it is much more about, than just citizens' cash.

it is about brain-washing, the next generations.

so they won't argue. so those like us, don't exist.

though i agree re one-way wayne and cliche cruise, i definitely do not agree at all re cooper.

the fact that cooper was given so many hero roles, was simply because he made them so effortlessly and honestly believable, that everyone bought them. however, if you look at two roles that cooper was turned into a coward (they came to cordura, 1959), and another into a villain, his only villain role i know of (bright leaf, 1950), you will see that he was again fully believable, as villain and/or coward.

and how about 'high noon', considered one of the greatest american films of all time? and same goes for hemingways's profound 'for whom the bells toll.' and how about his comedic ability, in the great capra film, 'mr. deeds goes to town?'

so guys, when you try to knock down great achievers with idiotic words, it only makes you look like losers.

and a final word about cruise: though i detest him as an actor, have to wholeheartedly admit, that he was great, in 'born on the 4th of july.' have seen that movie many times. cruise was nominated for an oscar, and possibly deserved it.

but then again, i am a great fan of nearly all of oliver stone's work. first rate work, almost always. loved 'jfk,' for example.

yes... maybe.

but... AS is further flawed than TF, in many ways.

for example... where are the CHILDREN of AS individuals?

because when you are dealing with only one individual, like in TF, that is one thing,

but when you deal with MANY individuals,like in AS, and NONE of them have children...

how REALISTIC is that? or is AS just an allegory, like ANTHEM, except 10 times longer?

stick to your sneaking suspicion of import.
for 'anthem' is a great allegorical short story.

term2, very good point, and very true.
yours is the best challenge i have read so far.

however... i keep looking at everything on an individual basis. stand-alone individual basis.

yet... you are saying galt was wiser than roark,
that he saw the bigger picture better than him,
and that galt wanted to change the whole world,
while roark only cared to do his work, his way.

ok. i'll buy that. nevertheless... you are playing
this argument with hindsight, of 1957 vs. 1943,
time of first publishing, creating both characters.

have to stop now, have other business to attend.

will come back to this, for you are on right track.

roark did improve it, but just in terms of creating a judicial precedent, of latitude in terms of individualistic rights and intent. but that is it.

"Yes he did it for the pleasure of solving an exceedingly difficult problem "

there you go. you answer it all. nothing else to be said.

for who gives a shtt, whether he improved the world or not.

and those are the feelings, of a pure individual.

fair enough.

i fully concur with all you say.

and don't forget the poignant, tragic: 'we the living'

this comment is so absurd... it's funny.

gary cooper was oscar-nominated for best actor FIVE times.
and he won best actor TWO times.

he was also the LEADING actor in over EIGHTY movies.

and ayn rand wanted no one else, to play roark, than gary cooper.

so old herb, go back to deeper tokes of your medicinal marijuana.

fair enough.

dagny is fascinating, to observe her 24/7 'no quit' tenacity. yet, she learned this from her father, (already dead in this story), who is probably a much more interesting person than her. i mean, i recall story of him she related, that when they denied him loans and tried to shut down his new railroad, he then, not to lose his mind before the next-day payment deadline, he went out all night and drove spikes into his rail tracks, thinking all along. then at sun-up, he showered, suited up, and armed with new ideas, he hit more banks, until he got his loans. and that 'no quit' vision of his, has always motivated me, at worst moments.

the character i identify most in atlas shrugged is francisco d'anconia. and my favorite speech in the entire novel is, his speech about the nature of money, and what it reveals about you, on how you think about it. speech occurs at reardon's party, where many very important story-telling things occur (so kudos, ms. rand).

yet, as interesting as francisco's character is, his original south american ancestor was even more interesting than him; just like with dagny's father, as they both already had mythical stature within their powerful families, even before dagny's and francisco's stories start.

fair enough.

but seriously, which do you prefer, oban or j.w. blue?

haha.

check your premises.

i love atlas shrugged.
love it.
it is a great masterpiece.

however, for me, personally,
me,
the human i care most in this world,
the fountainhead
is the greater masterpiece of the two,
simply because
i prefer totally individualist stories
of one man
against the entire world,
rather than,
a group of alike-thinking men,
against the whole world.
my preference.

i prefer the excellent individualistic psychological analysis
of the fountainhead,
than i do about the mentality of how groups of men
(whether individuals, moochers, or in-between),
act, feel, think, or interact with each other,
or their enemies.

now you tell me, how i don't understand rand, from my direct comments above.

so check your premises, boy, before you address me.