to you even after passing The Test. They do not feel positively enough toward Ayn Rand and as such are not worthy of your time)
Neuromancer is enjoyable, but mostly because I enjoyed cyberpunk inspired media before reading it. Seeing all the influences Neuromancer had on books, movies, anime/manga, and even half life mods was a real treat. That and I empathized with Case - in my youth I was addicted to amphetamines, and it was a really nasty habit to kick.
As for Dying Earth, although the first wizards story is a little bit of a slow burn, seeing the elf sisters come back for their own pieces in the anthology was a real treat. Seeing the disturbed one overcome her sickness and find love was a fun triumphant end for her character arc. I'm also a DnD player, so seeing the early inspiration for the spell slots mechanic was a really cool experience for me.
But, really, what really annoys me about what people like you do is interrogate people for purity. I lost too much time in my youth trying to keep people, who I thought were my friends, like you happy.
That sort of stress isn't worth it. People who act this way are not a positive influence on my life, and I just don't have the time for it. And it's perfectly acceptable not to want to be friends with people who accuse other people of being too chuddy.
It's just gross, man
Edit: Watching my points go up and down on this one has been interesting! I didn't realize people were so divided on whether or not it's okay to lie and test people as some sort of friendship filter.
I'd recommend also "Anathem" by Stephenson
Deleted Comment
Let’s meet soon
This made me chuckle wryly... :)
In a previous life, I might have been on who got along very well -- at least intellectually -- with those who loved Atlas Shrugged and swore by it as the bible of their lives. Now, with some age and wisdom, it's the exact opposite.
I myself wouldn't use a book as a filter for all things in social life... (for it generates way too many false positives), but I sheepishly admit to doing the same every now and then...
Different strokes, different folks. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Deleted Comment
Different religious texts? Especially if you pick one that is not part of the primary religion of the area you are located in.
A Modest Proposal? Probably the worst choice. Most won't recognize it and the few who do will assume satire in your response. (Also, essays aren't books, but who is counting.)
A certain book by Nabokov?
What about someone who seriously considers the question, but then says that they've read many books but don't really have one they consider the best? Too much of a non-answer?
The obvious followup question is how did it change your life? Under this gambit of yours I wonder how you'd respond?
I'm not interested in Ayn Rand or her bizarre fanboys but I think if someone said that to me I'd honestly be curious enough, not out of empathy but out of anthropological interest, to ask the question
I'm sorry but if someone disregards you at that stage I wouldn't say that they lack "social accumen to not go too hard in the paint early" as you say, rather that they have sufficient experience with difficult people and just chose to willingly ignore you for their own good.
Even admitting to doing this is already off-putting to me.
Whenever I hear about that author the only thing I can think of is her adoration of a strong man in the person of a killer who kidnapped a little girl and propped up half her body in a car to ransom her back to her father then pushed the half a corpse into the street and drove off with the money. Then I think about her retiring on welfare.
> "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should," she wrote, gushing that Hickman had "no regard whatsoever for all that society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. He has the true, innate psychology of a Superman. He can never realize and feel 'other people.'"
https://www.alternet.org/2015/01/how-ayn-rand-became-big-adm...
It's not a fair comparison but when someone says their favorite author is Rand I have a similar response as if they had said "Hitler". I can tolerate ideas I hate but see little profit in trafficking too much with sociopaths. Perhaps you don't either else why do you avoid those who are "way too supportive"
This is a really good point, actually, but I am counting on this. What I'm trying to select in strangers is patience (also humor). If someone gives me shade in a silly enough way, everything is permitted.
Also, a nitpick, being friends with someone is solely up to you. If either you or someone else don't like each other, a relationship effectively cannot happen (although, there are exceptions, first impressions can be overcome).
So rather than even trying to predict what someone else is thinking, I just don't try (and pretend it's not a factor). I go with my gut, and most of the time it works out great for me.
I'll add some context though, most of the time I do this in dingy dive bars and small town pubs. People aren't typically very cerebral there, so it works.
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
I tolerate different ideas just fine, but anyone over the age of 20 who tells me "The best book I've ever read was Atlas Shrugged in 8th grade. Changed my life." will immediately strike me as a person I probably have little interest in being friends with.
My more-depressing interpretation of this is the value comes as an explanation for being written off by others. Rather than being a way to filter others out, a person with multiple socially off-putting habits or a generally disagreeable demeanor can do This One Weird Trick to then point at their cleverness as the reason why they are standing in a room fun of people that don’t want to talk to them.
There is no need for self-reflection if everyone else is simply too gauche to understand how actually pro-social your nakedly anti-social ruse is.
Dead Comment
“Learn what is to be taken seriously and laugh at everything else.”
Back on topic - I would recommend all of Hesse's books. Glassbead is my personal favorite, but I wouldn't start with that.
SPOLIER ALERT - Then, slowly, and in the end, convincingly, you come to know he is writing about you the reader. That is a miracle of writing and time and space.
P.S. I think Catcher in the Rye also does that, if you are late teen, but is a far inferior work, and does not bear reading if you are past 20.
GBG has that dream-like Kafkaesque frustration of having a concrete objective, but not be able to achieve it, even though it should be simple and tangible.
However, in GBG it is all meta: the game is unspecified, the objective is unspecified, the adorable miraculous winning play is unspecified. It is meta-Kafka, which is incredibly doubly frustrating...
SPOLIER ALERT: then, slowly, awkwardly, painfully, a realization creeps over you - GBG is life.
Really a tremendous literary achievement.
I want it to be something workable which helps folks in their use of computers, but the more I work with node programming interfaces and so forth, the more I worry that the fact that there is no universally agreed-upon answer to the question:
>What does an algorithm look like?
and that such systems are strongly-bounded complexity-wise by screen size, that they simply aren't workable beyond small/toy problems and educational usage, i.e., Blockly.
"...um im Gasthaus [...] das zu trinken, was trinkende Männer nach einer alten Konvention »ein Gläschen Wein« nennen."
English: in order to drink in the pub that which drinking men, according to an old convention, call "a little glass of wine."
But trust me, it really works in German.