 |
Discussions often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments and look in the archives before commenting.
|
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. Click [show] for further details. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Objectivism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the philosophy of Objectivism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
 C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Top |
This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to narrative novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit one of the articles mentioned below, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Mid |
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. |
|
| C |
This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale. |
| Low |
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any sections with no replies in 60 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. |
[edit] Misleading...
"The working title throughout her writing was The Strike. According to Barbara Branden, the change was made for dramatic reasons––Rand believed that titling the novel 'The Strike' would have revealed the mystery element of the novel prematurely."
She did this with all of her novels, giving them titles that would help remind her what the central theme was, but then changing the titles to something that would not be understood by the reader until after the novel had been read. This is explained in Anthem Centennial Edition with Introduction by Ayn Rand (ISBN-10: 0452286352 ISBN-13: 978-0452286351), at least.
The above sentence makes it appear it is a quality of the book, while it should emphasize it was really a quality of the author's style.
For example: Airtight became We The Living Ego became Anthem Second Hand Lives became The Fountainhead
Small suggestion to an excellent article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.142.62 (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2009
[edit] Fictional Technology actually high end
I was reading this article, reminds me of Howard Hughes and his rare technology for the 50s, he lived from around 40s-present IIRC and was big in the high end nuclear technology and other forms of high end manufacturing (for the pre-computer era), and probably owned most of the 'fictional' technology mentioned in the article in a real form prior to the 90s, including his use of heat-seeking missiles in the 50s and other forms of "primitive" high end non-digital complex electronic systems. These systems included things such as video phones (with physical individual linkages due to large routing issues) and voice activated door locks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.245.165 (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- One should realize that the premise on which the book is based -- that a new, better and more expensive metal for railroad tracks would revolutionize the entire rail industry -- is idiotic. It's merely a means to convey Rand's message. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Eric
I think that the real premise of the book, that creative people are indispensable and could possible go on strike without being immediately replaced by people younger and hungrier is much more questionable. I read this a a speculative fiction fan and suspension of disbelief is a part of that. But that level of naivety classifies it as a children's book for me. I think this article should be cross referenced with "All About Eve." so that reader's can get the mirror side of Mrs Rand's conjectures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.227.197 (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Sabotage of French version. Expansion?
Can anyone expand on the alleged translatory sabotage? What was done, by whom. Motive. Effect. Etc. I note Greenspan was keen on Rand. Hope explanation arrives before the attempt to simultaneously bankrupt all govs completes. Great article BTW. Nice to know details of how a Soviet managed to capture economic policy via Greenspan and have give selves enough rope...
- The claims about the French translation were unsourced and should have been in the article in the first place, much less made more expansive. I've removed them accordingly. --RL0919 (talk) 16:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Bioshock
Is it worth mentioning that the most recent reference in popular culture is the 2007 video-game Bioshock? It explored many of the same themes and includes other references such as character names (Atlas, Andrew Ryan). http://www.wired.com/gaming/gamingreviews/magazine/15-09/pl_games — Preceding unsigned comment added by AxStaffer (talk • contribs) 15:20:38, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
[edit] Missing box office data on the film version
On the film's reception there is only this sentence: "The film met with a generally negative reception from professional critics - e.g., an aggregate rating on Rotten Tomatoes of 13% 'fresh' as of 4 June 2011 - but strong positive responses from audiences, e.g. a Rotten Tomatoes rating of 81% audience approval."
That's a highly misleading way of putting it. The film was a box office flop, $4.6 million on a $20 million budget. 81% of those who saw it and posted their review on Rottentomatoes, gave it a positive response. That is not a "strong positive response from audiences". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnwwn (talk • contribs) 00:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
